Daily Archives: Monday, July 20, 2015

  • Klute

    Old YorkerFilm review

    Alan J Pakula (1971)

    Written by Andy and Dave Lewis, Klute is a very well-balanced combination of crime thriller and character study.  The main characters are a young woman called Bree Daniel and New York City, where Bree makes a living as a prostitute.  The place may have been explored with greater sophistication in films later in the 1970s but it’s remarkable nevertheless how fluid and alive it is in the hands of Alan Pakula, the editor Carl Lerner and the DoP Gordon Willis.  Klute is one of the first entries in Willis’s filmography and the camera operator was Michael Chapman.  In the space of the next ten years, these two men had, between them, visualised New York in pictures such as The Godfather, The Godfather part II, Taxi Driver, Annie Hall, Manhattan and Raging Bull.   Jane Fonda’s Bree is hard to beat:    Fonda has certainly never matched this performance, which is one of the best that I’ve seen by any actress.   (I first saw Klute at the Odeon in York, I think in late 1972.  This month’s viewing at BFI must have been my third or fourth.)

    Tom Gruneman, a research scientist in Pennsylvania, has disappeared.  The police discover in his office an obscene letter, addressed to Bree Daniel, and that Bree has received several similar letters, apparently from Gruneman.  Six months on, there’s been no further progress in solving his disappearance and Peter Cable (Charles Cioffi), an executive at the company that employed Gruneman, hires John Klute (Donald Sutherland), a family friend, a former cop and now a private detective, to investigate.  We find out who the villain of the piece is at an early stage, and this is just as well since Pakula makes little attempt to conceal his identity even before the unmasking.   That reflects the director’s greater interest in the people in the story than in the machinery of mystery and suspense but Klute remains absorbing as a thriller, even if it’s not a particularly original one.

    Bree Daniel wants to stop being a prostitute.  In the first part of Klute, we see her not only at work as a call girl but also auditioning unsuccessfully for modelling and acting jobs.  This is an economical way of suggesting both that New York is full of girls like Bree and the porosity of boundaries between regions of glamour, cultural endeavour and paid-for sex.   It also means that when, later in the story, Klute’s investigation takes him and Bree into the city’s underbelly, the sequences there involving pimps and junkies don’t come across as merely a voyeuristic lower-depths tour – they resonate with the ‘aspirational’ settings in which we saw Bree earlier on.  The narrative is interspersed with Bree’s regular sessions with a psychotherapist (Vivian Nathan), an excellent idea on the screenwriters’ part.  The sessions are a handy means, of course, of having Bree speak her mind to the viewer.  (What she says about the welcome sense of control she feels turning tricks is interesting; this too stays with you as the film progresses and Bree’s indecision about turning her back on work as a call girl becomes a central element.)  These interviews aren’t merely a device, however.  It’s entirely believable that Bree is in analysis – not only because she’s emotionally confused and needs to talk but also because this is another New York activity that (Bree would feel) confers a touch of class.  (It’s a good unstressed joke that the call-girl and the therapist both charge fixed rates for their services.  In an early scene, Bree quotes her charges to a client; later on, she tells the therapist she doesn’t think she can afford to continue in analysis.)

    Another imaginative touch by Andy and Dave Lewis is Bree’s visit to the business premises of an elderly tailor, Mr Goldfarb (Morris Strassberg).  He sits quietly, listening and watching as she tells a fantasy story about hobnobbing with aristocracy on a visit to the South of France, and performs a dignified striptease.  Jane Fonda’s characterisation is complete and wonderfully detailed and she puts no distance between herself and the woman she’s playing.   We soon see that Bree is thoroughly professional and something that her clients probably don’t notice – that her professionalism is strained, ambivalent.  At home in her apartment and alone (except for a cat, who puts in an appearance occasionally), she’s uneasy – even before the phone rings to announce another call from a silent menace.  Fonda captures Bree’s brittleness powerfully, especially in her early, tetchy exchanges with the quiet, non-metropolitan Klute:

    ‘Bree:  Tell me, Klute.  Did we get you a little?  Huh?  Just a little bit?  Us city folk?  The sin, the glitter, the wickedness?  Huh?

    Klute:  Oh, that’s so pathetic …

    Bree:  [after a short, shocked pause] Fuck off!’

    As the relationship between her and Klute develops, into sex and wary friendship, there’s a scene in which they’re together in a fruit market.  He is choosing the fruit, she tags along.  Jane Fonda describes, wordlessly and brilliantly, Bree’s incredulity at what she’s feeling – a physical attraction and a sense of companionship with a man.  At the end of the film, Klute is helping Bree move out of her apartment.  The camera is on the empty bedsit.  The last words on the soundtrack are being spoken by Bree to her therapist:

    ‘I have no idea what’s going to happen.  I … I just can’t stay in this city, you know?  Maybe I’ll come back.  You’ll probably see me next week.’

    The film’s sensibility is too modern, and Jane Fonda’s Bree is too complex, for a simple happy ending but this ambiguous sign-off is perfectly judged.  It satisfies you because Pakula hasn’t copped out.  It’s also enough to allow you to hope for a happy ending.

    As the man who solves the mystery of Tom Gruneman and kind of solves Bree’s life, Donald Sutherland has, like Fonda, never been better than he is here.  John Klute may be the title character but this is not a showy role and Sutherland gives a fine-tuned, unselfish performance.  Roy Scheider is good as Bree’s pimp and Dorothy Tristan touching as a prostitute wrecked by drug addiction.  Jean Stapleton has a vivid cameo as Mr Goldfarb’s secretary.  I’ve never understood how Bree is able to remain at the tailor’s premises when everyone’s gone home and the place has been locked up, in order that she can meet the bogeyman alone and in darkness there – although Jane Fonda is so good that she makes you forget the contrivance while the scene is going on.  The repeated playing of a tape-recording is much more spookily effective than the eerie chanting voices and supposedly creepy piano trills in Michael Small’s score.  (There are moments – when a telephone rings, for example – that would have greater impact without the music.)  Small’s love theme for Bree and Klute is nice, though.

    6 July 2015

     

     

  • Burn After Reading

    Old YorkerFilm review

    Joel and Ethan Coen (2008)

    The Coen brothers’ self-satisfied misanthropy is strongly in evidence in an interesting example of how it’s possible to enjoy and dislike a film at the same time.   (At the start, I was amused in spite of my prejudice against the Coens; midway, I was laughing freely; in the end, I loathed what I’d seen – which, given the bias I started with, was almost reassuring.)  The Coens by now are as knowing about their smug superiority to their characters as they are about the rest of their material:  how else do you interpret the opening and closing shots as the camera zooms in from a God’s-eye view far above the earth to the bowels of a CIA building in Virginia, where the seed of the plot is sown – and, finally, zooms out again?  Burn After Reading is remarkably proficient and trim (96 minutes) and there is a pleasure, however grudgingly you feel it, in realising you’re in the hands of filmmakers who know exactly what they’re doing – even if you don’t like what they’re doing (and even though the brisk efficiency also sharpens your awareness of the discrepancy between the Coens’ substantial technical skills and their mean-spiritedness).

    The tagline for Burn After Reading on the film’s poster is ‘Intelligence is relative’.  Late on in the film one character excoriates another as follows:  ‘I know what you represent.  You represent the idiocy of today.  … You’re one of the morons I’ve spent my whole life fighting against’.  This seems pretty close to the Coens’ credo (although the speaker of the lines is incandescent, whereas the writer-directors seem comfortably contemptuous).  Their characters are rarely admirable and probably unpleasant – but the cardinal sin in the Coens’ moral universe is foolishness.  (The absence of moral or intellectual exemplars means that the Coens avoid suggesting ways in which people might behave better or more cleverly.)   In the opening scene of Burn After Reading, Osbourne Cox (John Malkovich), a CIA analyst, is threatened with demotion and, in a fit of pique, quits the Agency entirely.   He starts to write a memoir, in desultory fashion; his ballbreaker doctor wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) starts divorce proceedings and copies her husband’s financial details onto the same disc as the beginnings of the memoir.  The disc comes into the possession of two employees at a local fitness centre;  Linda (Frances McDormand), who is desperate for funds to pay for various bits of cosmetic surgery, teams up with her colleague Chad (Brad Pitt) to blackmail Cox – with increasing incompetence.  Katie Cox is having an affair with Harry (George Clooney), a government treasury agent.  He’s married to Sandy (Elizabeth Marvel), a successful writer of children’s fiction; like Linda, he’s also into internet dating and the two start a relationship.

    The farce plot that’s spun from this tangled web also involves the Russian embassy, private detectives and various levels of the CIA hierarchy.   This is a reductive description of the characters but it pretty well reflects their creators’ attitude towards them – a sort of censorious jocoseness.  (In more sympathetic hands, their obsessions and weaknesses could be eccentric and even likeable.)   The Coens seem to want to suggest that the consequences of the self-serving actions of the fools in Burn After Reading may be more far-reaching than the small-minded impulses behind those actions; yet the brothers want it both ways – since the events of the story depend heavily for comic effect on their implausibility.  (All this is reflected in Carter Burwell’s score – particularly in the early stages – which has a doomy sound and trouble-brewing momentum out of proportion to the mostly laughable events on screen.)

    There are just two moments of significant violence in the film; they both have considerable and offensive impact.   When Chad, hiding in a wardrobe, is shot by Harry, who’s disturbed him there (or does Chad somehow shoot himself?), the bloody corpse is as startling to the audience as to Harry.   Near the end of the film (at the climax of his ‘morons’ tirade), Cox shoots then bludgeons to death Ted, the hapless manager of the fitness centre and this is filmed in a gruesomely realistic way.    These are both examples of the Coens’ cleverness in working the audience; they’re also examples of why their heartlessness leaves you feeling – once they’ve achieved their immediate impact – hollow and resentful.   Brad Pitt plays Chad crudely (he’s evidently – too evidently, and self-consciously – enjoying playing a clod); Chad doesn’t seem any more capable of mortality than a cartoon character so the death feels wrong.   As the fitness centre manager, Richard Jenkins – with a memorably doleful look and subtle line readings – is Pitt’s polar opposite:  Jenkins’s sensitive, funny performance makes Ted nearly believable – and the most likeable character in the film.   His fate is undeserved (and ironic – the fearful, tentative Ted is especially reluctant to get involved in what’s happening, and does so for the love of Linda) – so his death too is a shock effect.

    Both the deaths work only momentarily:  even if you’re relieved to see the end of Pitt’s performance, dispatching him in this way throws Burn After Reading off balance in the same way that the death of Jennifer Tilly’s caricature of the gangster’s moll in Bullets Over Broadway did for that film.   From that point on, you suspect that the Coens may revert to type any moment – so when the Jenkins character is killed off, appalled regret is quickly replaced by anger at the film-makers.  What unites the two characters of Chad and Ted is that both are losers:  the Coens seem to think that such people can’t expect anything better than to be disposed of.   (The denouement means that Linda has to be paid off by the CIA to keep her quiet; this is one case where a fool in a Coen film ends up with what she set out to get.  It’s perhaps significant that we don’t see her enjoy her pyrrhic victory.)

    The Coens may not like people much but they love cinema, and actors seem to fall half-way between the two.   In other words, the performers may be expected to incarnate despicable people – but the Coens are shrewd enough not to interfere with – and they probably themselves enjoy – a cast that’s putting on a good show.   This laissez-faire approach may not always be the right decision:  Javier Bardem’s charisma in No Country For Old Men seemed to me to make the shadow-of-death he was playing too physically dominant a presence;  here the Coens certainly allow Frances McDormand, like Pitt, to give a strident, self-indulgent performance.    (I’ve never before seen McDormand make faces and act in this busy, overemphatic style.)     But the directors are right not to control George Clooney; his comic style here tends to the hyperactive but it’s counterbalanced by his relaxation.  Clooney’s innate affability and courtesy, and his terrific audience rapport, mute the unpleasant aspects of Harry; instead of experiencing this man as a serial philanderer, you accept him as someone looking for the right girl and too genially cowardly to extricate himself from unsatisfying relationships, however many of them he may be having at the same time.

    Tilda Swinton will need to be careful not to get herself typecast – in American films at least – as a haughty, cold bitch but she plays the role here with perfect acid control and crack timing.  (It’s amusingly unbelievable that Katie Cox is a paediatrician and a good joke that we see her with a patient only once – an implacably uncooperative little boy, in her last scene.)  Swinton’s Katie is a credible partner for Clooney’s Harry, in spite of her freezing hauteur and his easy-going amiability; you can believe that the two of them enjoy the sex and that’s enough reason for their being together.  John Malkovich doesn’t have the same kind of connection with the audience as some of the other actors (it’s mispronunciation of the word ‘rapport’ by the kidnappers that sends Cox into a rage during the abortive blackmailing phone call from Chad and Linda).  The fact that Malkovich sometimes seems to be drawing on his own rather than the character’s reserves of anger can make him uncomfortable to watch.  But he does some very clever things:  out of a job and cross-examined by Swinton as to what he’s going to do next, he says he’ll write:

    ‘Write what?

    A book.

    What sort of a book?

    You know – a memoir.’

    Malkovich intones ‘a memoir’ with exquisite lack of conviction.   It’s not just these three big names and Richard Jenkins who make Burn After Reading an entertaining and quickly moving hour and a half.   As in No Country, the Coens cast and direct the actors in the smaller parts carefully and skilfully.   There are excellent cameos from J K Simmons, as the CIA boss, Jeffrey DeMunn, as Linda’s cosmetic surgeon, and J R Horne, as Katie’s lawyer – and a fine moment when Cox goes to Princeton for a reunion dinner.  You look out for John Malkovich as the camera starts to pan across the guests.  They’re such a visually fascinating collection of shapes and faces that, by the time you get to Malkovich, you register him almost incidentally – at the same time, he looks remarkable enough to belong in the company.

    22 October 2008

Posts navigation