Film review

  • The Front Runner

    Jason Reitman (2018)

    In 1984, Gary Hart narrowly lost the Democratic presidential nomination to Walter Mondale, who went on to lose heavily to Ronald Reagan in the same year’s election.  In 1986, Hart decided not to seek re-election as a Senator for Colorado in the mid-terms in order to focus on a run for President in 1988.  He became the clear front-runner for the Democratic nomination and, indeed, for the White House.  In May 1987, press reports of an extra-marital affair suddenly halted his candidacy.  Jason Reitman’s The Front Runner, after a prologue in 1984, concentrates on the three weeks three years later that derailed Hart’s campaign.

    Until the scandal gathers momentum, Reitman seems to be marking time.  His pacy description of campaign operations is competent in its familiar, semi-documentary way (if memory serves, Michael  Ritchie was using a similar technique in The Candidate back in 1972).  But none of Hart’s team of young political idealists registers as an individual:  it’s no surprise that, at the business end of the narrative, their disillusionment feels perfunctory.  The film’s shortcomings aren’t enough, though, to explain why it’s fared so poorly at the box office and received such a lukewarm critical reception.   The scale of this failure has to be down to timing.  The source material is a 2014 book All the Truth Is Out: The Week Politics Went Tabloid by Matt Bai (who wrote the film’s screenplay with Reitman and Jay Carson).   The Front Runner went into production in early 2017, when the story of how a highly intelligent and purposeful politician was undone by allegations about his sex life had renewed tragic meaning.  An imbecilic and flagrantly corrupt, though no less purposeful, non-politician had just won the American presidency, with little to suggest that revelations of (self-proclaimed) sexual misconduct had done him electoral harm.   In June 2017, Hugh Jackman signed to play Gary Hart; principal photography began that September.   A few weeks later, the New York Times and the New Yorker published their Harvey Weinstein exposés, and the Me Too and Time’s Up movements took off.  A powerful man accused of sexually exploiting a woman – be that man ever so un-Trump-like – was no longer commercially viable or, for many film critics, morally acceptable as a victim figure in a mainstream movie.

    And it’s as a victim, of indefensibly aggressive press treatment, that Jason Reitman presents Gary Hart.  As a prophet too:  Reitman means the audience to leave the cinema with Hart’s words, as he announced the end of his campaign, ringing in our ears:  ‘I tremble for my country when I think we may, in fact, get the kind of leaders we deserve’.  We know now who he’s talking about.  The film gives the impression that the events of May 1987 finished Hart.  There’s no mention of his short-lived attempt to resurrect his presidential ambitions in late 1987 (although he polled consistently poorly, he continued as a candidate in the Democratic primaries until after Super Tuesday in March 1988).  There’s no mention of his distinguished later career in public service, including as Vice-Chair of the Homeland Security Advisory Council then as US Special Envoy to Northern Ireland during the Obama years.  There’s only one closing legend on the screen.  It tells us that Hart and his wife Lee remain ‘married to this day’.  (Last year marked the couple’s sixtieth wedding anniversary.)

    The Front Runner’s characterisation of the journalists who brought down Hart is much less flattering – and in sharp contrast to the glorification of press freedom in The Post, just this time last year.  The prime movers were the Miami Herald.  Their (fictional) publisher (Kevin Pollak) is a slimy and nasty piece of work.  Their journalist Tom Fiedler (Steve Zissis), who first gets an anonymous tip-off about Hart’s meetings with Donna Rice (Sara Paxton), is a cartoon of anxious inadequacy.  When Fiedler, another hack (Bill Burr) and a Herald photographer (Nyasha Hatendi) are on a stake-out of Hart’s Washington DC townhouse, they make a comically inept job of it.  At the Washington Post, the latest screen Ben Bradlee (Alfred Molina), though a cut above the Miami Herald posse, isn’t the heroic editor of All the President’s Men, let alone The Post.  In The Front Runner, Bradlee’s most memorable remark is recalling a meeting with Lyndon Johnson a few weeks after the assassination of John F Kennedy, when LBJ told a group of pressmen, ‘You’re gonna see young women going in and coming out of those doors, and I hope you’ll extend us the same courtesy as you did Jack’[1].

    The moral of Bradlee’s anecdote is that, twenty-odd years later, the press can no longer turn a blind eye to the personal lives of those in public office or running for it.  The thesis of Reitman’s film seems to be that the journalists involved in Gary Hart’s fall from grace were creating rather than trying to satisfy a public appetite for scandal:  the script (accurately) quotes polls of the time that indicated most voters were less concerned by Hart’s alleged marital infidelity than by the media treatment of him.   The Front Runner‘s main weakness, however, is that, in concentrating on Hart as a man more sinned against than sinning, it doesn’t explore sufficiently what motivated his obstinate reaction to the Miami Herald accusations.   Since his campaign manager (J K Simmons) and everyone else on Hart’s team recognise from the start the damaging potential of the Donna Rice story, the candidate’s contemptuous dismissal of it is striking – the more striking because he’s immediately contrite when he talks with his wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) about it.  His view that the Rice allegations shouldn’t matter is intellectually credible;  his insistence that they won’t matter is baffling, especially since Hart already has form.  When the young Washington Post reporter A J Parker (Mamoudou Athie)[2], the one ethically thoughtful journalist in the film, asks a question, before the Rice story has broken, about Hart’s periods of separation from Lee and whether he considers his marriage to be an unconventional one, Hart is instantly and angrily rattled.  He eventually suspends his campaign when he learns the Washington Post are about to run a piece about another, historical extra-marital relationship.

    I’m not sure Jason Reitman intends it as such but a sequence in which Hart confronts the nitwit journalists in an alleyway outside his townhouse illustrates neatly the folly of his scorn for them.  The trio may cower in the face of Hugh ‘Wolverine’ Jackman but they don’t go away:  it’s Hart who ends up looking silly as he walks back to his house having failed to vanquish his contemptible foe.  It is outrageous that someone of Hart’s calibre and integrity was thwarted like this when, nearly three decades later, the personally and professionally discredited Trump may have profited electorally from far worse behaviour.   But there’s a different comparison to be drawn too:  Bill (with the considerable help of Hillary) Clinton proved in 1992 that it was possible to turn alleged marital infidelity into something approaching political advantage.  The media claimed that Hart’s relationship with Donna Rice raised questions about his judgment.  Whether or not that was true, the arrogantly blinkered way in which he seems to have dealt with the muck-raking did raise such questions.

    As the notably handsome and charismatic Gary Hart, Hugh Jackman might seem well cast.   He doesn’t give a bad performance – and he does suggest a keen brain – but his super-impressive physique is a problem.  Early on in the film, Hart’s team cringe as he prepares to take part in a campaign stunt:  dressed in a lumberjack shirt and jeans, watched by a crowd, the candidate has to throw an axe at a target.  He scores a bullseye and his team whoop with astonished relief.   But no one could even imagine that Hugh Jackman, looking like the hero of Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, might fail such a test.  To be fair to him, Jackman may realise he’s too much of a film star for the role; perhaps that’s why, for the most part, he muffles his presence with the result that his Hart isn’t compelling enough as a public speaker and in front of a TV camera.  Vera Farmiga and J K Simmons do what’s required of them with ease but that, in both cases, is frustratingly little.

    17 January 2019

    [1] Or words to that effect …

    [2] The character of Parker, although technically fictional, is presumably based on the New York Times journalist  E J Dionne, whose interview with him on the campaign trail quoted Hart, in response to rumours of womanising, as follows:  ‘Follow me around.  I don’t care.  I’m serious.  If anybody wants to put a tail on me, go ahead. They’ll be very bored.’  This last sentence, heard repeatedly in the film, is used by the Miami Herald as justification for spying on Hart.

  • Stan & Ollie

    Jon S Baird (2018)

    Stan & Ollie begins in 1937, in Hollywood, where Laurel and Hardy are shooting Way Out West for Hal Roach.  Jon S Baird’s camera follows them from their dressing room, across a back lot and into the studio.  (The mechanical hectic bustle is very much a British movie’s idea of the Dream Factory.)  During the journey to the film set, Jeff Pope’s script gets over a fair amount of background information.  The duo, although at the height of their fame, need or want more money.  Ollie (John C Reilly) is knee-deep in alimony payments for his latest failed marriage (and is about to tie the knot for a third time).  Stan (Steve Coogan) is increasingly frustrated that Ollie and he aren’t paid the kind of fee their success and standing deserve.  The sequence culminates in a studio showdown between Stan and Roach (Danny Huston).  Then it’s ‘Sixteen years later’, in dark, wet Newcastle, Stan and Ollie’s latest stop on a British music-hall tour.  When they book into their dingy hotel, the receptionist can’t believe they’re not even playing the city’s top venue.  Inside the theatre in question, the pair’s show is well received but by a sparse audience.  They have clearly fallen on hard times.

    Or have they?  By the time they reach London, Laurel and Hardy are staying at the Savoy Hotel and their shows at the Lyceum Theatre are sold out.  The problem, it seems, was nothing more than inadequate tour publicity on the part of the impresario Bernard Delfont (Rufus Jones).  Once Delfont pulls his finger out by organising some publicity appearances for Stan and Ollie, they’re all the rage again.  These exaggerated, phony reversals of fortune are typical of Jeff Pope’s disappointing screenplay.  Stan & Ollie tells a slender story in quite a short time (97 minutes):  the story would be even more slender and the film even shorter if Pope didn’t distort movie history and artificially delay the two revelations crucial to the plot (such as it is).  There are hints – in the protagonists’ conversations with their wives, Ida (Nina Arianda) and Lucille (Shirley Henderson), and in the tensions between the two women – that a rift occurred between Stan and Ollie some time back.  Yet the pair exchange barely a cross word in England until immediately after their triumphant opening night at the Lyceum, exchanging home truths in the middle of a big post-show reception.  They’ve come to Britain hopeful of confirming funding for a new film, a Robin Hood spoof (working title ‘Rob ’em Good’), but Stan, on a visit to the London offices of the prospective producer, learns the movie isn’t going to happen.  He keeps this to himself until he and Ollie are on the boat to Ireland, for what turns out to be their final stage performance.

    These two revelation scenes contrast strikingly.  At the Lyceum reception, Stan, the creative force of the partnership who has always written their material, tells Ollie, ‘you’d have been nothing without me’.  In response, Ollie laments having had to spend his life ‘with a hollow man hiding behind his typewriter’.  Stan insists that, ‘I loved us’.  ‘You loved Laurel and Hardy’, says Ollie, ‘but you never loved me’.  So far, so showbiz melodrama cliché; then Stan says, more interestingly, ‘So what?’ – approaching an admission that what Ollie claims is true.  They make up as soon as the latter has a heart attack (just as they’re about to present first prize in a bathing beauty contest in Worthing).  As his partner receives medical treatment, Stan tells his wife, ‘I love him, Ida’.  When he eventually admits that the Robin Hood film is off, Ollie reassures Stan that he already knew.  Stan is puzzled:  why did Ollie keep pretending otherwise?  What, says Ollie, can the likes of us do except pretend?  The two men, in other words, do effortless U-turns.  Stan isn’t an emotionally empty human being after all.  Ollie recognises that performance is their lifeblood.   The knotty problem that briefly emerged in Stan’s ‘So what?’ is easily dissolved, in a warm, sentimental finale.

    It’s not unusual for comedians, when supposedly their real selves in chat show interviews etc, to persist with their act (particularly impressionists, often nervous of using their own voice).  Stan & Ollie plays on this comic trait repeatedly and variously.  It works well enough in, for example, their antics at the Newcastle hotel’s reception desk.  When a luggage trunk accidentally slides down a flight of steps at a railway station, however, echoing the piano in The Music Box, Jon S Baird is merely using Laurel and Hardy highlights to gussy up an undernourished narrative.  All that binds these comic-routines-in-real-life moments together is the skill of the two leads – who also save the film as a whole.  The above objections to the screenplay won’t worry many viewers of Stan & Ollie (and there are many:  on its opening weekend, it nudged ahead of The Favourite and Mary Poppins Returns in British box-office returns).  What counts for most people who buy a ticket is Steve Coogan’s and John C Reilly’s impersonations and re-enactment of Laurel and Hardy routines.  Even for viewers (like me) who find Stan & Ollie tepid and evasive, the main actors make it well worth seeing.

    There were signs in Philomena (which he co-wrote with Jeff Pope) that even Steve Coogan, in the presence of greatness, knew his place.  Playing opposite Judi Dench, he gave a performance free of the self-approval that has marred most of his others.  The same thing happens here, even if there are more factors involved than the status of Stan Laurel in the comic pantheon – the technical challenge of impersonating him, the quality of John C Reilly’s playing of Oliver Hardy.  Under a ton of make-up, Reilly has remarkable physical freedom and emotional expressiveness.  There are moments when both actors’ portraits go beyond accomplished mimicry but this is a case where accomplished mimicry in itself makes for substantial achievement.  This is evident chiefly in the sketches from Stan and Ollie’s stage show, including the hard-boiled-eggs-and-nuts scene from County Hospital.  It isn’t so much a matter of introducing new generations of filmgoers to Laurel and Hardy (examples of whose work is all over YouTube).  Rather, it’s that Coogan, Reilly and Jon S Baird (whose previous cinema feature was Filth) recreate these routines so scrupulously that they let us see how ingenious the originals were – and make us laugh.

    ‘Two double acts for the price of one’, laughs Bernard Delfont nervously to other guests as Ida and Lucille cross verbal swords at the Lyceum reception.  It’s true:  Nina Arianda and Shirley Henderson, physically and temperamentally as chalk-and-cheese as the men whose wives they’re playing, do plenty with their narrowly written roles.  They’re often funny, occasionally touching.  Lucille’s lack of protest when her husband defies doctor’s orders to resume the tour with Stan is one of many instances of the film’s ignoring things that complicate the story yet Henderson, quietly but eloquently, conveys Lucille’s concern for Ollie’s health, during the sea crossing to Ireland and the show there.   Ida is a dual caricature – a domineering, humourless Rar-shan and a Hollywood nobody who absurdly overstates her past glories[1] – but Arianda’s vivid precision is very enjoyable.

    The film’s characterisation of Bernard Delfont is demeaning (hardly the fault of Rufus Jones).  His public image was less distinctive than that of his larger, older, cigar-smoking brother Lew Grade.  Delfont was smoother and more impersonal but it’s a travesty to reduce him, as Stan & Ollie does, to the essence of shallow, misguided show business opportunism.  Preoccupied with his quickly rising star Norman Wisdom, Delfont prematurely decides that Laurel and Hardy are has-beens.  When Ollie falls ill, he’s replaced in the stage show with (the fictional?) Nobby Cook (John Henshaw):  Stan walks out just as the curtain is about to go up on his first appearance with Cook.  If Bernard Delfont had been as clueless as he seems here, he wouldn’t have enjoyed a long and lucrative career in theatre and cinema management.  As he acknowledges in an interview with Nick Smurthwaite on the theatrical website Banner World, Jeff Pope doesn’t even believe that Delfont was the character he’s turned him into[2].

    The film generally isn’t too concerned with factual accuracy.  We’re given the impression, for example, that the crucial rupture between Stan and Ollie occurred when the latter made ‘the elephant picture’ for Hal Roach.  This was the box-office flop Zenobia (1939), released a year before Laurel and Hardy’s last Roach-produced films.  In 1941 the duo signed up with United Artists and the next year moved to MGM, albeit on disadvantageous financial terms, and made commercially successful movies until they decided to take a break from Hollywood and tour in Europe.  Their last live theatre performance was in Plymouth (in May 1954).  A biopic isn’t a history lesson and dramatic licence is fine if it’s put to good use – as it is when Baird and Pope relocate the stage farewell in Ireland.  This episode refers to a show the pair gave in Cobh, Ireland in September 1953, recounted by Stan Laurel (according to Wikipedia) as follows:

    ‘The love and affection we found that day at Cobh was simply unbelievable.  There were hundreds of boats blowing whistles and mobs and mobs of people screaming on the docks.  We just couldn’t understand what it was all about.  And then something happened that I can never forget.  All the church bells in Cobh started to ring out our theme song “Dance of the Cuckoos” and Babe [Hardy] looked at me and we cried.  I’ll never forget that day. Never.’

    Those church bells playing the ‘Cuckoo’ theme are a high point of Stan & Ollie:  it makes emotional sense for the Cobh show to be Laurel and Hardy’s last.

    The Zenobia falling out is another matter.  The film-makers, once they’ve exaggerated its actual importance as a turning point in Laurel and Hardy’s careers and relationship, have no further use for it as a plotting convenience:  Stan and Ollie, inseparable in our minds as a screen partnership, must therefore be indestructibly good pals in real life too.  (Other, relatively minor themes are introduced only to be promptly dropped.  While Stan is on his abortive ‘Rob ‘em Good’ mission, Ollie is illustrating his gambling addiction with a bet on a horse at Kempton.  On a London street, he buys a copy of The Sporting Times, which ceased publication in 1932, to learn the inevitable result.  That’s the last of his gambling.)  Jon S Baird and Jeff Pope, who has said that Laurel and Hardy are his ‘heroes’, are in tune with audience expectations.  They’re aware that many of us want to feel that stars we find likeable, even lovable, on stage and screen, and whose work gives us pleasure, even delight, are nice people into the bargain.  It’s this awareness, announced by Rolfe Kent’s nearly incessant heartwarming score, that drives Stan & Ollie.

    16 January 2019

    [1] She harps on about working with Preston Sturges.  According to IMDB, the Russian-born Ida Kitaeva did have an uncredited role as a dancer in Hail the Conquering Hero, a couple of years before she married Stan Laurel.

    [2] ‘Pope believes [that the poor advance booking figures were] due to the kind of venues they were playing.   “At the time, Delfont was in dispute with Moss Empires, who owned all the big touring venues, so they were playing smaller theatres and the public simply didn’t believe it was the real Laurel and Hardy.  I don’t think they felt any animosity towards Delfont.  They were grateful he was offering them work when no one else was. … Delfont did drive them hard but he also gave them a generous guarantee.   As well as being a great showman, he was also a shrewd businessman. …” ‘

Posts navigation