Café Society (2016): Woody Mails It In

Woody Allen is, by filmmaker standards, prolific. He has made a movie, pretty much like clockwork, every year since Annie Hall in 1977 (except in 1981). His movies are always workmanlike and sometimes much more than that. His latest feature, Café Society, which opened last Friday, is not among his better efforts. In fact, it’s pretty mediocre.

Allen is 80 years old, and I’m tempted to say that his age is catching up with him.  But I’d probably be wrong.  Over the past five years, Woody has written/directed two very good movies, Midnight In Paris (2011) and Blue Jasmine (2013). Neither was a masterpiece, but they connected. Midnight in Paris was imaginative, quite witty and true to itself; while Blue Jasmine, although more flawed, did present a fascinating, gripping character study, and some great acting from Cate Blanchette. On the other hand, To Rome with Love (2012) and Magic in the Moonlight (2014) were just okay – entertaining for a while, generally well photographed but featuring sloppy, predictable plotting and mostly uninspired acting. I did not see Irrational Man (2015), but its reception by other reviewers and the general public was pretty muted.

It sometimes seems to me that Allen no longer pursues excellence or sees his movie-making as an art form as he once did, but instead considers writing and directing more like a trade, a gig that he enjoys but that is not worth a lot of overtime. He seems more concerned with putting out a decent product on time than creating a truly meaningful or finely crafted picture.   As if just good enough is good enough. This is frustrating to me, because it also seems that with a little more care, a bit more attention to detail – whether plot or dialogue or accents or characterizations – some of Allen’s movies (Blue Jasmine being a prime example) really could have been great.

Which brings me back to Café Society. As is common with Woody Allen, the story takes place in the past, in the 1930s. It seems to be his favorite era – whether because the music speaks to him or it’s the decade of his birth, who knows?So we start with a little nostalgic tone. It’s the story of Bobby (Jesse Eisenberg), a young man from a (very) stereotypically old school Jewish family in the Bronx. Bobby has come to California to try and make his way in the world. He puts himself in the hands of his Uncle Phil (Steve Carrell), his only connection to the West Coast. Phil is a powerful and wealthy Hollywood talent agent/manager, who knows everybody, wheels and deals constantly, lives in a grand L.A. house, yada yada. So we get a teensy bit of satirical takes on the L.A. scene, but nothing sharp or new.

Entering Phil’s office, Bobby is immediately smitten by his receptionist, Vonnie (Kristen Stewart), who is then assigned to show him around  town (since Bobby knows nobody) – and a budding romance ensues (of course). But (of course) there is an impediment: Vonnie is kind of engaged to another guy. But then her fiancé calls it off because he can’t leave his wife, and Bobby and Vonnie’s romance starts to blossom. But alas, Vonnie’s ex-fiance actually does leave his wife; he proposes again; and she decides to marry him (he’s already older and established, whereas Bobby is all potential). Who is this other guy? I’m not saying.

Bobby gives up and, heartbroken, returns to New York, gets a job at the nightclub owned by his gangster brother, Ben (Corey Stoll). Over time he thrives, the nightclub is a huge success, the money rolls in, he meets and marries the lovely Veronica (Blake Lively), they have a kid, and so on. Still, Bobby harbors a secret passion for Vonnie, but what’re you gonna do?  There is a lot more detail, needless to say, much of which comes to us via a narration voiced by Woody himself, which in its persistence egregiously violates the age-old cinematic rule: show us, don’t tell us.

Quite a lot of the humor in Café Society comes via the sardonic voice-over, most of the rest comes in the form of shtick: the caricatured Jewish family, the light, almost goofy treatment of the violent gangster business style, and a scene early on in which Bobby engages a call girl only to discover that she’s Jewish (and a novice in the profession at that). Actually the prostitute scene, though ostensibly played for awkward laughs (ha ha ha - a Jew hooker!) isn’t much fun. The rest of the movie seems intended to be taken more seriously as a meditation on life’s twists, turns, disappointments and missed opportunities, through the lens of an unfulfilled romantic love. Allen’s use of lighthearted period music throughout tends to undercut whatever emotional response the story is supposed to evoke, however. That and the fact that the multifaceted story lacks focus and tries to do too many things at once.

I’m painting a negative picture, but Café Society does have some good things going for it. Eisenberg is quite good as Bobby. It’s frequently the case that the male lead in a Woody Allen film acts as a stand in for Woody, basically the role he used to give himself in the early days – and that is the case here. Indeed, Eisenberg, being a better actor, handles Woody’s dialogue and movie persona more credibly than the writer-director ever did, and perhaps even better than Owen Wilson did in Midnight In Paris, with a similar assignment. Bobby shows a lot of emotional growth and increasing physical maturity over the course of the film. The latter may be partially aided by the stylists and makeup people, but most of the credit goes to the actor. On the other hand, although Stewart is capable of fine work (e.g. Clouds of Sils Maria [2014]), she is lovely, but just ok here. The rest of the cast is fine, but largely one dimensional in limited roles.

Cinematographer Vittorio Storaro, known for his outstanding work in such pictures as Apocalypse Now (1979), Reds (1981) and The Sheltering Sky (1990), is in excellent form here – the visuals are terrific, especially in the L.A. scenes and the New York nightclub. The screenplay has several witty lines, some of which are featured in Cafe Society’s trailer, but it is rather weak in the moments where it needs to be strongest: the love scenes between Eisenberg and Stewart.

All in all, as I said at the outset, a mediocre effort. If you’re an avid fan of Woody’s movies or of Eisenberg, go see it. Otherwise, you may want to give this one a pass – at least until it becomes available online.

96 minutes.

In wide release.

Ghostbusters (2016): Who Ya Gonna Call Now?

An Editorial by Emily Litela: What’s all this fuss I’ve been hearing lately about goat busters? The whole idea of busting goats is so terrible; I can’t believe it. It makes me sick. I mean what have goats ever done to us? Nothing, other than to eat our weeds, give us milk, and entertain the little ones at kiddie zoos. What’s wrong with that? And yet, there’s all this mean talk on social media about goat busters! In my opinion …   

…What?

…It’s a movie? A remake of the original Ghostbusters, from 1984?

Oh, that’s different!

Never mind.

Of course, the actual fuss about the new Ghostbusters film is that it’s a remake/update of the popular comedy-adventure from thirty years ago, with Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, Ernie Hudson, Rick Moranis and Sigourney Weaver. So what?

Films have been remade since the advent of cinema. It is a common practice. In fact, Alfred Hitchcock remade his own movie from 1934, The Man Who Knew Too Much, in 1956! Other notable remakes include Cape Fear (1962)(1991);  The Manchurian Candidate (1962)(2004); and Seven Samurai (1954) / The Magnificent Seven (1960) [with a third one,  a remake of the 1960 version, due in September 2016).  There are a plethora of other pictures remade multiple times, such as Viktor und Viktoria (1933) / First A Girl (1935) / Victor and Victoria (1957) / Victor/Victoria (1982);   The Shop Around The Corner (1934) / In The Good Old Summertime (1949) / Pillow Talk (1959) / You’ve Got Mail (1998);   A Star is Born (1937)(1954)(1962); and Annie (1982)(1999)(2014). And we’re not even talking about so-called reboots, as with the Batman franchise and the Star Trek franchise.

In the past, while some movie remakes have been controversial, the discussion has ordinarily been about quality – concern that a great foreign film will be butchered by Hollywood, for example; or reasonable questions regarding whether the new picture will (or can) measure up to the earlier beloved edition. But with the Ghostbusters remake (hereafter GB16), the controversy is altogether different. There are folks out there in the social media ether upset (without having seen the movie, of course) that anyone would have the nerve to replace the male protagonists of the 1984 movie with women.

Women!! Can you believe it? It’s blasphemous. It’s an attack on men! They want to cut off our balls [can’t say that – ed.] emasculate us.  This shall not stand: Must fight back. Call them nasty names, humiliate them, threaten them!       

And so on.

This attitude is just ridiculous, of course. It is misogyny pure and simple. Most of the idiots spouting off about GB16 were in diapers or not yet born when GB84 came out. But the anti-GB16 campaign has been so vicious that it has hurt people, including, most prominently, Leslie Jones, one of the stars of GB16, who has the misfortune of being not just female, but African-American as well. And how is it we still have virulent gender-based hate sixteen years into the twenty-first century?

What about the movie itself? Is it any good? And how does it compare to the original?

Yes it’s good. It’s equal parts clever, witty, and slapstick funny, while also being a pretty decent light adventure story. In these respects, it is quite similar to and comparable in quality with the original Ghostbusters (which I’ll call GB84 from now on). GB16 also allows us to watch and vicariously participate as the individual members of the Ghostbusters partnership bond together and become a team – a quality not particularly noticeable in GB84.  The stories in both are quite similar, but not the same. For example, GB16 does not start in the library, but rather on a tour of the (fictional) supposedly haunted Aldritch Mansion in New York.

Not surprisingly, special effects are much better in 2016 than they were in 1984. If you don’t believe me, go back and re-watch GB84, and you can see for yourself. Speaking of which, GB16 tries a little too hard with its over-the-top, razzle-dazzle ending – a trait it shares with virtually all sci-fi films and most adventure-thrillers nowadays. Not so much as to ruin the good will built up over the first ninety minutes, however. Even in its cheesy excess, GB16 remains funny throughout for the most part. I saw it in 3D, which was nice but not at all essential.

Where GB16 suffers in comparison with its predecessor is that it does not star Bill Murray, the standout performer in GB84 by a mile. Murray, playing cheesy pseudo-suave Dr. Peter Venkman, almost single handedly created the campy mood of GB84. With his aggressive nonchalance, he appears to be “standing outside the frame”, as Variety’s Owen Glieberman puts it, and this makes Murray the funniest part of the original picture. There is no one and nothing like him in the cast of GB16. (Actually, in an homage to the first film, Murray and the other surviving principals of GB84 each have small and/or cameo roles in the new movie – but they do not play their former characters.)

GB16 stars Kristen Wiig (SNL, Bridesmaids [2011]), Melissa McCarthy (The Heat [2013], Spies [2015]), Kate McKinnon (SNL) and Leslie Jones (SNL) as the Ghostbusters team. Wiig plays Erin, a scientist hoping for tenure at Columbia, who has buried her youthful fascination with ghosts and paranormal activity in favor of “hard” physics, only to have her past thrown in her face at the most inopportune time by her former best friend and co-enthusiast Abby (McCarthy). Erin goes to confront Abby, but gets caught up in the investigation of a ghost sighting and is soon hooked again. McCarthy, much like Aykroyd in GB84, does fine but plays it relatively straight in this film – somewhat of a waste considering her considerable comic chops. Hopefully this will be remedied in the likely sequel.

Abby’s assistant is Jillian (McKinnon), a brilliant, quite geeky engineer who, like Harold Ramos’ Egon Spengler in GB84, fulfills a techie role - rather like Q in the James Bond franchise except that Jillion (like Egon, and unlike Q) is a full member of the team and participates in their adventures. Mckinnon really shines, and is a highlight of GB16. Filling out the team is Patty (Jones), a NY Subway worker who has a paranormal encounter and because she can provide a car for the ghostbusters, becomes the fourth member of the team. (It has been noticed that this is an unfortunate case of stereotyping – as in GB84, the Black character is the only non-scientist in the group. However, unlike Ernie Hudson’s character in the earlier movie, Jones is very much a full member of the team and one of the funniest.)

Other cast members include Chris Hemsworth (The Avengers [2012], Snow White and the Huntsman [2012]), Zach Woods (In The Loop [2009], Silicon Valley) and Charles Dance (The Jewel in the Crown [1984], The Imitation Game [2014], Game of Thrones).

A strength of GB16 is that it treats its women stars as actual people in their own right – specifically people with a job to do. Romance is not a plot element, looking hot is not a character trait, and no one is trying to hook up with a man (or another woman). Wiig’s character does swoon a bit for the hunky mail secretary, Kevin (Hemsworth) – but only in the interest of comedy, and nothing comes of it. Speaking of which, the Kevin character is a hoot – gorgeous and studly (he plays Thor in Marvel’s Avengers series) but thick as a brick; it’s a nice reversal and sendup of the dumb bimbo trope – fair play in my opinion. The movie is rated PG-13.

Whether you will love or just like GB16 may depend on the circumstances of your viewing. I’ve seen it twice, once in an afternoon screening with a half full house and a pretty dead audience. I liked it okay, and appreciated a lot of the jokes without actually laughing aloud.  My second viewing was on a weekend evening with an engaged audience that started laughing at all the right places and which increased my amusement and enjoyment significantly. (This is why we have laugh-tracks, folks – laughter is contagious.)

Overall, this may not be a classic, but it’s a very enjoyable summer entertainment flick.

1 hour 56 minutes.

In wide release.

Our Kind Of Traitor (2016): My Kind of Thriller

Taken from the novel by John LeCarre, Our Kind of Traitor is a well written, tightly scripted, adroitly directed film featuring excellent acting, a plot one can actually follow that makes sense pretty much, with some great, scenic locations which, however, do not divert our attention from the plot. The movie features the considerable talents of Damien Lewis, Naomie Harris, Jeremy Northam, and especially Ewan McGregor and Stellan Skarsgård.*

The story starts with a Hitchcockian flourish: An English couple, Perry (McGregor), a poetics professor, and his wife Gail (Harris), a barrister, are vacationing in Morocco, when they are befriended by a charismatic, mysteriously wealthy, aggressively convivial Russian (Skarsgård). Then this guy asks Perry to do him a favor, one thing leads to another and pretty soon Perry and Gail are caught up in international intrigue, with the Russian mob after them, British Intelligence manipulating them, and the lives of the Russian and his family (not to mention themselves) on the line. Money, loyalty, the British banking system, political corruption, marital infidelity – you name it, it gets pretty complicated.

This is just the second feature film for director Susanna White who, for the past 15 years, has honed her craft as the director of several TV mini-series, among them the BBC/PBS produced Bleak House (2005) and Jane Eyre (2006), and the BBC/HBO production of Parade’s End (2012). Here, she displays a deft touch with actors and action, keeping things moving, pausing to allow the characters (and us) to learn new facts, and ponder new perils. Not that this is an action film in the modern sense – there are no extravagant bloodbaths, ultra-elaborate car chases, or highway mayhem, There’s but one explosion that I can recall, no explicit sex, and limited salaciousness of any sort.

(Okay, in the interest of full disclosure: Our Kind Of Traitor has earned an “R” rating from the folks at  MPAA “for violence, language throughout, some sexuality, nudity and brief drug use”. Technically accurate, I guess, but frankly I think the R derives primarily from the fact that the nudity includes a glimpse of male genitalia.)

Anyhow, Our Kind of Traitor is an intelligent, old fashioned thriller, a bit of a rarity nowadays – and my kind of movie.

One hour forty-eight minutes.

In semi-wide release.

[* A tip of the hat to BD, from whom I essentially cribbed the rather succinct opening summary.]