Monthly Archives: September 2021

  • The Nest

    Sean Durkin (2020)

    Sean Durkin’s second cinema film arrives nearly a decade after his first, Martha Marcy May Marlene.  In the meantime, he’s racked up several producing credits but only one for directing – the 2013 British television mini-series Southcliffe.  That was scripted by Tony Grisoni but, as with his debut feature, Durkin has the sole writing credit on The Nest.  The film’s first half is promising, the second increasingly disappointing – and surprising only in its failure to surprise.  The main character, Rory O’Hara (Jude Law), is a trader in the financial markets – an Englishman abroad at the start of the story.  He works in New York, where he lives with his American wife Allison (Carrie Coon), their pre-adolescent son Ben (Charlie Shotwell) and Sam (Oona Roche), Allison’s older daughter from a previous relationship.  Rory suddenly announces to Allison he’s gone as far as he can on Wall Street.   It’s the mid-1980s and the deregulation of British financial markets is kicking in.  He reckons the other side of the pond is now the place to make a bigger splash.  Selfishly ambitious Rory is asking for trouble.  He gets his comeuppance ad nauseam.

    Durkin sets things up effectively, though.  We don’t hear the phone conversation with his former boss in London but we see from Rory’s face that he’s keeping a secret from his family – a secret that his zippy bonhomie easily conceals from them.  When he plays soccer with Ben and one of his friends, Rory is a big kid who has to win but the boys enjoy themselves, too.  He travels to England ahead of Allison, Sam and Ben, and, proudly excited, welcomes them to the pile in the Surrey countryside that he’s bought as their new home.  He informs the children that the flooring dates from the 1700s and, if that’s not enough, that Led Zeppelin once stayed at the mansion.  Rory asks the car driver who’s conveyed the rest of the family there to take a photo of them all.  The driver obliges before it’s pointed out that Sam isn’t in the group.  A second photo, including her, is taken, at Rory’s request.  The moment, even so, is a neatly incisive indication of the relative importance to him of his son and his stepdaughter.  Soon after, we learn that Sam is attending a state school while Ben has been enrolled in a private one.

    Commodity broker Arthur Davis (Michael Culkin) welcomes back Rory with open arms.   He and his wife (Annabel Leventon) even host a posh soirée, at which Arthur describes Rory to the gathering as one of the most talented men he’s ever known.  In the course of this tribute, Arthur also mentions that Rory asked to rejoin his firm.  This is news to Allison, whose husband told her Arthur was begging Rory to come back on board.  He’s too drunk on hearing his praises sung to notice that Arthur has revealed his lie to Allison.  But this is a turning point in The Nest and hints at what proves to be the fundamental weakness of Durkin’s script.  It transpires that Rory’s transatlantic career had ground to a halt; back in London, he’s failing to seal any new deals and, at the same time, ostentatiously living beyond his means.  Durkin, in effect, equates the moral bankruptcy of Rory’s ambition with financial bankruptcy.  Since plenty of people with similar values did very well out of the Big Bang of 1986, it can’t credibly be suggested that the likes of Rory were doomed to fail.  Perhaps Durkin believes deregulation helped sow the seeds of the global financial crisis twenty years later but this isn’t the message he conveys because Rory goes broke immediately – whereas the relatively unassuming Steve (Adeel Akhtar), another of Arthur’s team and Rory’s former friend as well as colleague, goes from strength to strength.  The film focuses so much on Rory’s personal defects that he ceases to be a typical financial wheeler-dealer, and The Nest can’t succeed as a critique of brittle capitalism.

    By not allowing Rory to be any good at his job, Durkin makes it a puzzle as to why shrewd Arthur lauds his former protégé so extravagantly.  He’s also initially receptive to Rory’s proposal that Arthur sell his company to a more powerful American outfit looking for a London base:  Arthur agrees to talk to Rory’s contact in Chicago.  It’s a few days later, after the latter has been refusing to answer his calls, that Rory discovers Arthur didn’t like the terms offered and broke off discussions.  When Rory demands to know why Arthur didn’t tell him, the answer is that it was late on the previous Friday afternoon when Arthur pulled the plug.  It makes no sense that Rory, immoderately pleased with his big idea, has let the best part of another working week go by without checking with Arthur how talks are progressing (especially when Rory can’t get to speak to Chicago).

    It’s no more clear what Allison sees in her husband or what, apart from good sex and the cup of tea he brings to her bedside each morning, has kept their relationship going even in New York.  Allison enjoys her work there as a riding instructor and doesn’t want to uproot the family’s life.  She’s seemingly placated when Rory arranges for stables to be built in the vast grounds of their English home – until, that is, the builder’s men down tools because his bills aren’t getting paid.  Whereas his antipathy to Rory is unequivocal and limiting, Durkin’s treatment of his female protagonist is vague.  Although Carrie Coon’s emotional variety helps convert this to involving ambiguity, it’s ever harder to ignore the suspicion that Allison is difficult to pin down chiefly because her character is underwritten.  For example, the controlled feminist indignation she shows at the Davises’ party goes nowhere.

    Allison is also on the receiving end of more than her fair share of clumsy plotting.  It’s through a phone conversation with the builder that she finds out about the unpaid bills but, when her beloved horse Richmond collapses, she doesn’t think of phoning for a vet.  Instead, she fetches up at a local farm to seek help.  It’s not as if Allison knows the mansion’s telephone has been disconnected (another unpaid bill):  she learns that from Rory when he returns home later, and they have one of several stand-up rows.  The farmer, who pronounces Richmond beyond help and shoots him, is introduced also to allow Allison, in order to earn a few quid, to get labouring work with him.  She seems to find the work fulfilling but it’s hardly mentioned again – until she tells astounded fellow diners at a swanky London restaurant what her job is.  This dinner, with prospective business partners for Steve and Rory, is the first stage of a gruesome night that forms the climax to the story.  Allison is there because her husband wants to her to create a decorative good impression but the marital relationship is now in such a parlous state that it’s impossible to believe she’d  agree to help him out.  She doesn’t appear to accompany Rory with the intention of stymieing him – she speaks her mind only in infuriated reaction to his arrogant bullshit in the restaurant.

    In any case, Rory’s more than capable of stymieing himself single-handed:  the other men at the dinner decide they want a deal but with the proviso that it involves Steve only.  Durkin really won’t give Rory an inch.  After learning that the Chicago buyout is off, he decides to visit his mother (Anne Reid) in her London council flat.  He’s been estranged from her, and from his brother, for years – supposedly because his father, no longer around, was a violent abuser.  The mother knows nothing about Allison or the children, though it seems surprising that ultra-competitive Rory hasn’t wanted to keep boasting to her about how high he’s risen above his humble beginnings.  It’s even more surprising that he chooses the occasion of a big knockback at work for a reunion with his mother:  he can hardly be looking for sympathy from her and certainly doesn’t get it.  Jude Law is engaging at the start but his portrait, rather than leavening Durkin’s conception of the character, curdles into reinforcement of it.  Law pushes too hard to make Rory obnoxious.  He’d have done better to use some of the charm he gave Dickie Greenleaf in The Talented Mr Ripley.  At least we could then have seen Rory, even temporarily, as personally and professionally plausible.

    There’s good work in the smaller parts from Adeel Akhtar, Michael Culkin and Anne Reid, and Oona Roche and Charlie Shotwell are both effective.  The nature of Sam’s rebellion against her new life is a bit obvious – the evening that Rory and Allison are up in London, Sam lets the dodgy local teenagers she’s fallen in with take over the house; Allison returns early next morning to find the entrance paint-sprayed with abusive graffiti – but the tensions between mother and daughter are well played by Roche and Carrie Coon.  And Ben’s decline is one of the most striking elements of the whole piece:  a carefree kid in New York, he grows longer, thinner and more depressed in Surrey.  The mansion, however, is something of a letdown.  I wasn’t expecting – or wanting – a haunted house mystery.  I think I was expecting more sense of connection between the family’s new, singular environment and the dégringolade that nearly destroys them.  (Durkin made much more expressive use of the premises occupied by the cult in Martha Macy May Marlene)Mátyás Erdély, who shot Son of Saul (2015), is the cinematographer and his lighting is impressive throughout.  Other aspects of the camerawork, though, become – like the film as a whole – progressively less interesting.  In the early stages, Sean Durkin creates an impression of the characters being watched though they don’t know it.  By the end of The Nest, the camera movement isn’t much more than hyperactive.

    2 September 2021

  • Once Upon a Time in America

    Sergio Leone (1984)

    Films made by artists and butchered by studios have an understandably special place in cineaste hearts.  The outrage of commercially-driven barbarism renders the quality of the released picture of almost secondary importance; besides, its defects can always be ascribed to its incompleteness.  These aren’t exactly films maudits, more films mutilés – Orson Welles’s The Magnificent Ambersons is perhaps the paradigm.   Another particularly admired type of work, provided its creator has auteur status, is the film marathon.  You sometimes wonder, when audience members break into applause at the end of one of these, if they’re really acclaiming their own stamina.

    Sergio Leone’s Once Upon a Time in America thereby has a dual appeal.  When this labour of movie love, years in the making, premiered at the Cannes Festival in 1984, Leone had already made serial reductions to its enormous length – down to three hours, forty-nine minutes.  The story moves back and forth between three periods – 1918, the early 1930s and 1968.  The version prepared by the Ladd Company for release in US cinemas later in the year not only removed another ninety minutes of running time but reorganised the narrative into chronological order.  If the aim was to increase the picture’s popular appeal by making it more straightforward, the result was spectacularly counterproductive.  Critics deplored the abbreviated film’s incoherence and Once Upon a Time in America bombed at the North American box office.  Unlike The Magnificent Ambersons, however, the excised material wasn’t destroyed: indeed, the 229-minute version was the one released in European cinemas in 1984.  A restoration in 2012, more than two decades after Leone’s death, reinstated a further twenty-odd minutes’ worth of cut scenes.  This 255-minute film is the one screened this month at BFI, as part of their Ennio Morricone season.

    This is the second-longest film I’ve seen in a single session after Bertolucci’s 1900 (311 minutes).  There was a strong feeling of mission accomplished at the end – a consequence of having prepared to see Once Upon a Time in America on several previous occasions and always failing even to reach the starting line.  (Most recently, it was a Covid-closure casualty at BFI last autumn.)  Even so, I was keen to escape rather than applaud, and left NFT1 at the start of the presumably numerous credits and before anyone else had put their hands together, if anyone did.  Knowing what the film was about and the plot consisted of, I was wondering beforehand what made it so lengthy.  The very early stages suggested a partial, rather dismal explanation:  the pauses between lines regularly felt longer than the sentences uttered.  But either I soon got used to this tempo or it changed; at any rate, I stopped noticing it.  I came out baffled as to how the film lasts the best part of an hour longer than The Godfather: Part II.  Unlike Coppola’s masterpiece, Leone’s monster doesn’t tell a highly complex story or express a large vision.  I see that I described 1900 as ‘a curate’s egg but also a banquet’.  Once Upon a Time in America is epic only in duration.

    There are two particularly obvious points in common with 1900.  Leone, like Bertolucci, chronicles a relationship formed in boyhood and which persists through the adult lives of the two men concerned.  In both films, one of them is played by Robert De Niro.  In Leone’s story – based on The Hoods a 1952 novel-cum-autobiography by Harry Grey, the pen name of ex-gangster Herschel Goldberg – De Niro is David ‘Noodles’ Aaronson.  As a young teenager (played by Scott Tiler), Noodles is one of a group of Jewish street kids in New York City who commit petty crimes under the supervision of local crime boss Bugsy (James Russo).  These embryo hoods also include Max Berkovicz (Rusty Jacobs) – and it’s the friendship between him and Noodles that’s the heart of the film.  Max, Noodles and three other lads – Cockeye (Adrian Curran), Dominic (Noah Moazezi) and Patsy (Brian Bloom) – start operating independently of their overseer.  In the climax to the 1918 narrative strand, Bugsy shoots and kills Dominic; in retaliation, Noodles fatally stabs Bugsy, wounds a bent cop in cahoots with him, and goes to prison.

    At the start of the 1930s strand, Noodles (now De Niro) is released from jail and met by Max (James Woods).  He and the other two surviving members of the teenage gang (William Forsythe is Cockeye and James Hayden Patsy) are successful bootleggers.  Noodles rejoins forces with them.  The end of Prohibition in 1933 is a turning point for the gang.  Max proposes partnership with the Teamsters’ union; Noodles says no.  Then Max wants to rob the New York Federal Reserve Bank.  Noodles refuses to be part of the planned robbery.  He is (surprisingly?) persuaded by Max’s girl Carol (Tuesday Weld) to turn police informer about a lesser offence – the idea being that all four men will thereby serve a short jail sentence and Max will be prevented, at least temporarily, from getting other big, bad ideas.   Shortly after making the phone call, Noodles is horrified to learn that the police have shot Max, Patsy and Cockeye dead.  He leaves New York City for Buffalo, and life there under a false identity.

    Thirty-five years later and still guilt-stricken, Noodles returns to Manhattan after being informed, by letter, of the imminent redevelopment of the cemetery where his brothers-in-arms are buried.  Returning to old haunts naturally stirs up flashbacks (one of them heralded by ‘Yesterday’ on the soundtrack!).  The letter he receives, asking him to approve arrangements for the trio’s reburial, proves that someone knows Noodles’ identity.  This turns out to be Max, who isn’t dead at all.  (Not too surprising:  when Leone shows the three corpses lying in the street, Max’s is especially unidentifiable.)  Max’s name is now Christopher Bailey and he’s the US Secretary of Commerce.  Noodles reads news reports about a major corruption scandal with Bailey at its centre but without realising who the latter really is.  In due course, Noodles discovers plenty more.  Deborah (Elizabeth McGovern), the love of Noodles’ life, is now (a) a famous actress and (b) Bailey’s mistress.  Max has a son, David, who, as Noodles sees, is the image of his father (he’s played, like the teenage Max, by Rusty Jacobs).  Now the penny drops as to Bailey’s identity.  The stage is set for a climactic reunion where Max – faced with ruin and the risk of assassination by the Teamsters’ union that Bailey got into bed with – asks Noodles to kill him.  Noodles won’t do so and makes his exit.  As he’s leaving Max/Bailey’s mansion, he hears a garbage truck start up and sees Max, at the mansion’s gated entrance, starting to approach.  The truck then obscures Max from view; once the vehicle passes, there’s no sign of him.  Noodles watches garbage writhing in the auger at the back of the truck.

    The links between organised crime, organised labour and corrupt police and politicians, although important to the plot, don’t develop much dramatic substance.  Leone does little, despite the principals’ distinct ethnicity, to root their psychology or motivations in the community in which they grew up.  The Jewish elements are mostly names of characters or outside stores and other businesses on Manhattan’s East Side; there’s a Star of David in the plate glass of a restaurant that’s a key location throughout.  Noodles, Max et al aren’t carrying on a tradition (I missed any references there may have been to their parents, other than to Max’s father’s insanity) – so there’s nothing comparable to The Godfather films’ description of synergy between blood family and Mafia Family, or to the Corleones’ problematic code of honour.  Leone doesn’t feel the need to pursue these kinds of connection; he sees his characters’ associations differently.  They’re kin to the dramatis personae of Hollywood gangster movies past – that’s the tradition and community to which they really belong.

    Not only is Once Upon a Time in America steeped in this mythology; it means to be a series of reflections on it – or even a kind of reverie.  Late on in the 1930s section, early in the narrative as a whole, Noodles, pursued by a trio of thugs, is holed up in an opium den, hidden within a Chinese wayang theatre.  The place is also where the film ends; Leone, in both sequences, shows the shadow play of wayang puppets on the theatre wall.   Everything that comes in between – the scenes of Noodles’ recent and more distant past, and decades into his future – has been interpreted by some serious students of the picture as going on inside the protagonist’s head.  Leone himself, in an interview published in 1987, confirmed ‘the validity of this interpretation, saying that the scenes set in the 1960s could be seen as an opium dream of Noodles’[1].  I don’t get this.  It’s true the visual style has its woozy aspects – there’s a sluggish rhythm and a lingering over images, even in scenes of mayhem.  And perhaps Noodles’s fantasy accounts for some of the improbable details in the plot:  for example, Christopher Bailey is making newspaper and TV headlines but without any photographs that would reveal his identity to Noodles.  But the dream theory opens up unhelpful questions as to how much of Noodles’s past is memory, how much invention.  As for his future:  if this is all a dream, how does he manage to envisage the look of the late 1960s with such uncanny accuracy?

    Whatever the level of unreality on which the film may be operating, Leone must surely have intended more convincingly real performances than some of those he gets.  He was used to directing Anglophone actors speaking English dialogue but much less experienced in supervising naturalistic acting.  (This wasn’t what he needed from Clint Eastwood, Eli Wallach and Lee Van Cleef in the Dollars trilogy of spaghetti westerns.  I don’t know the subsequent Once Upon a Time in the West, whose cast included far better actors, like Henry Fonda and Jason Robards.)   The kids in the 1918 part of Once Upon a Time in America are weak – a serious problem since this is where the main characters’ blood-brotherhood develops and is most clearly expressed.  (The 1930s part is more about tensions within the group.)  Scott Tiler and Rusty Jacobs, because they’re in such crucial roles, are a particular liability.   They act – and react – dutifully, effortfully.  There’s no fluency in their characterisation.

    Once the boys are men, the acting isn’t that hot either from William Forsythe and James Hayden (who was dead, at the age of twenty-eight, even before the film was released).  James Woods’s looks make Max a relatively distinctive gangster and Woods is a capable actor but Max’s deranged outbursts – he’s terrified of having inherited the madness gene – become predictable.  People who’d already made an impression in other roles and/or would do so in the future – Danny Aiello, Joe Pesci, Treat Williams, Burt Young – are even more capable but only Williams among them has more than a scene or two.  A definite benefit of the 2012 additions is the recovery of a cameo from Louise Fletcher.  As prefatory on-screen text made clear, the additions are easily identifiable because the state of the recovered material affects the colour range and the sound quality.  This may even enhance the episode in which the sixty-something Noodles visits the cemetery where his friends are buried:  the technical defects make the place more eerie.  So does Fletcher’s cemetery director, with a mouth that smiles and eyes that don’t.

    Over the course of four hours plus, though, the performances wouldn’t be much without Robert De Niro, especially as the older Noodles.  (In his late thirties when the film was made, he’s rather too mature in the 1930s scenes, where his character is around a decade younger.)  Now that the elderly De Niro is a reality, a viewer new to the film is liable to under-appreciate how easily and completely he incarnates a senior citizen.  It’s just a pity that, in the 1968 sequences, he’s not given much to do except look sadly reflective.  It’s a pity, too, that Leone chooses to end with a freeze frame as Noodles, in the opium den, looks straight at the camera.  De Niro’s familiar cracked grin in this final shot, conspicuous by its absence in what’s gone before in the film, is a reminder of Travis Bickle and others, at the expense of Noodles.  And even De Niro can’t do much with another major failure of Once Upon a Time in America, the enduring romance between Noodles and the love of his life, Deborah.

    It’s hardly surprising that sizeable female roles are thin on the ground – or that the few exceptions are women raped, threatened at gunpoint or shot dead (or a combination of these).  It’s also hardly surprising, therefore, that Darianne Fleugel (as a girlfriend of Noodles) and Tuesday Weld make rather too much of their opportunities.  Even when they’re adolescents, Noodles is crazy for Deborah (Jennifer Connelly), whose family runs the restaurant with the Star of David.  She’s the younger sister of Fat Moe (Mike Monetti), whose older self (Larry Rapp) takes over the restaurant.  Deborah is already in love with performing and wants to be a dancer.  In the 1930s, she (now Elizabeth McGovern) ends up going to Hollywood.  In 1968, she’s a celebrated stage actress, whom Noodles watches playing Cleopatra.

    Jennifer Connelly, barely a teenager at the time, is in a different class from the other young actors, her face as animated as it’s beautiful:  Deborah’s teasing hauteur makes her a kind of Estella to Noodles’s Pip.  Elizabeth McGovern is poor, though.  Her mask of melancholy rarely changes; the same goes for her voice.  The poster for the Antony and Cleopatra she appears in quotes below the play’s title ‘Age cannot wither her …’   The words apply to McGovern’s Deborah in the wrong way:  her face, wearing a permanent moue, is that of a petulant adolescent more than Jennifer Connelly’s is.  It’s an unfortunate irony that Elizabeth McGovern plays someone who becomes a great actress.  It’s another that the connection between the character’s younger and older versions is thanks, at this distance in time, to Connelly’s acquiring, as an adult performer, the same qualities that mar McGovern’s portrait of Deborah.

    Ennio Morricone’s score is variously melodic (and the music played on Gheorghe Zamfir’s pan flute especially lovely) but the variety serves to draw attention to the monotony of much of the action on the screen.  Tonino Delli Colli’s lighting and Carlo Simi’s production design are very fine but New York street scenes are often pieces of meticulous recreation waiting to life to happen in them.  On the night before Deborah departs for Hollywood, Noodles proposes marriage to her in a de luxe Long Island restaurant that he’s hired for the occasion.  (She turns him down and he rapes her in the car journey home.)  Their table for two is one of scores but there are no other diners, only myriad waiters and waitresses attending to the unhappy couple.  The scene registers in two ways, as Noodles’s Gatsby-ish attempt to impress that Leone presumably intended, and inadvertently.  The vast, expensive, empty setting epitomises Once Upon a Time in America‘s fatuous grandiosity.

    28 August 2021

    [1] The interview is one of several in Noël Simsolo’s Conversations avec Sergio Leone.

Posts navigation