Old Yorker

  • The Contender

    Rod Lurie (2000)

    Democrat US President Jackson Evans (Jeff Bridges) is close to completing his second four-year term.  His Vice-President, Troy Ellard, dies suddenly; Evans nominates Ohio Senator Laine Hanson (Joan Allen) to succeed Ellard.  In describing Hanson’s rocky road to confirmation as Veep, the writer-director Rod Lurie combines political chicanery drama with, eventually, pious hope for the new millennium.  The Contender can hardly fail to seem antiquated now:  truth has gotten much stranger than fiction in American politics in the decades since it was made.  The fact that the current Vice-President really is female is the least of the movie’s problems on a viewing today.  The Contender was first released a couple of weeks before a US presidential election whose resolution was as dramatic, and perhaps as dodgy, as anything that happens in the film.  The Florida recount shenanigans in late 2000 were hearteningly eclipsed, eight years later, by the straightforward election of an African-American President.  And then there’s Trump.  His baleful impact has mired much of American politics in you-couldn’t-make-it-up land for the foreseeable future.  (Writing on the subject in the TLS the other week, Ferdinand Mount noted that ‘We have miles to go before we sleep’.)  The nefarious behaviour that Rod Lurie puts on screen is paltry in comparison.

    The Contender (which I first saw in 2001 or thereabouts) is still entertaining, though, and Lurie gives his story sustained momentum.  The President’s nomination of Senator Hanson takes Washington DC by surprise.  The favourite to succeed Ellard is Jack Hathaway (William Petersen), Governor of Virginia, who’s become a national hero just at the right time.  When a car crashes into the lake where he’s fishing, Hathaway fearlessly dives in to try and save the driver trapped in her vehicle.  The attempt fails but does wonders for Hathaway’s poll ratings.  He seems a decent chap:  although acutely disappointed not to be nominated, he takes the President’s decision on the chin.  According to the 25th Amendment, Laine Hanson’s name requires the approval of both houses of Congress.  The process is led by a bipartisan advise-and-content committee chaired by Republican Congressman Shelly Runyon (Gary Oldman), who’s vehemently opposed to Hanson.  (Despite their different party allegiances, Runyon’s also an old friend of Hathaway’s and thinks him well qualified to be Vice-President.)  He turns up an incident from Hanson’s student days, with photographs that purport to show her engaged in drunken sex as part of a sorority initiation.  When Runyon raises this in the confirmation hearings, Hanson simply refuses to discuss the matter:  in her view, her personal past is no one else’s business.  The photos of the ‘orgy’, supposedly featuring a naked Hanson, circulate in the media.  The scandal escalates.  Jackson Evans looks set to change his mind and put forward Jack Hathaway after all …

    Rod Lurie gives his actors plenty of juicy dialogue and is rewarded with some good performances.  Joan Allen is excellent.  Her Laine Hanson is the embodiment of bland competence and a lightning-quick brain.  The difference in how she comes over on and off (a TV) camera seems exactly right.  Jeff Bridges’s playing is broader but enjoyable.  Not everyone fares so well.  Sam Elliott overplays the White House Chief of Staff (it doesn’t help that the character’s forename is Kermit).  Supporting Runyon in his opposition to Hanson’s nomination is a fresh-faced, idealistic young Democrat Representative – an idea rather than a person who, in Christian Slater’s hands, stays that way.  The political wives in the set-up (who don’t include a First Lady) have very minor roles:  it’s not surprising the actresses playing Mrs Hathaway and Mrs Runyon – Kristen Shaw and Irene Ziegler respectively – grab their limited opportunities too eagerly.  But Gary Oldman makes up for a lot.  He gets right inside Shelly Runyon, a rat-like but seemingly sincere reactionary.  It’s one of Oldman’s finest pieces of screen acting.

    Engaging as The Contender is, it’s full of unconvincing or puzzling things (including the title, which suggests someone entering a competition:  why not ‘The Nominee’?)  It’s important that Jackson Evans is nearing the end of his second term – appointing a glass-ceiling-breaking woman Vice-President will be his ‘swan song’ – but there’s never a word about who’s in the running to succeed him in the White House.  The film appears to be set in a fictional present day; as the smart, affable, opportunist President, Jeff Bridges channels Bill Clinton (the actual President, nearing the end of his eighth year in the job, when The Contender came out) to the hilt.  It’s therefore confusing to hear that Senator Hanson voted ‘to impeach President Clinton’.  She did so as a Republican, which raises a larger issue.  Runyon’s animus towards her is partly to do with his loathing of affirmative action and abortion rights but also because he sees Hanson as a turncoat.  It’s unclear what purpose Lurie means her recent conversion to serve and his script ignores how it sits with her Democrat colleagues or is reflected in poll ratings.  Her switch of party just seems to muddy the water.

    Lurie also makes Hanson an upfront atheist without acknowledging the major implications of that in the electoral world of America.  There’ve been US Presidents and Vice-Presidents accused by political rivals of irreligion, others whose claims to be Christian were dubious, to say the least, but none was a card-carrying unbeliever.  Lurie presents his heroine’s atheism as part of her modernity but it doesn’t make sense – especially in view of how often The Contender mentions what ‘the American people’ want, can stomach, and so on.  No less implausible is that Hanson’s nomination isn’t immediately doomed when the accusations and photos come to light.  The film’s story is premised on misogynist prejudice:  the protagonist’s contention, which Rod Lurie appears to share, is that a male politician’s indiscretions wouldn’t be held against him.  Maybe that’s why Bill Clinton is mentioned by name (there’s nothing about Jackson Evans’s sex life) – as a reminder that he survived as President despite Monica Lewinsky and, before that, as leader in the race for the Democrat presidential nomination in 1992 despite Gennifer Flowers.  It’s hardly the case that these scandals weren’t big news, though, and Clinton, at the time, seemed unusually lucky not to be sunk by them.  Gary Hart, his predecessor as Democrat front runner only five years earlier, might not agree that the media and voters weren’t bothered about his extra-marital activities.  Be that as it may, The Contender argues that there’s one law for men and another for women in American politics.  So how does Laine Hanson have a hope of surviving?

    None of this might matter as much if The Contender was a mocking hatchet job.  In that case, you might be more prepared to accept realism as subordinate to satirical imperative.  For a while, the film seems as if it could be heading in this direction; even well into the story, there are cynical highlights.  The revelation that the lake incident was a put-up job – Jack Hathaway paid the woman in the car to drive off the bridge (though she wasn’t supposed to drown) – has cynical force, along with the President’s relish in announcing this at a meeting to which he has summoned Hathaway, Runyon and Hanson.  But Rod Lurie changes tack almost laughably in the closing stages.  Early on, I took the familiar, vaguely heroic phrases in Larry Groupé’s score to be ironic; at the climax, it was clear they were meant to be taken straight.  Jackson Evans refuses to accept Laine Hanson’s request that he withdraw her nomination.  His amusing pragmatism lurches into sanctimony as he addresses Congress and Shelly Runyon in particular.  ‘It pains my soul,’ he informs Runyon, ‘to tell you that you have brought blood and shame under this great dome’.  Vanquished vermin Runyon tries to skulk out of the chamber but Evans continues:

    ‘… you may walk out on me, you may walk out on this body but you cannot walk out on the will of the American people.  Americans are a good people, they’re a just people, Mr Runyon, and they will forgive you, but they will not forget.  Hate and ego have no place residing in what my good friend Laine Hanson calls the chapel of democracy.’

    It sounds bogus but isn’t meant to be.  Larry Groupé’s triumphal music swells.  The Contender carries a closing dedication ‘For our Daughters’.

    4 November 2022

     

  • Triangle of Sadness

    Ruben Östlund (2022)

    Since the Cannes Palme d’Or was first awarded in 1955, only eight directors have won it twice and only three for films they made consecutively – Bille August (Pelle the Conqueror (1987), The Best Intentions (1992)), Michael Haneke (The White Ribbon (2009), Amour (2012)) and Ruben Östlund, whose Triangle of Sadness landed the festival’s top prize this May, five years after The Square.  Östlund’s Cannes triumphs not only put him in very select company but are probably unique because he didn’t deserve to win on either occasion.

    Like The Square and Force Majeure (2014), its predecessor in the Östlund filmography, the first part of Triangle of Sadness is the best. That might seem obvious with a writer-director who has little to say but such abundant, brazen self-belief that he goes on saying it, noisily and tiresomely.  In the case of this latest film, however, the difference is more salient because the narrative is explicitly divided into three sections – ‘Carl and Yaya’, ‘The Yacht’ and ‘The Island’ – and means more, because the first of these sections is much better than anything else in Östlund’s work that I’ve seen.

    The specific meaning of the film’s title, which also chimes with its tripartite structure, emerges in a prologue that introduces Carl (Harris Dickinson).  In his mid-twenties, he works as a model; we first see him, among other young men, being photographed, then interviewed, for a possible modelling job.  One of the interviewers mentions Carl’s ‘triangle of sadness’, a term used in cosmetic surgery for a wrinkle between the eyes:  it’s quickly fixable with Botox but the very mention of the wrinkle serves as a reminder that a fashion model’s days are numbered.  In production notes used as the BFI handout for screenings of his film, Östlund also points out that ‘a male model generally earns only a third of what a female model does’ and that ‘When I started to do research for the film, numerous male models told me that they often have to manoeuvre past powerful men in the industry who want to sleep with them, sometimes with the promise of a more successful career’.  That may party explain why the camp photographer snapping Carl et al at the start of the film is overplayed but this is a strong sequence, even so.  As he shoots, the photographer keeps asking the models to switch between ‘grumpy’ and ‘smiley’ faces, imagining they’re in an advert for H&M (= grin/cheap and cheerful) or Balenciaga (= unsmiling/seriously expensive).  They oblige, at amusingly high speed.

    The unusual bias of the male/female pay gap in fashion modelling drives the short ‘Carl and Yaya’ section that follows.  Carl’s partner Yaya (Charlbi Dean), also a model, earns more than he does.  Dining in a high-end restaurant, they get into a row about who pays the bill:  less articulate than Yaya and more stewed up, Carl repeatedly insists the disagreement ‘isn’t about money’.  The exchange is very well written and performed.  The argument’s dynamics are gripping.  Carl and Yaya both aspire to being Instagram influencers and it follows that she’s the more successful in this department, too.  At the start of the film’s second section, the couple are passengers on a luxury cruise – all expenses paid, seemingly by one of Yaya’s brand partnerships.  This supplies an effective bridge between the two sections, keeping Carl on the back foot, making sense of his prickly, possessive reaction to a bit of harmless flirting between Yaya and a flagrantly macho crew member (Timoleon Gketsos).  But other personnel on the superyacht – staff and passengers – are the harbinger of what Östlund has in store.

    Staff manager Paula (Vicki Berlin) gees up her team, ordering them to accede to the wealthy passengers’ every demand, however silly or unreasonable.  The yacht’s captain, Thomas Smith, (Woody Harrelson), an alcoholic Marxist, spends much of his time in his cabin with a bottle for company.  Russian oligarch Dimitry (Zlatko Burić) made his fortune in fertiliser (‘I sell shit’).  Elderly British gent Winston (Oliver Ford Davies) made his in arms manufacture.  Both are accompanied by their wives, respectively Vera (Sunnyi Melles) and Clementine (Amanda Walker), who shares a name with the spouse of history’s most famous Winston.  A few people on board aren’t such blunt satirical instruments:  the deputy captain Darius (Arvin Kananian); Abigail (Dolly De Leon), a cleaner (she shares her name with the traditional English term for a lady’s maid); lonely, dweebish tech millionaire Jarmo (Henrik Dorsin); Therese (Iris Berben), who can speak only a single phrase as the result of a stroke, and her husband, Uli (Ralph Schicha).  (Therese’s one phrase – in German – is ‘In den Wolken, Uli’; she can also manage ‘ja’ and ‘nein’, whereas Paula’s first rule to her fellow workers is never to say no.)  These are also relatively minor figures – at this stage anyway.  They’re eclipsed by the characters who proclaim Östlund’s lampooning intentions loud and clear, as he clears the decks for the film’s big set piece.

    Thomas briefly sobers up for the captain’s dinner, during which the yacht runs into a storm.  Östlund’s bludgeoning approach in earlier films brought the phrase ad nauseam to mind but in Triangle of Sadness it has literal meaning:  in a key passage that’s already notorious, the passengers are spectacularly seasick.  This is meant to be more disgusting because the moneyed throwers-up are ejecting their conspicuous consumption – gourmet dishes and the champagne they swill – though it’s hard to think the projectile vomiting would have been easier on the eye if, like proudly plebeian Captain Thomas, everyone had stuck to burger and chips.  With fellow travellers spewing or excreting all around them and one going into cardiac arrest, Thomas and Dimitry – the American communist and the Russian capitalist – carry on drinking together.  Over the yacht’s intercom, they compete, with the help of Google searches on their phones, in spouting epigrams promoting their political creed (‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’, ‘The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money’ (M Thatcher), etc).  Storm damage causes the craft’s sewage system to break down and the lights to go out.  At least the latter means you no longer see the consequences of the former.  As the storm subsides and morning comes, a boatful of pirates approaches the disabled vessel.  They lob a hand grenade on board.  It lands just beside Winston and Clementine, out on deck getting a breath of fresh air.  ‘Look, darling,’ she says, ‘Do you think it’s one of ours?’  Boom.

    And, in Östlund’s mind, boom-boom:  he clearly sees himself as a black-comedic genius – though the gruesome bombast of the shipboard scenes confirms him, rather, as a master wielder of the sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut.  His worst defect, though, which each of his last three films has demonstrated to an increasing degree, is failing to follow things through – whether because he can’t or won’t isn’t clear, though I suspect the latter.  In ‘Carl and Yaya’, Östlund’s satire of celebrity culture and the title pair’s anxious appetite for being part of it, is sharp but sympathetic.  In ‘The Yacht’, Carl and Yaya get in the way of the much cruder takedown of the ‘obscenely’ rich.  It’s implied that Carl is in two senses at sea but we don’t get much idea of Yaya’s feelings and both of them retreat to the margins of what is, also in two senses, Östlund’s puke-fest.  Carl and Yaya are back in evidence when they emerge from the yacht-wreck, two of only eight survivors.  Courtesy of a (suitably well-appointed) lifeboat, they fetch up on a desert island, along with Dimitry, Abigail, Paula, Therese, Jarmo and Nelson (Jean-Christophe Folly), a ship’s mechanic.  ‘The Island’ is where the film spends its last hour (the whole thing runs 147 minutes).  It’s also where Östlund’s showoff misanthropy and disregard of anything inconvenient to his immediate narrative needs are more shameless than ever.

    Lowly Abigail is the sole member of the group with practical survival skills:  she can build a fire, catch fish, and so on.  As she starts to take charge, Triangle of Sadness looks to be heading for The Admirable Crichton territory but not for long.  Abigail claims private bed space in the lifeboat; she reprimands Carl and Nelson for helping themselves to its emergency supply of pretzels (Harris Dickinson and Jean-Christophe Folly play the pair’s inept denial of wrongdoing very nicely).  Back on the superyacht, Abigail, on her cabin-cleaning round, once interrupted Carl and Yaya in bed, and was told where to get off.  Now Abigail has Carl share her lifeboat bed each night, in exchange for special privileges and food, which makes Yaya jealous.  Although this is a nifty illustration of the upturned balance of power, Östlund devotes too much screen time to it – long after making clear that, if the meek inherit the earth, they’ll be as self-serving as their predecessors were.  Dimitry, under the new regime, instantly changes his political tune (the epigrams he quotes lurch to the left) but is only superficially a reformed character.  When his wife’s dead body washes up on the shore, Dimitry weeps as he holds Vera in his arms.  He then carefully directs his attention to removing the jewellery she’s still wearing.

    None of the survivors shows much anxiety about how long they can continue to survive or interest in the possibility of rescue but why would they?  That’s not going to matter until Ruben Östlund is good and ready for it.  One day (!), Yaya decides to explore the island on a cliff walk and sets off, accompanied by Abigail.  After crossing the cliff and descending the other side, they discover an elevator and realise they’ve been living next door to a luxury resort all the time.  Having delivered this supposedly savage ironic twist, Östlund barely knows what to do with it.  Yaya is ecstatic at the prospect of normal self-promoting service being resumed, Abigail dismayed that she’ll be returned to servitude.  As Yaya, with her back to her, yatters on about making Abigail her assistant, Abigail picks up a rock and approaches from behind.  We don’t see whether she manages to do the same to Yaya as Jarmo, in a gory boost to his manly self-esteem, succeeded in doing to a donkey on the island a few screen minutes earlier.  Instead, Östlund, for his closing shots, cuts to Carl, running through The Jungle.

    As in The Square, Östlund gets better performances than he deserves, especially from the two young leads.  Harris Dickinson is engaging and witty, from his light-switch changes of expression in the opening fashion shoot through to the pretzels incident and beyond.  He does a fine job of showing Carl as basically both decent and weak.  Vexed when Yaya and the crew member make eyes at each other, Carl reports the man to Paula.  Next thing, he’s seen leaving the vessel and Carl looks rather appalled that he’s made this happen.  It’s a real pity that Östlund doesn’t make use of Harris Dickinson’s charm and skill to make Carl the central consciousness of the whole story.  Charlbi Dean impresses, too, and it’s a greater, tragic pity that this film turned out to her last:  in late August this year Dean died, it seems from a lung infection, at the age of thirty-two.  Triangle of Sadness benefits from, in addition to an able cast, classy music by Mikkel Maltha and Leslie Ming.

    This is Östlund’s first English-language film although it seems he’s not too happy about that.  In the production notes mentioned above, he explains that he’s ‘ambivalent about making films in English since I’m critical about the dominance of Anglo-Saxon culture.  It’s absurd what kind of influence it has over Sweden and Scandinavia’.  Let’s hope it’s a consolation to him that Triangle of Sadness has so far raked in $14.5 million at the international box office – a figure still below the production budget ($15.6m) but surely far in excess of what a film made in the director’s native Swedish might have taken.  Ruben Östlund’s professed ambivalence on this has the ring of someone keen to make clear he wrestles with his conscience, less ready to acknowledge that he tends to win such bouts, as well as Palmes d’Or.

    1 November 2022

Posts navigation