Showing posts with label 2010. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2010. Show all posts

04 April 2015

#WTW: The Trip; The Trip to Italy

(#WhatThomWatched number twenty-one, or, how you say, il numero ventuno)


The Trip and The Trip to Italy

(2010/2014, Michael Winterbottom; Streaming via Netflix)


It’s not a particularly original or internet-shaking insight to observe that genius, groundbreaking actor/comedian/writer/chameleon Steve Coogan does not get enough love, especially in the United States. Considering that he often plays characters very like himself, and sometimes “himself” as one or more variant characters, and that these variant Steve Coogans are very vocal about the lack of Coogan appreciation, a lack of recognition is built into many of his performances. While his long string of innovative BBC radio and television programs and his recurring characters started this — notably Alan Partridge in The Day Today, Knowing Me Knowing You, and I’m Alan Partridge 
— his long partnership with director Michael Winterbottom on films like Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story and The Look of Love has added to the complexity. Coogan’s varied projects demonstrate both his ability to completely disappear into character (Coogan’s Run, Dr. Terrible’s House of Horrible), play “himself” (Tristram Shandy and the Trip movies), or both (24 Hour Party People, where he expertly becomes rock promoter Tony Wilson, but not before an opening scene where he addresses the camera to explain that he’s an actor, Steve Coogan, playing Wilson.)





Winterbottom and Coogan clearly sit round the pub plotting new ways to mess with the fourth wall. In that spirit, they started a BBC2 series in 2010, purportedly a straight-up celebrity-hosted lifestyle show, in which Coogan and British standup comic Rob Brydon drive together in a rental, stay in beautiful towns in England and Europe, and eat and drink at fine restaurants, supposedly as guest reporters for The Observer checking out the wine, dining, and accommodations. But of course we don’t get the real Coogan and Brydon; instead, Coogan plays a bitter, conceited actor and Brydon his put-upon comedian pal. Or not; as Brydon puts it when asked if the two are friends: “No. We work together.”




The original television series (in which they travel to England’s North Country) comprised six 30-minute episodes; in 2014 a second series (a road trip in Italy) added six more. In each case, Winterbottom also shaped the material into an under-two-hour theatrical movie, with the six “days” of each trip signified by title cards. The two men are seen driving a rental car together, checking into inns (at which Coogan is always angling for the better room), eating a meal prepared by their host’s kitchen, and, at the end of each day, falling asleep in their beds, sometimes alone, sometimes with a companion. They also sample many of the towns’ local culture, most often the graves of famous British writers (Italy is the resting place for Shelley) and the towns where they worked (Lord Byron lived in Italy for most of his working life). Stunning, large-scale shots of landscapes and intricate close-ups of food preparation round out the movies’ visuals; the soundtracks are exclusively classical, with new music by Michael Nyman or (in Italy) classic works by Strauss or Mahler.






So with this as their basis, the two compilation movies stand or fall on a couple of things: First, to what degree Winterbottom shaped the television episodes’ looser material into an arc that carries weight — emotional or thematic, since there’s very little narrative to work with. And, of course, how funny the conversation is between the two rivals.


Brydon is a very successful comic within Britain, a regular on the talk-show circuit, with an endless stream of impressions (here he’s particularly locked on Michael Caine and Sean Connery). He has a famous bit called “Small Man in a Box” which causes old ladies to approach him on the street for autographs. The Brydon-character here is portrayed as a man aware of his limitations and unsure of his ability to carry a real acting role; when he is given a chance to put an audition on tape for a possible character role in an American movie, he worries that he’s unable to actually act without slipping into an impersonation. Coogan is fully tuned in to Brydon’s insecurity and pokes at him every chance he gets; the Coogan-character considers himself a true actor who has done exemplary work in both British and American movies but who is constantly denied the fame he deserves. He never fails to put Brydon down and sneer at Brydon’s constant, reflexive efforts to be funny — except, in a brilliant repeated conceit, Coogan can’t stop himself from competing with Brydon. Watching the two of them trying to school the other in an impression is hysterical; a lengthy scene where they try to fine-tune the classic James Bond supervillain Blofeld is incredible (and has its own following as a YouTube clip): “Come come, Mr. Bond . . . .”




As for Coogan, where Brydon can’t turn off the hail-fellow-well-met entertainer, Coogan is the perpetual autodidact, spouting endless facts about everything they encounter, and correcting any offering from Brydon or anyone else. The highlight of Trip is his encounter with another traveller doing the same thing; after Coogan has annoyed Brydon to the point where he’s been left to stomp off alone, he is forced to back away himself as a stranger tries to regale him with more facts about history. Both men also have a series of dreams (Coogan’s in Trip; Brydon’s in Italy) that reinforce their insecurities; Coogan dreams of having Ben Stiller as an agent, telling him all of the top-ranked American directors who are desperate to work with him; when Coogan rejects “P. T. Anderson, Wes Anderson” as “auteurs,” dream-Stiller smoothly slips to mainstream directors: “The Scotts. Tony and Ridley. They both want to work with you.” Meanwhile, Brydon has a dream of performing a dramatic role in a Godfather-esque film with perfect pathos and delivery; as his dream-self mutters over how to say a line in Italian, we see that he’s gutted Coogan as Vito Corleone.



A question of the travellers’ authenticity hangs over most of their experiences. Lots of the dinner scenes feature their frozen, polite stares as a waiter explains the dishes that have been prepared for them, followed by an awkward “Thanks!”; they don’t seem to have any qualifications to judge the wines or cuisine. They clearly crave connection to the historical sites they visit, usually to the great English authors; they carry around a thick compilation of Wordsworth and (at one point) are reading William Hazlitt’s capsule biographies (from the 1800’s) of writers, “The Spirit of the Age.” But as with so many of us today, they mostly settle for cell-phone selfies in front of various graves or preserved garrets. In addition to endless fights about actors, they spend a large part of Italy discussing the artistic and lasting merits of Alanis Morissette’s “Jagged Little Pill” (coincidentally relevant at this writing, as the album reaches the 20th anniversary of its release). At the same time that they are creating these ersatz portraits and pop-culture theories, Winterbottom sometimes seems to ironically compose them or their surroundings in ways that mirror artworks, without their conscious acknowledgement.



Reminds me of:


The Trip films are “long-form conversation movies” like My Dinner With Andre or the Before trilogy; or Certified Copy (which also happens to share a lot of the visual grammar! though instead of geography as a map of a marriage, here the vistas, bedrooms, and graveyards seem more tied to aging and a loss of male potency).



Distinct from the two-handed dialogue these are also road-trip films, of which there have certainly been many: I haven’t seen Il Sorpasso yet, but the ones I’ve watched involve couples squabbling their way to love (It Happened One Night, The Sure Thing) or couples falling out of love (Two For the Road) or weirdoes finding common ground (Melvin and Howard, Thelma and Louise). As for the Trip version, I don’t think there are better examples of a realistic (read: antagonistic) male friendship. There’s nary a hint of “bromance”; maybe this level of unpleasantness and mistreatment of each other is exactly right as a depiction of performer coworkers. They’ve passed any need for affirmations or close inquiry; instead of affection the proof of their connectedness is their deep need to make the other laugh. This happens on occasion but at regular intervals; after affecting stone-faced disapproval for most of the other’s forays, broken often by attempts to top or outfox them, they suddenly slip into a bit that they have discovered together like old comedy partners. When this happens the mutual approval is palpable; instead of one-upmanship, they are supporting each other’s best efforts.





But then — the guilt!


Still haven’t watched Coogan’s Saxondale. I own it, though.



Pitch:

Both films choose to end on melancholy notes; the first narrative hangs on Coogan’s loneliness and unhappiness and winds up with a perfect coda between Brydon and his baby daughter, with his wife, in their kitchen. So the second is particularly heartbreaking as Brydon seems to have used the out-of-country trip as an opportunity to drift into an affair; as he worries about what he might have lost, he is watching Coogan reconnect with his teenage son. Yet in fact all of these details — the wife, baby, son, and all other relationships — are scripted, played by actors, and are in no way related to the real Brydon or Coogan. That’s the deep game that Winterbottom and his collaborators are playing.

28 February 2015

#WTW: Certified Copy (Copie conforme)

(it's #WhatThomWatched's Sweet Sixteen!)

Certified Copy (Copie conforme)

(2010, Abbas Kiarostami; Criterion spine #612)


One of the most subtle and beguiling film-structure tricks of recent memory: A French woman and an English man go on a drive and then an extended walk together through gorgeous and romantic Italian countryside, conversing, flirting, arguing, and flat-out fighting for 100 minutes; it sounds very much like an entry in Linklater’s Before trilogy. Except that the man and woman are strangers on a date at the start of the film, and spouses with an entire past history together at the end. There’s a narrative point in the middle where it might make sense that the two (dating strangers) would start playing a let’s-pretend game (of being 15 years married). But the genius of the script and of the performances (by Juliette Binoche and William Shimell) is that they resist this simple interpretation; for example, the characters speak to each other in English, French, and a bit of Italian, but the actual fluency in these languages shifts from beginning to end to fit the differing interpretations. And the information that Shimell has about the relationship changes as well. It’s possible that two people could play a game with each other, but the game would have to be diabolical if they were to pretend they didn’t know things they had to know (and that the other didn’t know the things they knew the other knew)! No, the two interpretations of the situation are both true simultaneously; for the viewer, they lay uncomfortably on top of each other like two identical-but-not-quite transparencies of the same artwork, conflicting with each others’ lines in some spots, and reinforcing each other with the same lines in other spots.




And this metaphor is explicit: Binoche is an art dealer and Shimell is an academic who has written a book about copies in art, specifically to question whether or not there is ever a true “original” of an artwork and why a “copy” of an artwork should be considered equally valid as a work of art. The idea of high art and low art, reproductions and forgeries, true value and value which is imputed to an artwork (or value rescinded) appears again and again: when the two view a portrait in a museum which was thought for decades to be original but recently found to be a copy; as they walk past statuary in a village which the townspeople love but critics deplore as kitsch; even as Shimell signs several of his books for Binoche (thus theoretically increasing the value of some previously identical copies over others). At the same time, even before the viewer starts to suspect that the two strangers might in reality be a long-married couple, the idea of marriage has already been in the foreground — the town that they drive to for a visit is famous for its weddings and is full of young couples getting married and older couples revisiting the site of their marriage. Every grumpy observation that Shimell makes about the naive youngsters (“When I see all the hopes and dreams in their eyes, I can’t support the illusion!”) becomes, by the end, a comment on his own marriage; every (seemingly) flighty gesture that Binoche makes (oddly aggressive arguments, suddenly wistful reactions to the weddings) could be misinterpreted, at the start of the film, as the art-film version of critic Nathan Rabin’s “manic pixie dream girl” trope.










So artworks and newlyweds are highlighted. But also, as with any two-handed, real-time conversation in a movie or (more often) in a stage play, the viewer is primed to watch closely for additional details (reactions, settings, background actions) that comment or shed light on the interrelationship. In the driving scenes, heavy reflections and shadows on the pair flow by, as if their thoughts or memories are being depicted visually, especially since the setup results in two entirely different but related “streams” (reflections from the two sides of a road); the visual even seems to be commenting on the dialogue, if impenetrably. The rapid spoken language changes are also fascinating; generally, the two speak English or French, with some interactions in Italian, and although every language choice makes sense line-to-line, there seem to be higher-order comments on the conversation based on what language is being used and by which speaker (especially interesting given that Kiarostami is working outside his native Persian). And the positions of the actors in the frame (interesting to consider in any well-designed movie) are doubly interesting in the context of the two possible reads of the relationship; in the opening scene’s lecture by Shimell, Binoche first appears in the far back of the room, clutching copies of his book, looking almost like a star-struck fan — and then winds up in one of the reserved seats in the front row. The camera’s position seems utilitarian at first, but read as Shimell’s view of the room, it’s either interest in the pretty art dealer come to hear his slightly pompous talk, or unease at the appearance of his somewhat estranged wife (with their son hanging around at stage left, shooting increasingly exasperated looks at his mother). There are also many reflection shots, both key mirror shots for each character (including the enigmatic final shot) but also frames within the frame with one character dominant and the other seen in reflection, like an artwork.







Binoche is incredible. Shimell, an opera baritone who had never acted in a film before, holds his own. Their parts are, obviously, very tricky; Shimell has to be a bit of a jerk in both takes on reality, and Binoche has to externalize frustration and desire using only her facial expressions and manner of talking, driving the conversation for most of the film as Shimell trails behind and reacts. Kiarostami developed the film with and for Binoche, and it’s very hard to imagine another actress pulling it off.





Reminds me of:

As mentioned above, Richard Linklater’s Before films (Before Sunrise, Before Sunset, and Before Midnight) are also structured as real-time events with two characters talking. (So is My Dinner With Andre, as far as that goes.) Familiarity with a couple of these movies might lead a viewer into a false set of expectations with Certified Copy: we’re used to a certain low-budget, pretty-scenery, backward-camera-tracking aesthetic; we’re listening for verbal reveals and counter-reveals, with an expectation that each line is as new and unexpected to the other listener as it is to us — we’re a third, silent participant in the conversation. Therefore the rug is really pulled out from under us as we start to suspect that the characters know more (and more about each other) than we’d thought.

This is another film about marriage, like L’Atalante and some others mentioned in that #WTW. It’s a tough one to watch as a husband. All the selfishness of Shimell’s character lies uncomfortably close to the ways in which men fail their spouses all the time, especially the fact that Binoche holds all the emotional responsibility for their son; apparently Kiarostami was working from his own life and own failed relationship, and the two simultaneous narratives show the need for and the impossibility of marriage commitment. He is not letting himself (and his male viewer) off easily. L’Atalante was a sweet depiction of the early years of a relationship which has the power to remind people of their own youthful emotions; here there are some similar early-relationship mementos, along with some hard and bittersweet truths about where people sit fifteen or twenty years down the line.



I remember the first time I was aware of Binoche, in Krzysztof Kieslowski’s masterful Blue from his Three Colors trilogy in 1993. She’s always been complex. Last year’s Clouds of Sils Maria just opened in the U.S. and I can’t wait to see Binoche in it; it sounds like it’s built on another layered conceit: Binoche is a famous stage actress who found fame in a performance twenty years earlier, and she’s agreed to star in a revival of the play but as an older character, with a new young ingenue in “her” part. It’s racked up European awards including honors for American actresses Chloë Grace Moretz (always interesting) and Kristen Stewart (interesting when she’s in the right work); it sounds like a female-centric, international version of Birdman.





But then — the guilt!

Typical American: This is the this first Kiarostami film I’ve seen despite being intrigued by (and owning) Close-Up, and having heard about and yet ignored Taste of Cherry for years. His other films are situated in and react to Iranian society, and this European-centric film (while wonderful) doesn’t engage with Iran other than to act as a counterpoint (a movie which Kiarostami couldn’t have made in his native milieu; in Iran, the film was automatically banned from release due to its “western themes” — and, very likely, Binoche’s bare arms). Taste of Cherry would have been a more straightforward introduction to his work. As penance, I’ll watch my copy of Close-Up soon.




The easy resemblance to Linklater’s trilogy (which I’ve seen) doesn’t absolve me of the fact that there are stronger precursors which influenced both Linklater and Kiarostami: the one everyone mentions is Rossellini’s Journey to Italy from 1954, in which a couple similarly argues and rekindles their relationship as they travel. Apparently George Sanders as the husband character is rude and off-putting in ways which strongly inform Shimell’s performance here.





Pitch:

This is Binoche’s show and she’s a stunner from start to finish; Adrian Moore as her son only gets to appear in the first couple scenes, but it’s an unforced and natural performance. Their early conversation in a cafe is masterful, leaving just enough questions about Binoche’s internal state that we’re primed to keep watching for clues. That’s where Kiarostami hooks us, because those clues are liberally scattered — but don’t add up to what we’re anticipating (or, indeed, anything quite like we’ve seen before.)