Skip to main content

JAMES A. GEORGE ON THE NEW RIDLEY SCOTT FILM

OUR CRITIC WONDERS HOW MUCH SEX AND DEATH IS GOOD FOR SCOTT

A script written by one of the, if not the, best contemporary authors, Cormac McCarthy. Directed by Ridley Scott. A leading cast both A-list and prodigious: Michael Fassbender, Penelope Cruz, Javier Bardem and Brad Pitt. It seems like a sure winner, but alas the critics have been harsh. Perhaps rightly so, as The Counsellor is not the sum of it’s parts. But is it bad, or just odd?
McCarthy’s familiar devices appear. The Counsellor, played by Fassbender, is our nameless protagonist who makes one bad decision from which seemingly unavoidable consequences entangle him and his loved one. The tragic fate characters run into isn’t played out on screen, thankfully for the sanctity of the viewer, but the absence of an identifiable face or avatar or symbol for the antagonists, visual or audible or whatever, voids of the film of a lot of potential tension. I think it may be a sign of a larger issue surrounding Scott’s more recent work.
For a graduate of the RCA, the creator of Blade Runner, etcetera, Ridley’s more recent work has little of his creative vision. A few inventive compositions flare up during The Counsellor, and exciting use of lighting is quite consistent, but on the whole not often enough, and his camera movement was rather dull. His cinematic language seems to have grown more conservative, which is not something you’d expect of the prolific mastermind behind Alien. I wonder if this is the issue? With so many projects constantly going on for him, and an apparent pride in finishing his shooting schedules early and promptly, I wonder how much love is put into the projects. The man that battled to get the final cut on Blade Runner, to have huge sets built and scripts re-written, against all advice, so that it was his vision on screen, I hope it isn’t a case of churning out product now.
But, Scott is still one of the best working in Hollywood! And I’m not sure there are many directors that could attract such a stellar cast to such a dark, twisted and unconventional script. Of course, Cormac McCarthy’s name is on that title page, but one has to trust the director with such words. Such words that bounce and linger, playfully and poignantly. Such words are magic when given to Javier Bardem and Fassbender, who get the chance to exercise the lyrical nature of the dialogue. However, as much as I hoped this would be an expose of Cameron Diaz’s acting chops, her blundering tone and delivery of the words on the page feel more like a superhero baddie than sinister “McCarthian” conniving evil. So when she scowls and pouts to declare that she is not cold in her attitude towards loss, since “truth has no temperature,” the audience can be easily forgiven for chuckling. And given the importance of her character, it does the film some damage.
The film has a ‘theatre of the absurd’ atmosphere that is embodied well into the lavish production design and tremendous and grandiose costume design. It adds a sheen to an otherwise bleak and scary story that does exactly what you’re not expecting – and that is truly a breathe of fresh air.
I can’t imagine this is what McCarthy envisioned as he wrote it, but he was on set, he must be aware (and willing) for it to turn out this way. And I’m glad it has! Should critics really be digging at the film for its resistance to conform to regular moody thriller cinema, to deliver typical plot describing dialogue? What we get are some powerful themes from some horrible characters, and that is quintessentially Cormac McCarthy successfully adapted!

So while Ridley has made a good film, one can’t help but wonder what the Coen Brothers would have done with it. Not because they have successfully adapted a McCarthy novel, but because the explosions of sex and violence, greed and excess, are aesthetics and themes they handle so well and that Scott seems to handle without much “pizazz”. But then again, this one film, as it stands, has the most bonkers sex scene in recent cinema, and the most brutal and outrageous murder projected on cinema screens in some time.
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

AMERICA PSYCHO

According to the latest CBS, ABC, etc, polls, Clinton is still likely to beat Trump - by percentile odds of 66% to 33% and change. But the current popular vote is much closer, probably tied with the error of margin, around 44% each. Trump has to win more key battleground states to win, and may not - but he is ahead in Florida...

We will all know, in a week, whether we live in a world gone madder, or just relatively mad.

While it seems likely calmer heads will prevail, the recent Brexit win shows that polls can mislead, especially when one of the options is considered a bit embarrassing, rude or even racist - and Trump qualifies for these, at least.

If 42-45% of Americans admit they would vote for Trump, what does that say about the ones not so vocal? For surely, they must be there, as well. Some of the undecided will slide, and more likely they will slide to the wilder and more exciting fringe candidate. As may the libertarians.

Eyewear predicts that Trump will just about manage to win th…

DANGER, MAN

Like a crazed killer clown, whether we are thrilled, horrified, shocked, or angered (or all of these) by Donald Trump, we cannot claim to be rid of him just yet. He bestrides the world stage like a silverback gorilla (according to one British thug), or a bad analogy, but he is there, a figure, no longer of fun, but grave concern.

There has long been a history of misogynistic behaviour in American gangster culture - one thinks of the grapefruit in the face in The Public Enemy, or Sinatra throwing a woman out of his hotel room and later commenting he didn't realise there was a pool below to break her fall, or the polluted womb in Pacino'sScarface... and of course, some gangsta rap is also sexist.  American culture has a difficult way with handling the combined aspects of male power, and male privilege, that, especially in heteronormative capitalist enclaves, where money/pussy both become grabbable, reified objects and objectives (The Wolf of Wall Street for instance), an ugly fus…

OSCAR SMOSHCAR

The Oscars - Academy Awards officially - were once huge cultural events - in 1975, Frank Sinatra, Sammy Davis Jr, Shirley MacLaineandBob Hope co-hosted, for example - and Best Picture noms included The Conversation and Chinatown. Godfather Part 2 won. Last two years, movies titled Birdman and Spotlight won, and the hosts and those films are retrospectively minor, trifling. This year, some important, resonant films are up for consideration - including Hidden Figures and Moonlight, two favourites of this blog. Viola Davis and Denzel Washington will hopefully win for their sterling performances in Fences. However, La La Land - the most superficial and empty Best Picture contender since Gigi in 1959 (which beat Vertigo) - could smite all comers, and render this year's awards historically trivial, even idiotic.

The Oscars often opt for safe, optimistic films, or safe, pessimistic films, that are usually about white men (less often, white women) finding their path to doing the right thin…