Skip to main content

He has dubiety about his identity, possibly.

The Tender Bar

(SPOILERS) George continues to flog his dead horse of a directorial career. It has to be admitted, however, that he goes less astray here than with anything he’s called the shots on in a decade (Suburbicon may be a better movie overall, but the parts that grind metal are all ones Clooney grafted onto the Coen Brothers’ screenplay). For starters, he gives Batffleck a role where he can shine, and I’d given up on that being possible. Some of the other casting stretches credulity, but by setting his sights modestly, he makes The Tender Bar passably slight for the most part.

The picture’s based on a memoir by JR Moehringer – “Publishing is heading towards memoirs”, we are told as a cute joke on several occasions – and being a memoir, of the type memoirs are, where it scores is in character rather than incident. Of which, its slice-of-life nature is either warmly familiar or unremarkably so, depending on one’s mileage. We learn how, aged nine, JR Maguire was taken by mum Dorothy (Lily Rabe) to live with her parents (Christopher Lloyd and Sondra James), and of the influence Uncle Charlie (Ben Affleck) had on his formative years; “Every family needs an Uncle Charlie” his reflective older self, in the narrator form of Ron Livingston, informs us.

The Tender Bar, the title deriving from Charlie’s business premises, spans the 1970s to late 1980s and anecdotally takes on the foibles of JR’s grandpa (“an old turd” who nevertheless takes the youngster to a parent-son day, Lloyd showing his most endearing side), his absent radio host dad (Max Martini), and mom’s hopes for him (she wants him to go to Yale or Harvard, become a lawyer). The movie is at its most engaging whenever Charlie is holding court; Affleck in somewhat atrophied form, as if he’s been on the McConaughey diet – or the O’Toole one – reveals a charming worldly wisdom and wit (it’s not often – never? – that you can claim Affleck as the best part of a picture).

Despite his chops, the movie’s less engaging when the older Tye Sheridan replaces Daniel Ranieri as JR, quickly getting itself bogged down in rather slim rites-of-passage beats as he falls for the girl (Brianna Middleton) who serially refuses to get serious with him. The memoir really needs to take us somewhere significant – be it tragic or triumphant – if it’s to etch itself on the mind, and however well it may have worked in print, and The Tender Bar fails to sustain itself is as a movie. Perhaps screenwriter William Monahan, who hasn’t delivered much of merit in more than a decade, and is now more associated with failed attempts at a writer-director career, ought to have departed more substantially from the text.

It doesn’t help that, while Clooney’s choices of Affleck, Lloyd, Sheridan and Livingston show an actor’s eye for extracting a good performance, his pick of Ranieri is baffling. Not that the pint-sized player can’t act, but the idea that this kid could be part of this family is a distracting non sequitur, and it’s less believable still that he’d grow up to be Sheridan. One can only assume Clooney’s smirking away, seeing who will pass his woke test and refuse to mention the obvious.

Or perhaps the choice is incredibly clever – yeah right, from the guy who brought us The Monuments Men – and JR’s mooted lack of personality is reflected by switches in ethnicity; perhaps George should have taken it further, and rather than Livingston narrating, it could have been his Office Space co-star Jennifer Aniston. Or perhaps JR’s supposed to be Doctor Who?

Jeff Wells, going where woke-for-broke critics fear to tread, addressed this back in October: "I’m speaking of the casting of young Daniel Ranieri, a kid from an apparently Middle Eastern family (the last name is Italian but the lineage appears to be Lebanese, Iranian, Jordanian…somewhere in that realm), as the 10 year-old version of Sheridan, who, like Moehringer in actuality, is the biological son of a German paleface couple (Rabe and Martini). It would be one thing if Ranieri was adopted, but there’s NO WAY IN HELL this kid grows up to be Tye Sheridan". Ranieri’s parents have apparently Italian and Sicilian surnames, although he struck me as bearing a passing resemblance to Deep Roy (1970s, rather than today).

Wells makes a further point about Clooney being in thrall to presentism by changing the novel’s white girlfriend to a person of colour with interracial parentage, rather anomalous, given the period and place. A follow-up piece quotes Brooke Warner and his observation “it cannot be lost on any viewer that Sydney and Wesley, J.R.’s love interest and best friend, respectively, are Black. Yale’s current student body, in 2022, is 5% Black. It’s important (critical even) that Hollywood be paying attention to the dearth of Black roles in Hollywood, but am I the only one who was bothered by the fact that this is not addressed in the script?” Reasonable points, and hardly surprising, coming from George (nevertheless, one of the few scenes giving Sheridan a chance to shine comes when he decides to treat his breakfast table interrogation by Sidney’s parents with the disrespect it deserves).

Dotted along the way are occasionally interesting nuggets. Grandpa’s criticism of education, whereby ability as a concept has been “turned into a mechanical empirical construct”, pointing the finger at the German influence on the education system in nineteenth century, seems to be a swipe at Hegel. Charlie’s advice to study philosophy, because you can “always do well in that class, as there’s no right answer” is sound enough. And then there’s the train frequenting clergyman, commenting of JR’s girlfriend being only upper lower middle class, “Well, you never see the really rich. They’re invisible”.

Clooney, of course, has recently ripped off his good liberal fright mask and revealed the NWO totalitarian beneath (not that there could be any doubt, yachting with Obama to popular acclaim). You can always rely on an empty-eyed celeb to act the Elite-appointed spokesperson, attempting to reach the parts politicos can’t. So George has been foisting vacuous soundbites and allusions upon us in his jab movie promotional tour, such thatIt’s stupid because every generation in our country for more than a lifetime has been asked to sacrifice something for the safety of their fellow man—get shot, fight Nazis”, and “All that anyone’s being asked here is to get a shot in the arm and put on a mask. Grow up. Get something done”. Words fail one.

But they don’t fail George. There’s more: “I support mandatory vaccines. Period”. He can justify himself too, couched in false equivalence and appeals to the brotherhood of man, or persons: “All the people who want to talk about their independence or their freedom, the minute your freedom infringes on everyone else's can put a stop to it; To me, it's really simple. We can look out for one another, we can take care of one or we cannot. It's that simple”. Spoken like a celeb who’s been promised their placebo shot(s). He even wades into the history of vaccines, doubtless assuming, with his rarefied insight, he can cover all bases on the road to spouting bare-faced falsehoods: “We haven't had any of those problems with the vaccine. It's been a pretty successful rollout”. Unless he’s referring to the underlying agenda, whereby the problems are intentional. In which case, yeah, it’s been pretty successful.

So was George selling The Tender Bar or selling the jab? Since it went to streaming pretty quickly – so engaging a captive audience, just like his last one – I’d suggest the two stars aligned “fortuitously” at very least. Attaboy, George. You’re a dutiful little performing monkey. All that aside, should Affleck get a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination for The Tender Bar (he was nominated for the Globes), it would be surprisingly warranted: a strong performance in a mediocre movie.

Popular posts from this blog

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

I’m just the balloon man.

Copshop (2021) (SPOILERS) A consistent problem with Joe Carnahan’s oeuvre is that, no matter how confidently his movies begin, or how strong his premise, or how adept his direction or compelling the performances he extracts, he ends up blowing it. He blows it with Copshop , a ’70s-inspired variant on Assault on Precinct 13 that is pretty damn good during the first hour, before devolving into his standard mode of sado-nihilistic mayhem.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

When we have been subtle, then can I kill him?

The Avengers 6.16. Legacy of Death There’s scarcely any crediting the Terry Nation of Noon-Doomsday as the same Terry Nation that wrote this, let alone the Terry Nation churning out a no-frills Dalek story a season for the latter stages of the Jon Pertwee era. Of course, Nation had started out as a comedy writer (for Hancock), and it may be that the kick Brian Clemens gave him up the pants in reaction to the quality of Noon-Doomsday loosened a whole load of gags. Admittedly, a lot of them are well worn, but they come so thick and fast in Legacy of Death , accompanied by an assuredly giddy pace from director Don Chaffey (of Ray Harryhausen’s Jason and the Argonauts ) and a fine ensemble of supporting players, that it would be churlish to complain.

Tippy-toe! Tippy-toe!

Seinfeld 2.7: The Phone Message The Premise George and Jerry both have dates on the same night. Neither goes quite as planned, and in George’s case it results in him leaving an abusive message on his girlfriend’s answerphone. The only solution is to steal the tape before she plays it. Observational Further evidence of the gaping chasm between George and Jerry’s approaches to the world. George neurotically attacks his problems and makes them worse, while Jerry shrugs and lets them go. It’s nice to see the latter’s anal qualities announcing themselves, however; he’s so bothered that his girlfriend likes a terrible TV advert that he’s mostly relieved when she breaks things off (“ To me the dialogue rings true ”). Neither Gretchen German (as Donna, Jerry’s date) nor Tory Polone (as Carol, George’s) make a huge impression, but German has more screen time and better dialogue. The main attraction is Jerry’s reactions, which include trying to impress her with hi