SlipOfTheTongue Blog

Under discussion:

Hairspray  (2007)

HAIRSPRAY is a likable, well executed musical but the performance of John Travolta in the role of Edna is so ineptly handled and so uncomfortable to watch, that it knocks a decent little movie down at least one star in the ratings.  Everyone else equips themselves nicely.  Nikki Blonsky as Tracy Turnblad fits the fat suit well (actually I think that's her real figure).  She makes you forget very quickly about Ricki Lake's enjoyable turn in the John Waters film of the same name.  Christopher Walken underplays his role as Tracy's father and this actually helps the film by giving his scenes a believability not present in Travolta's scenes.  Zac Efron does a nice job as the young dance show stud who is cool enough to cross racial lines and look beyond appearances in order to pursue true cool.  The musical numbers are all expertly staged by director Adam Shankman.  James Marsden is only a little off in his performance (perhaps he was uncomfortable with the dancing and that trailed over into  his performance).  This is a small criticism.  

The centerpiece of the movie, however, is Travolta.  This stunt casting is all about him and his presence on screen and how it will change the movie.  Unfortunately it changes everything for the worse.  Nearly everything he does feels phony and amateurish.  Although the makeup and fat suit are undeniably a burden most actors have to overcome when playing such a role, this is not really the main problem.  The problem is more that from the inflections to the strange "Baltimore" accent, every single acting choice Travolta makes is a bad one.  This is a shame because otherwise this is a decent film.  It even incorporates issues of racial intolerance and weight related discrimination into its script (this isn't a bad thing).  The movie's dialogue and some of its scenes are occasionally racy (and that's not a bad thing either).  As this is a musical, the whole affair could have been oh-so-Lion King (and that WOULD have been a bad thing).  Instead there is a little hint of John Waters left in it in traces.  This includes an early cameo by him as a flasher.  We appreciate that.  Now, if only the added value on the dvd could tell us why Travolta made the acting choices he did.  I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall during that first rehearsal.

Under discussion:

Michael Clayton  (2007)

MICHAEL CLAYTON is an elegantly crafted Soderberg/Clooney drama that is also part Sydney Pollack throwback.  It was no surprise to see Pollack up on the screen and in the credits as a producer.  The film is a conventional "issue" drama married with the kind of adult style Soderberg and Clooney have successfully injected into many of their recent ventures.  The movie is smart, well crafted, and idealistic while narrowly avoiding the gooey stuff that can muss you up when you are raging against the corporate machine.  It feels idealistic without being sloppy.

I am still catching up on Clooney's recent work.  When did he develop into such a full blown movie star, the kind that takes care of business up on the screen?  With every new role he exhibits a presence that goes beyond sex appeal.  He knows how to burrow into a scene and remain true to the smallest inflections of performance.  In short he is not only a movie star, but an actor.  He has the chops to hold the attention of audiences who are growing accustomed to pyrotechnics and explosions.  In the age of C.G. nothing holds an audience's attention like a good performance, the inflections of a man going through an interior moment in a believable way.  

Tom Wilkinson is quite good (expectedly) in his role as the law firm partner who comes apart at the seems under a hail storm of moral contradictions. On the corporate playing field individual freedoms are frequently trampled and die along with individuals who get in the way.  Think of "The Firm" and Grisham's "The Rainmaker".  This is that kind of movie, one about the struggle between the individual and the corporate monolith.

Tilda Swinton is effective though seems to be grasping for inflection and mannerism at times.  The real revelation about her character is how fascinatingly it is drawn by screenwriter Tony Gilroy (who also directs).  This is definitely a well constructed "writer's" movie and Swinton's character plays the evil incarnate council for the conglomerate.  However, this villain is drawn as human, struggling to play on a field so big, one must often subvert one's own humanity in order to survive.  At times, Swinton's Karen Crowder seems to be flying apart at the seams.  Ultimately she is not as tough as Clooney's character and this proves to be her undoing.

MICHAEL CLAYTON feels more produced than directed.  The fingerprints of intelligent people are all over this movie and that is not to its detriment.  For all its sexiness and intelligence the film remains conventional.  There is nothing groundbreaking about the message or about the way it plays out.  However, we do get to watch Clooney who is part man's man, part modern sensitive male.  Leave it to a maverick (and an individual) like Clooney to partner up with the right people in order to make movies that feel both modern and timeless.  As I said initially, while watching this film one is reminded of the intelligent thrillers people like Pollack have given us over the past thirty years.  Think "Three Days of the Condor" and again of  "The Firm".  

In the new century we are expected to handle the contradictions of doing business in the modern world while remaining strong, stylish and sexy.  Much as a throwback feature film should show us, MICHAEL CLAYTON's hero survives and looks good while raging against the machine.  In thirty years, heroes haven't changed all that much.