Old Yorker

  • Populaire

    Régis Roinsard (2012)

    Although she’s no good at other kinds of office work, young Rose Pamphyle (Déborah François) is a prodigiously quick typist.  She gets a secretarial job with Louis Echard (Romain Duris), who runs a family-owned insurance agency in a small town in Normandy.  Louis determines to enter Rose in a speed-typing competition.  (The film’s title refers to a (real) make of typewriter, the Japy Populaire.)  Régis Roinsard’s first feature describes Rose’s progress through the several rounds of the contest and the edgy development of a romance between her and Louis.   The sub-headline of Philip French’s review in The Observer describes Populaire as a ‘thoughtful, witty French take on classic Hollywood romcoms’; French goes on to call it ‘a love letter to the underappreciated Hollywood movies of the 1950s, with a wonderful feeling for the textures of Technicolor’.  The story is set in 1958 and it’s instantly clear from both its look and the arch performing style that this is the past in quotation marks.  You want material like this, once you’ve got your bearings, to move from reproducing stock characters and situations to being inventive in its own right but Populaire is fundamentally lazy.  Régis Roinsard, who co-wrote the screenplay with Daniel Presley and Romain Compingt, wants it both ways:  weak, clichéd aspects of the material are to be excused as reflecting the limitations of the kind of film which Populaire imitates but Roinsard equally relies on generic elements to seduce the audience – he wants to reproduce the emotional climaxes and payoffs of the kind of film that he’s drawing on yet he can’t be bothered to give the characters persuasive motivations.

    In a romantic comedy motivations don’t have to be realistic – in the sense of likely to occur in what the viewer considers to be the real world – in order to be persuasive.  They do, though, need to make sense within the scheme of the movie.  Why does Louis want Rose to enter a typing competition?  Why is she inept as a secretary in every other way?  (Her ineptitude is barely illustrated anyway.)  Why is her widowed father so dead set against her leaving the village where he runs a store? (Frédéric Pierrot, physically too dynamic for this role, exposes its feebleness.)  Why does the well-off, handsome Louis have no girlfriends – other than a vamp (Caroline Tillette) in a bar who appears briefly as a polar opposite of the unsullied heroine?  Rose stays at Louis’s house so that he can personally supervise her rigorous training for the typing competition:  once they’re alone together there why does so little happen between them for so long?  The answer to the first question is meant to be that Louis didn’t pursue a promising sporting career and his father (Eddy Mitchell), largely because of this, considers his son a failure.  So why would Louis try and redeem himself vicariously, choosing a competitive event which isn’t a sport – and so risk increasing his father’s contempt?  The true answer to all these questions is of course that this is what the plot requires.  Régis Roinsard may think the improbabilities can be excused as typical of the old Hollywood comedies that have inspired him but few of those comedies were as sparsely written as Populaire.

    The only thing that’s original and amusing – although not as amusing as it should be, because here too the script isn’t sufficiently imaginative – is Roinsard’s treatment of the typing contest as if it were a major sporting event.  He moves from the regional final in Normandy to the national final in Paris to world championships in New York – which include a live radio broadcast to France (and competitors each of whom is a cartoon national stereotype).  The contestants’ increasingly vigorous pounding on their typewriters and the thudding carriage returns turn them into true combatants and their machines into weapons of warfare.  I liked the magic of Rose’s first contact with a typewriter in her father’s store – this was partly because I could identify with the moment and, from this personal point of view, I was sorry that she didn’t remain a lightning two-fingered typist and become the first of her kind to take on the world (the kind of improbability I’d have been happy with).  Still, at least Rose eventually discards – for the decisive final round of the competition – the Japy Populaire in favour of the old faithful Triumph.  This is her Dad’s belated birthday gift, once he’s seen the error of his ways.

    Populaire is very nice to look at and the colouring does indeed evoke the Technicolor and magazine illustrations of the period.  (Not all the music does quite:  I wasn’t sure that the inclusion of, for example, ‘Stranger On the Shore’ (1961) was deliberately anachronistic.)  The people are agreeable to look at too but they don’t have good material to work with and Romain Duris’s Louis is a particular problem.  According to Wikipedia, ‘Duris was initially concerned about whether the costumes and style would take over causing the film to be stuck in the past. He said he needed the film to feel live and real’.   His concern was well-founded and you can sense his unease:  although he has the style to go through the motions, Duris is uncomfortable doing so.  Besides, Roinsard can’t decide why Louis is snarled up.  A reference to traumatic experiences in the wartime resistance is quickly passed over and a bigger issue in Louis’s life seems to be missing out on marriage to Marie (Bérénice Bejo), who’s now the wife of Louis’s American friend Bob.  The untidiness of this sub-plot and the confused emotions whirling round it, although in one sense they’re a welcome contrast to the prevailing style and tone of Populaire, are incongruous.  Louis looks to be friends with Bob (well played by the Canadian actor Shaun Benson although the role is crudely written) only so that he can continue to see Marie.  The sense of competition between the two men seems meant to be comically resolved in the final type-off between Rose and the American champion (Sara Haskell) but Louis still doesn’t appear to have got Marie out of his system.

    Bérénice Bejo, who manages not to be arch with admirable ease, looks very beautiful and Roinsard may have realised the problem he’d got himself into with the Marie part of the story, even though he can’t extricate himself:  when Marie listens in the small hours to the broadcast from New York, he makes an unsuccessful attempt to deglamorise Bejo by putting her in curlers, with no make-up.  Romain Duris is happier expressing Louis’s unresolved feelings about Marie than pretending to be an antique romcom type:  he has a good moment playing undecidedly with a knife.  This raises hopes that you’ll get to see inside the character but you don’t.  The result is that Louis (or Duris), most of the time, comes across as fickle and a bit ratty.  Given the backstory and the competition from Bejo, it’s to Déborah François’s credit that Rose doesn’t end up seeming like a consolation prize for Louis.  François is likeable and, against the odds, natural:  she’s especially good when Rose gets angry with Louis – almost inevitably less effective when Rose is meant to be sweet and coy.  There’s some very busy playing in many of the minor parts – in this category, Louis’s family are somewhat easier to take than the other applicants for the secretary job and a hypocritical hostel manager.  An exception is Jeanne Cohendy, who’s subtle and incisive as Rose’s replacement as assistant in her father’s store.

    10 June 2013

     

  • Amy

    Asif Kapadia (2015)

    Asif Kapadia’s subjects are names big enough to make his recent biographical films unusual events in contemporary cinema – documentary features that attract a mainstream as well as an arthouse audience.   Senna took £375,000 on its opening weekend in the UK in 2011 and has now grossed around $10.9m worldwide.  Kapadia’s new film about Amy Winehouse (his first since Senna) last month broke the British box-office record for a documentary’s first weekend, taking £519,000.  Just four weeks later, its gross takings stand at $11.4m.   Ayrton Senna and Amy Winehouse were not only very famous and highly photogenic:  they were also shockingly short-lived.  Their premature deaths – Senna at thirty-four, Winehouse at twenty-seven – do more than intensify their charisma.  They give tragic definition and strong dramatic shape to their stories.

    In preparing to make Senna, Kapadia struck gold when he was given access by Bernie Ecclestone to a wealth of Formula One archive material.  The footage of what went on behind the scenes, as well as on the track, at Grand Prix races contested by Senna gave the film the quality of live action drama and greatly helped Kapadia to cut down on the use of after-the-event interviews.  The result was a documentary compelling in its content and innovative in its form.  There are times early on in Amy when you sense Kapadia feels a pressure to repeat this formal novelty, seems to regard it as a point of honour not to resort to talking heads (except for those that appear in television interviews etc made during Amy Winehouse’s lifetime).  We hear interviews, though; and this involves repeated, slightly awkward (albeit usually necessary) reminders, through names on the screen, of who we’re listening to.  In place of the F1 archive in Senna, there are plenty of video clips of Winehouse’s offstage life, made by her friends or by colleagues in the music business.  Some of these clips offer engaging before-she-was-famous insights:  fourteen-year-old Amy sings ‘Happy Birthday to You’, jokily but impressively, to her friend Lauren; Amy, in her early twenties, is an anfitriona, conducting a guided tour of her holiday apartment.  (This Spanish lady impersonation is brilliant enough to make you feel Winehouse could have been a good actress as well as a great singer.)   Even so, not all the video footage tells us much; at first, you wonder if its main purpose is  to help Asif Kapadia sustain his evident commitment to a biography in the form of uninterrupted film archive.  By the time Amy Winehouse has become a well-known performer and recording artist, however, the video snippets are becoming something more.  They’re a reminder, one that’s unsurprising but nonetheless powerful to experience, of how fully a life, especially a celebrity life, is now a matter of audiovisual record.

    Then there are the press cameras.  There were warning notices in Curzon Richmond about the flashlight photography in Amy.  The number of times I had to look away from the screen gave me a very third-hand sense of the relentless paparazzi attention to which Amy Winehouse was eventually subjected.; Sally, who didn’t shield her eyes, found this film gave her, like nothing she’d seen before, some idea of what it must be like on the receiving end of those flashing lights.  (My eyes were open to see Winehouse – when she first broke through in America, before she became media quarry – flinch, startlingly, from a camera flash.)  Asif Kapadia develops a cumulatively strong indictment of her treatment by the press and television, especially once she’s become publicly defined by her drink and drugs problems rather than her music.  She’s jeered at not only by British tabloids and ‘controversial’ stand-ups like Frankie Boyle but by the likes of Graham Norton too.  One of the latter’s American counterparts, Jay Leno, supplies a particularly egregious example of fickleness – in clips that show him welcoming the rising star Amy onto one of his shows, and making unfunny fun of her addiction problems on another.  This treatment seems more offensive because of what eventually happened to Winehouse; it also seems undeserved.  Of course it’s possible that Kapadia has chosen to omit evidence to the contrary but there’s nothing in Amy to suggest its subject was one of those celebrities who courted the media then cried foul when they turned against her.

    Anthony Lane, in his online New Yorker review, had good things to say about the film but expressed reservations too – chiefly that:

    ‘What gets mislaid, amid the din, is the music. Her albums—“Frank” (2003) and “Back to Black” (2006)—are casually mentioned, undated, as if they were parties she had dropped into. Worse still, we barely hear her mete out a song in its entirety.’

    I don’t think this is fair criticism.  Amy Winehouse’s art is hardly relegated to background music but Amy doesn’t purport to be an analysis of her singing or songwriting (and it would be premature, only four years after her death, to decide her place in the soul-R&B-jazz-pop pantheon).  It’s certainly convenient for a film-maker who made dramatic features before he turned to documentaries to see Winehouse’s career as largely a story of abuse – by people close to her, by the press and broadcast media, and self-inflicted – but it’s a legitimate approach.  Even if Anthony Lane were right, there would be a rationale for crowding out the music.   Winehouse insists – both in interviews included in Amy and in the BBC Arena programme (commended by Lane) about her performance at the ‘Other Voices’ festival in the remote Irish fishing village of Dingle, in 2006 – that she’d prefer to be left in peace to get on writing more songs and to perform them in small, informal venues.   (The Dingle performance was to an audience of fewer than a hundred people, in the village church.)   Asif Kapadia may be making the point that the trajectory of her fame and her personal life meant she wasn’t left in peace.  She didn’t write another album after Back to Black – to that extent, the music did take a back seat.

    Amy is a bit too long – although, when you read how much footage Kapadia and his team sifted, you appreciate the end product is a drop in the ocean of Amy Winehouse’s life on film.  Perhaps because he’s had to work with a larger variety of video recordings, the narrative is not as effortless as that of Senna:  Kapadia occasionally seems to be straining to shape the dramatic arc of a story the unhappy ending of which you already know.  But he gives us many remarkable images, sequences and resonances.  Winehouse’s recording the vocal for the single ‘Back to Black’ is emotionally overpowering, in the juxtaposition of her singing (the melisma on ‘black’, especially) and, when she’s finished, her laughing, almost sheepish remark to the producer, Mark Ronson – ‘Ooh, that’s a bit sad, isn’t it …’   The recording (her last) of ‘Body and Soul’, with Tony Bennett for his 2011 Duets II album, isn’t much less poignant.  At one point, she thinks she can’t continue.  It makes matters worse that Bennett is one of her idols; what’s piercing here is how clearly she explains that to Tony Bennett, who responds with great tact and sensitivity.  At the notorious concert in Belgrade in June 2011, when she sits down and shuts up, even though the huge crowd is yelling at her to sing, there’s a look on her face that brings to mind the image of Amy as a kid, much earlier in the film.  That image accompanied words on the soundtrack from her mother, explaining that, from a young age, her daughter always decided what she was and wasn’t going to do.  Amy Winehouse comes across as a beguiling mixture of childlike and childish, waif and wanton.  She’s aggressively witty (‘gobby’, as someone describes her).   At public events like award ceremonies, she teeters about in high heels and skimpy dresses, almost overpowered by her huge hair – half-diva, half-little girl lost.

    Amy’s father Mitch and ex-husband Blake Civil-Fielder have both complained that they are misrepresented in Amy.  If Asif Kapadia has chosen material specifically in order to show them in an unfavourable light, he has done it very successfully – so much so that it’s hard to imagine there exists evidence that would reflect more kindly on the pair.  It’s hard to see why Amy Winehouse was, in different ways, in thrall to these two men but Kapadia is probably wise not to try and solve that mystery:  most viewers, however infuriating they find Mitch and Blake, will accept that Amy’s attachments to them were as undeniable as they were irrational.   Her brother Alex is absent from the film – strikingly so, given how often his sister mentions in the Arena interview his influence on her developing musical tastes.   The BBC repeated this programme (Amy Winehouse: The Day She Came to Dingle) on the weekend of Amy’s release and I watched it a couple of days before seeing Kapadia’s film.  I was prepared, therefore, to hear her express her very definite opinions about the kinds of music and the musical performers she most loved.  When Winehouse talks, articulately and unequivocally, about the voice being a musical instrument and her preference for Sarah Vaughan to Ella Fitzgerald, I couldn’t disagree more (my preference is nearly always for the song, not the singer).  Since I don’t like jazz either, there’s a fair amount of my tastes that resists what Amy Winehouse was about.   But I think that ‘Back to Black’ is a great single and this film proves repeatedly that she was a gargantuan talent.  A dramatised biopic of this life will surely follow in time:  it’s good that Asif Kapadia has got Amy to the screen first.

    9 July 2015

Posts navigation