Old Yorker

  • The Bling Ring

    Sofia Coppola (2013)

    In late 2008 through to mid-2009 a series of burglaries took place in Los Angeles.  The homes burgled were in and around the Hollywood Hills and their owners were celebrities, including Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan.   The culprits, who became known as ‘the Bling Ring’, were a group of Californian teenagers.  According to the Wikipedia article on the crimes, the celebrities ‘were targeted due to their being considered fashion icons by members of the group’, whose ringleader Rachel Lee described their thefts as ‘going shopping’.  (It’s therefore no surprise that the burglarised were mostly women – perhaps Orlando Bloom and Brian Austin Green were included only because they shared their homes with Miranda Kerr and Megan Fox respectively.)  The Bling Ring is Sofia Coppola’s retelling of these events; the source for her screenplay is a Vanity Fair article by Nancy Jo Sales (a good surname in the circumstances) called ‘The Suspects Wore Louboutins’.  Sofia Coppola has been criticised for shallowness, for not going below the surface – but what probing is possible in telling this amazing tale of celebrity-consumer culture?   If Coppola had tried to explain the behaviour of all the kids in the story she would have risked weakening the film as a social comedy.   There is a brief explanation, by Marc, the one boy among the five thieves, of his motivation.  This is a strong bit in the film but partly because Marc is somewhat incongruous in the criminal company that he keeps.

    The ironies in the material extend well beyond what’s on the screen.  Members of the Bling Ring were up for interviews with Nancy Jo Sales – it was a great opportunity for self-promotion – but scandalised by what she then wrote in Vanity Fair.  Alexis Neiers, the prototype for the character played by Emma Watson in Coppola’s movie, was relatively relaxed about the portrait:  it had no reality since some of Watson’s clothes were, said Neiers, ones she wouldn’t be seen dead in.   A few hours after The Bling Ring was screened at Cannes this year, $1m of jewellery loaned to stars appearing on the red carpet during the Festival was stolen from a hotel room.  Sofia Coppola has changed the names of the originals and has no doubt done some shaping to sharpen the satirical edge of the dialogue but she needs only to describe what happened in order to create a movie that’s both funny and desolating.

    The selfish appetency in evidence on the screen is thoroughgoing – and that’s all there is; this must be what worries some critics.   The Bling Ring has so far taken around $20m worldwide (two and a half times its budget).  Do its detractors feel better or worse that box-office success must surely be thanks in no small part to American kids whose moral universe isn’t so different from that of Alexis Neiers and co (and who now presumably see the Bling Ring as part of the celebrity pantheon of which Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan are merely longer-standing members)?    Perhaps critics are worried too that Coppola is artist enough to make you feel the attractive aspects of the thieves’ lives.  The Hollywood Hills look beautiful and almost magical at night.   (The Bling Ring is dedicated to the cinematographer Harris Savides, whose last movie this was before his untimely death in late 2012.)  What the gang do – getting high, drinking, driving, joining in to songs on the car radio – has been nostalgised in other films.  There are moments when you almost wonder if the youthful carelessness The Bling Ring describes might also in time become a suitable case for nostalgic treatment.

    The outrageousness of the thefts is moderated too by the impossibility of feeling sorry for the ‘victims’, given their ludicrous surplus of possessions and their crap home security.  I assume it must be true that the thieves were able to Google the celebs’ home addresses and found Paris Hilton’s house key under the doormat.   Although in one sense breathtaking, in another it’s entirely natural that the kids graduate from stealing a bag of the kind they know Hilton owns to stealing her actual bag.  Inside Lindsay Lohan’s home, Rebecca (the Rachel Lee character) applies Chanel as if it were holy water but the gang are not otherwise respectful of what they find in wardrobes or other reliquaries:  they grab what they can.  Their voracious consumerism has the quality of vindictive self-assertion – they’ve as much right to the things they steal as the things’ owners.  The Bling Ring’s capacity for moralising self-justification is amazing.  Even Marc, unconfident and relatively likeable, talks after his arrest about America’s ‘sick fascination with a kind of Bonnie and Clyde thing’.

    The four girls – Katie Chang, Claire Julien, Taissa Farmiga and Watson – are all great-looking.  On the evidence of this film, they can all act too – but it gives The Bling Ring an extra charge that they have the looks to succeed without being good actresses, to become celebrities of the Paris Hilton/Lindsay Lohan kind – famous for being famous.  (I keep mentioning these two because I’d never even heard of other burglarees such as Audrina Patridge and Rachel Bilson.)   The cast is just about impeccable.  Israel Broussard plays Marc sensitively and gets across well the boy’s relief at getting into a group and no longer being isolated.  Taissa Farmiga, who has a look of her sister Vera, is more fluid than Emma Watson, who pushes a fraction too hard but whose hard edge keeps the satire in focus.  Leslie Mann is brilliant as Watson’s home-schooling mother – a smiley, clueless motivator.  The girls may see themselves as relative have-nots but you wouldn’t guess it from their homes’ dimensions and decor.  The acreage of the rooms, in theory enviable, is actually alarming:  it comes to illustrate the empty space in the girls’ heads.  The interior decoration includes little yappy dogs.

    15 July 2013

  • Money Monster

    Jodie Foster (2016)

    The title refers to a live daytime show on US cable television; to Lee Gates, the self-satisfied financial guru who presents this programme; and to the bête noire that Wall Street has become in current commercial cinema.   A few weeks ago, Gates (George Clooney) urged viewers to invest in a company called IBIS Clear Capital.  Twenty-four hours ago, IBIS shares plummeted, costing its investors $800 million.  Now Lee Gates is scheduled to interview IBIS CEO Walt Camby (Dominic West) about the crash.  Just before ‘Money Monster’ goes on air, the show’s director Patty Fenn (Julia Roberts) learns that Camby has gone away ‘on business’ and that Diane Lester (Caitriona Balfe), IBIS’s communications director, will deputise.  Shortly after the start of transmission, a young delivery man (Jack O’Connell) appears in the ‘Money Monster’ studio, carrying boxes.   When Lee Gates asks what he’s doing, the young man pulls a gun on him and tells Gates to open a box and put on what the box contains.   This is a vest packed – the man says – with explosive that will detonate if he takes his thumb off the control that he’s holding.  When Patty Fenn cuts the transmission he threatens to do that immediately so the broadcast resumes.  The intruder’s name is Kyle Budwell (this is revealed quite some screen minutes later).  He lost his life savings, inherited from his recently deceased mother, by following Lee Gates’s advice to buy IBIS shares.  Kyle wants an explanation from Gates and from the absent Walt Camby of what went wrong, and he wants it on live television.

    What follows is a hostage drama that unfolds in nearly real time.  It sounds like a nifty idea but it’s clear from a very early stage that Jodie Foster lacks the imagination – or perhaps the nerve – fully to exploit the idea.  Even before Lee Gates is taken hostage, Foster has described, in a conventionally ominous way, Kyle Budwell’s journey through the television studios and arrival on the edge of the set, and she continues to cut away – to bars whose customers follow the-drama-as-it-unfolds, to ‘key’ locations further afield (Seoul, Reykjavik, Johannesburg).  The extraordinary TV event going on before the eyes of the cinema audience is soon submerged in very ordinary thriller-movie material.  The set-up of Money Monster is similar to that of Retribution (2015) but the screenplay, by Jamie Linden, Alan DiFiore and Jim Kouf, thinks it worth diluting the claustrophobia of the situation for the sake of laying into big-time financial chicanery and making satirical points about the people who make and watch ‘Money Monster’.  This latter aspect of Jodie Foster’s film is particularly slippery and, mostly as a result of that slipperiness, uncomfortable.

    The IBIS crash was supposedly due to a ‘glitch’ in a trading algorithm.  A likely story:  Patty Fenn and Lee Gates resolve to discover what really happened.  The outcome – to cut a lot of plot short – exposes Walt Camby as the thoroughgoing shit we assumed he was anyway.  The TV ‘Money Monster’ team’s quick thinking is interesting only, and only briefly, in that it further unsettles Kyle Budwell.  More remarkable is that the movie Money Monster team appears to accept Patty and Lee as suddenly investigative journalists.  There’s barely any irony in the presentation of their attack-as-the-best-means-of-defence – barely any suggestion that they’re impelled by commercial instinct as well as by a passion for truth.  Jodie Foster’s treatment of the public response to Kyle Budwell is less tolerant.  ‘Ordinary people’, as the media now routinely calls us, are shown to be volatile – not because that’s the nature of public opinion but because Foster wants to have it all ways.   Early on, the people watching Lee Gates being held hostage look unimpressed to the point of boredom.  The shocking implication that TV audiences nowadays are suffering from this-is-really-happening fatigue gives way to more predictable displays of heartless voyeuristic delight, in the streets and on other TV shows.  When Kyle Budwell is eventually shot dead, the barroom viewers are no longer jaded.  Their quietness now suggests a dignified empathy with the fate of a fellow ordinary person.

    What really vindicates Lee Gates and Patty Fenn, in the view of those behind Money Monster, is that they’re played by George Clooney and Julia Roberts.  The film reeks of self-approval, on the part of its stars and its movie-star director, but without any hint of being aware that this is the impression given.  The movie-makers’ understanding of giving the public what it wants (Clooney is also one of the producers) is just as sound as that of Lee and Patty.   The zeitgeist makes it morally sufficient to excoriate the practices of the financial world – and commercially shrewd to do so too.  Money Monster, which cost $27m to make, has, in less than a month, taken $67m at the box office.

    It’s something of a relief that George Clooney is too good an actor to get away with this.  Clooney the political animal no doubt engages with the moral of the story that Jodie Foster is telling.  He may, through his sentimental attachment to a nobler age of television, like the idea of the medium, even in the corrupt form of Lee Gates’s show, enabling a Damascene conversion.  But George Clooney the charismatic actor creates in the early scenes a portrait of Gates that’s sharp enough to lodge in the viewer’s mind and to keep us aware of the hollowness of the changed man he becomes.  Patty Fenn doesn’t need to be improved in the same way.   As well as being Lee’s director, she’s also his current lover and she’s quickly shown to be the good woman in waiting for the better-man-she-knows-he-can-be.   At the end of the movie, they’re together eating the Asian takeaway he pooh-poohed at the start as a loser’s supper (Lee tells Patty he’s dined out every night ‘since the nineties’).   In between, Patty has shown herself as resourceful as she’s nerveless – especially since it’s her boyfriend wearing the semtex waistcoat!  It seems surprising that Patty’s intelligent professionalism in extremis is enough for Julia Roberts (and Jodie Foster) not to find this woman’s role essentially demeaning.

    Casting Jack O’Connell as Kyle Budwell seems meant to complement the Clooney-Roberts glamour with a gritty realness that’s appropriate to the film’s conception.   If this was the idea, it doesn’t come to fruition.  O’Connell works hard but doesn’t get across enough of Kyle’s scared cluelessness, once he’s taken Gates hostage, as to what to do next.  (O’Connell too often gives the impression that he’s waiting for Jodie Foster to tell him what to do next.)  In any case, although this kind of scenario tends to be regarded as intensely ‘cinematic’, it’s a lot harder for actors to develop through multiple takes the momentum they might achieve in a theatre two-hander.  Jack O’Connell is badly served too by the screenplay’s condescending idea of working-class desperation – this is more garishly evident in the case of Kyle’s pregnant girlfriend (Emily Meade).  The writing of the sequences at IBIS headquarters is lame and Jodie Foster’s direction of these exchanges perfunctory.  Elsewhere, she keeps the action zippy although I wasn’t sure if the bits featuring an NYPD contingent were meant to be as laughable as they are.  I was sure that, as the senior officer in this group, Giancarlo Esposito was utterly wasted.

    9 June 2016

Posts navigation