Monthly Archives: February 2018

  • Roman J Israel Esq

    Dan Gilroy (2017)

    In Nightcrawler (2014), the writer-director Dan Gilroy successfully used an eccentric main character to reflect a broader cultural malaise.  There’s plenty of evidence to suggest he intended something similar in Roman J Israel Esq.   The title character, played by Denzel Washington, is a late-middle-aged lawyer, who has worked throughout his career in the same, two-partner Los Angeles firm.   With an exceptionally keen legal brain but limited interpersonal skills, Roman has settled for a backroom role preparing briefs, leaving his senior and more extrovert partner to represent clients in court – and to run the firm, which specialises in pro bono work.  The socially isolated Roman has also devoted himself to working, out of hours for many years, on proposals for justice reform.  From the look of him and the poky apartment where he lives alone, he is firmly rooted, not to say stuck, in the 1970s.  He wears an afro hairstyle and a burgundy three-piece suit to the office.  The faces and inspiring words of political and civil rights activists – Angela Davis, Bayard Rustin – dominate the walls of his apartment.  Roman’s prized possessions also include an iPod but the huge playlist is dominated by soul tracks from decades past.  When his law partner suffers a massive heart attack, from which he dies several days later, Roman’s life is turned upside down.  He makes appearances in court.  He also discovers that the partner’s worst-of-both-worlds management of the business has flouted its professed ethical values and left it broke.  Is Roman J Israel meant to represent a whole generation of lawyers, shaped by mid-twentieth-century civil rights culture, who, in the current decade, have had to face up to how little some aspects of the US justice system have changed, especially for African Americans, over the course of their working lives?  Gilroy’s set-up suggests so but the moral of his story gets lost in a melodramatic, occasionally baffling plot.

    Roman’s late partner had arranged, in the event of his death, for George Pierce (Colin Farrell), a hotshot young lawyer heading up a much bigger partnership, to take charge of things.  Roman is ill-suited to working for the Pierce law firm but it’s not easy at his age – and with his CV and verging-on-Aspergic personality – to get another job.  Pitching himself as a ‘long-haul revolutionary, full-time, in-house paid advocate’, he goes for an interview with a civil rights organisation.  The interview is a disaster though Roman makes an impression on Maya (Carmen Ejogo), who manages the unit.  George Pierce assigns Roman a couple of clients but things quickly go wrong.  Derrell Ellerbee (DeRon Horton), arrested for the murder of a store assistant, insists that he’s innocent and tells Roman he’d be willing to testify against the man he claims committed the crime, Carter Johnson (Amari Cheatom).  Roman’s mishandling of negotiations with the state attorney prevents a bargain being struck.  When Ellerbee himself is murdered, his mother lodges a malpractice complaint against the firm and Pierce threatens Roman with dismissal.  The murdered store assistant was a member of the Armenian-American community, which is offering $100,000 for information about the crime.  Roman makes the pivotal decision to inform the community leaders, by anonymous phone call, about Carter Johnson.  He later picks up the reward[1].

    It’s not clear whether desperation or new-found cynicism, or both, impels Roman to do this.  That’s no bad thing in itself but Roman J Israel Esq makes less and less sense from this turning point onwards.  Roman puts his cash prize to instant use:  he gets his hair styled, a couple of expensive suits, a nice pair of shoes; he enjoys a day at the beach and arranges to move to a penthouse apartment.  Summoned by Pierce, he expects to lose his job but instead receives a hero’s welcome from the boss, who has (simply) settled the malpractice case and discovered that Roman is a brilliant legal mind.  Pierce compliments him on his new dress sense and gives him a senior role in the firm.  Maya contacts Roman and invites him out to dinner; he astonishes her by taking her to a very expensive restaurant and insisting on paying.  As they say goodnight, she tells him his hair looks great.  Roman’s guilty feelings, however, are already making their presence felt – they bring on a funny turn during the dinner with Maya, as she talks about her own struggle to reconcile fine ideals and harsh realities.

    Soon afterwards, Roman and George Pierce go to meet with a client in custody:  it’s presumably Roman’s lack of communication skills that prevents his asking Pierce, before they actually see the client, who he is.  Carter Johnson, of course, and Pierce, after introductions, leaves Roman alone with him.  Johnson tells Roman he knows that Ellerbee didn’t give his name to anyone but Roman (how does he know this?), that Roman must therefore have disclosed legally privileged information for personal gain.  Although Maya credits him with renewing her idealism and Pierce, impressed by his example, is developing a social justice agenda for the firm, Roman can’t live with his bad conscience.  Literally can’t live, as it turns out.  As he prepares to hand himself in at a police station, he’s shot dead on the street by an unknown (to this viewer anyway) gunman.

    Its ambitious themes make it hard to dismiss Roman J Israel Esq as merely a star vehicle – but it turns into one, thanks to the clumsy plot and to Denzel Washington’s sustained authority.  His performance here is both more engaging and more inventive than the one he gave in FencesWashington convincingly captures Roman’s combination of high intelligence and personal awkwardness.  The hero’s office-bottom waddle is a fine piece of physical characterisation.  Even with some surplus weight and a pair of spectacles, though, Washington is handsome and charismatic.  He’s not a backroom boy; and the effect of Roman’s abrupt change of lifestyle and appearance is to make the star look more like his usual self.  When Maya invites Roman to dinner, his stuttering, incredulous reaction is touching; funny too – but funny partly because it’s impossible to imagine that Denzel Washington ever struggled to get a date.  Although the plotting around George Pierce’s conversion to Roman and his values is particularly weak, Colin Farrell is surprisingly convincing in the role – his blend of shrewd opportunism and callowness means that Pierce is credibly open to influence.  Carmen Ejogo makes the best of the thin character of Maya.

    As a prologue to the main action, the text of a pretend law suit, naming Roman J Israel as both plaintiff and defendant, appears on the screen and is read by Washington in voiceover.  The thrust of the suit is that, in the course of the preceding three weeks, Israel’s behaviour has betrayed everything he believed in, that he deserves to be disqualified not only from practising law in California but also from the human race.  This is a nifty, attention-getting opener but nothing more:   Gilroy’s reprise of it, just before the climax, does little more than confirm the suspicion that three weeks is a very short time in which for all the above to happen.  Gilroy closes on a solemn but hopeful note as George Pierce files on Roman’s behalf his magnum opus on reform of the criminal justice system.  (This ending is rather odd too:  Pierce stands waiting at a desk, through a large chunk of the closing credits, as a mildly disgruntled clerk logs the voluminous material.)  Although Roman J Israel Esq fails as drama, Denzel Washington makes it entertaining and the interesting themes that don’t cohere give the film a tantalising quality.  In spite of all that goes wrong with Dan Gilroy’s second feature, you come out looking forward to his third.

    8 February 2018

    [1]  I didn’t understand why the $100k was still on offer when Ellerbee had been arrested, then killed before the case went to trial, but I probably missed something.

     

  • Phantom Thread

    Paul Thomas Anderson (2017)

    James Bell’s piece in this month’s Sight & Sound suggests the title ‘refers to a term that seamstresses working in the East End of Victorian London used to describe the sensation they felt after emerging from long, repetitive hours in the workshop.  After returning home exhausted, the women would find their hands moving involuntarily, their fingers clasped as though sewing invisible, “phantom” threads’.  That chimes with the compulsive nature of the protagonist of Paul Thomas Anderson’s new film:  the dress designer Reynolds Woodcock (Daniel Day-Lewis) treats his work as a quasi-priestly calling – he’s never really off duty.  The time is the 1950s.  The place is London -specifically, a grand house in Fitzrovia.  This is where Reynolds lives, works and receives the wealthy clients who wear his gowns.  The ménage also includes his sister Cyril (Lesley Manville) and, as less permanent fixtures, a succession of younger women, in whom Reynolds has an always transient romantic and creative interest.  Cyril helps run the ‘House of Woodcock’ both as a professional operation and in this more private aspect.  She manages her brother’s business diary and the team of women who cut and stitch dresses.  When the latest muse has served her purpose, Cyril makes the necessary arrangements.  ‘What do you want to do about Johanna?’ Cyril asks Reynolds over breakfast, ‘She’s lovely but the time has come’.  Johanna (Camilla Rutherford) promptly disappears from the film, soon to be replaced by Alma (Vicky Krieps).  Reynolds first meets her when Alma is hotel waitressing in a seaside village where he goes on a rare, brief excursion.  Her residence in the House of Woodcock proves more enduring than that of her predecessors.   When Cyril asks her brother if she’s ripe for removal the answer is no.  Alma disturbs the female hierarchy within the household, as well as Reynolds’s egocentric tyranny and emotional autonomy.

    The main character of Phantom Thread is one of three perfectionist-obsessives involved:  the others are P T Anderson and Daniel Day-Lewis.  The trio makes the film as a whole, like its principal location, luxuriously claustrophobic.  The House of Woodcock, a chilly hothouse, is hermetically sealed – so much so that in one indoor sequence there, it’s almost startling to hear the traffic outside.  Anderson, as well as writing and directing the piece, is also, for the first time, his own cinematographer.   His attention to detail – to the textures and surfaces of things – is both magnetising and cloying:  this is as true of food, drink and kitchen utensils as it is of Reynolds’s gowns (designed by Mark Bridges).  Surfeit is conveyed verbally too, as in the opening conversation between Reynolds and Alma.  His comically lengthy breakfast order in the hotel is Welsh rarebit with a poached egg, bacon, scones, butter, cream, jam, a pot of Lapsang Souchong and (after a pause) sausages.  Daniel Day-Lewis invests the litany with layers of appetite – to witty but also nauseating effect.  (That last quality isn’t confined to Reynolds’s personal discourse; it’s more offensively conspicuous in the socially and racially prejudiced world of his high-society customers.)   Breakfast is, throughout the film, an important ritual.  Reynolds warns at an early stage that ‘I can’t begin my day with a confrontation’.   When Alma moves in, she commits the cardinal sin of buttering her toast so noisily that she disturbs the great man’s concentration.

    The three main performers are another triumvirate in Phantom Thread.  Their acting is quite exceptional – Anderson orchestrates it with great sensitivity to their distinctive physical presences and vocal styles.  (Major American filmmakers often don’t ‘hear’ British English as well as their native tongue:  Woody Allen is an example; Anderson, making his first film set in England, is an exception.)  Vicky Krieps speaks more softly and with a gentler rhythm than Daniel Day-Lewis and Lesley Manville but Alma’s remarks can be just as incisive as those of Reynolds and Cyril.   The changing flesh tones of Krieps’s face are extraordinarily expressive, for example in the scene in which Reynolds first takes Alma’s measurements and she stands in her petticoat, alarmed and embarrassed, as Cyril enters the room,  enquires ‘Who’s this lovely creature making the house smell so nice?’ and, as she approaches Alma, definitely inhales.  (Cyril’s analysis of what she smells includes not only the perfume Alma is wearing but also, as the younger woman anxiously admits, part of what she’s just had for dinner.)  Alma’s surname is Elson; she has a continental European accent that’s hard to place (Krieps is Luxembourgian), though when she and Reynolds play backgammon, Alma counts in German.  Since her backstory is of no interest to Reynolds, it’s right that Anderson doesn’t explain it in detail.  Indeed, a rare instance of the camera movement seeming too deliberate occurs when a reference is made to ‘Jews during the War’ and Anderson cuts to Alma’s face, which hardens momentarily.

    As Cyril, Lesley Manville far surpasses her work in Mike Leigh films like High Hopes and Another Year.   Her pallor and short legs make for an almost comical contrast with Alma’s roseate litheness and Reynolds’s ranginess.  While his movement is a kind of driven prowl, Manville suggests an odd mixture of martinet and underdog as the heels of Cyril’s shoes click in little steps across a wooden floor to open window shutters at the start of daily business in the House of Woodcock.  Every inch the efficient, joyless administrator, Cyril appears to have emptied her life for the sake of her brother’s creative talents yet she’s far from powerless in their relationship.  ‘Don’t pick a fight with me – you certainly won’t come out alive’, she coolly warns Reynolds at one point.  This echoes the moment when, at one of their first meetings, he fixes his gaze on Alma and she smiles back, ‘If you want a staring contest you will lose’.  Reynolds occasionally calls Cyril ‘old so and so’, a very barbed term of endearment.  A sustained strength of Phantom Thread is that the balance of power in the three main relationships is never straightforward and doesn’t shift in crudely decisive ways.

    Daniel Day-Lewis’s approach to creating his characters is notoriously obsessive.  Perhaps he draws on that tendency here; in any case, the end justifies whatever means he has used to realise Reynolds Woodcock.  To describe Day-Lewis as fully inhabiting the part is a large understatement.  Reynolds first appears in a montage summarising his early morning routine:  the force of fastidious personality conveyed by Day-Lewis in just a few seconds of shaving, then clipping nostril and ear hair, has to be seen to be believed.   Until Alma starts to get under his skin, Reynolds, in the company of others, seems at once intimate and utterly remote.  Quite how Day-Lewis achieves this combination is wonderfully mysterious but it makes sense:  the charismatic egoism that he gives Reynolds welds the different sides together.  His physical acting, especially in the episode that sees Reynolds fall ill from poisoned food, is impressive too.  Daniel Day-Lewis presumably won’t win a fourth Academy Award for Phantom Thread but this is the best performance by a male actor in a leading role in a 2017 film.  (I preferred his work here to his Oscar-winning turns in Anderson’s There Will Be Blood and Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln.)

    As The Master (2012) and Inherent Vice (2014) demonstrated, P T Anderson has been showing an increasing disregard if not for his audience then at least for making things easy for them.  The do-not-disturb-artist-at-work conditions of Reynolds Woodcock’s life are reflected in the film that contains him:  for a good part of its 130 minutes, Phantom Thread is absorbing while being, in plot terms, uneventful.   There’s a built-in risk with this kind of piece that, if and when things start happening, they will seem incongruous and forced.  Anderson’s solution to that problem is to make events so extravagantly bizarre – and immediately compelling – that they disarm criticism.  The first example of this comes when Reynolds designs a costume for the marriage of Barbara Rose (Harriet Sansom Harris), an American heiress.   At the wedding breakfast (breakfast again!) at which Reynolds and Alma are guests, Barbara Rose passes out drunk.  In an earlier conversation, in which Reynolds pooh-poohs the idea of attending the event, his sister sharply reminds him that Barbara Rose ‘pays for this house’.  Even if Cyril might say the same of other clients, what happens next seems unlikely:  Reynolds and Alma, disgusted by Barbara Rose’s performance at the reception, confiscate her wedding dress while she’s still in it, sleeping off her stupor.  There’s no follow-up to this breathtaking behaviour.

    Next, Alma proposes to Cyril that the house be vacated so that she can prepare a surprise romantic dinner for Reynolds on his return from the afternoon walk that is part of his strict daily routine.  Cyril thinks this a bad idea but improbably accepts the proposal.  When he comes back to the Cyril-less house, Reynolds, of course, reacts badly.  Even if Alma’s upset at this is understandable, her surprise is incomprehensible.  Disbelief is then suspended thanks to the row that erupts between her and Reynolds.  This is one of the most dynamically convincing screen arguments I can remember.  It doesn’t feel either scripted or improvised (in the bad sense – when you feel the actors are making things up just to keep things going).

    It’s in the light of this doomed-to-failure meal that Alma decides to prepare a different kind of delicacy for Reynolds – shavings of poisonous wild mushrooms in his tea – and the rest of the film takes shape.  The mushrooms have their effect just as Reynolds is completing a wedding gown for a Belgian princess.  In spite of Cyril’s best efforts, Alma obstinately stations herself at his bedside and nurses him back to health.  Hardy (Brian Gleeson), the young doctor summoned by Cyril, even refers to Alma as ‘Mrs Woodcock’ and his mistake is only temporary:  Reynolds proposes marriage and she accepts.  From this point onwards, the pace picks up and Phantom Thread becomes more conventionally eventful.  Married life doesn’t mellow Reynolds or modify his controlling demands; Alma wants the social fun available to her; Reynolds, resenting her disruptive influence, now tells Cyril it’s time for Alma to leave.  His wife comes up with a different way out.  She poisons Reynolds again:  this time, it’s a mushroom omelette and he knows what he’s in for.  Alma suggests to him that this how their marriage can work.  She will poison him regularly – never enough to kill him, always enough to reduce him to helpless dependency on her.  The sickbed episodes will recharge Reynolds’s creative batteries and reassuringly remind Alma that he can’t survive without her.

    The main narrative is interspersed with brief pieces of conversation between Alma and a male interlocutor – revealed, about halfway through the film, as Dr Hardy.  In the first bit of interview, placed right at the start, Alma speaks of her relationship with Reynolds in the present tense so it comes as no surprise that she stays the course.  Her closing words are more unexpected.  She looks forward not just to the foreseeable future of their partnership – children, a satisfying social life, continuing professional success – but to her relationship with Reynolds persisting through future lives beyond the present one:  Alma is in for the infinitely long haul.   This is the culmination of the film’s rather weak otherworldly motif.  The first dress that Reynolds designed, when he was sixteen years old, was for the second marriage of his mother, now dead.  The implication that the whole of his subsequent life has followed a pattern set by her is underlined at an early stage when Reynolds remarks to Cyril that he feels sure their mother is watching what he does – and that he finds the thought of this comforting, ‘not at all spooky’.  (Cyril’s disconcerted face suggests it’s the other way round for her.)    During his bout of food poisoning, the bedridden Reynolds sees the ghost of his mother, in her bridal gown.  The film could do without this uninspired apparition (which also hints at an alternative, banal interpretation of its title).  Even Daniel Day-Lewis can’t quite animate the moment.

    The perverse modus vivendi finally arrived at by the principals is coherent with what’s gone before.  Jonny Greenwood’s score plays an important part in this.  Anderson uses it far from sparingly:  as a result, the music does more than contribute to atmosphere scene by scene.  It forms a persistent undercurrent, suggesting a potential for morbid melodrama that the story eventually expresses.   Yet as the plot thickens, the drama thins.  The grip of the Reynolds-Cyril-Alma power struggle loosens in the black-comedy climax.  Switching late in the day to a firmer storytelling style, the film becomes somehow safer.  (That’s evidently not the case if your mind works like the New Yorker’s Richard Brody’s[1] but whose does?  Adam Mars-Jones’s TLS review is hypercritical and sometimes unfair but his summing up[2] comes as a relief, after reading Brody.)  James Bell’s excellent S&S article incorporates a richly informative interview with Anderson, who describes the plethora of 1950s fashion world, music and movie references in, and influences on, the film.  A certain type of cineaste will doubtless enjoy the end product as an opportunity to spot all these references but most of us can experience Phantom Thread as an integrated original.  Unless you’re determined to do so, you won’t, for example, keep seeing Cyril as a descendant of Rebecca‘s Mrs Danvers.  No less than Reynolds Woodcock’s haute couture, the people that Paul Thomas Anderson and his three leads have put on the screen are inspired creations.

    6 February 2018

    [1] Brody summarises Phantom Thread as follows:  ‘The movie presents Anderson’s view of that open field of existence: namely, that it invites both the wildest fires of holy hell and a profound, mysterious love unlike any to be experienced elsewhere, an elevated and self-renewing path of creation, of mutual realization, which proves its own validity by risking self-destruction.   The mixed motives and mixed emotions that arise from the mortal tension between Alma and Woodcock aren’t a sign of Anderson’s (or of his characters’) vagueness or uncertainty but a mark of the tragic fury of his drawing-room comedy—and the world-worn wisdom from which it arises. Fuse life and art, he suggests, only in anticipation of the greatest risks; prepare for the worst, knowing that it’s often indistinguishable from the best’.

    [2] ‘A melodrama is what it is … and as it works itself out rather a silly one, with a resolution that may even excite the protest of laughter’.

Posts navigation