So, a descant – a variation, a comment, a criticism. Here is a critical view of the film of the moment The Descendants, starring the delightful George Clooney. And there may be spoilers, though I think not more than have been relayed in other reviews. So caveat emptor applies.
Sometimes your response to an artistic work, a novel or a film, is so at odds with your friends, peers or the zeitgeist; it gives you pause. For instance I loved Melancholia and have sat through it twice entranced, transfixed to my seat at the end, unable to move or applaud the virtuosity, so deeply moved was I. Whereas a friend of mine found it boring beyond belief, noting that at his screening “people didn’t even clap” which he saw as evidence everyone at his screening thought the same .
So it is with George’s latest. I saw the trailer and thought it looked a little odd, but the critical acclaim was such, the awards rolling in, it must be good. And I had loved the Director Alex Payne’s previous two films; Sideways and About Schmidt, which were themselves quirky journeys combining slapstick humour and pathos in different but ultimately equally rewarding ways. So three of us, two post fifties and a teenager, went to the Westgarth where we ran into another adult friend. Our responses, nearly two hours later, we’re all the same – what was that all about?! I have been trying to nut out what I think is wrong with the film ever since. At it’s heart, I think it lacks a soul, or central message with too many things jumbled up that don’t adhere to make a satisfying whole.
As with Payne’s other films we are focussed on the central character’s response to a defining dilemma. For Schmidt it was his wife’s death and trying to reconnect, without her mediation, with his daughter. In Sideways it was Paul Giametti’s loneliness and failure to form a lasting relationship counter poised against his friend’s profound sense of loss associated with his coming nuptials. George’s dilemmas are too many to be properly described so pithily. How to deal with an inheritance? How to deal with daughters he barely knows? How to come to terms with his wife’s impending death? How to deal with her recently revealed infidelity? Too many situations to be more than cursorily described, and each is dispatched in a cursory manner.
George (his name is Matt, but Matt never succeeds in displacing George) doesn’t care what happens about the inheritance, is wisely not dependent on its outcome but then suddenly at the end, without explanation, takes a profoundly different view. Who cares? Not me.
The adolescent daughter is unmanageable – for a morning, but when her drooby friend is allowed to accompany her everywhere never gives George any more trouble. In fact is quick to defend what a great job her Dad is doing coping with everything. Not like any adolescent girl I’ve known. As for the drooby friend, I awaited in vain for some transformational moment that never came, apart from a revelation about his background that was pertinent but quickly passed over. And if he made fun of any dementia sufferer around me, I would quite happily punch him. His only utility appeared to be as a babysitter to the younger daughter when required.
She, the younger daughter, is sassy and cute and for the most part kept in ignorance of what is happening to her mother. But when the time to reveal all is nigh, George wimps out and leaves it to the hospital counsellor. What is going on here? A rich exploration of father – daughter relationships? I think not.
Then we have the wife, Elizabeth. We don’t get to know her, or anything about the relationships she has had with any of the characters beyond the barest of hints: difficult with older daughter, but only when the latter twigged to the affair, okay with junior daughter, bit distant from George because he worked too hard, taken with extreme sports (so all her fault she was lying in a coma in hospital), apple of her father’s eye so George was never good enough, having an affair but that didn’t matter because the bloke didn’t really love her and wouldn’t have left his wife for her. Really! And any dilemma George might have had about turning off life support was easily resolved, Elizabeth was efficient, making her wishes clear and, helpfully, legally binding – turn the machines off. A hostile reading would see her prone body as a prop over which the other characters could spout their views.
So what was the film exploring? A man beset by grief we are told in some of the reviews. I am not so sure. A man beset by lots of dilemmas perhaps and busy running around dealing with them? Looking for the lover took precedence mid film, but he went about doing the other stuff. He was sad, but got on with it. Shepherding kids in to say farewell to their Mum, the lover’s wife in and out to do something (not quite clear what – he had to hustle her out in the end), venting his own anger then forgiveness, telling Elizabeth’s friends, dealing with the inheritance and his usual legal work, on and off.
The film’s weaknesses had nothing to do with the performances. George was as good as anyone could be. I read a suggestion that the role might have been better performed by Bill Murray. I don’t think so. Bill would not have had the gravitas required. There are scenes where he is overwhelmed and George is completely believable, weeping at times, holding it in at others. And he is great at slapstick – peering over the lover’s hedge, running awkwardly to his friends house on hearing of the affair. Shades of Brother Where Art Thou. Laugh out loud funny.
I don’t object to the juxtaposition of slapstick and pathos. It worked well in both of Payne’s previous films. But, in those the humour was illustrating something about the characters and the central themes. Here the tone is not quite right. The audience laughs at scenes involving the comotose woman and a dementia sufferer and feels a little guilty afterwards. The purpose in juxtaposing the comedy and drama is not clear. What is being illuminated here? It does not add to the story, or provide any deeper understanding of the characters and their motivations.
All of the other performances are good, especially the little girl. She is great. The older one is well played, but the script just glosses over any life-like teenage angst. The young man who played her friend did what little that was required of him adequately. Elizabeth’s father was good, but reminded me of someone else – Schmidt? Or Robert De Niro in Meet The Fockers? Playing Elizabeth, lying in her hospital bed would have to be one of cinema’s least rewarding roles, but the make up was extremely realistic. Hawaii looked fantastic.
We left the cinema disappointed, wondering what the critics and award judges saw in this film, and what we had missed.
– Posted using BlogPress from my iPad