Monthly Archives: February 2021

  • Malcolm & Marie

    Sam Levinson (2021)

    It was no surprise but still an apt coincidence that two of 2020’s stronger films mostly confined their characters to the same indoor location.  No surprise because Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom and One Night in Miami were originally (and, on screen, still essentially are) stage plays.  One of 2021’s earliest releases, Malcolm & Marie, is a different matter – a movie conceived and developed in the lockdown world.  A two-hander, shot within or just outside a private home in Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, Sam Levinson’s film ‘was the first Hollywood feature to be entirely written, financed, and produced during the COVID-19 pandemic, with filming taking place in secret in June and July 2020’ (Wikipedia).  Malcolm & Marie may thereby have a place in cinema history but it’s an unsatisfying, in some respects troubling, piece of work.

    Malcolm Elliott (John David Washington) is a film-maker.  Marie Jones (Zendaya) is his girlfriend.  They return to a rented Malibu beach house after the premiere of ‘Imani’, a movie that Malcolm has written and directed.  When they first get in Malcolm’s on a high but not for long.  Marie is hurt that, when he spoke at the premiere and thanked various people, she wasn’t included.  What’s more, the title character in his film is a woman of colour and a self-harming drug addict; Marie, who also fits that description or did until she kicked her habit, accuses Malcolm of basing his protagonist on her.  He refutes the charge at length, listing facets of the character inspired by his other previous girlfriends before claiming that Imani is modelled chiefly on himself.  He then recites angrily, and even more wordily, Marie’s many faults.  She doesn’t say much back.  Once he’s shouted himself out, they reconcile.  Until the next thing that gets Malcolm going.

    That’s how Malcolm & Marie is structured.  Although written directly for the screen, the script has stage-play features.  Actors with lots to say and do in the theatre need a break every now and then.  The couple’s short ceasefires supply that.  (After he and Marie have made up the first time, Malcolm goes for a pee.  Both characters regularly visit the bathroom – virtually the wings, except that the camera keeps them company there.)  What’s more, the writer-director needs to organise his material to spin it out to feature length (106 minutes), cutting what in essence is a continuous set-to into slices – or slabs – of dialogue, which are usually Malcolm monologues.  When he returns from his loo break Marie, who used to be an actress, asks why he didn’t cast her as Imani.  He yells, ‘So that’s what all this is about!’ and goes off on one again.  He may be right about what’s really eating Marie – it emerges she auditioned for the lead in Malcolm’s film – but you feel that Sam Levinson (Barry’s son) has delayed this wodge of discord not as a psychological insight but for his own practical purposes.  Whatever, it makes for an awkward transition.  It’s as if, while Malcolm was out of the room, Marie was working out how to wind him up next.

    That said, Malcolm is easily enraged and Marie isn’t the sole irritant.  She hears an alarming off-screen roar and stream of expletives and asks what’s wrong:  turns out that Malcolm, anxious to look up the first reviews of his film, is having trouble with the beach house Wi-Fi.  When he does manage to access a crit on his phone this triggers another lengthy paroxysm, at the end of which Marie quietly delivers one of Levinson’s few funny lines:  ‘This is how you react to a good review?’   The notice, from the Los Angeles Times, is by a white female critic:  Malcolm holds forth on how she doesn’t understand what he was trying to do in ‘Imani’.  His tirade includes a couple of sharp comments about the inadvertently racist allowances that a liberal white woman critic might make for a Black male director (allowances she’d be unlikely to make for a white male director) – but the speech is worrying as the climax to a persistent element of the script.

    Malcolm has a great deal to say throughout about films and film-makers.  He’s annoyed that his work will be compared with that of Spike Lee and Barry Jenkins but not with the white Hollywood classics he reveres – The Best Years of Our Lives, Citizen Kane.   The complaint is arrogantly preposterous:  if, as it seems, ‘Imani’ is Malcolm’s first feature, it seems early in his career for him to be compared with anyone.  And how many debutant white directors today get compared with William Wyler or Orson Welles?  Sam Levinson seems to want to suggest the particular frustrations of a Black director but the absurdity of Malcolm’s expectations and the detail of the movie references make you wonder if he’s not a mouthpiece for Levinson himself.  I’m not saying that, as a white writer-director, Levinson has no business attempting to speak for a Black one but nor am I convinced that he has honestly tried to do that in Malcolm & Marie – the assumed African-American perspective feels increasingly hollow.  A different black-and-white issue concerns the cinematography (by Marcell Rév).   In her largely negative review in Time, Stephanie Zacharek says, admiringly, that the film ‘looks fantastic, a black-and-white retro-mod reverie as cushiony as an Eames lounge chair’.  That’s just the problem – Levinson’s monochrome is merely stylish, in contrast to the visuals in, say, Andrei Konchalovsky’s recent Dear Comrades!

    Even allowing that the set-up makes it hard for the actor playing Malcolm not to be tiresome, Zendaya fares better than John David Washington, who is effortful from the start.  When he and Marie return from the premiere Malcolm’s exuberance comes across not as natural euphoria but as Washington’s pumped-up, strenuously achieved high spirits.  In comparison, Zendaya draws the camera effortlessly.  Her more nuanced delivery is reinforced by a lissom physicality – although Malcolm’s repeated chatter about the male gaze has the effect of drawing attention to how much of the film Sam Levinson spends observing his actress in underwear.  Like Zendaya, the score, by Labrinth, has a flexibility largely absent from the writing and direction, and from John David Washington’s acting.

    At the height of the quarrel about not casting her as Imani, Marie emerges from the kitchen brandishing a big knife; Malcolm is terrified she’s going to stab herself or him.  She keeps him in suspense – it’s her turn, at last, to dominate the conversation.  Marie then suddenly switches to calmness:  she was only pretending.  ‘Why didn’t you do that in the audition?’ asks Malcolm.  It sounds like another decent punchline except that his question gives the impression Malcolm knew all along that Marie was kidding – which is not the impression he gave for as long as she had the weapon in her hand.  He should have known, though:  I’d guess plenty of viewers will, as I did, assume throughout the scene that Marie is putting on an act.  If this is what you assume, you may well, as I also did, find the knife pretence one of the film’s more convincing episodes.  That says something about Malcolm & Marie.

    7 February 2021

  • Saint Maud

    Rose Glass (2019)

    The last two or three years have seen plenty of lauded horror films – the Ari Aster pair Hereditary and Midsommar, Jordan Peele’s Us, Natalie Erika James‘s Relic.  Having been negative about them all, I made an effort to see the positive in this addition to the list, the debut feature of the young British writer-director Rose Glass.  That kind of resolution isn’t the best approach to a film.  The effort probably deserved to fail and eventually did, though Saint Maud is promising for a while.  In keeping with current fashion, Glass announces her macabre intentions instantly.  A prologue, accompanied by the first sounds of Adam Janota Bzowski’s discomfiting score, features the staring-into-the-camera face of a young woman wearing bloodstained medical scrubs; a corpse laid out nearby; a plump cockroach crawling down a wall; a shot of viscous, bubbling blood with the look of tomato soup on the boil.  But the narrative then settles into something more obliquely unnerving.

    The woman in the prologue is Maud (Morfydd Clark), next seen praying for guidance and success in her new role as a private palliative carer.  Her American patient, Amanda Kohl (Jennifer Ehle), is a former ‘dancer, choreographer and minor celebrity’:  Maud explains in voiceover – and, it seems, to God – she looked up her patient online, adding that she’s not keen on ‘creative types’, who ‘tend to be self-involved’.  Yet the chalk-and-cheese pair hit it off.  Amused by Maud’s brisk naivete and crucifix necklace, the sophisticated, wheelchair-bound Amanda is nevertheless appreciative of the quality care she’s receiving.  When she first asks about the crucifix Maud closes off the conversation.  When the unbelieving, terminally ill woman admits her fear of death, however, the young nurse recognises Amanda’s potential as a soul to save.  This is a relief to Maud, who’s getting impatient with God (her manner of speaking to Him is direct to the point of demanding) for a sign that her professional engagement can also be a fruitful religious mission.

    The settings and atmosphere – an English resort town out of season, Maud’s cell-like dwelling, Amanda’s crepuscular bedroom – may not be greatly original but they’re a serviceable context for a tale of psychological disturbance and, in due course, horror, and Glass doesn’t overstress their ominous possibilities.  She also makes the mutual dependency of Maud and Amanda intriguing.  Amanda needs nursing care; socially isolated Maud could use some human as well as divine company.  She combines the two in telling Amanda that she sometimes feels God as a tangible presence.  She’s delighted that her show of ecstasy prompts Amanda to say she feels the presence too.  Amanda makes Maud a gift of Morton D Paley’s book on William Blake, complete with Ancient of Days jacket illustration and a dedication to Maud ‘my saviour’. The words are surrounded by a pair of angel wings – a humorous doodle but no joke to the dedicatee.

    Maud may be a weird instrument of salvation but you feel Amanda could use deliverance from her worldly friends.  Slick, ineffectual Richard (Marcus Hutton) pays her a visit, asks why Amanda’s holed up in a seaside dump when she could be living in London, and, when she collapses, has to phone Maud, who returns from solitary exile for the evening in a Wimpy bar to take charge.  Another, more regular visitor to the house, Carol (Lily Frazer), proves crucial in the story.  The increasingly possessive Maud finds out – or, at least, is convinced – that Amanda pays Carol for sex.  Maud tells her to stop coming to the house because she’s jeopardising the fate of Amanda’s soul.  Carol, though miffed, appears to comply until she reappears at Amanda’s birthday party.  (The large bohemian turnout is surprising for a back-of-beyond coastal resort.)   After announcing to the gathering that Maud tried to send Carol away, Amanda mocks her nurse for trying to save her spiritually.  Maud retaliates by striking Amanda, and loses her job.

    When Amanda dispenses with her services Maud also falls out with God, whom she characteristically ticks off for rejecting her.  This, alas, is the last of her distinctive discourse with Him.  After building suspenseful interest in her protagonist’s relationships with the Almighty and Amanda, Saint Maud now largely ditches both:  Rose Glass has merely been paving the way for the shock events and images that dominate the second half of the film (which runs only eighty-four minutes, though they pass increasingly slowly).  Morfydd Clark’s sympathetic playing compels interest in her character.  Clark is especially arresting when Maud’s surface behaviour and conversation are deceptively rational – for example, when she engineers an apparently chance meeting with Ester (Rosie Sansom), Amanda’s replacement carer.

    I wanted to know more of how Maud’s seemingly recent conversion had come about.  Glass not only ignores that but eschews any exploration of her screwed up personality.  When she first bumps into Joy (Lily Knight), who nurses at the hospital where both used to work, we learn that Maud’s real name is Katie (though I’ll stick with Maud):  it’s confirmed she left following the death of a patient in her care, as luridly depicted in the film’s opening sequence.  Once she’s thoroughly alone, Maud goes to a pub, where she tries and fails to latch on to other people socially.  She does, though, manage to give a quick handjob to one young man (Jonathan Milshaw) before taking another man (Turlough Convery) back to her flat.  While they’re having sex Maud is traumatised by flashbacks to the death of her patient and has to stop.  Undaunted, the man in her bed rapes her, telling Maud he recognises her as the whore a friend of his once had sex with.

    Earlier on, Maud informs Amanda that her chosen saint is Mary Magdalene and that it’s a mistake to think the New Testament describes her as a prostitute (Maud is correct on that).  Her pickup’s abusive treatment and disparagement of her past hint heavily at why the Magdalene is personally meaningful to Maud – but that’s as far as Glass goes.  By now, Maud is a less individual zealot than she was when chivvying God.  She becomes, instead, a familiar screen religious maniac.  She ratchets up the self-mortification.  She levitates, or imagines herself levitating.  We hear the voice of God, in the person of the crucified Christ, speaking to her (in Welsh, according to a review on the website ‘Thinking Faith’!).  Maud interprets rolling clouds in the sky as a further heavenly communication.

    Draped in a sheet to look vaguely Biblical and bearing rosary beads, she returns to Amanda’s house.  Now close to death, Amanda asks forgiveness for having mocked her faith but when Maud reminds her of the time they shared the presence of God her former patient is demonically transformed.  The voice of Satan issues (The Exorcist-style) from her as she scornfully tells Maud she was only pretending to experience God, who doesn’t exist.  Maud loses it and stabs Amanda to death.  In Saint Maud’s big finish, the heroine goes to the seashore, sprouts luminous angel wings, douses herself in acetone, exclaims ‘Glory to God’, self-immolates and, in her dying moments, sees horrified onlookers genuflect as she’s consumed in fire.

    The above-mentioned ‘Thinking Faith’ piece describes Maud as ‘converted to a rather evangelical brand of Christianity’.  Wikipedia’s plot synopsis terms the title character ‘a devout Roman Catholic’.  Given Rose Glass’s approach, the differing interpretations are reasonable.  Glass wants the best of both denominations – the evangelical’s hotline to God, the variously suggestive iconography of Catholicism.  It’s the latter’s inherently richer visual possibilities, rather than the personality or cultural background of Maud, that determine its eventual dominance.  With an ominous sound design (by Paul Davies) and images that are full-blooded in more ways than one (the cinematographer is Ben Fordesman), Saint Maud isn’t easily described as a facile film yet I think it is.  In making Maud inexplicably bonkers, Glass is leaning on anti-religious prejudice.  (It wasn’t until the closing credits that I picked up the name of the one-night-stand who rapes Maud:  it’s Christian.)  Confident that many in her audience will be primed to see life-governing piety as pathological per se, she can abandon Maud as a character (or even a case) study.  Glass uses a saint manqué, rather, as a means to the end of a virtuoso horror show.

    3 February 2021

Posts navigation