Old Yorker

  • Burnt

    John Wells (2015)

    A screenplay by Steven Knight (Locke); Bradley Cooper and Sienna Miller again, soon after their success together in American Sniper:  there are good reasons for seeing Burnt – until you see it.  This is the story of a chef, Adam Jones (Cooper) – brilliant, temperamental, thoroughly screwed up.  He was the rising star of a Michelin-starred Paris kitchen until drinks, drugs and a relationship with the daughter of the restaurant’s legendary head chef brought about Adam’s downfall.  Since then, he’s been in weird, self-imposed purdah – working in an oyster bar, where he resolved to shuck one million bivalves.  Job done, Adam moves to London, intent on getting three Michelin stars under his own steam.  He becomes head chef at the Langham Hotel:  Tony (Daniel Brühl), the maître d’hôtel, is an old acquaintance.  Since the Paris cataclysm, Adam has given up alchohol, narcotics and sex but he’s not improved by abstinence, as evidenced by his loco megalomaniac behaviour in the Langham kitchen.

    The received idea of the genius chef is now a man (it must be a man) who demands of himself and his staff nothing less than perfection, a short-fused stickler for kitchen discipline, a borderline tyrant.   The image derives as much from the endless parade of formidable culinary maestros on Masterchef-like TV shows as from fictional screen chefs.  It’s taken hold, though, to the extent that the characterisation of Adam Jones, his rivalry with Reece (Matthews Rhys), another star chef in the London gourmet firmament, and the presentation of their line of work as a virtual blood sport are entirely unsurprising.   Adam’s journey to personal redemption is similarly and dismally predictable.  Burnt is the latest instance of film-makers relying on a tired formula but appearing to assume that, if the protagonist is exceedingly unpleasant and there’s plenty of violently abusive language (and a pinch or two of physical violence), the material will thereby be given new meaning.  All it means, in effect, is that sitting waiting for the formula to be worked out isn’t in the least enjoyable.  (Manglehorn was another recent example.)  People in the Richmond Odeon laughed during Burnt but the laughter sounded like a desperate attempt to prove to themselves they were being entertained.  The laughter had a kind of can-you-believe-this-guy edge at moments when Adam was being especially obnoxious.  You can’t believe this guy:  and viewers’ understandable reluctance to take him seriously exposes the pointlessness of how Adam is presented by John Wells and Steven Knight (whose screenplay is from a story by Michael Kalesniko).   It’s necessary, of course, that Adam discovers, through the love of a good woman, there’s more to life than three Michelin stars but, to be on the feelgood safe side, the film ends up with his getting the girl and the three stars (and they are not because Adam’s cooking improves when he does).

    Bradley Cooper appears to have been persuaded there’s depth to find in the character of Adam:  he spends the film on a morose wild good chase.   (His voice is more sensitive when Adam speaks, as he occasionally does, in French but I wondered if Cooper felt the sensitivity just went with the language.)  As his salvation, the feisty, long-suffering Helene (she’s also a talented chef), Sienna Miller delivers a respectable performance in a poor role.  Ditto Daniel Brühl in a role that’s worse than poor.  (Tony fancies Adam:  his feelings aren’t reciprocated but, late on in the film, the alpha-male protagonist plants a ‘comical’ smacker on Tony’s lips – the punchline to the film’s smirking at his pitiableness.)  Alicia Vikander makes a brief but, thanks to her extraordinary beauty, memorable appearance as Anne Marie, the French restaurateur’s daughter with whom Adam once shared a bed and a drugs habit.  In London, she pays the drugs debts he still owes and thus prevents his getting done over more than once by a couple of heavies.  (It would have been a better joke than any there actually are in the film if this pair hanging round the Langham had turned out to be the Michelin assessors.)  Anne Marie’s father, now dead, has bequeathed his kitchen knives to his former protégé although, when she offers these to Adam, Bradley Cooper looks as if he might use them to slice up something other than food.  Omar Sy is Michel, a former colleague who wants to work again with Adam in spite of the latter’s disgraceful treatment of him in their Paris days.  Michel’s motive turns out to be revenge:  the revelation of how he takes this revenge drew audible gasps from behind me in the Odeon but I wasn’t sure if these were expressions of sarcasm.  It will be clear that John Wells has managed to involve a high-powered international cast.  It also includes Riccardo Scamarcio (in a negligible part), Uma Thurman and Emma Thompson.  I missed Thurman:  I must have been drowsing during her time on screen.   I wish I’d been unconscious during Thompson’s smug, annoying appearance as Adam’s doctor-cum-therapist.

    Burnt has been badly received by critics and has a bit to go to recoup its $20m budget but there were plenty of people at the show I saw.  I wondered if this had as much to do with the popularity of cookery programmes on television as of Bradley Cooper et al.  In any case, I’m sure the audience was better informed than some of the characters:  one of Adam’s team at the Langham requires an explanation of the Michelin star system; Adam himself is accused early on by Helene of being out-of-date, a charge that’s proved when he seems never to have heard of sous vide.  (Later on, he uses a plastic bag from the water bath paraphernalia to try and self-asphyxiate …)  John Wells, whose direction is remarkably unimaginative, pads things out with repeated montages of high-pressure kitchen action:  these are pure cliché – no more than a big-budget version of what you see in Masterchef.  The often great-looking dishes are designed by real-life top chef Marcus Wareing (his Michelin star count is currently one less than Adam Jones’s).  Wareing is now well advanced on his own journey from kitchen martinet towards becoming a more genial and popular small-screen personality.  His continuing insistence on high standards may, however, cause him to regret having his name on the credits of a movie as lousy as Burnt.

    8 November 2015

  • This is England ‘90 (TV)

    Shane Meadows (2015)

    Since Le Donk & Scor-zay-zee in 2009, Shane Meadows has made only one film for theatrical release, a 2013 documentary about the Stone Roses.  This is England ‘90 is the third television drama serial by Meadows to appear since Le Donk.  It’s another fine piece of work but, as I watched, I couldn’t help regretting that he’d not made more for cinema in recent years.  The first sight of Meadows’s regular actors in the latest This is England (TIE) was also a pleasure tinged with sadness:  while Vicky McClure, Joe Gilgun and especially Stephen Graham have worked regularly and fruitfully with others, we’ve not seen much of Thomas Turgoose or Andrew Shim in non-Meadows projects. TIE ’90, like TIE ’86, comprised four episodes (TIE ’88 was three episodes only).  Each of the first three ran sixty minutes; this time, the concluding episode ran ninety.  Jack Thorne, who shared the writing credit with Meadows on ’86 and ’88, does so again.

    The original This is England film was set in 1983, the year of the post-Falklands election and the high watermark of Margaret Thatcher’s personal popularity.  TIE ’90 was billed as the last in the cycle and, if it proves to be, that will make sense for a number of reasons, including that 1990 saw Mrs Thatcher’s departure from Downing Street.  This is one of a miscellany of news stories shown in short clips of archive footage at the start of TIE ’90 but the drama that follows – with each episode named for a season of the year – doesn’t rely on or refer to events taking place outside the characters’ personal lives, not even that summer’s World Cup in Italy, where England reached the semi-finals. This marks a change from TIE ’86, in which England’s World Cup matches were a significant plot element but it’s been a consistent strength of TIE that Shane Meadows hasn’t much depended on, or made facile use of, big news stories of the day to evoke the time in which his films  are set.  The characters are vivid, eloquent illustrations of the impact of government policies but Meadows has always been more concerned with exploring human relationships than in making political points.

    The naturalistic acting in Meadows’s work and our increasing familiarity, over the years, with the main TIE characters combine to make us feel we’re interested in them almost as real people – so that watching them interact is enough and conventional dramatic incident in their lives is of secondary importance.  Even so, you keep wondering what newcomers will make of Shaun, Lol, Woody, Combo, Milky and others.  Part of you puts yourself in the position of a TIE virgin:  from that perspective, I found the new serial, like TIE ’86, took time – the whole of ‘Spring’ and the first half of ‘Summer’ – to get going as a drama.   Any doubts about whether Meadows had much left to say were disposed of in ‘Autumn’.  Lol and Woody, with Combo about to be released on parole from his prison sentence for manslaughter,  invite all those closest to them to a meal at their home and Lol reveals the truth about her father’s death (in TIE ’86).  This long sequence is brilliantly sustained and deeply distressing.  Later scenes in ‘Autumn’, when Combo comes to stay with Lol and Woody, are marvellous in a more subtly affecting and desolating way.  Looking back at my notes on TIE ’86 and TIE ’88, I can only repeat myself in summing up TIE ’90:   the best things in it – and, by the end, they are many – are in a league of their own compared with any other new television drama I’ve seen this year (although much of Unforgotten is very good).

    In the finale of ‘Winter’ especially, I got the sense that Shane Meadows didn’t want to say goodbye to his characters and to the people playing them.  Nor do we.  The principal actors – I mean Gilgun, Graham, McClure, Shim, Turgoose – are as good as they’ve always been.  Plenty of others come through too:  I thought Michael Socha (Harvey) better than ever.  There are occasional ‘dramatic’ situations that aren’t believable:  in the final episode, these included the instant repairing of hurt feelings after the spectacularly disastrous planning meeting for Lol’s and Woody’s wedding; and the blatantly artificial delay, until late on at the wedding reception, in Lol’s asking Milky if he can shed any light on Combo’s mystifying disappearance.  But the acting and direction overcome even these relatively weak sections.  Shane Meadows’s affection for the people he’s created was reflected in TIE ’90 in his almost straining to give them happy endings but he has too much integrity as a film-maker to ignore what can’t be resolved.  He clearly feels the racial violence legacy of the original This is England isn’t susceptible to the kind of catharsis that he and his audience would love to see.  The very ending of This is England ’90 is rightly dark but the darkness is leavened with compassion.  Meadows remains determined – as he has been throughout this magnificent tetralogy – to avoid simply pinning the blame for mayhem and misery caused to others on particular individuals.

    September-October 2015

Posts navigation