Old Yorker

  • May December

    Todd Haynes (2023)

    The Go-Between is making a surprise comeback in 2023 cinema.  L P Hartley’s novel – or Joseph Losey’s film of the novel – was an evident inspiration for Emerald Fennell’s Saltburn.  Now the Losey picture’s music by Michel Legrand, rearranged by Marcelo Zarvos but still unmistakable, is the first thing that you hear in Todd Haynes’s May December and dominates the soundtrack throughout.  It’s bound to, of course; Legrand wrote plenty of better scores but this one, love it or loathe it, is unforgettable.  (That’s a main reason why I loathe it – as an overblown, enduring earworm.)  When last I saw The Go-Between, in 2018, other aspects of the film were stronger than I’d remembered – which made the intrusive score all the more irritating.  Its effect in May December is very different:  rather than distracting from an absorbing drama, the music supplies what little urgency the Haynes film has.

    The story is set in 2015, in Savannah, Georgia.  Actress Elizabeth Berry (Natalie Portman) arrives there to research a film role she’s about to play.  She does this chiefly by spending time with Gracie Atherton-Yoo (Julianne Moore), the notorious local celebrity whom she’ll incarnate on screen; Elizabeth also meets and talks with members of Gracie’s family.  In 1992, Gracie, then in her mid-thirties, was caught having sex with a thirteen-year-old boy – her son’s schoolmate – in the stock room of the pet shop where she and he both had jobs.  In prison, Gracie gave birth to the child of this just-teenage father, Joe Yoo.  At some point after her release, they married.  More than twenty years on, Joe (Charles Melton) and Gracie are still man and wife, and have had three kids together:  the original love child, Honor (Piper Curda), is a college student; the couple’s twins, Charlie (Gabriel Chung) and Mary (Elizabeth Yu), are about to graduate from high school.  Gracie now runs a home-baking business.  It soon emerges that this is kept going by a few steadfast friends; even so, she and Joe have a social life together, despite being shunned by other locals.  Gracie is virtually estranged from her elder son Georgie (Cory Michael Smith), Joe’s contemporary, who makes some kind of living as a musician and still lives with Tom Atherton (D W Moffett), Gracie’s first husband.

    Samy Burch’s screenplay is based on the real-life case of Mary-Kay Letourneau, née Schmitz.  Born in California in 1962, she was raised in ‘a strict Catholic household’; the political career of her father, who held office as a Republican senator and congressman, ‘was permanently damaged [in 1982] when it was revealed that he had fathered two children out of wedlock during an extra-marital affair with a former student’ (both quotes from Wikipedia).  In the mid-1990s, Letourneau, married with four children, was an elementary school teacher in Seattle.  She began having a sexual relationship with one of her pupils, a thirteen-year-old boy called Vili Fualaau.  She pleaded guilty to second-degree child rape and, while awaiting sentencing, gave birth to Fualaau’s child.  Through a plea agreement, which proscribed contact between her and Fualaau, Letourneau received a very short custodial sentence.  After completing this sentence, she resumed her relationship with Fualaau, who was still a minor.  This resulted in a prison sentence of several years, at an early stage of which she gave birth to another child fathered by Fualaau.  Letourneau and her husband divorced in 1999.  In 2005, after her release from prison, she married Fualaau.  They separated in 2019.  Letourneau died the following year.

    Gracie is potentially the more interesting of the two principals in May December.  She’s someone who (she tells us) moved from state to state in her early years.  Despite her itinerant experience and the persisting animosity towards her in Savannah, she has remained there with a husband who’s a continuing reminder of her crime.  Her staying put, like her marriage, seems less an act of defiance than to reflect Gracie’s lack of guilt or regret about the behaviour that made her name (and, at the time, national as well as local news headlines).  Elizabeth, in contrast, is a fairly familiar figure:  film dramas centred on actors’ involved relationships with the characters they’re playing go all the way back to George Cukor’s A Double Life (1947), and probably much further.  In terms of social background, Gracie is so different from Mary-Kay Letourneau that it would seem hard for the latter’s family to complain about the film, let alone litigate.  In spite of all this, and though Todd Haynes and Samy Burch show some nerve in not condemning Gracie, they’re too cautious to make her the main character.  Elizabeth, with the lion’s share of screen time, ‘embraces’ the role of Gracie predictably.  She visits the pet-shop stock room, where she simulates, solo, the throes of passion.  She does a Q&A for the high-school drama class of which Charlie and Mary are part; they have to sit and suffer as Elizabeth describes how exciting it is to play a morally dubious character.  Most unsurprisingly of all, Elizabeth tries to seduce Joe, he takes a shine to her and they eventually have sex.  In other words, Elizabeth’s arrival in their lives causes Gracie and, especially, Joe to review what had seemed a settled relationship, and brings it to crisis.  Apart from the loss of one home-baking client, however, the narrative conveys little sense of whether or not Elizabeth’s presence in Savannah revitalises local censure of Gracie.

    Todd Haynes’s cachet as a film-maker derives largely from two dramas with women protagonists – Far from Heaven (2002) and Carol (2015).  Without vilifying either Elizabeth or Gracie, Haynes shows less sympathy towards them than towards their counterparts in those earlier films – Julianne Moore’s character in Far from Heaven, the Carol duo played by Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara.  That’s fair enough and less of a problem than that he also struggles to make Elizabeth and Gracie interesting – or even entertaining, despite the storyline’s teetering on the edge of farce.  Elizabeth is as gullible as she’s exploitative:  after accompanying Gracie’s clan to a meal in a restaurant to celebrate the twins’ graduation, Elizabeth is asked by Georgie if she could get him a job as a movie music supervisor; he offers in return the information that Gracie as a girl was sexually abused by her older brothers, that that’s why she herself became an abuser.  Elizabeth swallows this whole until Georgie’s claims are scornfully dismissed by his mother; Elizabeth seems to swallow the dismissal whole, too.  She has no sooner got Joe into her bed than she inadvertently reveals she’s chiefly interested in him as a ‘story’; he swiftly heads back to Gracie for a tortured heart-to-heart.  Events like these – and Gracie’s meltdown when she loses the order for pineapple upside-down cake – seem to be taking May December into more broadly comical territory but Haynes doesn’t go there tonally.  He thereby avoids coarseness but you get to wondering if that might be preferable to his film’s slow burn to nowhere.

    Julianne Moore’s playing has more substance than that of anyone else but her underwritten character limits what she can do.  I don’t understand why Charles Melton’s performance is receiving such acclaim and even prizes.  I found this young actor (whom I’d not seen before) wooden, especially in Joe’s more emotional moments.  Although Joe clearly didn’t suffer arrested development on the physical side, I was never sure if he was meant to be feeble-minded.  In the smaller roles, Cory Michael Smith at least gives Georgie a bit of edge.  In the final sequence of May December, Elizabeth is on set, making the film in which she plays Gracie.  After a couple of takes, the director’s happy with what he’s got but Elizabeth pleads for one more take, convinced ‘it’s getting more real’.  You could have fooled me.  It may be the whole point of the film that Elizabeth’s ‘research’ is merely an ego trip – but, if so, that’s an unoriginal idea.  Besides, Natalie Portman’s polished, hollow acting fails to supply the ambiguous tension needed for suspense:  you always assume that, for Portman’s Elizabeth, playing Gracie is a vanity project.  Some of the many positive reviews for May December have likened it to Ingmar Bergman’s Persona (1966).  To merit that comparison, you need to do a bit more than have women in the two main roles, make one of those roles a professional performer, and include a scene where the leading ladies’ faces, side by side, look into the camera together.  Other admirers of the film have praised it as wildly melodramatic.  You could have fooled me again but at least this may mean that Michel Legrand’s music for The Go-Between has finally served a useful purpose.

    22 November 2023

  • Anatomy of a Fall

    Anatomie d’une chute

    Justine Triet (2023)

    This year in cinema is turning rapidly into a golden age for the on-screen marital showdown.  The one between Bradley Cooper and Carey Mulligan, as Mr and Mrs Leonard Bernstein in Maestro, was this viewer’s most electrifying moment at last month’s London Film Festival – though ‘moment’ is hardly the word:  the sequence was remarkable for how long its amazing momentum was sustained.  The Bernsteins’ set-to is quite short, though, beside the domestic in Justine Triet’s Anatomy of a Fall, between the protagonist, Sandra Voyter (Sandra Hüller), and her husband, Samuel Maleski (Samuel Theis).  They have different surnames partly because Sandra is a successful and esteemed novelist while Samuel, despite persisting ambitions to write, is not – that’s a big part of what the row is about.  Although Triet presents much of it as flashback, bits of the dispute are heard but not seen – in an audio recording, made by Samuel without the knowledge of his wife.  The recording is being played in a court of law, where she’s on trial for his murder.

    In the couple’s chalet in the Alps above Grenoble, Sandra Voyter is being interviewed by Zoé Solidor (Camille Rutherford), a young literature student writing a dissertation on Sandra’s work.  Three floors up in the attic that he calls his study, Samuel is playing loud music – so loud that Sandra eventually abandons the interview and asks Zoé to come back another time.  A short while later, Daniel (Milo Machader-Graner), Sandra and Samuel’s visually impaired son, returns from walking his guide dog to discover his father’s body outside the chalet.  Daniel cries out for Sandra, who immediately calls emergency services.  Samuel has evidently fallen from the attic balcony; there’s blood in the snow from a head wound.  His death appears to be an accident, until an autopsy reveals that Samuel sustained the head injury before his body hit the ground.

    Now under suspicion, Sandra engages a lawyer, Vincent Renzi (Swann Arlaud), a friend from years back.  She discloses to him that, a few months previously, Samuel, who had been on anti-depressants, took an aspirin overdose; she also tells Vincent, however, that she doesn’t believe her husband’s fatal fall was a successful act of suicide.  Once he notices a bruise on his client’s arm – and even though Sandra not only explains that she got this bumping into the corner of a kitchen counter-top but demonstrates how she got it – Vincent takes the view that, if she faces charges in connection with her husband’s death, suicide will be the only defence argument that might save her.  The evidence mounts against Sandra – blood spatter analysis on a shed roof below the attic window, that audio recording made the day before Samuel died.  One year later, Sandra is standing trial.  She’s on bail but her domestic interactions with Daniel, potentially a key witness, are supervised by a ‘court monitor’, Marge Berger (Jehnny Beth).  The courtroom proceedings, interspersed with scenes in the chalet between court sessions and flashbacks, comprise most of the film’s second half.

    Triet wrote the screenplay with Arthur Harari (impressive in front of the camera in another recent French courtroom drama, Cédric Kahn’s The Goldman Case (2023)).  As might be expected, they dispense gradually nuggets of information about the central family history.  Daniel has been partially blind since an accident that occurred when he was under his father’s supervision; Samuel’s depression stemmed from that time.  Much more recently, Sandra had a brief affair with another woman.  The couple lived in England for several years, where Samuel had an academic job and Sandra’s writing career flourished:  it was his idea they move to Grenoble to make – for him to make – a fresh start with his writing.  Samuel has good ideas that he lacks the tenacity to bring to fruition.  In the quarrel on the eve of his death, he accuses Sandra of – as well as infidelity and controlling his life – pinching one of his best ideas for a novel of her own.

    Sandra is German; Samuel was French; they opted to communicate chiefly in English.  This becomes a dramatically enriching theme of Anatomy of a Fall, which contains as much English as French dialogue (and the occasional bit of German)[1].  Sandra also usually converses in English with Vincent but he thinks it crucial to her chances of acquittal that she gives evidence in French to a French court.  She does so until, frustrated that she can’t express herself clearly, she asks to continue in English, her evidence relayed to the court by an interpreter.  The film’s multilingualism is versatile:  it’s used in this instance to illustrate Sandra’s vulnerability; elsewhere, and particularly in her conversations with Vincent, to develop a texture of possible concealment – of speaking with forked tongue.

    This is a long film (152 minutes) that’s unhurried yet, because it’s so compelling, speeds along.  Justine Triet and her lead actress draw you in from the word go.  As she talks with Zoé, Sandra, drinking a glass of wine, seems mildly tipsy, almost flirtatious.  The music played by Samuel intensifies those qualities until she concedes defeat and calls time on the interview.  You can well understand why someone might feel like killing the person responsible for the ear-splitting din – an instrumental cover by Bacao Rhythm & Steel Band of ‘P.I.M.P’ (those of us unfamiliar with rapper 50 Cent’s original learn at Sandra’s trial that ‘P.I.M.P’ has decidedly misogynist lyrics).  This steel-band thumper shares musical top billing with a Chopin prelude that Daniel repeatedly practises on the piano; to be honest, some of that’s a bit nerve-racking, too, but the combination of the two pieces is a highly effective use of music.

    The remote, snowy setting seems to express both the unyielding gravity of Sandra’s situation and her isolation – and the acting is of a high order throughout the cast.  Until now, Sandra Hüller has been best known, internationally at least, for her role as the hapless careerist daughter in Maren Ade’s Toni Erdmann (2016).  Hüller did fine work in that strange film but she’s subtler and more powerful in Anatomy of a Fall.  As her lawyer, Swann Arlaud, in another good performance, is an excellent, alert foil; he portrays very well someone taking in all he sees and hears but more selective about voicing his thoughts.  Actors delivering lines in a language that’s not their first language often don’t sound quite right but that’s certainly not the case with Hüller and Arlaud.  I don’t know if that’s because they’re fluent in English as well as first-rate actors; at any rate, their English line readings have terrific emotional precision.  Vincent is a more extrovert presence in the trial, of course.  His exchanges with the prosecutor (Antoine Reinartz) point up (as those between Arthur Harari’s defence counsel and his adversaries in The Goldman Case also did) the distinctive rhythms of advocacy in a French courtroom.  The British and American trial processes with which we’re so familiar on screen may be no less dependent on histrionics but opposing advocates in France interrupt each other more often.  This conveys more emphatically the impression of a continuous battle of wits, reflected in high-speed, intellectual showing off.

    The argument between Sandra and Samuel on the eve of his death is constructed with great care – it’s the crowning glory of Triet and Harari’s consistently fine writing.  Samuel is spoiling for a fight long before Sandra; she knows that and tries determinedly to keep her temper.  This combination of patience and attention to detail, as well as delivering greater impact when Sandra does lose it, imparts a sense that the couple has had these arguments before, and of their established tactics.  Samuel is the film’s least rewarding role – the more we know about him, the less we think of him – but Samuel Theis can at least impress as an actor in the kitchen showdown.  I’ll have to admit I didn’t understand how Samuel managed to make this secret recording; even if this is poetic licence, though, it’s justified by the dramatic benefits.  Switching between visual flashback and what’s heard in the courtroom doesn’t at all reduce tension.  Quite the opposite:  it makes sense that it’s sound only when violence finally breaks out between the pair; it’s therefore unclear what the violence involved beyond what Sandra admits (that she threw a wine glass at the wall and slapped her husband’s face).  Differing interpretations are par for the course in courtroom drama; because they’re essential to how Triet’s film works as a whole, they seem to matter particularly in this trial – when, for example, an expert witness for the prosecution explains how the blood spatter evidence points to Sandra’s guilt and an expert witness for the defence makes just the opposite case.

    With its implication of objective study, the title is well chosen:  Triet’s eschewal of melodrama gives the narrative a confounding calmness.  Just when you think the director may be too self-disciplined for her own good, a truly upsetting episode arrives.  When Daniel hears his mother refer in the trial to his father’s aspirin overdose, it rings a bell and prompts an experiment on his part:  he puts aspirin in the food of his guide dog, Snoop.  Daniel overdoes it and the animal loses consciousness.  With Sandra, by order of the presiding judge (Anne Rotger), exiled from the chalet during this last weekend of the trial, it’s Marge Berger whose quick intervention saves the dog’s life.  When Marge asks why he puts tablets in the food, Daniel, painfully distressed, recalls that Snoop was also ill, though less seriously, at the time of his father’s overdose – the result, the boy believes, of the dog’s licking up Samuel’s vomit.  Affecting as this scene is, it heralds the weakest ten minutes or so of Anatomy of a Fall.  Daniel’s evidence on the following Monday rather too decisively swings the trial in his mother’s favour.  In his testimony, the boy recalls a car journey with Samuel shortly after the latter’s overdose.  Triet shows this in flashback; as Samuel urges Daniel to accept that the people he loves will die, the father’s lips move to the words spoken to the court by his son.  This is a rare moment in the film:  it’s theatrically fancy and, as a result, relatively less effective.

    Anatomy of a Fall has a few negative virtues.  It’s almost refreshing that Samuel is a weak rather than a vicious man; he may have bruised Sandra’s arm by grabbing it but he’s not much of a wife-beater, let alone a child abuser; he’s just a self-pity addict.  It’s almost a relief that Sandra and Vincent, despite their past history, don’t at any point sleep together.  Their most intimate moment comes as they celebrate, immediately after the trial, in a Chinese restaurant.  Sandra puts a hand on either side of Vincent’s face and is on the point of kissing him on the lips.  She holds this position for several seconds before deciding against the idea and, clearly to Vincent’s disappointment, removing her hands.  (This is beautifully timed.)  Sandra habitually incorporates her own experiences into her fiction but Triet doesn’t push this often-used idea so obviously as to make it tiresome.  I liked a short sequence in which Sandra, alone in a hotel room, watches a literary TV programme and hears panellists speculate that the storyline of one of her novels might be evidence of malice aforethought vis à-vis Samuel.  Even if the idea of this sequence is a cliché, the Sandra playing Sandra transcends it.  As she mechanically eats a sandwich, listening to herself being judged in the court of chat-show opinion, Sandra’s face is unreadable, except that it’s exhausted.

    Among the film’s many positive virtues, Sandra Hüller’s performance ranks very high.  Although Sandra is visibly upset by Samuel’s death and by some of what happens between her and Daniel, the prevailing measured quality that Hüller gives the character is vital to Triet’s overall concept.  In one of their first interviews, as Vincent plays devil’s advocate, Sandra raises her hand to interrupt:  ‘I did not kill him,’ she says definitely.  ‘That’s not the point,’ Vincent replies.  He’s right, and not just in the sense that it’s his job to secure his client’s release.  Without being evasive, Justine Triet doesn’t resolve the question of Sandra’s guilt.  It’s a strength of the narrative that Vincent seems never quite convinced one way or the other; Sandra (as she tells Vincent) learns to recognise a look of his that betrays doubts about her innocence.  Anatomy of a Fall works on its audience patiently and persuasively:  we become more interested in what could have happened than anxious to be handed incontrovertible evidence of what did happen.  When Sandra eventually returns home to Daniel and Snoop, all we know is that her life, her son’s life and their relationship have been changed irreversibly.  The film is an unusual thing – a satisfying unsolved mystery.

    16 November 2023

    [1] Anatomy of a Fall looks well placed to win prizes to add to its Palme d’Or from Cannes, where the film premiered in May, but these won’t include the Best International Film Oscar:  in that competition, France has decided to be represented instead by Trần Anh Hùng’s La Passion de Dodin Bouffant.  According to Wikipedia, this decision ‘sparked controversy, with French insiders claiming that director Justine Triet was being “punished” for criticizing French President Emmanuel Macron’s repression of the pension reform protest movement during her acceptance speech at [Cannes]’.  Perhaps, but the bilingual aspect of Triet’s film may also have carried weight in the French film industry committee concerned.  The Academy’s Best International Film category was introduced in 2020, replacing the long-standing Best Foreign Language Film designation – though the change of name, politically correct as it may be deemed to be, is cosmetic:  to be eligible for consideration, a film still must be in a language other than English (though it needn’t be 100% non-English).  Submission of a British-made, not-in-English film for consideration, which happened irregularly before 2020, is standard annual practice now; and the title of the British choice for 2024, Jonathan Glazer’s The Zone of Interest (in which Sandra Hüller also has a major role), looks to be the only English thing about it:  the dialogue is in German and Polish.  Since English is the language of Hollywood, it’s easy, of course, for the UK to be ‘internationally’ minded, in this respect at least, whereas French sensibilities, reasonably enough, are touchy about English’s cultural imperialism.  Besides, France’s ‘Oscar committee’ may well have decided the proportion of English dialogue in Triet’s film would compromise its chances of winning the award.

     

Posts navigation