True Story
Director: Rupert Goold
Year: 2015
A true story is not
necessarily an interesting one, a fact proven by this mess of a movie. The easy
pickings for criticism begin with Jonah Hill – a very talented and enjoyable
actor who is out of his depth in this leading role. After turning in excellent (and,
to some, surprising) dramatic performances in Oscar-nominated supporting roles
in Moneyball and the Wolf of Wall St., Hill, or someone in his camp, decided it
was time to take a crack at a dramatic leading man role. I’m not saying he
can’t or won’t someday be successful in that effort, but this wasn’t time. Nor
was it completely his fault.
The script and the
direction lack clarity and vision. And, as the two greatest opponents in any
communications endeavor are confusion and boredom, True Story pulls of the
cardinal double no-no. First time feature film Director Rupert Goold had a
potentially interesting story and some capable talent in his hands but simply
didn’t execute on it. The montages that fail to advance the story in an
interesting manner are just one example maddening displays of wasted
opportunity. The staging is often flat. The edits, at times, seem to happen
because they can rather than for any good reason. The strange thing to me is,
watching this film in a packed free preview audience, there were more than a
few people that seemed to think it was at least "okay". I could be
snarky and say they got what they paid for it, but I'll take the high road. My
opinion, like all, should be taken with a grain of salt.
Hill plays Michael Finkel,
a former New York Times reporter who got fired for the way he embellished a
story and conflated sources to tell, what he felt, was a greater truth. I never
believed Hill as a writer, though he has shown great intelligence in even some
of his silliest characters previously. James Franco plays Christian Longo, who
ranks among the lower level of scum of the earth for killing his wife and three
kids in brutal and remorseless fashion. Felicity Jones is a fine actress whose
character, Jill, seems to have some interesting things to say, but rarely gets
a chance to show them. Her relationship with Hill is laughably bad. And as much
as I wanted to cheer for her in the dramatic take it to Christian moment when
she decides to visit him in prison (and she's there because it makes good
drama…?), the movie was long since gone. James Franco flashes occasionally as
Longo, but I still get the feeling he was bored or partially committed too
often, unwilling to throw his full weight behind what he’s doing. See him in
Spring Breakers to get the depth of depravity played well if you want to see
this type of thing.
Resonance Rating: 1 out of 5
After reading this review, I received the following post from my cousin and fellow film fanatic:
ReplyDeleteI love the question that you beg. Not all movies based on true stories are good. That being the case, what makes a great adaptation?
That's a question I've been pondering for a while. It's been a dream of mine to write an adaptation of Fire Lover by Joseph Wambaugh. In fantasizing about it I've tried to understand why some are great (Zodiac, Rush, etc ) and some aren't ( Alexander, Patch Adams, etc ). Any thoughts?
Book to film adaptations can be tricky business depending on a number of factors including the source material, the Director's vision (or lack thereof), the Director's attachment to the book and definition of what truth she wishes to put on the screen. One of the easy and most popular writers to screen to point at is Stephen King. In the 1980's the common thought was his books just didn't make good films - with the exception of Carrie and The Shining (kind of big exceptions for those wishing to run this narrative!). Box office disappointments (not because they were all universally panned - some got decent reviews - but they didn't make the money Producers would have liked) like Firestarter, Christine, Cujo, The Dead Zone, Children of the Corn, Cat's Eye and Silver Bullet set forth the narrative the King's works were not adaptable. King even tried to do it himself, Directing Emilio Estevez in "Maximum Overdrive", and promising to "Scare the hell out of us" (it's worth a look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygWMy-QQNbw).
DeleteStand by Me would have changed the narrative...if people believed King actually wrote it (most seemed to not allow themselves to make the leap). Misery was a hit, but the films that didn't work - Running Man, Pet Semetary and The Lawnmower Man to name a few - continued the narrative that King couldn't be adapted.
By now, most people know Shawshank Redemption was written by King as was the Green Mile. Both were directed by Frank Darabont, just as Misery and Stand by Me were Directed by Rob Reiner, The Shining by Stanley Kubrick and Carrie by Brian DePalma. The common thread? Highly revered Directors, all of them, though they have unique styles. So is that it? It takes a great Director? No.
John Carpenter did Christine, David Cronenburg (not my cup of tea, but well thought of by many) did The Dead Zone and Bryan Singer made Apt Pupil. Film is a dynamic force with an incredible number of moving parts. If any of them get moving in a direction opposed to the Director's vision it can be hard to reel back in.
The biggest thing great adaptations need, in my opinion, is the understanding of the differences in the medium. Being too literal in the translation, generally speaking, is a foundational and deadly mistake. Sometimes characters benefit from being morphed - two or three coming together from a book to become a single, more dynamic character on the big screen. Description, too, sometimes pages of it, can be crystallized in a single, well-thought out visual metaphor. A picture is worth a thousand words...sometimes more.
Understanding the larger metaphors and meaning can serve as a great road map. Following the clear line of action the protagonist takes, what he physically does, as film is a visual medium and often languishes under excessive "talkiness", can also serve as a spine. The right departmental heads (DP, sound, set design, wardrobe, etc.), who understand this skeleton and can use these overarching motifs and metaphors to flesh out a coherent meaning all help.
But does any of that guarantee a winner? No. Because Nobody Knows Hollywood.