Daily Archives: Saturday, January 23, 2016

  • Dan in Real Life

    Peter Hedges (2007)

    The temperament behind the camera – and what the film will turn out to be – is obvious from an early stage. It’s evident in the wry, annoying songs, written and performed by Sondre Lerche. And more or less evident in the basic scenario: journalist Dan Burns is the loving, too caring (over-controlling) father of three girls. In his newspaper column (from which the film takes its title) he gives advice to readers – advice imbued, we’re told, with family values and, we assume (since Dan is played by Steve Carell), with transforming wit also. Dan is conspicuously womanless: we wonder what happened to the girls’ mother and soon learn that she died. Being widowed young rather than divorced gives Dan a built-in nobility and invites our sympathy – it’s plain to see that the conscientious father and agony uncle is a lonelyheart himself. It’s a tribute to the cast of Dan in Real Life, especially Steve Carell, that you’re not only engaged with the picture for most of its ninety-eight minutes but also (unconsciously) hopeful that the piece will turn out more interesting than it’s bound not to be. You realise this when the feeble and predictable climax arrives and you feel disappointed.

    Dan and his girls – under protest from the middle one, fifteen-year-old Cara, who wants to be with her first serious boyfriend – travel from their New Jersey home to an annual family reunion with Dan’s parents in Rhode Island. The Burns family is large and I never worked out who everyone was. Because Dan’s younger brother Mitch, a fitness trainer in New York, is bringing ‘a friend’ with him, his mother tells Dans that he’ll be sleeping in the ‘special room’. (He gets little sleep. The size of the gathering generates an endless supply of laundry and the washing machine is at the foot of Dan’s bed. There’s an infuriating swinging light cord at the top end.) Next morning, Dan goes out to buy papers and, in a local bookshop, meets and immediately falls for a dazzling French woman. He comes home and tells the newly-arrived Mitch about the meeting and the good news – the whole family’s concerned that Dan’s still pining four years after he lost his wife – spreads like wildfire through the household. Then Mitch introduces his ‘friend’ Marie: she’s the woman Dan met in the bookshop.

    The short filmography of Peter Hedges, who co-wrote the screenplay with Pierce Gardner, is already long on family relationships. He adapted What’s Eating Gilbert Grape? (1993) from his own novel and About a Boy (2002) from Nick Hornby’s. The only other film Hedges has so far directed is Pieces of April (2003), which he also wrote. Dan’s falling for his brother’s new woman is a serviceable comic situation in which to put fraternal love and family loyalties to the test but Hedges is reluctant to pursue the ironic possibilities of the gathering of the clan, the convivial obligations of which are terrifying. There are intense crossword competitions between the sexes, communal PE from which only the grandparents are exempted, DIY entertainments when everyone either sings or dances or does magic tricks. This all makes what’s presumably a long weekend seem an endless one.

    That pass-it-on transmission of the news that Dan has met a ‘hot’ girl is only the beginning. Members of the family are always turning up in ones or twos or en masse to interrupt private moments, not only Dan’s. When Marie, who’s as smitten with Dan as he is with her, can’t keep up the pretence with Mitch any longer and leaves the party, the whole family line up at the window to watch her departure and his rejection. Dan in Real Life badly needs a bit of acid and the oppressive team spirit of Dan’s folks could have supplied it – causing him not to practise what he preaches as a journalist, with a vengeance. The aggregation of familial insensitivity is formidable yet Hedges appears to see it as humorously endearing. Dan’s mother arranges a date for him with the daughter of another local family whom the Burnses remember as ‘pig face’. Dan protests and the others joke about what he’s in for. In one sense this rings true: laughing about how someone looks is the sort of thing, which when it’s part of family lore, puts a warm, sharing façade on the underlying cruelty. But if all the other Burnses are so lovingly aware that Dan needs to find someone new but is still emotionally raw, why do they josh him in this way? It seems unlikely that everyone but Dan is in on the secret that the porcine adolescent has grown up into Emily Blunt.

    We get the sense that Dan’s over-solicitousness about his daughters is linked to the fear of losing them, as he lost his wife. His widowerhood isn’t developed interestingly, though: it’s designed for easy sentimentality and to testify to how nice Dan is – as if a nice person couldn’t be separated or divorced. But Steve Carell, as well as being a superb comedian, also has taste and sensitivity as an actor. His fine-tuned empathy with Dan rises above the essentially condescending conception of the character and his flair for physical humour elevates Dan’s niceness. Carell is physically just right for romantic comedy because his looks are both handsome and eccentric (the big nose helps with the latter). When Cara’s vaguely Hispanic boyfriend Marty (Felipe Dieppa) arrives at the gathering and Dan sends him away, Marty tells Dan (whose professional writing is full of aphorisms) that, ‘Love is not a feeling, it’s an ability’. (Marty says this in Spanish and translates.) A couple of minutes later Dan appropriates the adage: given how obvious this moment is, it’s a tall order to get an interesting delivery of the line but Carell manages it.

    Casting Dane Cook as Mitch, however, is typical of Peter Hedges’s timidity. If Mitch had charm or charisma it would supply the situation with some tension but there’s nothing in this dull jock that you can believe would have drawn Marie to him. It’s much more believable that Mitch eventually pairs up with the pig-faced Ruth, who’s as stunningly boring as she’s stunningly pretty. (Emily Blunt has an amusing bit when Ruth gyrates around a jukebox.) As Marie, Juliette Binoche’s opening ditsy routine is excruciating and she’s irritating whenever she tries to act funny (or is self-consciously irresistible). When she’s quiet and plays simply, especially as Marie listens to the story of Dan’s life, she’s luminous. When she gets inside the comedy, as in the family workout, she’s funny too. It’s an unfailing pleasure to see Dianne Wiest and John Mahoney and both have some good moments as Dan’s parents, although Mahoney looks worryingly thin and the fact that even Wiest eventually struggles to redeem her lines (‘Love’s messy … you’ve made a lot of mistakes but Marie’s not one of them’) illustrates how ropy they are by this point. Dan’s sisters (I think they’re sisters) are played by Jessica Hecht and Amy Ryan; his eldest daughter by Alison Pill and his doe-eyed youngest by Marlene Lawston. The melodramatic Cara accuses her father at one stage of being ‘a murderer of love’. The way Brittany Robertson plays Cara, it’s a surprise that’s the only kind of murderer he is.

    12 November 2010

  • In a Better World

    Hævnen

    Susanne Bier (2010)

    In spite of its Golden Globe and Oscar for Best Foreign Language film, In a Better World seems not to have made a big impression outside award ceremonies and the few reviews I read were condescending. It’s not an imaginative film, it’s manipulative and sentimental, yet in the end I liked it a lot. The screenplay, by Susanne Bier and Anders Thomas Jensen, is highly schematic. It’s structured as a series of key actions, the consequences of those actions, and those responsible for them – chiefly the central character Anton (Mikael Persbrandt) – questioning whether their actions were right or at least justifiable, in spite of what they bring about, which is at best complicated and at worst a disaster.

    Anton is a Swedish doctor: we see him both at home in Denmark with his wife (Trine Dyrholm) and two young sons, and at work in a Sudanese refugee camp. The script’s schematism prevails on both continents but it’s hard to reconcile this approach with the chasmal difference between life in Scandinavia and life and death in the camp. Female patients there are abused by a local war lord and his henchmen. When this sadist-tyrant turns up at the camp with a badly injured leg, Anton does his humanitarian duty as a doctor by treating the injury – to the consternation of the refugees. A little later, the war lord is still behaving atrociously and Anton can no longer bear his malignity: he throws the man out of the makeshift hospital, leaving him to a lynch mob of refugees. Back in Denmark, before this latest stint in Africa, Anton has been showing his sons the virtue of turning the other cheek. Anton is struck, on two separate occasions, by a hot-tempered mechanic, whose son was in a playground fight with Anton’s younger boy until Anton separated them. (There’s an implication in the script that Anton’s being a Swede rather than a Dane is significant. I didn’t get this: maybe it’s perceptible only to Scandinavian audiences.) Bier and Jensen may mean to suggest that the liberal, conscientious Anton finds it intolerable that, given the conditions he experiences in the Sudan, people can’t get on with each other in the relative stability and comfort of urban Denmark. It’s still jarring that Africa is presented primarily as a different landscape in which this European’s moral choices are made. The required hopefulness of the final Sudan sequence also sticks in your throat.

    It could also be argued that Susanne Bier attempts to equalise the African and European parts merely by working up the latter into a melodrama – so that the events in small-town Denmark become matters of life and death too. In fact, the Danish part has much more dramatic substance and tension then the Sudan part. In one sense, this reinforces the whole problem of the African scenes; yet it’s also what makes In a Better World a strong film. While Anton is pivotal to the Danish story, it’s the two early adolescent children – Markus Rygaard as Anton’s elder son Elias and, especially, William Jøhnk Juel Nielsen as his friend Christian – who are compelling. The sweet-natured Elias is bullied at school. It’s Christian’s outraged reaction to that which draws the two boys together in the first place. Elias and Christian could be seen as embodying different aspects of Anton – peacableness and a passion for justice respectively. But Christian is someone else’s son and it’s the relationship with his own father (Ulrich Thomsen) that gives the plot a real edge and grounding. Christian’s mother died recently of cancer. He can’t forgive his father for lying to him that she would recover – he accuses him of wanting her death. (And the father eventually admits that, when his wife’s pain and distress became intolerable to him, he did.)

    William Jøhnk Juel Nielsen is so convincing in expressing Christian’s furious, buried misery that the character gains an independence from the structure that Susanne Bier imposes. You believe this boy is unhappy enough to go all the way in getting his own back, no matter what happens as a result. When Christian makes a bomb to blow up the van of the mechanic who hit Anton, and he and Elias prepare to watch the explosion, it’s obvious what will happen. It’s the same when, at the film’s climax, the remorseful Christian stands on the roof of a silo: he looks down at the town harbour and the playground where the kids’ fight started it all – he’s now ready to end it all. These aren’t original scenes but Bier stages them (and directs the actors) with great conviction. It matters terribly, at an emotional level, what happens to the two boys.

    Mikael Persbrandt is a strong presence and the acting is generally good, even though the other adults (who include Wil Johnson as a doctor colleague of Anton’s) don’t make anything like the impression that the two youngsters do. There’s a good score by Johan Söderqvist and the film is well shot by Morton Søborg: the different visual colouring of the two continents has a texture lacking in the screenplay. I could have done without the beauties of nature montage at the end but if Susanne Bier’s images are pedestrian compared with Terrence Malick’s in The Tree of Life at least they’re over much more quickly.

    22 August 2011

Posts navigation