Thursday, February 27, 2020

Portrait of a Lady on Fire, Short Takes on What She Said: The Art of Pauline Kael (& a tribute to the Englander Pub)


“Too Late to Turn Back Now”
(Cornelius Brothers & Sister Rose from the 1972 song and album of that name)

Review by Ken Burke

I invite you to join me on a regular basis to see how my responses to current cinematic offerings compare to the critical establishment, which I’ll refer to as either the CCAL (Collective Critics at Large) if they agree with me or the OCCU (Often Cranky Critics Universe) if they choose to disagree.

                                      Portrait of a Lady on Fire 
                              (Céline Sciamma, 2019)   rated R
                 
“Executive Summary” (no spoilers): In the mid-18th century, a noted French painter, Marianne (left in the photo above), receives a commission to travel to an island off the Atlantic coast of the province of Brittany to make a portrait of a young aristocratic woman, Héloïse (right in the photo, if you haven't guessed already), as final verification she’ll be the bride of a nobleman in Milan, Italy; however, she was content at a convent before being taken away by her mother to fulfill this intended marriage for her now-dead-sister (suicide?), so Héloïse has no interest in posing for the portrait nor marrying a man she’s never even met.  To further complicate things for Marianne her task is to watch Héloïse as they take daily walks by the seashore, then complete the painting in secret from her observations.  They develop a quick, easy rapport in their conversations, leading Marianne to admit the full situation to Héloïse when the painting’s finished, but an argument between them leads Marianne to smear away the face on her canvas, then be surprised when Héloïse agrees to sit for a second version.  Without getting into further detail in this spoiler-free summary, I’ll just note what’s obvious from the trailer: these 2 women, despite their quick acquaintance, have more than just friendship between them, but how that’s worked out in this story is better left to an actual screening of the film (or a dive into my details below if that proves difficult given its very limited presence in North American cinemas at this point).  It’s won some awards already, been nominated for many more, is a beautiful experience to see on a big screen if you get the chance, yet find any opportunity you can to watch as it’s a lovely example of how cinema can capture, explore, probe our human feelings, here with extra-added-visual-interactions from painting.

Here’s the trailer:  (Use the full screen button in the image’s lower right to enlarge it; activate that same button on the full screen’s lower right or your “esc” keyboard key to return to normal size.)


If you can abide plot spoilers read on, but as this blog’s intended for those who’ve seen the film—or want to save some bucks—to help any of you who’d like to learn more details yet avoid important plot-reveals I’ll identify such give-away sentences/sentence-clusters thusly: 
⇒The first and last words will be noted with arrows and red.⇐ OK, now continue on if you prefer.

What Happens: In an unspecified year of the mid-18th century in France a young woman, Marianne (Noémie Merlant), is an art teacher/model for a small group of even-younger-women, one of whom earns her irritation by moving one of Marianne’s paintings out of a storeroom into their studio.  It’s a striking image of a woman outdoors at night with the hem of her full-length-dress aflame; when asked what it’s called Marianne replies “Portrait of a Woman on Fire.”  As the camera dollies in on the painting we shift to a lengthy flashback that occupies most of the film, events in 1760 (a date I got from various sources, although not directly from the story as I tried to follow it, scribbling notes in the dark attempting to keep up with—spectator warning!—subtitles of this French film) beginning with Marianne being rowed through choppy waters to an island off the Atlantic Ocean coast of Brittany in western France.  At one point a box (we later learn containing her canvases) is pitched overboard by the waves, yet none of the rowboat-men make any attempt to retrieve it so she has to jump in the water herself to get it back.  Later, when she’s dripping wet on shore she’s told her destination is up and beyond the cliffs so she trudges up there by herself, hauling all her belongings, until she comes to the manor of her new employer.  At first she meets only the maid, Sophie (Luàna Bajrami), who shows Marianne to her large, almost-empty quarters where she sits nude by the fireplace for awhile, smoking her pipe, drying off; later, she comes downstairs to the kitchen, finds some bread and cheese, soon augmented by wine from Sophie.  Next day she meets her employer, The Countess (Valeria Golno), as they sit under a portrait of the older woman done by her father (Marianne’s father’s also a painter—apparently a successful one—as she has financial independence by managing his affairs, relieving her of the quest of most royal/aristocratic women of her time: finding a proper husband for lifelong-security) where Marianne learns almost more than she can handle at once: her task is to paint a portrait of The Countess’ daughter, Héloïse, who’s to be married to a nobleman in Milan (that’s all we ever learn about him, implying that’s all the bride-to-be needs to know) if he likes the portrait (apparently he was to be married to Héloïse’s sister, now dead [later, according to Sophie, we learn she jumped off a cliff with no sound of fright if it were an accident] so the unwilling sister was pulled from her contented life at a convent, brought out to this isolated island to prepare for a future she has no interest in) with the complication being Héloïse refuses to sit for the portrait so when a male painter attempted the task he finally, in frustration, left the head as a smear of paint.  Of course, the picture must be done in just a few days so Marianne’s only tactic is to take long walks with Héloïse by the seashore, studying her face, so the painting can be done in secret (with the uncooperative daughter under the mistaken understanding Marianne’s been hired as a temporary companion in this desolate location).

 The young women walk and talk, Marianne lingering on her new acquaintance’s features to the point of annoyance, then dashing off sketches when she gets a chance, followed up with painting by candlelight because Héloïse occupies most of their daytime hours, including a time when she admits she’s never been to a musical performance so Marianne plays “Summer” (from Vivaldi’s Four Seasons) for her on a harpsichord.  Marianne also reveals she once attempted convent life but unlike Héloïse she didn’t care for it, left soon thereafter, later lived in Milan for awhile so these arbitrary-“friends” have more in common than they first understood, although Héloïse is bitter she has little control of her life, unlike Marianne.  As the surreptitious portrait progresses (in reasonable fashion with the artist “clothing” her subject in a long green dress, sometimes just laying it where Héloïse would be wearing it, sometimes using Sophie as a substitute model) Marianne also destroys the previous incomplete version, burning it in the fireplace.  When the new painting’s done (to The Countess’ satisfaction) Marianne insists she should be the one to break the truth to Héloïse; when the latter sees it, sharp words ensue between these 2 women, but mainly because Héloïse doesn’t feel it shows any real connection to the artist, causing Marianne to smear the face off this version as well in anger (oil doesn’t dry that fast, unlike contemporary acrylic, so it's still wet); surprisingly, though, Héloïse agrees to sit for another attempt while Mom goes away for 5 days.  As the work progresses the women are together day and night, growing closer.  One evening, they, with Sophie, read the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice about the lovesick husband who goes to the underworld, pleading to allow his far-too-soon-dead-wife another chance at life, but for this miracle to happen she must follow him up the steep path to our world without him turning around to look at her, although he does just as they’re on the cusp of triumph so she’s forever banished to the afterlife.  The women discuss why Orpheus turned around with Héloïse wondering if Eurydice called out to him, Marianne arguing it was a poet’s choice, a romantic rather than a rational action.  Then, Sophie confesses she’s missed a few periods, Marianne’s easily aware she’s pregnant, tries to help through some tactics to induce a miscarriage (another of Marianne’s past experiences, leading Héloïse to inquire about what love’s like, a difficult thing for Marianne to articulate).  Following these attempts to aid Sophie the 3 go down to the beach at night where a group of women are singing (the elder one tells Sophie she’s still pregnant so the next morning they all go to that woman’s hut where she applies a potion that brings about the desired result, with Marianne later painting a sketch of the event as Héloïse plays the role of the [anti-]“midwife” applying the concoction to Sophie’s private parts); this is where Héloïse’s dress catches fire before being quickly extinguished.

 By now the growing connection between Marianne and Héloïse has become too intense to repress any further, so first they kiss in a cave on the beach in the morning, then their nights are actively sexual (although Marianne’s disturbed by occasional visions of Héloïse in a wedding dress, lingering for a moment then vanishing).  Eventually, the second portrait’s finished, this time with mutual approval, but a lovers’ quarrel crops up with Héloïse accusing Marianne of ruining the first painting out of artist’s ego rather than saving Héloïse from marriage (due to no portrait for the intended-husband to approve), then Marianne refusing to encourage Héloïse to reject the marriage so they might somehow build a life together.  Soon, they reconcile but with the knowledge The Countess will return the next day, setting Héloïse’s life in Milan in motion.  Marianne makes a sketch for herself to remember Héloïse but she wants one of Marianne for the same reason; with the arbitrary choice of p. 28 of Héloïse’s book (which has some open space), Marianne uses a mirror (symbolically placed by Héloïse’s crotch so that Marianne’s face resides there) to guide a drawing of herself into the book.  Mom returns as scheduled, approves the portrait which is boxed up to be sent to Milan, presents Héloïse with that wedding dress Marianne’s already seen her in, so Marianne rushes to leave but hears Héloïse call for her to turn around (like Orpheus) to look one last time.  Then we’re back to the present time period when the story began, with voiceover testimony from Marianne she saw Héloïse twice more, once in a painting in a gallery with a little girl (presumably her daughter; Marianne also has a work in that show, of Orpheus turned to see Eurydice fading away from him), Héloïse’s hand in a book so we can see she’s indicating p. 28, then in a final scene as Marianne (seemingly in Milan) at a symphony performance sees Héloïse across the theatre sitting alone in another balcony listing to Vivaldi’s “Summer,” with a range of emotions shown on her face in an extraordinarily-long-take (in closeup) where we just have to surmise what Héloïse’s is thinking about, alternately smiling and tearful, as she’s watched unobserved except by Marianne and us.⇐

So What? Portraitö of a Lady on Fire had a shot at being submitted to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to compete for a Best International Feature Film Oscar, but the French Ministry of Culture instead chose Les Misérables (Ladj Ly, 2019)—somewhat inspired by but not directly based on the famous work of the same name by Victor Hugo (novel published in 1862, notably adapted to stage and screen, in recent times for the former in 1980 by Alain Boubili and Claude-Michel Schönberg, the latter in 2012 by Tom Hooper)—as their submission which did go on to be 1 of the 5 Oscar finalists (after winning the Jury Prize at the Cannes Film Festival), although none of the others likely had any chance against Parasite (Bong Joon-ho, 2019; review in our October 31, 2019 posting; the new Les Misérables did play in my area for awhile, but I never got around to seeing it)Portrait … was a winner at Cannes too, for the Queer Palm and overall Best Screenplay, got some notable recognition (along with a long list of some wins, mostly nominations from many critics’ groups) as a nominee for Best Foreign Film at the Golden Globes but lost again—as it did in many of those contests*—to Parasite, which was hard to beat in any awards race for 2019 releases, as a lot of surprised-Oscar-predictors (including me) found out the hard way.  Still, Portrait … is a powerful, well-conceived, intriguing, even mesmerizing cinematic experience which might be impactful enough to knock Just Mercy (Destin Daniel Creton, 2019; review in our January 16, 2020 posting) off of my Top 10 of 2019 list if I’d been able to see it when that being ranking was being compiled, but I’ll just leave history where it stands even while noting my respect, admiration, fascination with Portrait … while wishing it had been in a lot wider general circulation much sooner.

*These 2 links compare various accolades for Portrait ... to Parasite (scroll down within each one).

 The CCAL’s been extremely supportive as well with Rotten Tomatoes analysts providing a stunning 98% trove of positive reviews while the generally-reserved-folks at Metacritic offer the astounding generosity of a 95% average score (light-years better than anything both they and I have reviewed in 2020, tying only with Parasite and The Two Popes [Fernando Meirelles, 2019; review in our January 2, 2020 posting] at that number for anything I’m aware of from them in the 2019 releases).  I especially liked the Orpheus and Eurydice inclusion/references, well-considered as Marianne, the artist, likely sees herself as parallel to this mythologically-talented-musician/poet, willingly turning around for one last look at Héloïse (who calls out to Marianne for one last visual-embrace, just as she proposed Eurydice might have done to Orpheus, unable to contain her need for his presence any longer) who won’t actually disappear in her wedding gown as she did when appearing as an apparition but does withdraw from Marianne’s life (except for those 2 final-yet-distant-encounters) just as firmly as Eurydice leaves Orpheus’ Earthly-life (until time would come for him to join her in the underworld, a reunion Marianne could never hope to parallel—unless she knows more of what awaits in our afterlife than I might ever have reason to assume), all of this visually-recounted in the painting Marianne creates of this tragic tale of lost-love (even though she attributes it to her father, in one last tribute to him as he’s now left her life also)Portrait of a Lady on Fire is in its various ways a bit disturbing (Marianne turning into a voyeur stealing glances at Héloïse, trying to commit her features to memory), heartbreaking (Héloïse wants none of what’s been arbitrarily determined for her, is much more committed—as best she can be directly for a few days, then presumably in secret for the rest of her life—to her love for Marianne), elegant (cinematography, costumes, the physical appeal of the lead female actors), awful in some of its realities (the misery Sophie endures because of her unwanted pregnancy—like Héloïse’s husband-to-be we see few men in this film, as their necessity for the ongoing development of the story is minimal except to provide dramatic points of tension, as with Héloïse’s arranged-marriage for purposes of social and economic stability with no regard for her wants and needs), mesmerizing in its full presentation (I know nothing of this director nor her stars yet I’d be eager to see more of any of their work). There’s much to admire here—including the marvelous portraits done by Marianne (actually Hélène Delmaire, whose command of Héloïse/Haenel’s facial features is most-admirable, says the guy with a BFA, some success as a painter, but nowhere near her ability to capture facial features in such an effective manner), so I encourage your attendance at this film difficult as that may prove to be without some video option.*

*One possibility is this 17:07 compression (spoilers abound of course), although the outdoor lighting’s harsh compared to the original, some indoor shots are a bit dark, overly-contrasty as well.

Bottom Line Final Comments: The difficulty in finding Portrait of a Lady on Fire results from it currently being in only 130 domestic (U.S.-Canada) venues (up from a tiny 22 even though it’s been out for 12 weeks) so it’s only brought in about $1.4 million so far (although its global total’s considerably better at $7 million) with little incentive from such meager results to expand (especially when competing with “animal”-focused-experiences such as Sonic the Hedgehog [Jeff Fowler; $107.7 million domestically, $204.2 million globally], The Call of the Wild [Chris Sanders; $26.5 million domestically, $42.6 million globally] or even—new title to help clarify content—Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey [Cathy Yan; $72.9 million domestically, $174 million globally]) much wider unless it has a successful run this coming weekend at France’s César awards (their Oscars) where it has 10 nominations (including Best Film, Director, Actress [for both leads], Original Screenplay), but 5 of those are in direct competition with Les Misérables so they continue to compete with each other in Europe even as the latter’s all-but-vanished from our domestic screens.  Still, if you can find Portrait … now or later in a video format I highly encourage a viewing as it’s a worthy investment of your time, a tastefully-sensual-delight in its last half (unless lesbianism’s a problem for you—but why should it be?), as well as a useful lesson in portrait painting as we watch Marianne progress from blank canvas to captivating images (although the second one does have a stronger sense of revealing its subject, as it should, done from life rather than recently-remembered-sketches).  I’ll wrap up as usual with a Musical Metaphor to finalize these comments with a consideration of my opening reference of “Too Late to Turn Back Now” as it could easily refer to the emerging passion between Marianne and Héloïse, either being able to say: “It’s so unusual for me to carry on this way I tell you, I can’t sleep at night, a wanting to hold her tight I tried so hard to convince myself that this feelin’ just can’t be right And I’m telling you It’s too late to turn back now I believe, I believe, I believe I’m falling in love.”  (To clear up any confusion about their video the brothers are Carter and Eddie Cornelius, the women are their sisters Rose and Billie Jo, the latter joining the group in 1972 after original member Cleveland E. Barrett died in a car crash.)  Yet, the true emphasis here is on the impossibility (even among aristocrats) in that era of such a love being able to flourish so my actual Metaphor is from the Moody Blues (before they changed some personnel in their big-years of the late 1960s-much of the ‘70s) with “Go Now” (a 1964 hit on their 1965 The Magnificent Moodies album) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFwsfWsL8As (1965 performance) with the emphasis on “We’ve already said ‘goodbye’ Since you gotta go, oh you’d better go now Before you see me cry I don’t want you to tell me just what you intend to do now ‘Cause how many times do I have to tell you darlin’, darlin’ I’m still in love with you now.”  It’s clear from the later scenes they never lost their passion for each other, allowing us to celebrate it with them when they could, feel remorse about their separation as their times (unlike Bob Dylan’s in 1964) weren’t yet ready to be a-changin'.
          
SHORT TAKES (spoilers also may appear here [but not this time])
             

    What She Said: The Art of Pauline Kael (Rob Garver, 2018)   Not rated
          
Here’s the trailer:


 Always on the lookout for ways to enhance the coverage of this blog I’ll do something (I don’t recall) I’ve ever done before which is to call your attention—not truly a recommendation (therefore, no stars rating) but just barely short of that—to something I haven’t seen, a documentary about famed film critic Pauline Kael (it’s playing somewhat near me but, despite my interest, there’ve been other items on my agenda, and, as Paul McCartney sings in "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey" [on the 1971 Ram album] “the kettle’s on to boil and we’re so easily called away”) which I’m going to encourage you to at least look into seeing it if you can because given the high quality of film commentary Kael put into The New Yorker as an official film critic from 1968 to 1991 (accumulated in 13 anthologies of her prodigious output—including her famous re-evaluation of Orson Welles’ contributions to the script of his most famous film in The Citizen Kane Book [1971]) I can’t imagine this would be anything less than a marvelous lesson in the process of extremely-well-informed-film-analysis from a courageous woman unafraid to take the cinematic world to task whenever she saw fit, although if you have interest in seeing this while it’s still in a theater (before also seeking it out somehow later in a video option) you should do so fast because it’s not playing very widely as best I can tell (didn’t even crack last weekend’s list from Box Office Mojo), will be leaving my San Francisco area in the next day or so before I get a chance to see it.  All I can say is I have nothing but the highest respect for her opinions as a film critic (even if I don’t always agree with everything she says), would imagine this exploration of her life and work will make clear why her reviews were so highly regarded, still continue to be so today despite her long-ago-death in 2001 (here’s a collection of 73 of them from The New Yorker and The New Republic).  However, contemporary critics are a bit divided on this doc, with the RT folks offering 85% positive reviews while the (snobbish, maybe?) MCers could muster only a 68% average score (you can also find a bit more info at the official website, as well as some quick comments from Kael [2:57] to give you a direct sense of her attitudes, in that the doc’s seems full of commentary from others speaking about her).

 Ending this posting on a non-cinematic-note, I’ll acknowledge the sad demise of a wonderful gathering place in nearby (to me) San Leandro, CA, known as The Englander Sports Pub and Restaurant where my wife, Nina, and I have spent many a leisurely afternoon partaking of their vast variety of brews (Sunday brunch was great there as well).  The photo to the right is me with Roy Childress, who’s worked there since the place opened in 1995, then became 1 of 3 co-owners (with his sister and her husband, Cheryl and Rod Thies) in 2014, the year Nina and I took it upon ourselves to join the many people with small plaques on the wall celebrating the feat of having indulged in all 75 beers on tap.  We worked our way down the row of kegs starting in October 2014, finished the quest in 2016 (although we had to keep active to stay on pace with them as they kept rotating new product into the mix frequently), finally earned our honored spots on the wall that year.  But now, though, the landlord's refused to renew their lease or sell the spot to someone who’d keep it going (seems this person wants to build high-rise-condos and shops at the location) so The Englander’s final day will be Feb. 29, 2020.  It was a great place to wander into on a regular basis, we met some talkative patrons and friendly bartenders there, and enjoyed many a chilled glass of barley and hops (although Guinness was my favorite dark ale going in, Kona Longboard my favorite lager, still ending up that way even after having at least 1 pint of 153 other contenders).  Great places like this keep closing in our area (yours too?).  Thanks for the memories.
              
Related Links Which You Might Find Interesting:
          
We encourage you to visit the summary of Two Guys reviews for our past posts.*  Overall notations for this blog—including Internet formatting craziness beyond our control—may be found at our Two Guys in the Dark homepage If you’d like to Like us on Facebook please visit our Facebook page. We appreciate your support whenever and however you can offer it!

*A Google software glitch causes every Two Guys posting prior to August 26, 2016 to have an inaccurate (dead) link to this Summary page; from then forward, though, this link is accurate.

AND … at least until the Oscars for 2019’s releases have been awarded on Sunday, February 9, 2020 we’re also going to include reminders in each posting of very informative links where you can get updated tallies of which 2019 films have been nominated for and/or received various awards 
and which ones made various individual critic’s Top 10 lists.  You may find the diversity among the various awards competitions and the various critics hard to reconcile at times—not to mention the often-significant-gap between critics’ choices and competitive-award-winners (which pales when compared to the even-more-noticeable-gap between specific award winners and big box-office-grosses you might want to monitor here)—but as that less-than-enthusiastic-patron-of-the-arts, Plato, noted in The Symposium (385-380 BC)—roughly translated, depending on how accurate you wish the actual quote to be—“Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder,” so your choices for success are as valid as any of these others, especially if you offer some rationale for your decisions (unlike many of the awards voters who simply fill out ballots, sometimes for films they’ve never seen).

To save you a little time scrolling through the “various awards” list above, here are the current Golden Globe nominees and winners for films and TV from 2019 along with the Oscar nominees and winners for 2019 films.

Here’s more information about Portrait of a Lady on Fire:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88L8pIEr1nk (19:28 interview with director Céline Sciamma and actors Noémie Merlant, Adèle Haenel, [audio’s a bit low at times so you might want to use the Closed Captions option, which actually provides an accurate transcription this time])



Please note that to Post a Comment below about our reviews you need to have either a Google account (which you can easily get at https://accounts.google.com/NewAccount if you need to sign up) or other sign-in identification from the pull-down menu below before you preview or post.  You can also leave comments at our Facebook page, although you may have to somehow connect with us at that site in order to do it (most FB procedures are still a bit of a mystery to us old farts).

If you’d rather contact Ken directly rather than leaving a comment here please use my email address of kenburke409@gmail.com(But if you truly have too much time on your hands you might want to explore some even-longer-and-more-obtuse-than-my-film-reviews—if that even seems possible—academic articles about various cinematic topics at my website, https://kenburke.academia.edu, which could really give you something to talk to me about.)

If we did talk, though, you’d easily see how my early-70s-age informs my references, Musical Metaphors, etc. in these reviews because I’m clearly a guy of the later 20th century, not so much the contemporary world.  I’ve come to accept my ongoing situation, though, realizing we all (if fate allows) keep getting older, we just have to embrace it, as Joni Mitchell did so well in "The Circle Game," offering sage advice even when she was quite young herself.

By the way, if you’re ever at The Hotel California knock on my door—but you know what the check out policy is so be prepared to stay for awhile. Ken

P.S.  Just to show that I haven’t fully flushed Texas out of my system here’s an alternative destination for you, Home in a Texas Bar, with Gary P. Nunn and Jerry Jeff Walker.  But wherever the rest of my body may be my heart’s always with my longtime-companion, lover, and wife, Nina Kindblad, so here’s our favorite shared song—Neil Young’s "Harvest Moon"
—from the performance we saw at the Desert Trip concerts in Indio, CA on October 15, 2016 (as a full moon was rising over the stadium) because “I’m still in love with you,” my dearest, a never-changing-reality even as the moon waxes and wanes over the months/years to come.

OUR POSTINGS PROBABLY LOOK BEST ON THE MOST CURRENT VERSIONS OF MAC OS AND THE SAFARI WEB BROWSER (although Google Chrome usually is decent also); OTHERWISE, BE FOREWARNED THE LAYOUT MAY SEEM MESSY AT TIMES.

Finally, for the data-oriented among you, Google stats say over the past month (which they seem to measure from right now back 30 days) the total unique hits at this site were 11,781 (as always, we thank all of you for your support with our hopes you’ll continue to be regular readers, even though we’re experiencing our usual early-in-the-year-dropoff with hopes the traffic will soon increase again); below is a snapshot of where and by what means those responses have come from within the previous week:

Wednesday, February 19, 2020

Downhill

Sliding Over the Slippery Slope

Review by Ken Burke

I invite you to join me on a regular basis to see how my responses to current cinematic offerings compare to the critical establishment, which I’ll refer to as either the CCAL (Collective Critics at Large) if they agree with me or the OCCU (Often Cranky Critics Universe) if they choose to disagree.

                       Downhill (Nat Faxon, Jim Rash)   rated R

“Executive Summary” (no spoilers): Pete's (Will Ferrell) been in a bit of a funk since his father died 8 months earlier so he’s attempting to enliven his life again by taking his family—wife Billie (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) and their 2 sons—on an Austrian ski vacation which is going along quite decently enough (despite his frequent-cell-phone-texting-distractions) until the event of a controlled avalanche at their mountain resort results in him running away in panic leaving the family to fend for themselves, even though he tries to explain away his behavior afterward which Billie isn’t buying for a minute as her anger continues to rise along with emotional withdrawal from her husband (who’s now sleeping alone for most of the rest of this better-potential-than-actual-realization-movie).  In that it’s an English-language-remake of a much-more-successful-Swedish-offering, Force Majeure, from a few years ago, there won’t be any need to offer spoiler warnings if you’re already aware of the original (I’m not, yet a plot summary tells me this new one’s very similar in structure—if not critical response—to what came before), but for those of us who hadn’t previously known the outcome I’ll need to stop here (unless you’re ready for the full details below; maybe not a bad idea as you could likely more effectively spend your movie dollars elsewhere) should you choose to see this one for yourself.  Ferrell and Louis-Dreyfus are effective in their roles, the cinematics of snow-covered-mountains are lovely, but overall you won’t miss much if you miss moving toward Downhill.

Here’s the trailer:  (Use the full screen button in the image’s lower right to enlarge it; activate that same button on the full screen’s lower right or your “esc” keyboard key to return to normal size.)

(Yeah, I know, same image used below as the one just above; I didn't have a lot of options for photos, though, just as there don't seem to be a lot of plot options as to how Downhill develops.)



If you can abide plot spoilers read on, but as this blog’s intended for those who’ve seen the film—or want to save some bucks—to help any of you who’d like to learn more details yet avoid important plot-reveals I’ll identify such give-away sentences/sentence-clusters thusly: 
⇒The first and last words will be noted with arrows and red.⇐ OK, now continue on if you prefer.

What Happens: Pete Staunton’s (Will Ferrell) been feeling emotionally-off a lot for the last 8 months after his father died so he hopes for a revival by taking his family—wife Billie (Julia Louis-Dreyfus), young teenage son Finn (Julian Grey), barely teenage (if that) son Emerson (Ammon Jacob Ford)—on a skiing vacation in the Austrian Alps where everything seems to be going well enough (although there are no other kids around this resort so the Staunton siblings have to spend most of every day with their parents, while Pete’s overly-attentive to his smartphone, especially sharing texts with work-buddy Zach [Zach Woods] who’s also in Europe with his girlfriend, Rosie [Zoë Chao]).  Then it all comes apart one day when the family’s having lunch on an outdoor balcony; suddenly, an avalanche is triggered (intentionally) sending a torrent of snow down the mountainside which brings out a host of phone cameras to document the event until the snow goes directly under the balcony causing a lot of panic, with Pete running away from his family, coming back sheepishly when the “crisis” is over, with only a solid dusting of powder on the crowd, no damage done to anyone—except to the stability of Billie and Pete’s marriage as she’s first shocked, then increasingly angry he seemingly left them to possibly die while saving himself (and his phone).  When, at Billie’s insistence, they later go to lodge a complaint with a local authority (Kristofer Hivju), he says the controlled avalanche went as planned, no harm came to anyone (although the filmmakers gave us initial reason to worry as the snow flew over the balcony, leaving us with nothing but a white screen for an uncomfortable length of time until we see the relatively-scant-amount of snow on the deck and patrons), there were notices everywhere altering the guests to the time and intent of the event; Billie didn’t see any of the warnings, although Pete reluctantly admits he did, not helping his situation with anyone in his family, especially when Hivju’s character (couldn’t find a name for him anywhere; didn’t catch it as the credits rolled by) refuses lawyer Billie’s request for an apology over the incident (the couple’s increasing separation’s shown visually as they have 2 bathroom sinks which they shared just 1 of at first, now operate in their individual spaces).  Next day it all worsens as the parents oversleep, have to rush to catch a helicopter Pete arranged for some expensive, spectacular skiing, finally leading to cancellation as Emerson’s lost one of his gloves (easily found afterward near a car tire), the kids are starving with no breakfast, Billie’s irritated they’re getting no orientation about what awaits them that day before boarding the chopper, Pete’s exasperated as his money essentially flies away with the helicopter, no potentially-healing-special-event for this family.

 So, what else could Pete do to make things worse?  Easy answer: he continues to text with Zach who’s now in their vicinity so Pete accepts the suggestion that Zach and Rosie join them for dinner, much to Billie’s disgust (especially when she learns later Pete lied about how the connection came about).  As they meet at the Stauntons’ suite for drinks the conversation turns to the avalanche with Billie finally releasing her disgust about Pete running away during the potential disaster, him trying to defend his motives (says he realized they were OK, yet he was going to get help?) so Billie drags the boys into it who admit they felt Dad was just running away (that night she sleeps with the kids).  Next day she goes off on her own (Pete takes the boys on what appears to be a controlled-bobsled-track-ride, finally bumps against Emerson for using his brakes too much, gets banned from the ride, lets the kids just go back to the hotel to watch TV, ends up drinking with Zach which leads to a major bender for Pete as he’s feeling completely rejected, disrespected); Billie talks with (concierge?) Charlotte (Miranda Otto) who encourages her follow her own needs, husband or not, then leaves her with ski instructor Guglielmo (Giulio Berruti) who puts the moves on her when they stop at his cabin, leading to Billie responding at first, backing away, then tries to relieve her horniness by masturbating in a restroom stall but clumsily falls out through her unlocked door.  ⇒Pete finally admits to Billie he was scared during the avalanche, wants to repair the relationship damage, but she says he’ll have to earn it.  Last day of the trip Pete encourages them all to head to the slope called The Beast for one last thrill, but when they get there he admits he doesn’t want to do it, goes back down on a ski lift with the boys (Emerson admitted earlier he doesn’t care for skiing at all) leaving Billie to make the run by herself.  When she hasn’t come down after awhile, Pete hikes up the mountain to find her sitting there intentionally (seemingly with a—fake—minor injury) so he can carry her down, redeeming himself in the eyes of his sons.  As this all ends, Billie, Pete, Zack, and Rosie are standing in front of the hotel waiting to leave when a large clump of snow from the roof falls toward them as they all jump back a bit to avoid it, possibly leaving us with the ambiguous sense Pete’s fear during the avalanche was a normal reaction no one should fully be ashamed of.⇐

So What? Downhill’s title’s a clever-enough-pun referring both to the obvious direction of skiing and the ongoing deterioration of a marriage.  But that’s where the cleverness ends according to many from the OCCU (although I don’t disagree with them all that much, even if my 3 stars-rating implies a healthier result than most of their opinions) as the Rotten Tomatoes critics mustered only a pathetic 40% of positive reviews while the folks surveyed by Metacritic were a tad more generous (for a change) but still yielded only a 49% average score (more details in the Related Links section farther below).  Many complained little was gained by remaking this story from the original Swedish Force Majeure (Ruben Östlund, 2014; title refers to a contractual clause freeing both parties from liability in the event of unexpected disasters), played more as a comedy or at least with better interpersonal relationships than this remake (which has its humorous moments [mostly prior to the avalanche scene] but heads into dramatic-couple’s-confrontation-territory for much of its attempt-to-not-overstay-its-welcome, running only 86 min. as if co-directors/co-screenwriters [with Jesse Armstrong for the latter] couldn’t come up with any other plot devices to pad this story, despite their Adapted Screenplay-Oscar-heritage for their work on The Descendants [Alexander Payne, 2011])—for comparison, the RT response to Force Majeure was 94% positive, the MC average was 87% (quite high for them); another link in Downhill is the casting of Hivju who essentially had Zack’s role in the Swedish version, so if you’d like to know a bit more about the original (which won the Jury Prize in the Un Certain Regard section of the 2014 Cannes Film Festival) here’s the trailer.  I was aware of the poor critical response to Downhill, but a combination of other plans, disinterest in alternative options, and logistical considerations about traveling quite a distance to see something more interesting led me to a nearby-theater; I can’t say I was overly-taken with what I saw as the shift to a serious tone (as Billie’s increasingly-steamed at Pete) is seemingly misdirected back to some comic encounters, Pete shows enough character flaws to make me wonder what Billie saw in him years ago (did Dad’s death really unhinge him all that much?), the ending with the snow splat implies little to bring a satisfactory conclusion (Pete's clearly on report from Billie as he hopes to go about digging himself out of the avalanche of bad feelings he’s created from his wife and kids) leaves me with a jumbled-reaction, still appreciative of the talents of Louis-Dreyfus and Ferrell but in agreement there’s not much going on here, especially to draw Julia’s interest as a producer as well as star.  I’m sure the goal was to cast 2 big names in comedy to draw in audiences, hoping they’d be willing to tolerate drama instead, but those involved in this experiment might have been more successful if they’d just re-released Force Majeure with dubbed English dialogue (even using the current cast, again for attractive-name-value) rather than the scorned-misfire they’ve ended up with.

Bottom Line Final Comments: Last year Disney acquired the film holdings of what's been renamed the Fox Corp.including 20th Century Fox, Fox Searchlight Picturesthe Fox name now dropped by Disney (to avoid any “contamination” of these properties through association with the Trump-kissing-Fox-cable-“news”; the main cinematic enterprise became Twentieth Century Studios) so the predominant production/distribution company of this movie's called Searchlight Pictures.  So far, the existing acquisitions for Disney from that purchase haven’t been very successful at the box-office, except for Ford v Ferrari (James Mangold, 2019; review in our  November 27, 2019 postingwe’ll just have to see what happens when Disney’s more in charge of new Twentieth Century/Searchlight product, including what might happen with the entire cluster of Marvel superheroes/villains [except Spider-Man] all owned by Uncle Walt’s conglomerate).  This latest-leftover-release is indicative of the current failures of existing Fox film projects to generate much income: despite opening in 2,301 domestic (U.S.-Canada) theaters last weekend, Downhill (with now a financial-connotation added to that name) managed to bring in a mere $5.1 million (plus another $5.1 thousand from international markets) so if you have any interest in this movie (the stars do reasonable work with what the script provides them) you’d better find it fast before it’s long gone.  Admittedly, poor critical response likely added to its essentially being ignored by moviegoers during its debut days, but weak reviews haven’t put much of a damper on last weekend’s box-office-champs with #1 Sonic the Hedgehog (Jeff Fowler)—based on a videogame—taking in $58 million domestically ($113 globally) despite responses from RT at 65%, MC at 47% or #3 Fantasy Island (Jeff Wadlow) making $14 million in northern North America ($21.6 million globally) even with RT results of 10% (!), MC 20% (the exception in this group is #2 Birds of Prey: And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn [Cathy Yan] which has pulled in $60 million domestically after 2 weeks [$145 million globally] with CCAL support of 78% at RT, 60% at MC—I guess I might have been slightly better off choosing this one to see, but I’m currently saturated with comic-book-based-superhero tales [or villains functioning as such against a more-evil-force in this case], also not encouraged to continue with a lead character [even played by the talented Margo Robbie] from Suicide Squad [David Ayer, 2016] where the OCCU response was 27% at RT, 40% at MC [although it did rack up a $746.8 million gross worldwide]).  Well, as Pete says in Downhill (based on advice from his father), “Every day is all we have” (so we need to make the most of it), which is what I tried to do with a movie choice last weekend given my ongoing respect for the abilities of Ferrell and (especially) Louis-Dreyfus, even if the result's not as fully functional as I'd hoped it might have been.

(This image isn't exactly a copy of The Beatles' Help album cover but evokes it a bit,
although I have no idea what the Stauntons might be spelling out in semaphore.)
 What Downhill needed was "help [... from] somebody [… although] not just anybody” (even with Oscar-winning-scriptwriters on board already) so I’ll close out this review with the usual tactic of a last cluster of comments in the form of a Musical Metaphor, this time (mostly) John Lennon’s “Help” (from The Beatles’ 1965 movie soundtrack of the same name) with lyrics appropriate to Pete’s situation as he ultimately admits to Billie: “I never needed anybody’s help in any way But now those days are gone, I’m not so self-assured […] Help me if you can, I’m feeling down And I do appreciate you being round Help me get my feet back on the ground […] But every now and then I feel so insecure I know that I just need you like I’ve never done before.”  The official music video for this song, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q_ZzBGPdqE, is a rather silly bit of business with the Fab Four lip-syncing the recording, bouncing around on a sawhorse, the others holding their instruments but Ringo clutching only an umbrella which does come in handy at the end when fake snow’s dumped on them, so the goofiness here undercuts the serious plea of the lyrics for emotional aid at a time when youthful vanity begins to give way to a sense of “Oh, shit, now what am I supposed to do?”  (Apparently Lennon’s honest reaction to the overwhelming fame engulfing the group beyond their wildest dreams even early in their careers—I never experienced anything like that, but I did relate to the feelings of “And now my life has changed in oh so many ways My independence seems to vanish in the haze” as I found myself in 1975 divorced at 27 after only a few years of marriage, embarking on a college teaching career at 30 even though I was barely prepared for any of the courses I was suddenly in charge of.)  Yet, this is exactly what Downhill attempts to do: Set up a situation of serious concerns (there are times when Billie looks like she’s about to explode physically the same way she did emotionally when confronting Pete about his abandonment of his loved ones in a crisis situation) yet keep shifting at times to comedy, seemingly playing to audience expectations of these particular stars (maybe to more actively mirror the events of Force Majeure, which I haven’t seen).  So, if you want a more direct version of “Help,” here's one, a live 1965 performance.  Downhill’s not a direct descent into a wasted opportunity as some reviews indicate (if nothing else the Alpine scenery—it’s shot in snow-covered-Austria, a place where I’ve actually walked around some drifts several thousand feet up, even in mid-summer—is gorgeous, some aspects of the acting are quite effective, although Louis-Dreyfus is more engaging in her slow-boil than Ferrell is, forced to be so consistently wimpy, clueless as to how to rescue this trip after making such a fool of himself), but it does conform to the stereotype of weak filmic opportunities tossed away in late winter while audiences may still be catching up on Oscar-winners before more interesting fare comes along in spring, followed by oh-so-many-summer-blockbusters.

 In the meantime you might also want to catch up on an Oscar winner (that I'll bet many of us haven't seen yet) from the Animated Short Film releases, Hair Love (Matthew A. Cherry), which runs a mere 6:47 while compressing a lot of heartfelt sentiment about a little African-American girl with a headful of unruly hair, an overwhelmed Dad who initially can't make any sense of it while Mom's in the hospital (seemingly battling cancer, given her bald head), which you can find here.  I don't mean to undercut options for theaters to make some cash with their (likely) waning weeks (days?) of showing these Academy-nominated-Shorts-programs so if you're intrigued enough to seek out the contestants for Animation, Documentary, and/or Live Action (the latter reviewed in my previous posting) please do it at this site, but for many of you the Internet may be the only option you have so please don't assume I'm trying to help put moviehouses out of business (I'll leave that to Netflix).
                
Related Links Which You Might Find Interesting:
          
We encourage you to visit the summary of Two Guys reviews for our past posts.*  Overall notations for this blog—including Internet formatting craziness beyond our control—may be found at our Two Guys in the Dark homepage If you’d like to Like us on Facebook please visit our Facebook page. We appreciate your support whenever and however you can offer it!

*A Google software glitch causes every Two Guys posting prior to August 26, 2016 to have an inaccurate (dead) link to this Summary page; from then forward, though, this link is accurate.

AND … at least until the Oscars for 2019’s releases have been awarded on Sunday, February 9, 2020 we’re also going to include reminders in each posting of very informative links where you can get updated tallies of which 2019 films have been nominated for and/or received various awards 
and which ones made various individual critic’s Top 10 lists.  You may find the diversity among the various awards competitions and the various critics hard to reconcile at times—not to mention the often-significant-gap between critics’ choices and competitive-award-winners (which pales when compared to the even-more-noticeable-gap between specific award winners and big box-office-grosses you might want to monitor here)—but as that less-than-enthusiastic-patron-of-the-arts, Plato, noted in The Symposium (385-380 BC)—roughly translated, depending on how accurate you wish the actual quote to be—“Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder,” so your choices for success are as valid as any of these others, especially if you offer some rationale for your decisions (unlike many of the awards voters who simply fill out ballots, sometimes for films they’ve never seen).

To save you a little time scrolling through the “various awards” list above, here are the current Golden Globe nominees and winners for films and TV from 2019 along with the Oscar nominees and winners for 2019 films.

Here’s more information about Downhill:

https://www.searchlightpictures.com/downhill/ (but there’s not a lot here so you might want to look at this one—https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4558376/also)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SyDSMIHCLI (17:31 Kevin Smith interviews actors Julia Louis-Dreyfus [also a co-producer with Stefanie Azpiazu, Anthony Bregman], Will Ferrell, Miranda Otto, Zach Woods, Zoë, Kristofer Hivju, and co-directors/co-screenwriters Nat Faxon, Jim Rash—there’s a minimum of content about the movie, though)



Please note that to Post a Comment below about our reviews you need to have either a Google account (which you can easily get at https://accounts.google.com/NewAccount if you need to sign up) or other sign-in identification from the pull-down menu below before you preview or post.  You can also leave comments at our Facebook page, although you may have to somehow connect with us at that site in order to do it (most FB procedures are still a bit of a mystery to us old farts).

If you’d rather contact Ken directly rather than leaving a comment here please use my email address of kenburke409@gmail.com(But if you truly have too much time on your hands you might want to explore some even-longer-and-more-obtuse-than-my-film-reviews—if that even seems possible—academic articles about various cinematic topics at my website, https://kenburke.academia.edu, which could really give you something to talk to me about.)

If we did talk, though, you’d easily see how my early-70s-age informs my references, Musical Metaphors, etc. in these reviews because I’m clearly a guy of the later 20th century, not so much the contemporary world.  I’ve come to accept my ongoing situation, though, realizing we all (if fate allows) keep getting older, we just have to embrace it, as Joni Mitchell did so well in "The Circle Game," offering sage advice even when she was quite young herself.

By the way, if you’re ever at The Hotel California knock on my door—but you know what the check out policy is so be prepared to stay for awhile. Ken

P.S.  Just to show that I haven’t fully flushed Texas out of my system here’s an alternative destination for you, Home in a Texas Bar, with Gary P. Nunn and Jerry Jeff Walker.  But wherever the rest of my body may be my heart’s always with my longtime-companion, lover, and wife, Nina Kindblad, so here’s our favorite shared song—Neil Young’s "Harvest Moon"
—from the performance we saw at the Desert Trip concerts in Indio, CA on October 15, 2016 (as a full moon was rising over the stadium) because “I’m still in love with you,” my dearest, a never-changing-reality even as the moon waxes and wanes over the months/years to come.
          
OUR POSTINGS PROBABLY LOOK BEST ON THE MOST CURRENT VERSIONS OF MAC OS AND THE SAFARI WEB BROWSER (although Google Chrome usually is decent also); OTHERWISE, BE FOREWARNED THE LAYOUT MAY SEEM MESSY AT TIMES.
           
Finally, for the data-oriented among you, Google stats say over the past month (which they seem to measure from right now back 30 days) the total unique hits at this site were 17,602 (as always, we thank all of you for your support with our hopes you’ll continue to be regular readers); below is a snapshot of where and by what means those responses have come from within the previous week: