Monthly Archives: December 2016

  • Ray

    Taylor Hackford (2004)

    I didn’t see Ray on its original release.  Sally and I once started watching it on television but switched off at quite an early stage.  I thought I should try again, though:  Ray was very well received back in 2004 and Jamie Foxx’s interpretation of Ray Charles swept the awards board for that year.  Reckoning I’d be more likely to pay attention in a cinema than at home, I went to a screening in BFI’s ‘Black Star’ season.  Getting through the whole of Ray – all 152 minutes – hasn’t improved the opinion I’d formed about it from earlier, limited acquaintance.   I think Jamie Foxx’s performance is seriously overrated.

    In the film’s opening scene, set in 1948, Ray Charles Robinson wants to get on a cross-country bus, travelling from his native Florida to Seattle, where he’ll try for work as a piano player.  His chances of a seat on the bus don’t look good until he tells a lie to the racially insulting white driver.  Ray says he lost his sight fighting for his country on Omaha Beach and the chastened driver undergoes an immediate change of heart.  Ray would have been a boy soldier in 1944 – he was only eighteen four years later – but the fact that Jamie Foxx is in his mid-thirties makes the story easy to swallow.  This short exchange with the bus driver (well played by Mike Pniewski) is edgy and particular – unlike most of what follows over the next two-and-a-half hours.  Early on, Ray moves back and forth in time, with plenty of place-and-date signposting on the screen.  Taylor Hackford then settles into a more traditional linear narrative, interspersed with occasional flashbacks to Ray’s childhood on a sharecropping plantation in Northern Florida.  If the Wikipedia article on the film is correct, James L White’s screenplay departs from the historical record in several respects, not least the circumstances of the death by drowning of Ray’s younger brother, George – an event witnessed by Ray shortly before he went blind.

    Ray fails to ring true even when it’s not playing fast and loose with the facts of its subject’s life.  Reviewing Taylor Hackford’s An Officer and a Gentleman in 1982, Pauline Kael described the director as the first person she’d call if ‘I wanted a corpse revived.’  Hackford doesn’t reanimate musical biopic clichés in Ray, though he’s clearly aware that’s what they are (newspaper headlines regularly zooming into close-up, and so on).   There’s the occasional interesting insight – as when some black Christians interrupt one of Ray’s sets to accuse him of turning gospel music into ‘devil’s music’, by sexualising it – but the protagonist’s womanising, disagreements with management and substance abuse are wheeled out perfunctorily.  Ray eventually seeks help for heroin addiction:  his doctor speaks for the audience when he wearily tells the patient, ‘You’re not the first celebrity junkie I’ve dealt with’.  Ray’s cold turkey, complete with scary white lighting and a jittery hand-held camera, forms the dramatic climax to the film – along with his vision of being reunited and reconciled with his late mother (Sharon Warren) and brother George (Terrone Bell), who tells Ray it wasn’t his fault that he drowned.  With this comforting assurance, Ray stays off heroin for the rest of his life.  This fantasy sequence isn’t par for the biopic course but it’s uncomfortable in a different way:  it struck me as unlikely that a movie about a white contemporary of Ray Charles would allow the hero to imagine something so sentimentally simple-minded.

    One of my strongest early musical memories is lying in the back garden at home in summertime, with Alan Freeman’s ‘Pick of the Pops’ on a portable radio and Ray Charles’s ‘I Can’t Stop Loving You’ pouring out of it (the song topped the UK charts in July 1962).   But I don’t know much about Charles the musician.  I’m not even sure which of his best-known songs are and aren’t R&B:  it comes as a bit of a shock in Ray when ‘Georgia on My Mind’ (which I really like) is presented as an MOR sellout.  (‘I Can’t Stop Loving You’ is relatively kindly treated – calculatedly commercial but also reflecting Charles’s abiding love of Country and Western.)  It’s a relief when ‘Georgia on My Mind’ comes good in the end.  In a hagiographic postscript, we watch a grey-haired Ray Charles attending a 1979 ceremony at which ‘Georgia’ is adopted as the state song.  This is also the occasion of the state legislature’s formal apology to Ray:  they lift a lifetime ban on his performing in Georgia, imposed in 1962 after he refuses to play to segregated audiences in Augusta.  The ceremony and a reprise of ‘Georgia’ make for an emotionally rousing finale although this is a largely fictionalised version of actual events.

    Jamie Foxx does the piano playing in Ray but mimes to Ray Charles’s vocals throughout.   It’s possible for an actor in a biopic who does this to convince you, through precision lip-syncing and strong engagement with the character and the song being sung, that the voice you’re hearing is their own:  Jessica Lange miming to Patsy Cline numbers in Sweet Dreams is one example.   For me, Jamie Foxx doesn’t get close to creating this illusion – the effect is rather of his being upstaged whenever Ray Charles’s voice intervenes – but this isn’t the only reason why I don’t care for Foxx’s performance.  I assume his impersonation is accurate in terms of Charles’s movement and spoken voice but the actor always looks and sounds as if he’s doing an imitation.  At Taylor Hackford’s request, he played the role with his eyelids glued shut; of course you admire this degree of commitment in trying to ‘be’ Ray Charles.  But Foxx gives the impression of concentrating so hard on getting things technically right that he has no connection with the other actors (this is distinguishable, I think, from the sense of isolation Charles experienced in his blindness).  Not that there’s a great deal from others for Foxx to connect with anyway:  much of the supporting acting in Ray is crude overacting.  A shining exception is the emotionally transparent C J Sanders, who plays Ray as a seven-year-old, immediately before and after he loses his sight.  Jamie Foxx met and talked with Ray Charles as part of his preparation for Ray but Charles didn’t live to see the story of his life on screen.  He died, aged seventy-three, in June 2004.  Was the proximity of his death to the release of Taylor Hackford’s film, four months later, part of the explanation for its incredibly generous critical reception?

    15 November 2016

  • Arrival

    Denis Villeneuve (2016)

    Twelve extra-terrestrial spacecraft land on Earth, each in a different part of the world.  One of the craft arrives in Montana:  the US army calls in academic linguist Louise Banks (Amy Adams) to try to interpret the aliens’ language and so infer the purpose of their visit.  The extraterrestrials in Arrival – large, tentacular cephalopods – communicate using a system of sinuous circular symbols, which Louise and Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner), the theoretical physicist with whom she sets to work, begin to decipher.  When Louise asks what the aliens want, she gets the answer ‘offer weapon’, as do her international counterparts.  This leads to nervous defensive action in some of the countries concerned; they shut down communications or scramble their military forces in response to the apparently threatening message.  Once her grasp of the aliens’ language improves, Louise has second thoughts:  she believes that ‘tool’, rather than ‘weapon’, may be the mot juste, and she’s right.  The aliens are motivated not by aggressive hostility but by enlightened self-interest.  It transpires that they know they’ll need humanity’s help in three thousand years’ time and are therefore getting their good turn in first.  Their gift to us is their language.  Once you master it, you also experience time as the aliens do, in a non-linear way:  you see the future.  This explains the film’s opening and several subsequent sequences, which feature Louise and her daughter Hannah, who appears at different stages of her childhood.  Louise, as she becomes fluent in ET-ese, is able to preview her child’s life and, before Hannah has reached her teens, her very premature death.

    The revelation that the visitors to Earth are not looking for trouble – in spite of a characteristically human suspicion of the contrary – isn’t new (viz Close Encounters of the Third Kind).  The extra-terrestrials are puzzled that our planet has no unified leadership or language.  Louise doesn’t tell them about the Tower of Babel or that Esperanto was tried and failed.  (The history of Esperanto was, incidentally, the subject of an interesting piece by Joan Acocella in the New Yorker of 31 October[1].)  The spectacle of global superpowers keeping a nervous eye on what each other are up to, instead of joining forces for the good of all humankind, makes a political point that’s unsurprising.  Even so, Arrival is welcome evidence of intelligent life in the sci-fi cinema universe.  Eric Heisserer’s screenplay is adapted from a 1998 short story by Ted Chiang called Story of Your Life.  The linguistic theme is unusual and its visualisation adds to the distinctiveness.  The spacecraft – big, grey, streamlined egg shapes in a real landscape (Montreal pretending to be Montana) – are arrestingly believable.  The aliens’ shapes and their stop-go, loping movement are oddly beautiful. The ill-fated Hannah, with her combination of fragility and ethereality, is a real star child.  (She’s incarnated successively by Carmela Nossa Guizzo, Jadyn Malone, Abigail Pniowksy and Julia Scarlett Dan.)  Ryan Gilbey, in a small minority of critics who’ve given the film a negative review, complains in the New Statesman that, ‘Where Close Encounters of the Third Kind gazed outward in awe at the universe, Arrival asks only how its mysteries might provide succour and illumination for us’.  I prefer this kind of human introversion to the starry-eyed approach.

    The idiosyncratic imagery and the heroine’s loss of a young daughter both bring to mind Alfonso Cuarón’s Gravity, another recent, highly-regarded sci-fi movie, but the prevailing tone is very different here.  All three of the Denis Villeneuve films I’ve seen – Prisoners, Sicario and now Arrival – are set in a spiritually dark place and this is reflected in their visual scheme.  Villeneuve’s gifted cinematographers (Roger Deakins on the two earlier films, Bradford Young on this new one) bring light to the darkness but don’t do much to modify Villeneuve’s rather deadly solemnity.  The melancholy strings music that Jóhann Jóhannsson has written for Arrival lays on the glum atmosphere all the more thickly.  Villeneuve seems to have an insatiable appetite for misery.  The welcome news that the aliens mean no harm, Louise’s successful efforts to get China to call off an attack on the spacecraft and the visitors’ return home, mission accomplished – these things might suggest a happy ending yet they’re emotionally overshadowed by Louise’s personal bereavement and eventual solitude. Ian becomes her partner and Hannah’s father but they separate somewhere in the future.  Louise’s personal sadness overshadows too the movie’s philosophical posers:  if you could see your whole life laid out in front of you, would you change things; if you knew your unborn child would live only a few years, would you let her come into existence?

    Jeremy Renner and Forest Whitaker, as a senior army officer, both underplay impressively.  As an antsy, unpleasant intelligence agent, Michael Stuhlbarg fulfils a standard function in this kind of drama – repeatedly disagreeing with, and getting bested by, the protagonist.  For an academic adviser to the US military, Louise Banks acquires a surprising degree of authority and independence:  Amy Adams plays her with such assurance and conviction that you almost suspend disbelief.  It’s difficult to fault Adams’s performance yet at the end I felt sorry that, in the last ten days, I’d spent nearly four hours watching this versatile actress looking almost continuously unhappy (in Nocturnal Animals before Arrival).  Adams may have come a long way since her Junebug and Enchanted days but I’m not sure it’s the right way.  Her desire to test herself as an actress is admirable but she shouldn’t assume that characters who chronically carry the weight of the world on their shoulders are proofs of dramatic range and depth.

    14 November 2016

    [1]  http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/31/a-language-to-unite-humankind

     

Posts navigation