Hyde Park on Hudson & Hitchcock
On days when I am doing a double feature, I try to find the
best coupling of times among the movies I want to see. I try to make sure there
is as little layover time as possible so I am not too tempted by the buttery
popcorn and Reese’s Pieces. This particular pairing turned out to be intriguing
in their generational parallels and warmly welcome in stylistic differences.
Hyde Park on Hudson felt like an after-school special attempting to be naughty.
The meandering script shied away from the more scandalous affairs surrounding
President Roosevelt and his mistresses to focus on the ensuing comedy of manners instead. Bill Murray (in a Golden Globe nominated performance) and Laura Linney safely portray FDR and his cousin which
further hinders Richard Nelson’s blandly written characters. However, this fares
well for Samuel West and Olivia Coleman (King George VI and Queen Elizabeth)
for they give the film the bit of buoyancy present. After seeing the film, I
was left thinking that maybe it was meant for a different generation. Perhaps,
older audiences craved a simple, neutered retelling of an important and mostly
uneventful weekend that changed the course of history.


I entered Hitchcock expecting a similar biopic treatment meant for a different generation. I was thankfully mistaken. Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren not only infused the titular character and his wife, Alma, with destructive carnal desire, but also accompanied it with earnest longing and passionate jealousy. Hopkins’ wonderful physical transformation is nicely matched with his behavioral changes. His unflinching facial austerity serves for the comedic moments and he wisely selects when to soften his expression for emotional impact. Mirren earned Golden Globe and SAG nominations by boldly embodying a headstrong woman with sexuality, unfaltering wit, and accenting her with loving patience, and loyalty. She makes her Alfred’s equal in intellect and determination – just as it should be – and by doing so anchors the film. Scarlett Johansson nails Janet Leigh’s onscreen performances but struggles a bit in the casual encounters. The script wisely focuses on Hitchcock and Alma’s marital struggles in the midst of their perilous professional time, but feels uneven in tone and intent. Yet, for a film targeted to a different generation, Hitchcock infused life, energy, and humor into an American icon, which Hyde Park on Hudson completely failed to do. HYDE PARK ON HUDSON 2.5/5 Stars. HITCHCOCK 3.5/5 Stars.
The Deep Blue Sea
After hearing of Rachel Weisz’s Golden Globe Nomination for The Deep Blue Sea, I was pleased to find it available instantly on Netflix.
While her performance is an interesting mix of strength and frailty, the film’s
style and pacing does not allow her to feel fully engrossed. There are strong
supporting performances as well, but the film overall falls flat under Terence
Davies’ direction of his own scattered adaptation. The costume design,
original music, and overall production design greatly excels the final product.
2/5 Stars
Anybody else seeing any of these three films? What did you think??
Anybody else seeing any of these three films? What did you think??
Saw Hyde Park on Hudson night before last and I think you were too lenient on it - it's a mess. I don't think Mitchell can really do anything other than whimsical romance comedies, cf Notting Hill. Hence the 'comedy of manners' that you suggest quite correctly that this film falls apart into.
ReplyDeleteBill Murray, as always, is a delight, charming and engaging. Sam West, does an excellent King George, Elizabeth Wilson, Olivia Williams and Elizabeth Marvel are great as the main women in FDR's circle, but that's about it. Laura Linney is back to being just awful and I didn't buy Olivia Colman as the 'Queen Mum' at all. How many times do we need a juxtaposition reaction shot of 'us' and 'them'. Tedious beyond bearing.
The music was terribly used, the editing was sloppy and indulgent, the camerawork, while it captures the beautiful scenery which it could hardly fail to, is uninspired, routine, repetitive and simply poor. I guess it's the curse of digital that gives us endless shots where the focus pulls between actors and objects like a bad daytime soap.
It's also morally bankrupt, something that wouldn't normally bother me but ol' FDR is just a bit of a naughty boy really - never mind why he treats the women in his life how he does.
It has no centre, no opinion and ultimately no point.
And I completely take your point Nelson, about the older crowd. There were a couple of old dears in the empty auditorium at the Landmark where we saw it. They tittered and presumably loved the somnambulant pacing.
Me, not so much.
There's a great story in there, but told by through the eyes and tedious voice over of someone who we care little about, it's utterly
lost.
Agreed. I love your comment about it being "morally bankrupt." Yeah, the acceptance that his adulterous behavior is excused by his charm and necessity for distraction makes the sex-light execution even more reprehensible. "No centre, no opinion and ultimately no point" is exactly right. There was no artistic input or vision present. Too bad.
ReplyDeleteI normally enjoy Linney, but definitely felt her go through the motions in this one.
Thanks for the additional insight!