Monthly Archives: February 2016

  • Funny Face

    Stanley Donen (1957)

    The BFI front-of-house man that Sally can’t stand appeared at the start of the film to announce that we’d be watching the best print available but that it had Spanish sub-titles.  He hoped we wouldn’t find them distracting, which I did.  (I’m primed to read a sub-title when I see one.)  The print still wasn’t up to much:  this was obvious from the opening number ‘Think Pink!’, when pink doors in one shot had turned orange in the next.  So much Hollywood colour film from the 1950s has aged badly but the print quality here was especially frustrating, when you could still just about see how stylish and imaginative the original colour schemes for Funny Face were, and how well they work with the choreography by Fred Astaire and Eugene Loring.  A dance sequence with Astaire and Audrey Hepburn – set against a delicate blue sky with little white clouds, she in a white wedding dress with a bluish tint, he in a sky-blue cardigan, swans and doves decorating the scene – is especially pleasing.  Those subtitles got me in a bad mood from the start but it was some consolation that the best print the BFI could lay hands on wasn’t dubbed into Spanish.

    An American in Paris is in two minds about the meeting of popular American and high European culture:  Funny Face can be seen almost as a corrective to that ambivalence in the way that it lampoons Left Bank life in Paris.  The cultural counterpoint to the Left Bank is an American fashion magazine called ‘Quality’;  Funny Face pokes fun at the vanity and egos of the haute couture universe too but much more gently.  The bridge between the two worlds is Jo Stockton (Hepburn).  When we first meet her, she’s a bookshop assistant with no time for the frivolity of fashion and (we’re meant to think) no sense of humour either.  The circumstances of her collision with the ‘Quality’ gang aren’t likely to bring out anyone’s sense of humour.  They take over the Greenwich Village shop – Jo is minding the store while the owner’s away – as the venue for a fashion shoot.  Jo makes herself more ridiculous, however, by explaining her love of philosophy.   The photographer Dick Avery (Astaire) persuades the magazine editor Maggie Prescott (Kay Thompson) that Jo could be a great new cover girl.  They want her for a big fashion event in Paris.  Jo has always dreamed of going there because it’s where Professor Emile Flostre, the leading exponent of a school of thought called ‘empathicalism’, is based.  For Flostre read Sartre, for empathicalism read existentialism.  When Jo eventually meets Flostre in a basement café where he’s lecturing, we see immediately (but she doesn’t) that he’s more interested in her looks than her mind.   In other words, all that brainy talk is just phony:  Flostre is really a sex maniac.  I’m not sure if this is another dig at Sartre – the received wisdom nowadays is that he had plenty of affairs.  Whether he did or not, they didn’t invalidate him as a thinker:  on the film’s terms, however, either you’re a philosopher or you’re a man.

    Complaining about this runs the risk of vindicating the film-makers’ attitude to the life of the mind – exposes you to the charge of taking a frothy musical too seriously.  I got hung up on this because I didn’t find the film as enjoyable as I’d hoped.  I couldn’t find anything light-hearted about the episode in the bookshop:  the fashion contingent’s attitude towards the books felt barbaric (and the whole idea of unwanted but unstoppable visitors invading your space always scares me).  When Jo delivers some books to the ‘Quality’ offices – and because Maggie now wants to find out what she’d be like as a model – she and her entourage ambush Jo:  I found this unpleasant and alarming too.  And though Jo had my sympathy because of these sequences there were times in Funny Face when, for the first time that I can recall, Audrey Hepburn’s cooing diction got on my nerves.  When, flustered and irritated, she first starts gabbling in the bookshop, I thought Hepburn was doing a foreign accent and, in a sense, she was,  The anti-intellectualism is thoroughgoing – it comes across in Greenwich Village as well as in Paris – but still you get the sense that the books with long-winded titles are somehow imported from Europe.  It’s a measure of the film’s antipathy to fancy thinking that an explanation of ‘epiphenomenalism’ is palatable only when it’s delivered by someone as unconvincing as a humourless brainbox as Hepburn is as Jo – when she extols the virtues of Flostre, she makes her enthusiasm sound like a schoolgirl crush.  Hepburn is great in other departments, though.  I hadn’t realised she trained as a dancer and she’s a very good one – as light on her feet as you might expect but excitingly slick too, and her palpable enjoyment doing the numbers is infectious.  Her black jumper and jeans routine in a Paris beatnik club is probably the highlight.

    While they’re in Paris, Jo and Dick Avery fall in love and Hepburn’s face registers the crisis points in the romance with an amazing blend of unaffected simplicity and star effulgence.  When she’s made up for, and inches along, the catwalk, Hepburn is somehow diminished – perhaps because her normal movement on screen is so much part of her charm.  When she’s able to move freely on the tour-of-Paris fashion shoot with Dick, she’s glorious in the Givenchy clothes (this is one of the best bits in the Funny Face)  The only likeable bit in the bookshop comes when Stanley Donen has her do some dancing business with a hat and long scarf that the fashion people have left behind.  Aside from the Hepburn-in-Paris numbers, Edith Head did the costumes including, I imagine, the one that Jo wears in the bookshop and on her visit to the fashion magazine offices:  Hepburn looks no less beautiful in this bookish outfit.  (The idea of Audrey Hepburn playing someone mousy is a good joke per se and she’s even more attractive with her hair down than when it’s pulled back from her face, as it is when she’s become the face of ‘Quality’.)    Hepburn sings well too – at any rate with sufficient individuality to make you wish she’d done her own singing in My Fair Lady.

    Fred Astaire was (and looks) thirty years older than Hepburn but no one comments on this aspect of Dick and Jo’s falling in love.  As his name suggests, Dick Avery is based on Richard Avedon – perhaps it’s because he’s a ‘real’ person, and Astaire was by this stage of his career a legend, that Donen and the scenarist Leonard Gershe don’t bother to give the character much detail.  (Avedon – who was only a few years older than Hepburn – designed the elegant title sequence and was a consultant on the film.)   For the most part, Astaire gives more of an impression of liking Hepburn than of being in love with the girl she’s playing but there are compensations.  When Dick Avery sees a cow go by on a cart in a Paris street, it inspires a bullfight dance (the Spanish subtitles might have come into their own here but it’s wordless).  This Astaire solo alone – Dick using his mac as a cape – makes Funny Face worth seeing.   As always, Astaire’s innate modesty as a personality creates an elating tension with the brilliance of his dancing.   (You realise this especially in an essentially comic routine like this one.  You can imagine how diminished it would have been be if the assertively extrovert Gene Kelly had performed it.)  As Maggie Prescott, Kay Thompson (whose screen appearances were rare) is an insistent and a slightly monotonous actress but, with her rangy insouciance, she’s a great dancer and an enjoyably strong yet effortless singer.  (Maggie’s arrival at the ‘Quality’ offices suggests where they got the idea for Meryl Streep’s entrances in The Devil Wears Prada.)   Robert Flemyng is amusing as a (French) prima donna-ish dress designer and Michel Auclair does creditably in the thankless role of Flostre.

    I’d not realised just how young Stanley Donen was when he directed the Hollywood musicals for which he’s best known:  he was thirty-three when Funny Face was released, which means only twenty-eight when he and Gene Kelly made Singin’ in the Rain.  Most of the songs here are taken from a 1927 stage musical of the same name by George and Ira Gershwin, including the two best known (‘S’Wonderful’ and ‘How Long Has This Been Going On?’), as well as the title song.   Not unusually in a musical, the screenplay is relatively weak.  I’d not heard of Leonard Gershe before but the surname is oddly and unfortunately apt:  Gershe falls short of the Gershwins.  I’d rather have Europe-tainted philosophy than the international fashion industry any day.  What saves Funny Face is that, in the end, the film’s opposition is between snooty intellectualism and a different kind of superficiality – American song and dance, which wins hands down.  The most incisive making-fun-of-the-French moment in the film has nothing to do with intellectual pretension.  It comes when Maggie, anxious to get hold of Dick, phones his hotel and the man at reception informs her that he’s just left.   ‘Then run after him!’ Maggie insists.  The hotel man puts the phone down momentarily then picks it up and reports languidly, ‘Sorry, Madame.  I tried but it was too late’.

    7 January 2011

     

  • Friends with Benefits

    Will Gluck (2011)

    In Doris Day vehicles, she is sometimes fancied by a playboy who infuriates her.  Marriage isn’t on the cards, let alone sex.  In the end, she gives in but also makes an honest man of him:  his feelings for her deepen from lust into love, and she loves him back.  (The Day character is sometimes a career girl, who comes to realise her true role in life.  In Pillow Talk, she starts off as an interior decorator and ends up, we assume, a homemaker.)  A time-honoured tradition of romantic comedies more generally is that the principals drive each other mad to start with.  They negotiate obstacles and incompatibilities and move from thinking they wouldn’t be seen dead with their sparring partner to understanding that they’re made for each other.  The protagonists in this kind of film may well have sex with each other before they fall in love but – except for something like Pretty Woman where the heroine’s a prostitute – they don’t usually have sex on determinedly dispassionate terms.  The difficulty and peril of depersonalised sex is a theme you associate with more serious movies, ranging from the genuinely tragic (Last Tango in Paris) to mawkish soft porn (Love & Other Drugs).   There are also romcoms about friends who fall in love and/or into bed with each without fully intending to, and who complicate their relationship when they do.

    I didn’t even realise until I looked up Will Gluck’s film on Wikipedia that ‘Friends with benefits is a term used to describe non-exclusive recurring sexual (or near-sexual) relationships …’  It’s probably just ignorance that makes me think this movie, with a screenplay by Keith Merryman and David A Newman, arranges the essential elements of romantic comedy – love, hate, like and sex – in a formally original way.   In Friends with Benefits, Dylan and Jamie meet through work.  Jamie is employed by a firm of headhunters in New York and meets Dylan when he comes to be interviewed for the job of art director on GQ magazine:  he’s become well known through his work for a highly successful internet company in Los Angeles and he gets the job.  They become friends and then decide to start a sexual relationship but with no ‘emotion’ involved (as if being friends didn’t already involve emotions).  Members of their families stand corrected when they assume the pair are an item:  Jamie tells her mother she doesn’t like Dylan ‘that way’; he insists the same about Jamie to his sister.

    The structure of Friends with Benefits removes the agreeable suspense of romantic comedy.  This can be masochistically enjoyable (in Working Girl, for example – where, many years on from Doris Day, the heroine gets both the leading man and a high-powered corporate executive job).  You know things will turn out right but it’s amusing being made to feel the happy ending’s in jeopardy.  The opening cross-cutting in this new film is designed to make us think that Dylan and Jamie are already a couple and about to break up with each other.  It’s then revealed there’s no connection between them at this stage, except that they’re both about to be ditched by (improbable) partners.   We’re meant to believe that it’s largely because they’re hurting from the ending of these relationships that Dylan and Jamie are attracted by the no-strings arrangement.  At first, they’re both such smartarses and so primed for hedonism that it’s impossible to believe they need to escape from ‘committed’ liaisons.  The only slight element of suspense in Friends with Benefits is whether either Justin Timberlake (Dylan) or Mila Kunis (Jamie) will be able to suggest any of the emotional depth that will surely be required in due course:  we come to see that both Dylan and Jamie are somewhat messed up and somehow vulnerable.

    I’m not sure how much the actors do succeed in this – but Mila Kunis is the more successful.  She’s annoying throughout the first half of the film – as a comedienne she’s distinctly short of charm – yet she becomes moderately convincing as someone who uses combative fast-talking as a shield.  Justin Timberlake is undoubtedly talented but his thin, foxy features give him a mean-spirited shallowness that persists throughout.  David Fincher used this quality effectively (if obviously) in The Social Network but so far I’ve liked Timberlake best in his role in Bad Teacher, where he was cast against physical type.  Still, both he and Kunis show enough here to make me want to see them again.   But not as much as I look forward to what Richard Jenkins does next.  He gave the finest supporting performance of 2010 in one of the year’s worst films, Eat Pray Love.  As Dylan’s father-with-Alzheimer’s, Jenkins capsizes the vessel of shrivelled calculation that is Friends with Benefits into momentarily deep waters.  He brought tears to my eyes here as both the character and as an actor, because he’s so good and so true.   The supporting cast also includes Jenna Elfman as Dylan’s elder sister; Nolan Gould as her son (I did laugh at his first failed attempt at a magic trick but that’s all he’s there for and it soon gets tedious); and Patricia Clarkson, as Jamie’s mother, a superannuated raver left over from ‘the seventies’ (the script is pretty vague about this, given that the mother is meant to be forty-eight now so wouldn’t have reached puberty until well into the decade she’s meant to be belong to).   Clarkson rarely gives many shadings to her characters but it’s good to see her so much more at ease here than in One Day.

    One of the most tedious aspects of this schema is the weak implication that Dylan and Jamie are both ‘hurting inside’ as some kind of legacy from their parents and the redemptive action that the Jenkins and Clarkson characters take to sort things out.  Also crucial to the resolution is the character of Tom, the sports editor on GQ, played by Woody Harrelson.  It’s supposed to be comically improbable that this apparently macho man is assertively gay and I guess that’s an improvement on Harrelson being unintentionally implausible in a homosexual role as he was in The Walker.   There’s a homophobic current running through the jokes in Friends with Benefits.  Dylan and Jamie decide not to risk getting too close and go to Central Park with the intention of finding a new object of desire for each other.  She chats up another man (Bryan Greenberg) and, when he asks who her companion is, explains that Dylan is her gay best friend:  this is meant to be an appalling insult.  Some of the details of Friends with Benefits feel peculiarly modern:  when things go wrong between them and Dylan is trying to get back in touch with Jamie, he doesn’t look for her, even though he knows where she lives and works – he just leaves text and voice messages on her phone.  Other things are old-fashioned:  when Dylan eventually rouses himself to go and find Jamie he deploys a comically spectacular mode of transport (the motorboat that Tom uses to commute).

    If two great-looking, professionally successful people enjoy each other’s company, have plenty to talk about, feel able to confide, and have very good sex together, you wonder what it is that’s lacking in their relationship.  The feelings Dylan and Jamie are meant not to have for each other are nothing more than a contrived delaying tactic in Friends with Benefits.  The delay in their getting to acknowledge these feelings is a good deal more artificial than the postponement of sex in the Doris Day comedies.  The makers of this film are smugly self-aware:  in one scene, a television in the background is showing Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice; Jamie and Dylan are mildly sarcastic about Nora Ephron and the irrelevantly heartwarming type of song used to score the happy endings of lower-grade romcoms.  Will Gluck’s own choice of music demonstrates, however, that he’s no more able than his protagonists to keep his derisive cool.

    15 September 2011

Posts navigation