Daily Archives: Saturday, June 25, 2016

  • The Sapphires

    Wayne Blair (2012)

    The Sapphires has been a big hit in Australia, both in the theatre and in this screen adaptation.  Although inspired by a true story, it’s a synthetic piece of cinema.  Tony Briggs, who wrote the stage show, based it on the experiences of his mother and aunt and their two cousins.  As youngsters, these Aboriginal women toured Vietnam as a pop foursome, performing to American (and Australian?) troops – in the late 1960s, when they had no chance of a singing career in their racially benighted homeland.  It’s evident from an early stage that the script, by Briggs and Keith Thompson, is crude – in pushing the narrative forward, in dramatising conflicts between the main characters (there are few tensions that register continuously:  once explained, they can be disposed of), in checking off the racial issues points.  Wayne Blair’s direction emphasises the crudeness.  This might not matter if the Sapphires’ numbers on stage obliterated the mechanical bits in between but they don’t.  (I admit I don’t have much appetite for the soul music that becomes their speciality.  Some of the songs leave me cold; when one that I like comes up, I just want to hear the original – of ‘I Heard It Through The Grapevine’, for example.)  Watching The Sapphires in the theatre may allow you to feel more the exhilaration that the girls experience as performers.  As a pop ensemble on screen, they’re good enough but unexciting.

    The McCrae girls – the sisters Gail, Cynthia and Julie and their cousin Kay – acquire an Irish manager called Dave Lovelace.  As Dave, Chris O’Dowd looks older than his thirty-three years and that makes sense:  Dave’s booze-based life (he’s a barman with a drink problem) is disappearing down the drain until the Sapphires – or the Cummeragunja Songbirds as they call themselves at first – enter it. The first singing in the movie is of ‘Yellow Bird’ by the girls’ mother and the two elder daughters – the third daughter Julie, the real voice of the family, eventually joins in reluctantly.  Unconvincingly, too:  she’s furious because her mother has said she’s too young – although Julie’s also a teenage mother – to get the bus with Gail and Cynthia to a talent contest taking place in a country town not too far from the family home.  Even so, the ‘Yellow Bird’ number works well in that you see what the singing means to the singers.  Nearly all the best musical bits of the film occur offstage.  The sisters’ country and western number (a Merle Haggard song) at the talent contest is effective because you’re on the girls’ side, in the face of the outrageous racist hostility from the audience and the landlady of the pub where the contest is taking place.   (It’s the pub where Dave works and he comperes the contest.)   Otherwise, the music takes off only when Dave himself starts singing:   rehearsing the girls and getting carried away with the music or – with Cynthia’s fiancé and the father of Julie’s child – supplying an intro verse to the Sapphires’ celebratory number, when they return home at the end of film.   The girls’ harmonies sung down the phone from Vietnam to their worried mother back home is too calculated to have real impact.

    There’s another, very different problem in moving the material from stage to screen.  The physical constraints of theatre justify keeping the less enjoyable aspects of Vietnam out of the picture;  there are some moments of peril and carnage in the film but these feel required and the war’s background role borders on the tasteless.  Something similar happens when the girls watch a television news report of the assassination of Martin Luther King.   A few seconds of the mountaintop speech on TV overpowers everything else in The Sapphires and it’s offensive that it’s included merely to flesh out the racial drama (even though, as I understood it, the McCraes had never heard of King – just as they didn’t know there was a war going on in Vietnam until they arrived there).  The moment when Dave tells the always-in-charge eldest sister Gail that she has the weakest voice of the four is clumsy in terms of the other girls’ reactions, which rub salt in the wound, but Deborah Mailman plays Gail’s shock at her relegation well.  Gail may be the vocal weak link in the Sapphires but Mailman, who played Cynthia in the original stage production in 2004, is by far the strongest and most fluid actress.  Gail seems a generation older than the other girls, whom she bosses and protects.  This sizeable woman is anomalous and touching when she’s pushed into the tight-fitting, sequined outfits the Sapphires wear on stage.

    There’s a real chemistry between Mailman and Chris O’Dowd.  He’s not the most adroit of actors:  you can often hear him preparing for the delivery of Dave’s punchlines (and few of these are witty anyway).  But O’Dowd gets inside the character.  The sequence during which Dave gives Gail a letter expressing what he really feels, telling her to read it when he’s not around, is pure cliché.  One screen minute after he’s handed over the note, a North Vietnamese bomb attack on the area in which the Sapphires are performing has separated the couple, and Gail doesn’t know if Dave’s alive or dead.  Even so, Chris O’Dowd manages to make the scene truthful:  when Dave says he’s never been any good at music or at life, he sounds as if he believes it, and that it matters to him.  O’Dowd is effective too (more so than Deborah Mailman) when Dave, in a hospital bed, is reunited with Gail.   I jotted down after seeing the film that I found Jessica Mauboy, as Julie, a bit X-Factory – before I knew that Mauboy is a former winner of Australian Idol.  With Miranda Tapsell in the audience-pleasing role of Cynthia (this is a turn rather than a characterisation), Shari Sebbens as the nearly-white cousin Kay, and two older women with remarkable faces, Kylie Belling as the three sisters’ mother and Lynette Narkle as their grandmother.

    25 September 2013

  • The Rum Diary

    Bruce Robinson (2011)

    Hunter S Thompson’s novel was written in 1961 but not published until 1998, the year that saw the release of the screen adaptation of his best-known work, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, which starred Johnny Depp.  In the years that followed, turning The Rum Diary into a film proved to be a stop-go-stop process.  Depp, involved in the first abortive project to bring the book to the screen, was a good friend of the author.  By the time things got moving again in 2007, with Depp again a prime mover, Thompson had committed suicide.   In 1960, he had travelled from New York to San Juan, Puerto Rico, to write for a doomed local newspaper; so too does Paul Kemp, the journalist protagonist of The Rum Diary.  Thompson was notorious for his consumption of narcotics and alcohol; Kemp is often high or hallucinating from booze or drugs.  Bruce Robinson, who did the screenplay as well as directing, has had his own alcohol problems – a Google search brings up articles about his resuming hard drinking during the making of The Rum Diary.  Without knowing any or all of this, you’re liable to find Robinson’s movie baffling.  In spite of the sunny, seaside Puerto Rican setting of the story, nearly all the scenes look underlit (the cinematographer was Dariusz Wolski), which increases the prevailing opacity.  The back-story doesn’t turn The Rum Diary into a good film but some understanding of the off-screen context allows you to make at least some sense of what’s before your eyes.

    The film is dedicated to the memory of Hunter S Thompson, probably in more ways than one.  A legend at the end announces the fact.  It may be reverence and affection that make Johnny Depp’s portrait of Thompson’s alter ego tight and inexpressive.  He speaks in a voice that’s toneless and seems not to belong to him.  His pantomimes of whacked astonishment seem just that – pantomimes, although without the vitality that usually implies.  The performance is so remote that it’s almost intriguing – it’s as if the character Depp is playing is pretending to be an actor playing a drunk.  Depp has put on weight for the role but the attempts to make his body look unhealthy aren’t convincing.  Watching him reminds you that a regimen of drink and drugs can create a physique with a distinctive, morbid hardness but Depp’s Kemp, waking red-eyed in his room and walking stiffly round it in his boxers, is faux-unhealthy.  The extra pounds on his body have no characterising benefit.  The extra weight on his face seems only to obstruct expressiveness.

    If the screen version of The Rum Diary has been long awaited by fans of Hunter S Thompson, the wait is as nothing compared with the one suffered by those who are devotees of Bruce Robinson because of Withnail and I.  This is only the third feature that Robinson has directed since his famous debut in 1986 and his first since 1992.   I’ve not read the book (or anything by Thompson) so I can’t say what’s gone wrong in the adaptation but something has.  It’s possible Robinson thought too long about how he wanted to make the film.  If so, the unfortunate effect is that he doesn’t look to have thought about it at all.  Except for Christopher Young’s agreeable score, The Rum Diary has no style.  (There are pleasant contemporary songs on the soundtrack too, although, in one sequence, the pulsing music heard in a club sounds much later than 1960, when the story is set.)  I don’t know if the structure of the novel is diaristic:  the film’s narrative is episodic but lacks highlights or shading of any kind – it’s one thing after another, without any deepening of the themes or even a sense of accumulating threat or craziness.

    The characters and situations have, respectively, cartoonish and nightmarish potential that isn’t realised.  There are lots of clever, witty lines and plenty of talented people delivering them (Aaron Eckhart, Richard Jenkins, Giovanni Ribisi, Michael Rispoli; Amber Heard is appealing as Eckhart’s fiancée, with whom Depp falls in love).  The actors give out hints of anxiety – as if they know the roles they’re playing are rather thin and are uneasy about inhabiting them realistically.  The acting could have been more successful if it had been cruder:  a more full-blooded, caricatural style might have released more energy in the cast.  Even so, these supporting performances are accomplished and the inertness of the film becomes mystifying.  It was this sense of puzzlement that stopped me walking out.  Paul Kemp aka Hunter S Thompson sees his writing as the means of exposing, and getting his own back on, the world’s ‘bastards’.  He may use a typewriter but he talks about ink as if it were blood.  Yet this tribute to Thompson is anaemic.

    17 November 2011

Posts navigation