Skip to main content

Is your bottom soggy?

Licorice Pizza

(SPOILERS) Unlike everyone else, it seems, I didn’t take to the first few Paul Thomas Anderson pictures, particularly those San Fernando Valley, Altman-esque lurching sprawls Boogie Nights and (yeesh!) Magnolia. It was only with There Will Be Blood and a broadening yen for time, place and subject matter that he revealed himself as a filmmaker of merit. This could be why Licorice Pizza, in which he returns to his childhood milieu, left me persuasively unmoved. Or it could also just be the story he chose.

A story that has generated a degree of controversy, understandably so. Fifteen-year-old Gary Valentine (Cooper Hoffman) falls for 25-year-old Alana Kane (Alana Haim); after she spurns him, pointing to their age gap (“I’m not going on a date with you, you’re fifteen. You know I’m 25, right?”), the picture charts their developing relationship as she becomes part of his intrepid career (he’s a child actor and budding entrepreneur, first with waterbeds and then pinball machines). Ultimately, after various partings of ways, they return to each other, this time romantically.

What’s PTA up to here? Is he simply cocking a snoot at convention, daring for a response in the way he is with John Michael Higgins’ imitation-Japanese accent? Is he so enthroned in his ivory castle that he’s oblivious to the issues (unlikely)? Or is he actively engaged in normalising the idea by increments? Age inappropriate relationships are inappropriate, except when they aren’t? After all, Call Me by Your Name, with its vampire/twink love story, was also embraced by the Academy. The arguments presumably being that, since they’re either pro-gay or pro-female empowerment and expression, they should be given a pass such liaisons otherwise wouldn’t.

Determinedly so, since, in both cases, these are seen as wholly positive – not predatory – relationships. Alana’s initial reticence gives way to a confession of love; if you just allow it to, such relationships with minors can blossom for you too! It’s been suggested the feelings are one-sided, but we see throughout, with the mutual jealousies at play, that they clearly are not. Regardless of whether Alana’s confession of love for Gary in the final scene will stick, the point is that PTA is instructing us to celebrate it, just the way they do. And many PTA fans are doing exactly that, because he’s PTA. When the response should be, as Alana tells Gary off the bat, “Don’t be creepy, please”.

It’s thus difficult to identify with PTA’s story when you’re agreeing with the concerns of one of its protagonists over the same: “I think it’s weird that I hang out with Gary and his fifteen-year-old friends all the time”. Too right. Remove this driving narrative, and PTA’s canvas is left desperately thin, relying on perceived nostalgia for period detail that resolutely fails to disarm. Haim and particularly Hoffman – essaying a character of almost preternatural confidence – give strong performances, but the only resolution one should be rooting for is that Alana wises up and leaves him to his moonage teendream.

Such concerns tend to be compounded by PTA’s terrain. Gary’s at home in the child-actor world, where an accompanying chaperone is de rigueur, but the ease of flouting this (Alana, evidently not an appropriate chaperone) suggests the stories circulating Poltergeist’s young star, or the varying fates of the Coreys. PTA is reserving outright predation for the men found elsewhere in the picture, though, from the photographer who employs Alana, to Sean Penn’s “Jack” Holden (ultimately more fixated on a motorcycle than Alana), to Bradley Cooper’s insaniac Jon Peters (she is set up for more perfunctory exploitation by Benny Safdie’s Joel Wachs, as a makeshift beard). Why, after all this seediness, what could be more innocent than a 25-year-old dating someone a decade younger?

PTA expectedly digs up some decent vignettes along the way, but there’s much fallow ground in between. The scene in which Alana takes Lance (Skyler Gisondo) home to meet the family, and he refuses to speak the Jewish blessing (“I’m an atheist”), is very funny, as is the observational humour with her sisters (Haim’s actual sisters): “You thinker! You think things!” An out-of-nowhere sequence in which Gary is bundled into a police car and taken to the station has the kind of random energy the movie could have used more (“You’re going to jail for murder… Have fun in Attica, dickhead”).

And everything involving Cooper’s Peters is gold (disappointingly, the scene in the trailer where he’s smashing up car windows isn’t present. We have Penn to thank for that, as he pointed out it broke with the subjective lens whereby one of Alana or Gary is always present at any time). Cooper’s clearly having a ball and much more impressive than in Nightmare Alley (could we have ditched the del Toro and had a whole movie of Cooper as Jon Peters?) From the off, he’s versing Gary in saying “Streisand” correctly and declaring “I’m going to kill you and your family, if you fuck up my home”. The escalation is also perfect when, after Gary has sabotaged his waterbed installation, Peters shows up unexpectedly for a lift in their truck (the subsequent backwards, out-of-gas driving is giddy stuff).

Even here, though, there’s the need for an additional note (Gary needed to be that bit visibly intimidated, I feel, to validated his decision: “Let it leak, he said he’s going to kill Greg” referring to his younger brother played by Milo Herschlag).

If this is Licorice Pizza at its best, PTA flounders with other real-life Hollywood types. There’s John C Reilly as Fred Gwynne and Christina Ebersole as, effectively, Lucille Ball. Tom Waits plays Tom Waits as director Rex Blau/Mark Robson. Penn’s Jack/William Holden, star of The Bridges of Toko-San (really Toko-Ri, 1954), but Sean Penn is only ever Sean Penn, however many Oscars he has to say otherwise. As such, dialogue that ought to amuse (“The jungle, That’s where I’m most myself”) falls conspicuously flat. As flat as Cooper’s appearances are absurdly wired. There’s also that, neither here nor there, Penn’s a blithering idiot, as evidenced by his trying to save Ukraine from Vlad. Of course, brave and righteous and indecently pro-jab as he is, it’s been suggested he witness but never showed his mettle regarding activities on a certain indecent island.

With regard to Higgins as Jerry Frick, the hotelier/restaurateur who’s also a serial husband of successive Japanese wives, I’m baffled that PTA thought this would fly. Arrogance, perhaps? A love for Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany’s? PTA defended it as true to life (“My mother-in-law’s Japanese and my father-in-law is white, so seeing people speak English to her with a Japanese accent is something that happens all the time. I don’t think they even know they’re doing it”). Does his father-in-law speak to his mother-in-law with an outrageous Japanese accent all the time, though? If he had an example of the circumstances he depicts actually occurring I’d be “Okay… maybe”. Instead, it seems to be, rather than a reflection of mores of the time, an ill-advised Komedy “bit” predicated on the punchline that Jerry doesn’t even understand Japanese. You’d expect it from a ’70s Britcom. Maybe. At least Rigsby would receive a comeuppance at the end of the episode, if he tried such a thing.

Licorice Pizza has nevertheless been embraced by the awards circuit, if perhaps not quite as pervasively as some of PTA’s past efforts. At three nominations, it comes below Phantom Thread (6) and There Will be Blood (8), and more in line with less-unqualified fare The Master (3), Inherent Vice (2), Magnolia (3) and Boogie Nights (3). Still, that run tells you what an undinted darling of “quality” he is. Or is perceived to be. I was hard-pressed last year to find a nominated picture that halfway deserved the Best Picture Oscar, eventually locating The Father as redeemable. This year’s selection is looking even less formidable.

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.

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.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

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

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

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…