My husband and I were excited to go see "Monuments Men" yesterday, and disappointed with the film afterward. I have a good guess as to why it was not released in time for Oscar consideration and it's not what George Clooney says, post-production timelines. This film is embarassing, not because it's so bad in the general ocean of movies, but because we expect so much more with this cast and the fascination of the story. Everybody looks bad in this, except maybe for John Goodman and Jean Dujardin. The cast is made to look bad by sloppy cliched writing, sad to say.
I give Clooney and Grant Heslov (screenwriters, producers and Clooney directs) full credit for picking the material and for the fact that the story is tricky to tell on screen. The documentary "Rape of Europa" succeeded brilliantly in telling of the looting of art by Nazis during World War II, and had the Nazis' own extensive photos and documentation to help. The group of men who were tasked to save as much of the art as possible were not highlighted in that film, and it's inherently a great story. But how to tell it? They decided to focus on seven of the most prominent men, and unfortunately, that leaves us getting thumbnail sketches of each, with little or no backstory. This causes cliches to rise from their ugly corners and swallow up the characters. Most of the cast looks dreadfully uncomfortable with their scenes, knowing they are embarassing.
Cate Blancett has a scene we've seeen time and again, where she and another Parisian spit in the champagne glass of the nasty Nazi before it's filled. Matt Damon stands on a mine while his friends stand by him and refuse to leave. Awful! Bob Balaban and Bill Murray share a cigarette with a scared boy soldier. But the scene in which John Goodman and Jean Dujardin stop in the countryside and Dujardin gets out of the jeep to go up to a horse is straight out of "Michael Clayton". Couldn't they think of any other cliche for the beauty of nature in the midst of war? It even had a tinge of "Warhorse".
If this were a film for the history channel or HBO it might be respectable. But it's just retro filming not unlike what we see in some films made during World War II. Message films, and in case we are too stupid to get the message: Clooney's character lectures at the beginning and end of the film to made sure we get it. There is no trust in the audience, and no real understanding of why that is bad policy for a film meant for educated, older filmgoers. And by the way, a lot of the cast is looking mighty long in the tooth for their roles, including Clooney, Murray, Balaban, and Goodman. And if you didn't notice, the scriptwriters kill off the Brit and Frenchman, so only us Americans are left standing. Maybe that is factually true, but it's a bad choice.
I'd didn't like "The Ides of March", with it's similar cliches and predictable plot, preaching to the converted about politics and it's dirty side. Maybe Heslov and Clooney should take more time with their material, pop the balloon of their swollen heads, and work harder and longer on their films, even if it ups the cost. We're a long way from "Good Night and Good Luck" now, and a film is not a bully pulpit. Beware the ides of vanity.
No comments:
Post a Comment