Monthly Archives: February 2019

  • Foxtrot

    Samuel Maoz (2017)

    The trailer makes clear that casualties of war are an essential theme of the Israeli film Foxtrot but also hints at an eccentric, even a playful, humour.  At a military checkpoint, a soldier does a zany dance with his rifle; the traffic barrier rises to let a lone camel on the road amble through.  These moments prove to be no guide to the overall style and tone of the writer-director Samuel Maoz’s second dramatic feature (he’s also made documentaries), which are, respectively, self-consciously artful and lugubrious.  A few words spoken in the trailer are a more accurate indicator of what’s in store.  A male voice explains the step sequence of the titular dance:  ‘No matter where you go, you always end up at the same starting point’.

    Foxtrot in effect comprises three acts.  In the first, Michael and Dafna Feldman (Lior Ashkenazi and Sarah Adler) answer a ring on the door of their Tel Aviv apartment.  As soon as Dafna sees two military uniforms on the threshold, she realises the purpose of their visit and faints.  The senior army representative (Danny Isserles) – labelled ‘Death Notification Officer’ [DNO] in the film’s IMDB cast list – breaks the bad news to Michael:  his and Dafna’s son Jonathan has died in combat.  After sedating Dafna and putting her to bed, the DNO gets her shocked husband to drink a glass of water and urges him to continue to do so once an hour for as long as he feels unable to eat.  The DNO sets up an hourly alarm on Michael’s phone to remind him to do so.  One immediately striking thing about these opening sequences is that the husband doesn’t make any move towards his wife while she lies unconscious and the army men attend to her.  Perhaps he’s numbed by the news about Jonathan but the effect is to suggest a distance between Michael and Dafna.  This stays in your mind as Maoz goes on to describe, in the film’s later stages, their less than happy marriage.  Striking too in these early scenes is the DNO, who takes control of the situation calmly, respectfully yet somehow sinisterly.

    This is the strongest part of Foxtrot, thanks especially to the effective twist that climaxes it.  In the interim, Maoz describes Michael’s actions in the immediate aftermath of the officers’ visit.  His brother Avigdor (Yehuda Almagor) comes over to help prepare a death notice and so on.  Michael goes to a nursing home to tell their mother (Karin Ugowski), who has dementia.  We meet the Feldmans’ daughter Alma (Shira Haas) and Dafna’s sister (Ilia Grosz).  An army rabbi (Itamar Rotschild), also a bit sinister or perhaps just clueless, visits the apartment to run through funeral arrangements but is evasive when Michael asks about seeing his son’s body.  These episodes are punctuated by the phone alarm sounding (and water being duly drunk).  The alarm serves as a reminder too that all this is really happening to the stunned, horrified Michael.  Certain other details – when, for example, he looks in on, and seems transfixed by, a room of elderly couples at a foxtrot dance class – are more dreamlike.  Is it possible that the nightmare Michael finds himself in is just that?  In a way, it is.  The DNO and his sidekick return to the apartment to announce there’s been a mistake:  the dead soldier is another Jonathan Feldman.  Michael’s reaction is convincing.  In light of what he’s been put through in the last few hours, he’s angry rather than euphoric – and anxious for confirmation that the army hasn’t got things wrong a second time.  He demands that Jonathan be sent home immediately.  To ensure this happens, he makes a phone call to a friend who has contacts with the top brass in the Israeli Defence Forces.

    In the second of the film’s three parts, the action switches to Jonathan (Yonaton Shiray) and his three army colleagues (Dekel Adin, Shaul Amir and Gefen Barkai), all four of them very young men, at their checkpoint somewhere in the desert.  The decided visual style of the first part – overhead shots that give an abstract and/or disorienting quality to images that might not be remarkable at eye level; slow and deliberate movement of the camera towards and away from what it’s showing – imposes itself even more strongly.  The situation and routines of the army unit (whose checkpoint is code-named Foxtrot) are presented as boring to the point of absurdity.  Until the closing stages of Act 2, the camel’s arrival at the checkpoint amounts to something of an event.  The tempo changes and the mood darkens when two cars are stopped at the barrier.  The soldiers order a man and woman in the first car to get out of the vehicle and stand in the pouring rain:  the woman (Irit Kaplan), dressed up for the evening, is painfully distressed to have her gown and hairdo ruined.  The second car contains four Palestinians.  They’re about to be allowed through when the driver (Firas Nassar) notices the dress of the woman[1] beside him is trapped in the car door.  As she opens it, an object falls out.  There’s a yell of ‘Grenade!’ and the soldiers open fire, killing all those in the car.  The camera reveals the offending object was not an explosive device but a lager can.

    Like the capper to Act 1, this moment has strong immediate impact.  The after-effect is another matter.  It’s now clear the story is going to be built around a succession of mistakes and, when a military superior (Aryeh Cherner) tells the young soldiers to keep quiet about what’s happened (a bulldozer having been used to bury the car and its occupants), a critique of the Israeli army.   From this point on, now that Maoz has shown his hand, the film pays quickly diminishing dividends.  Because the action is consequently less involving, the contrived image-making becomes dominant and starts to feel like the priority.  Foxtrot is excessively designed:  the fact that Michael is an architect may go some way to explaining the severe tastefulness of the Feldmans’ apartment but that’s only one element of the prevailing artiness.  Jonathan, for his part, wants to be a cartoonist and regularly draws, to while away the hours during military service.  Maoz’s animation of his drawings supplies a bridge between the second and third acts which is striking and inventive albeit indebted to Ari Folman’s Waltz with Bashir (2008).  Act 2 ends with Jonathan receiving word that he’s to return to his parents in Tel Aviv and the start of his journey home.  The focus then returns to Michael and Dafna for Act 3, in which it’s soon revealed that Jonathan never made it back.  He died, this time for real, in a road accident en route.

    In view of what’s gone before, we spend most of the rest of Foxtrot waiting to find out what appalling-cum-laughable goof brought about that accident.  Maoz leaves it to the very end to reveal that the camel – or, at least, a camel – was the culprit.  A jeep carrying Jonathan swerved to avoid the animal and crashed down an embankment.  The last half hour of the film consists mostly of a gloomy, grinding showdown between Michael and Dafna about What Went Wrong with their life together.  The contributory factors include Michael’s treatment of the family dog.  Although the camel has the lead non-human role, Foxtrot’s most upsetting moment comes when Michael, as he tries to absorb the news of Jonathan at the start, kicks the dog hard and we hear its cries of pain.  A bit later, he fusses it affectionately and this seems to confirm his cruel act as an aberration – an indication of the state Michael was in after first hearing of his son’s death.  But no – from what Dafna says during their face-off, it seems her husband puts the boot in regularly.  These later stages are briefly enlivened by Shira Haas’s fleeting reappearance as Alma and by the uncharacteristic smiles and giggles of Michael and Dafna after they’ve smoked a joint together.  Lior Ashkenazi gives a committed performance but is required to be almost relentlessly and, as a result, monotonously sombre:  the rich, deep laugh that comes out of him when Michael is high is water in the desert.  (Ashkenazi somewhat resembles Steve Carell.  It’s hard to resist the temptation of thinking that if Carell carries on taking increasingly earnest roles, he may eventually end up in a movie like Foxtrot.)

    If Lior Ashkenazi’s laugh comes as a welcome surprise, the last shot of the Feldmans does not.  They perform a tentative, doleful foxtrot – by this stage, a real dance of death – on the kitchen floor. In addition to the mistake or misjudgment that brings each third of the film to a close and his fatal error in insisting on Jonathan’s immediate return, Michael describes to Dafna, during their big set-to, an incident that occurred during his own military service years ago.  This resulted in one of his colleagues, rather than Michael himself, being blown up by a landmine.  It’s not made clear why Michael has never confided in his wife about this before, though it’s not hard to guess the explanation either.  By this point in the narrative, the audience is expecting Samuel Maoz to keep supplying these unthinkable twists of fate and Maoz knows it.

    Foxtrot was publically controversial in Israel, where Miri Regev, the Minister of Culture in the Netanyahu government, deplored what she saw as ‘the result of self-flagellation and cooperation with the anti-Israel narrative’.  She judged it ‘outrageous that Israeli artists contribute to the incitement of the young generation against the most moral army in the world by spreading lies in the form of art’.  Maoz clearly does intend to attack Israeli military policy and process but plenty of viewers outside Israel may well receive his film as an anti-war tract more generally.  This viewer didn’t find it a persuasive one, though.  While it’s true that none of the shocking accidents in the story would have occurred if a conflict hadn’t been taking place, each is the result of human error or bad luck rather than intention.  What’s more, Maoz, through making bleakness pervasive, conveys no sense that life would be beautiful if not for war (which is hardly to blame for the Feldmans’ crap marriage, for example).  You remember, as much as anything, the maltreated dog and the woman drenched at the checkpoint.  By the end of Foxtrot, Maoz seems to have been using war to epitomise a larger misery, viciousness and futility in the human condition.

    17 February 2019

    [1] I can’t locate this character in the IMDB cast list.

  • Green Book

    Peter Farrelly (2018)

    In Green Book, which is ‘inspired by a true story’, Peter Farrelly dramatises – or ‘dramedises’ – the development of a relationship into what the film finally claims was a lifelong friendship.  Farrelly charts the experiences of the black pianist Don Shirley (Mahershala Ali) and his white chauffeur-cum-bodyguard Tony Vallelonga (Viggo Mortensen), aka Tony Lip, during a concert tour undertaken by Shirley and the two other (white) members of his trio across the American South in late 1962.  About an hour into the film, Tony asks Oleg (Dimitar Marinov), one of the other trio members, the question the audience has surely been asking from an early stage:  why has Shirley decided to perform in a region where racial segregation is still widespread?  (The title refers to The Negro Motorist Green Book, written by Victor Hugo Green, a contemporary guide for African Americans to motels and restaurants that didn’t operate a whites-only policy.)  Oleg has just said that Don could have earned three times more, as well as enjoyed a much less traumatic time, elsewhere in the US.  In response to Tony’s question, though, Oleg simply looks inscrutable and puts out his cigarette – cut to the next scene.  It’s the best part of an hour of screen time later when he tells Tony that Don chose to tour Jim Crow country because, ‘Genius isn’t enough … it takes courage to change people’s hearts’.  This may well be the inspiring message the film-makers want us to take from the movie – and a message that plenty of viewers will happily accept – but Oleg’s explanation is astonishing and incredible in relation to Don’s character as it has emerged over the intervening hour.  His motivation seems, rather, a masochistic determination to justify his sense of exceptional isolation from both white and black society.  The presumably unintended tension between his difficult personality and Green Book’s insatiable appetite for the obvious, crowd-pleasing option sometimes makes the film, as well as easily entertaining, uncomfortably compelling.

    Farrelly begins unremarkably with a leisurely description of Tony Lip’s professional and family life in New York, where he works as a nightclub bouncer.  This scene-setting is overlong; the minor Italian-American personnel are standard-issue, verging on cartoonish.  The energy level starts to pick up from the point at which Tony has his job interview with Dr Donald Shirley (Tony assumes at first he’s a medical doctor).  It picks up further once they get on the road together in Don’s Cadillac.  Even so, the set-up and the direction in which Green Book is heading feel familiar.  As well as the suggestions of Driving Miss Daisy with the roles racially and socially reversed, you sense this is going to be a generic odd couple story, in which the two parties progress from prickly lack of trust to mutual respect and a greater understanding of how the other half lives.  And the film wouldn’t amount to much more than this, were it not for Don’s peculiar self-identity and the inevitable, enraging power of the racist context.  Each time the musician is on the receiving end of a racial slur or baiting, or is told by a venue where he’s playing that he can’t use a restaurant or toilet – and however obviously Farrelly stages these incidents – your blood boils.

    Don Shirley lives alone in a de luxe apartment above Carnegie Hall.  The interviews for the driver appointment are held in one of its vast rooms.  Don enters in a white robe with gold braiding and ensconces himself in a golden chair – later described by Tony as a throne – that is placed on a level above the interviewee’s hot seat.  Mahershala Ali’s considerable height (6’ 2”) completes the effect of loftiness.  In Moonlight and Hidden Figures two years ago, Ali was an imposing figure.  He is here too yet the physical transformation is remarkable.  He now looks slender, almost elongated – he occasionally suggests a piece of stylised African statuary.  At first, his elegant movement and cultured voice seem overdone but Ali soon wins you over.  His bit of backseat business with a piece of fried chicken that Tony presses Don to try is the comic highlight of the film.   Ali seems to use only the very tips of his long, graceful fingers to hold the offending object – for Don this is a matter of avoiding not just grease but serious contamination.

    The real Don Shirley was born in 1927 in Florida, to middle-class parents, a teacher and an Episcopal priest.  According to Wikipedia’s summary of his life, Shirley:

    ‘was [a] … classical and jazz pianist and composer.  He recorded many albums …during the 1950s and 1960s, experimenting with jazz with a classical influence.  He wrote organ symphonies, piano concerti, a cello concerto, three string quartets, a one-act opera, works for organ, piano and violin, a symphonic tone poem based on the novel Finnegans Wake … and a set of “Variations” on the legend of Orpheus in the Underworld.’

    There’s been plenty of debate about the alleged misrepresentation of Shirley in Green Book.  Farrelly and his fellow screenwriters, Nick Vallelonga (Tony’s son) and Brian Hayes Currie, certainly oversimplify his musical pedigree – how they do so illustrates the film’s calculated approach more generally.  In early scenes in the car, Tony plays tracks by Little Richard and Aretha Franklin, of whom Don has hardly heard.  He later tells Tony of his deep frustration with the commercial imperatives that drive his record company (Cadence) to package him as a classy but not a classical performer – that’s how the white people who buy his records and tickets for his concerts (‘to make themselves feel more cultured’) insist on seeing a black pianist.  Farrelly et al aren’t afraid of briefly contradicting themselves for the sake of an easy laugh – as when Tony tells Don that, after he got the driving job, his wife bought one of Shirley’s records:

    Tony:    Yeah.  Cover had a bunch of kids sittin’ around a campfire? …

    Don:     Orpheus in the Underworld.  It’s based on a French opera.  And those weren’t children on the cover, those were demons in the bowels of Hell.

    Tony:    No shit!  They must’ve been naughty kids!

    For the most part, though, the musical cues are designed to show Don as cut off from black culture and traditions yet creatively constrained by white prejudice and stereotyping – thus preparing the ground for a key sequence late in the story.  The last stop on the two-month tour is a country club in Birmingham, Alabama.  Denied entry to the club’s whites-only dining room, Don refuses to play.  He and Tony go instead to a blues joint with an African-American clientele, where Don plays two numbers impromptu.  The first displays his classical technique; the second is honky-tonk boogie-woogie. The pieces demonstrate, respectively, (a) to the surprised black clubbers what a person of colour is musically capable of and (b) that Don has sort of got in touch with his roots.   Just about the only credible thing about this excruciatingly phony scene is that Don, already in evening dress for the country club recital that doesn’t happen, keeps his bow tie on for the boogie-woogie number.  It’s a pity the experience is so epiphanic that, when we see him and Tony leaving the club later that night, the white tie has disappeared.

    In an earlier, similarly crude sequence, the Cadillac breaks down on a country road; while Tony is fixing the car, his passenger gazes at black sharecroppers in a nearby field and they stare back at him blankly.  The chasm between the affluent, cultured Don and ‘ordinary’ African-American experience feels increasingly artificial.   This is a man who, in reality (and as he tells Tony in the film), had a degree in psychology as well as in music and whose Wikipedia entry includes the following:

    ‘Discouraged by the lack of opportunities for classical black musicians, Shirley abandoned the piano as a career while young.  He studied psychology at the University of Chicago and began work in Chicago as a psychologist.  There he returned to music.  He was given a grant to study the relationship between music and juvenile crime …’

    This makes it all the harder to understand why Don keeps a snobbish distance from other African Americans to the extent that he does in Green Book.  His anxious, drowning-his-sorrows solitude is more persuasively explained by the revelation of gay proclivities:  he’s apprehended with another (white) man at a YMCA swimming pool, where Tony successfully bribes the police officers concerned to prevent an arrest proceeding.  Don is angry that the police have in effect been ‘rewarded’ for their efforts though it’s left vague as to whether he objects to their racism or their homophobia.  The latter seems technically irrelevant – the officers are presumably applying the law as it stood in 1962 – but the vagueness on Peter Farrelly’s part is no doubt intentional.  He wants to keep showing Don both as a victim and as a man with a problem ripe for solving in traditional Hollywood style.

    The script’s depiction of Don is contrived but it does create a dramatic arc to the character, of which Mahershala Ali takes full advantage.  Viggo Mortensen doesn’t have the same opportunities.  Tony, of course, has his eyes opened by what happens on the concert tour but he doesn’t reveal initially unsuspected depths.  Although Mortensen registers his reactions with expressive economy, he’s stuck illustrating Tony’s emphatic lack of refinement throughout.  Happily married, he writes regular letters to his wife Dolores (Linda Cardellini, in a nice, inevitably limited performance) back in the Bronx.   Don starts helping Tony make the letters more romantic as well as more literate.  These bits of the story – mildly amusing, rather more patronising – stick out as material the writers have worked up to obscure the fact that Mortensen’s role is increasingly secondary.  (Throughout the current awards season, he has featured in the lead actor and Mahershala Ali in the supporting actor category.  It would have made as much, if not more, sense to reverse the arrangement.)  It’s a little puzzling, given its title, that the film doesn’t give more prominence to the selection of places to stay etc – something that might at least have given Tony a more evident hand in planning, or trying to plan, the itinerary.

    Mortensen does well, even so.  The forty-plus pounds he put on to play Tony (and, it’s good to see, appears to have taken off again since) make you more conscious that he’s doing a turn but it’s an accomplished and likeable turn, with Italian-American gestures and vocal inflections that seem fully absorbed and natural.  When a photo of the real Tony appeared on the screen at the end, I felt relief that the role had been cast against physical type.   The combination of the stereotyped writing of the part and a Tony Vallelonga lookalike would have been harder to stomach.  On which subject:  it seems fair reward for greatly expanding his waistline that Mortensen too is reliably funny when Tony Lip is eating, as he often is.

    Apologies from the four main men in front of and behind the camera have been coming thick and fast in recent months, as Green Book has continued to make money and win prizes.  Peter Farrelly once had a habit of flashing his genitals on set, as a joke.  He now regrets the exposure (probably in two senses of the word).  Nick Vallelonga is contrite about a tweet he posted endorsing @realDonaldTrump’s claim that Muslims in Jersey City cheered on 9/11 when the Twin Towers went down.  Vallelonga, who sounds like a man with an eye to the main chance, ‘especially deeply apologize[s] to the incredibly brilliant and kind Mahershala Ali and all members of the Muslim faith for the hurt I have caused’.  Ali himself is apologetic too, in response to claims by the Shirley family that Green Book travesties the true relationship between the two principals.  The actor wrote to Don Shirley’s nephew that ‘I did the best I could with the material I had’ and wasn’t aware there were ‘close relatives with whom I could have consulted to add some nuance to the character’.  Since Don Shirley died as recently as 2013 (just a few weeks after Tony Vallelonga), it seems surprising that Ali didn’t trouble to ask sooner if such relatives existed.  At a promotional event shortly before Green Book opened in North America, Viggo Mortensen used the ‘N’ word – all six letters – so he also has had to say sorry.

    While the film is essentially manipulative and opportunistic, I’m not sure some of the factual inaccuracies that have generated objections are a major problem.  The fact that, for example, the road trip was much longer than two months seems unimportant.  The question of what happened between Don and Tony after the trip matters more but the closing text on screen doesn’t detail the nature of their alleged ‘friendship’ and that word is open to very different interpretations.  The Shirley family insist the relationship was purely that of employer-employee; perhaps Don and Tony never had any further contact.  But if they did, and even if that consisted of no more than, say, annual exchange of Christmas cards, it doesn’t seem a gross misrepresentation to describe them as friends.  Even so, this is another instance of a biographical film that causes you to ask why, if the people behind it were keen to depart from the facts, they didn’t change the names of the characters.  Don Shirley may have been well known half a century ago but he was hardly Nat King Cole (mentioned in the film as a contemporary who experienced some of the same difficulties that Shirley did).  Perhaps the names are unchanged largely because Nick Vallelonga was determined to commemorate his father.

    The most striking of the four controversies outlined above is the one involving Viggo Mortensen.  He had prefaced the offending remark with ‘I don’t like saying this word’ and was making the point that its largely discontinued use was a good thing.  He wasn’t applying the term but making a reasonable remark about its former application.  Yet his saying ‘nigger’ rather than ‘the N-word’ was considered no less reprehensible than voicing the word abusively.  Perhaps the sentence I’ve just written is open to the same criticism.   It’s this kind of reaction that gives political correctness – that is, an obtusely narrow interpretation of political correctness – a bad name.

    After the night in Birmingham, Don and Tony decide to try to make it back home in time for Christmas Eve.  It’s a long journey in challenging weather and a nice touch that, for the last few miles, Tony is so dog tired that Don takes over the driving.   Back in New York, Tony returns to a boisterous family celebration.  He invites Don to join him but Don declines.  He returns to the opulent loneliness of his pied-à-terre, where he tells his quiet, conscientious valet (Iqbal Theba) to go home and enjoy the holiday with his family.  Tony, though glad to be back with Dolores and their kids, is unusually pensive.  Then, in true rom-com style, Don turns up at the front door.  Tony delightedly welcomes him in and introduces him to Dolores, who has the last line of the script:  she quietly thanks Don for the letters.  You get the distinct impression from this finale that Peter Farrelly et al have planned not just a box-office hit but a Christmas television perennial for the future.  By the end of the film, you feel a bit like Don Shirley, trying but failing to avoid that piece of KFC.  You can take a dim view of Green Book but also see why people find it tasty.

    14 February 2019

Posts navigation