Old Yorker

  • Wanda

    Barbara Loden (1970)

    In 2012 Sight & Sound’s decennial poll of critics included in the top 100 films just two directed by women.  Ten years later, there are eleven[1] and the greatest film of all time is Chantal Akerman’s Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (1975).  Text introducing Laura Mulvey’s piece on the new chart-topper in S&S (Winter 2022-23) excitedly declares that ‘Things will never be the same’.  That may well be the case but the results of the latest poll, including Jeanne Dielman’s rapid ascent to number one, were predictable.  The cultural traction of ‘diversity’ has increased apace since 2012.  S&S has expanded its polling to reflect this and to include, as well as film critics, ‘academics, distributors, writers, curators, archivists, and programmers’ (a grand total of 1,639 voters).  Each voter nominates their top ten films.  The film with the most votes is the best film ever.  This time around, the pressure to nominate at least one film made by a woman must have been – for many old hands as well as new voters – irresistible.  So Jeanne Dielman, the top such film in 2012 (in joint thirty-sixth place), is now the top film tout court.  Claire Denis’s Beau Travail (1999) retains second spot on the distaff side, rising (from joint seventy-eighth in 2012) to seventh place overall.

    Of the other nine films in question, all debutants in the list, six place fiftieth or higher.  The inclusion among these of Wanda is doubly striking.  It’s the only feature film made by Barbara Loden, who also wrote the screenplay and plays the title character.   At the time she made Wanda, Loden – who died in 1980 at the age of forty-eight – was married to Elia Kazan.  They wed in 1963, soon after Loden had appeared in small roles in two of Kazan’s films, Wild River (1960) and Splendor in the Grass (1961).  For much of his long life (1909-2003), Kazan was an admired and laurelled film-maker.  Twenty years after his death, his work is nowhere to be seen in the S&S roll of honour (even the expanded version that includes the top 250 films) while his second wife’s sole directing feature has made it into the professional cinephile canon.

    Wanda Goronski (Loden) is a wife and mother in contemporary rural Pennsylvania.  She’s unhappy and unsuccessful in both roles.  We first see her waking up on a couch at the home of her sister (Dorothy Shupenes) and brother-in-law (Peter Shupenes) – Wanda’s staying there after walking out on her husband (Jerome Thier).  It’s the day of their divorce hearing, for which Wanda turns up late.  In court she agrees to her husband’s request for a divorce and voluntarily relinquishes her rights to their children.  ‘Voluntarily’, with its implication of an act of will, is hardly the word, though:  Wanda is abjectly acquiescent.  She loses her job at a sewing factory.  She has a one-night stand with a man who, at the second attempt, succeeds in abandoning her.   Next, she drifts into a picture-house, and is robbed after falling asleep during the movie.  Penniless, she goes into an almost deserted bar to use the toilet, and starts chatting to the middle-aged man behind the bar.  He seems alarmed by her arrival and the reason soon becomes clear.  Norman Dennis (Michael Higgins) doesn’t work in the bar – he’s a thief, in the process of robbing the place.  Wanda, who doesn’t know where her next meal is coming from, isn’t easy for Dennis to get rid of.  He books into a motel, where they sleep together. He says consistently unkind and insulting things to Wanda but next morning steals a car, taking her on the run with him.  She doesn’t have anywhere better to go.

    Chronologically speaking, this film appeared halfway between Bonnie and Clyde (1967) and Badlands (1973), and evokes both.  (Far more famous in their time than Wanda, these two are also absent from the S&S charts.)  Loden’s law-breaking duo on the road, along with the media coverage they attract, obviously brings to mind Arthur Penn’s and Terrence Malick’s more dangerous pairings.  There’s an echo of Bonnie and Clyde too in an episode in which Wanda and Mr Dennis (as she continues to call him) visit the Holy Land USA theme park in Connecticut, where Dennis meets up with his evangelical Christian father (Charles Dosinan), to whom he’s uncharacteristically polite and respectful.  The scene recalls the brief reunion (and last goodbye) of Bonnie and her mother in rural Texas in Penn’s film.  As an eccentric road movie – the story of a crackpot, fateful journey – Wanda is reminiscent of Badlands, despite a different balance of power between the leading man and woman.  Whereas psychopathic Kit in Badlands is always in the driving seat, Wanda has to take over at the wheel when Mr Dennis has a splitting headache.  But Malick’s Holly and Loden’s Wanda, although the former is a more defined and studied portrait of affectlessness, share a lack of independent agency – a kind of aboulie.

    It may be symbolic that her aimless protagonist’s name is a homonym of ‘wander’ but Loden, who based her screenplay on a newspaper article about a woman’s involvement in a bank robbery, supplies no backstory for Wanda or explanation of her personality.   At one point, she tells Dennis that she’s never been any good or done any good.  When she says this, Wanda doesn’t seem to be asking for sympathy or reassurance that she’s wrong.  Her tone isn’t defiant or even matter of fact.  She just says the words and you believe that she means them.  She’s capable of hurt reactions to Dennis’s verbal and occasional physical abuse but its impact on her seems momentary.  It’s ironic that someone so feckless thereby becomes involved in her companion’s intentional life of crime (though his motives and background are also unexplained).  Wanda becomes Dennis’s accomplice in a hostage-taking and his lookout for a related bank robbery, in which he is shot dead.  As with her divorce hearing, Wanda arrives late for the bank heist.  She merely watches as police arrive on the scene.  Later,  she sees a TV news report on what happened.  She hitches a ride with a soldier (Frank Jourdano) to get out of town.  When he tries to have sex with her, Wanda shows unusual strength of purpose in fighting him off and running away.  It’s dark when she fetches up near a roadhouse where a pleasant younger woman (Valerie Mamchez) invites Wanda in.  The woman and her friends ply her with food, drink and cigarettes.  In the film’s closing sequence, as the rest of the group talk and laugh together, Wanda sits silent in their midst.  She seems preoccupied but it’s hard to imagine she’s deep in thought.

    Richard Brody wrote in the New Yorker (in 2007) that ‘If there is a female counterpart to John Cassavetes, Barbara Loden is it’.  I don’t know the Cassavetes oeuvre well enough to argue but Wanda struck me as different in two important ways from the Cassavetes films that I do know.  While both directors make use of claustrophobic hotel/motel rooms and cityscape, Loden also places her characters in larger outdoor geography – most memorably in an early sequence, a long take in long shot, that shows Wanda as a tiny figure in white, walking in a Pennsylvania landscape that is huge, rocky and relentlessly grey, except for the odd tree.   (Wanda’s white clothes here anticipate her weirdly bridal appearance when – on Dennis’s instructions and with his cash – she buys a new outfit and hat in a shopping mall, while he breaks into vehicles in the car park.)  Wanda shows a variety of bizarre Americana, not least the religious theme park with its stations of the cross, catacombs etc.  Loden uses Wanda’s lack of orientation – her going-along-for-the-ride – to make ports of call like this one seem quite natural developments in the narrative.

    The other signal difference from Cassavetes is in what Loden appears to expect from performances.  Although she too favours a highly realistic style of acting, she’s relatively uninterested in generating tension and momentum through the dynamic that develops between actors in the course of an extended scene together.  There were times when I wished Loden had been more interested in achieving this.  The naturalism of her own acting is exemplary but one or two of the Wanda-Dennis exchanges drag.  That more of them don’t is probably thanks to Michael Higgins.  Compared with Loden, Higgins can be almost theatrical but he energises scenes as a result.  His character’s querulous misanthropy is even funny occasionally (when, for example, Wanda says that she’s only trying to be friendly and Dennis bluntly replies that ‘I don’t like friendly people’).  It’s also amusing and effective that Mr Dennis, who nearly always wears a suit and tie, looks both unremarkable and, given his line of work, distinctive.  (It’s less effective that Dennis often seems so poor at his job – he’s easily overpowered at the start of the hostage-taking:  Wanda’s intervention gets it back on track – that you can’t easily believe he’s a career criminal.)  I don’t think Wanda’s great but I was very glad to see it.  More than fifty years on, what sadly proved to be a one-off still has the feel of film-making trying to do something different.  Barbara Loden is intent on truthfully describing behaviour rather than on dramatising situations.  In her film’s best moments, though, she succeeds in doing both.

    18 February 2023

    [1] That’s including Meshes of the Afternoon (1943) by the husband and wife team of Alexandr Hackenschmied and Maya Deren.

  • To Leslie

    Michael Morris (2022)

    Six years ago, single mother Leslie (Andrea Riseborough) won $190,000 in a lottery and became a celebrity in her West Texan home town.  She told a local TV news reporter she’d use the money to make a better life for her thirteen-year-old son, James (Drew Youngblood).  After squandering her winnings on booze and drugs, she’s now destitute and estranged from James.  Leslie lives mostly on the streets although Michael Morris’s low-budget indie drama starts – after a flashback to the television coverage of her lottery win – with Leslie being chucked out of a cheap motel and bawling expletives at the chucker-out (Pramode Kumar).  She makes contact with her son (now played by Owen Teague), a construction worker, who shares an apartment with Darren (Catfish Jean).  James lets Leslie move in with them on condition that she stays off alcohol:  he soon finds empty liquor bottles under his mother’s bed.  Before telling her to leave, James phones her ex-friend, Nancy (Allison Janney), who reluctantly agrees to put Leslie up.  Her stay with Nancy and her partner, Dutch (Stephen Root), is also short-lived – for the same reason – and Leslie is soon at another motel, this time sleeping outside the place.  Sweeney (Marc Macron), who jointly owns and runs the motel with Royal (Andre Royo), warns her off but Leslie inadvertently leaves her suitcase behind.  After fending off the sexual advances of Pete (James Landry Hebert), an old flame of Leslie’s and a friend of Nancy and Dutch, Leslie returns to the motel, asking about the suitcase.  Kind-hearted Sweeney takes pity on her and, on the spur of the moment, offers Leslie a cleaning job, in exchange for a room at the motel and a modest wage.  His impulsive benevolence is To Leslie’s pivotal moment.  It’s hardly plain sailing for the title character from this point on but things start to look up for her.

    This is a formula screenplay:  thanks to an act of human kindness, a hopeless loser gets another chance.  Even within those limits, Ryan Binaco’s writing is clumsy, especially when it comes to making important things happen.  Alone in a bar at closing time, Leslie decides to visit the home where she raised James and to get back on the wagon.  As she dries out, she develops a tentative friendship with Sweeney, who invites her along to a local fair.  When they arrive at the gathering she seems determined to ignore taunts from Pete but the script is more determined that Leslie will lose it, though she’s still abstaining at this point, and have public shouting matches with Pete and with Nancy, who berates her for abandoning James when he was still a child.  Sweeney’s insistence on showing Leslie a video recording of that news report of her lottery win is incredibly insensitive (for an otherwise convincingly sensitive man):  it’s purely a device for her to quit the motel job and go AWOL, with Sweeney trying desperately to find her.  When she eventually returns, Leslie tells Sweeney she wants to renovate the dilapidated ice-cream store across the street from the motel.  Ten months later, that’s what she’s done, with Sweeney and Royal’s help, and turned the place into a diner.  On the day it opens, no one comes until Nancy appears, well into the evening.  When Leslie accuses her of telling potential customers to stay away, Nancy apologises that she hasn’t ‘been there’ for Leslie at tough times in her life.   This is the starter reconciliation.  For the main course, Nancy hands over to James.  As Sweeney and Royal go to work in the kitchen, Leslie and her son embrace.

    There’s a mismatch between these clichéd contrivances and the film’s graphic descriptions of the protagonist’s alcoholism and anti-social behaviour.  The latter are sometimes so powerfully credible that it’s a real relief to see Leslie escape the vicious circle and achieve redemption – even though you don’t believe in either of those things.  To Leslie is the belated first cinema feature of Michael Morris, well-known and highly experienced in British theatre (director of the Old Vic from 1999 to 2002) and television.  The film was shot in Los Angeles, over nineteen days during the Covid pandemic, but Morris and his cinematographer, Larkin Seiple (DP on a real odd couple of 2022 pictures:  the other is Everything Everywhere All at Once), give the story a plausible small-town texture.  The streets, bars and motels are unprepossessing without being too emphatically grotty.  The music playing on radios and jukeboxes rings true.  It’s one of the better features of the screenplay that it shows Christianity, or at least the profession of Christianity, as also essential to the place (we gather that Leslie’s mother (Lauren Letherer) is particularly pious and Nancy claims to be) – so that Leslie’s own irreligion reinforces her pariah status.

    To Leslie is well cast and acted.  Assuming that Allison Janney can nowadays pick and choose her supporting roles, it’s interesting to see her take on the far from likeable Nancy.  Owen Teague, with a look of the young Tommy Lee Jones, is excellent as James.  Andrea Riseborough (of whom much more below) is outstanding.  Naturally pale and skinny, she has a head start playing a wraith but Riseborough has never looked so startlingly ill on screen.  This is a portrait of an alcoholic that’s highly dynamic without feeling theatrical.  Riseborough is fearlessly into the role:  she sometimes moves her mouth in an extraordinary way – almost gurning – that really seems part of Leslie’s pathological condition.  Her lank hair doesn’t look like a creation of the make-up team.  You believe this woman smells really bad.  And Leslie can be funny, as well as horrifying.  Morris directs Riseborough skilfully, observing rather than showcasing her performance.

    Absorbing but no great shakes as a film, To Leslie has earned itself at least a footnote in the history of the Academy Awards.  When this year’s Oscar nominations were announced on 24th January, there was widespread surprise that the Best Actress fivesome included Andrea Riseborough.  Over the next few days, a crescendo of media disapproval at the tactics used to promote her work in To Leslie led to the Academy’s announcing an immediate ‘review of the campaign procedures around this year’s nominees, to ensure that no guidelines were violated’ – and speculation that Riseborough’s nomination might be rescinded.  In the event, it was allowed to stand but the Academy pledged to address, for the longer term, ‘social media and outreach campaigning tactics’ which in this case were acknowledged to have caused ‘concern’.

    The Riseborough campaign depended on pass-it-on propulsion rather than time-honoured for-your-consideration advertising in movie trade papers and elsewhere.  Word of mouth campaigning doesn’t sound unreasonable for a small-scale picture lacking studio heft.  After To Leslie premiered at the South by Southwest festival(s) in March 2022, Momentum Pictures picked up the distribution rights and gave the film a simultaneous theatrical and on-demand streaming release in early October.  The theatrical release was limited and the box-office receipts were negligible so it’s no surprise that Momentum (a name that’s ironic in light of subsequent events) chose not to promote To Leslie further.  Michael Morris and his wife, the actress Mary McCormack, went for DIY momentum instead:  they invited their industry contacts to view the film and, if they liked it, to invite their contacts to do the same.  When voting for the Oscar nominations got underway, Riseborough was endorsed by the likes of Amy Adams, Jennifer Aniston, Helen Hunt, Edward Norton, Gwyneth Paltrow, Charlize Theron and Kate Winslet – as well as by Cate Blanchett, the front-runner in this year’s Best Actress race.

    The Morris-McCormack campaign brings to mind the one mounted by Julia Roberts for Javier Bardem’s performance in Biutiful (2010), a film that relatively few Academy voters had seen.  Roberts’s cheerleading, which surely helped secure a nomination for Bardem (just three years after he’d won an Oscar), caused no concern at all.  Twelve years later, the very different reaction to the push for Riseborough (who’d not previously been Oscar-nominated) derives in large part from another Academy Awards-centred social media initiative:  #OscarSoWhite, launched in 2015 in response to all twenty acting nominations that year going to white players.  The same thing happened in 2016 but hasn’t happened since and the political traction of #OscarSoWhite has continued to increase.  In 2021, nine of the twenty nominees were non-white and two of them won but there were still complaints that Anthony Hopkins was voted Best Actor in preference to the late Chadwick Boseman.  Last year, there were only four non-white acting nominees though (as I recall) not much fuss about the decline in numbers.  Again, two of the four eventual winners were non-white; on this occasion, they included the Best Actor but Will Smith, by the time his name was called, had already ensured different headlines for the 2022 Oscars show.

    This year, seven of the twenty acting nominees are non-white (I’m not counting Ana de Armas, nominated for Blonde, who I understand to be white Cuban) but they don’t include Danielle Deadwyler, hotly tipped for a nod for Till.  Much of the animus towards the Andrea Riseborough campaign is expressed in claims that she elbowed out Deadwyler – and perhaps Viola Davis, for The Woman King.  Riseborough can hardly be responsible for two people missing out yet complaints about how she landed the nomination tend to imply otherwise, the received wisdom being that sixth and seventh places in the nominations ballot were both filled by Black actresses.  Some of the OTT endorsements from big-name Riseborough fans are as bizarre as the grumbles about her:  describing Riseborough’s work in To Leslie as ‘the greatest female performance on screen I have ever seen in my life’, Kate Winslet, despite her hyperbole, manages to suggest she’s seen male actors do better.

    Cards on the table:  I’ve so far seen three of the other performances nominated for Best Actress (to be more precise, two-and-a-half, since I gave up on Everything Everywhere All at Once).  If I had an Oscar vote, it would go to Andrea Riseborough rather than Cate Blanchett, Michelle Williams or Michelle Yeoh.  I think Riseborough’s acting in To Leslie is far superior to Danielle Deadwyler’s in Till.  (I’ve not seen Blonde or, for that matter, The Woman King.)  But that’s almost beside the point.  I’ve written at length here about the Riseborough campaign hoo-hah partly because I’m an Academy Awards anorak but partly because I’m troubled by the implications of the controversy and of #OscarSoWhite thinking more generally.  Armond White is spot on when he writes that ‘The media’s idea that black performers are entitled to awards is an insane reaction to historical prejudice’.  As someone who attaches too much importance to the Oscars, even I can see there’s an obscene disjunction between the scale of racial prejudice, past and present, and the idea that movie prizes can serve to atone.

    17 February 2023

Posts navigation