Review: "Maps to the Stars"

Director: David Cronenberg

Runtime: 111 minutes

There's quite a bit of talk about fires and burns in Maps to the Stars, yet precious little actual heat. The latest from David Cronenberg sees him taking a knife to the squishy, slimy underbelly of Hollywood, with results that are more likely to induce shrugs than gasps of horror or outrage. Maps is something of a companion piece to Cronenberg's last film, 2012's Cosmopolis, tackling a different sort of elitist American culture, albeit with drastically different tones. The iciness of Cronenberg's approach in Cosmopolis was off-putting at first, yet gradually became an effective choice before making a gripping hard left turn into fire and brimstone condemnation. Unfortunately, the director isn't able to bring even a small fraction of Cosmopolis' concluding fire to Maps. Despite scenes that are, on paper, stomach-churning, Cronenberg's latest is ultimately a lukewarm stab at cutting satire.

Hollywood has always provided multiple angles for satirization, and Cronenberg and writer Bruce Wagner have at least assembled a good host of targets. There's fading star Havana Segrand (Julianne Moore), trying to revitalize her career in the shadow of her dead mother (Sarah Gadon), and her new assistant Agatha (Mia Wasikowska), who happens to be a burn victim. Then there's Agatha's possible boyfriend Jerome (Robert Pattinson, now at the front of the limo), a limo driver who really wants to be a writer and actor. And then, of course, there's the screwed up child star Benjie Weiss (Evan Bird) and his vaguely creepy parents (John Cusack and Olivia Williams). All good ingredients to have for an expansive satire of the entertainment industry's vanity, misplaced priorities, and closets stuffed full of skeletons.

Where Maps to the Stars veers of course starts with Wagner's screenplay, which spreads the screen time around so much that all the plot lines feel half baked. The most compelling part of Maps is Havana's story - in no small part thanks to Moore's Cannes-winning performance - yet Wagner spends so much time with the rest of his Hollyweridos that her story comes off as pointless by the time the credits roll. In Havana, Wagner is able to tackle issues such as celebrity status, aging, Hollywood's standards for women, and the trauma of childhood abuse, yet he refuses to fully engage with Havana's mindset. During the first hour or so of the film, Gadon pops up as the ghost of Havana's mother (a famous actress who died young in a fire), presumably to torment her struggling daughter. 

Yet as Wasikowska's own story starts to move independently, Havana's hallucinations cease and her mental strain is washed completely away. Gadon and Moore play off of each other well, and their casting taps into some interesting notions about age and talent, but every scene they have together is exactly the same. Havana asks what Gadon's Clarice wants, and by the end of Maps to the Stars, you'll neither know nor care (Havana seems to forget about her as well).

This is made even more frustrating because of how much fun Moore is having sinking her teeth into a role like this. She alone seems to understand what Cronenberg and Wagner are trying (and failing) to accomplish. She is constantly on edge, even when trying to meditate her way through receiving bad news, which enlivens Cronenberg's otherwise staid atmosphere. The biggest crime of the film is that Moore is a member of an ensemble cast, and not a definitive lead. With her at the center, Maps would have had a infinitely stronger foundation. 

Only Wasikowska comes close to Moore's understanding of the film's aims, even as she's saddled with an underwritten character. Though Moore dominates the scenes with Havana and Agatha, Wasikowska is able to effectively hold her own as a sounding board for Havana's histrionics. And when facing off against other cast members, Wasikowska is really able to shine, giving careful hints about Agatha's damaged psyche and doing her best to fill in the gaps of Wagner's writing. 

The rest of the main cast, however, look as though they've been directed into comatose submission. Bird has the looks to play a royally messed up Bieber-esque child star, but he's never given the room to truly dig into the character's excessive lifestyle and increasingly erratic mindset. Cusack, meanwhile, is unable to lend a spark to what should be a juicy role: a classic puffed-up Hollywood life coach/guru. Yet rather than inflate himself to fit the role, the actor shrinks and goes through the motions. As for Pattinson, he's only got a handful of scenes, and they're all of the sort that really don't require a name actor at all. The exception, and not in a good way, is Olivia Williams, who - perhaps because of the editing - appears to be giving two performances at once. One minute she's a domineering stage mother, and the next she's falling apart and weeping over a past trauma. There's no in between, and the shifts feel completely forced. 

Though Cronenberg knows how to direct freakish madness on screen (Videodrome, Naked Lunch, The Fly, etc etc etc), his forays into psychological dramas over the past decade have largely proven to be stillborn. Cosmopolis and Spider had some effective moments and ideas, yet films like A Dangerous Method were often just sluggish and hollow. Maps to the Stars presents the best opportunity for Cronenberg to use his gifts as a director of nightmares, yet those nightmares never come. Even with the ghosts, different forms of incest, burning bodies, and three dead children, nothing about Maps to the Stars resonates. The visuals are flat, the production design passable, and the music barely notable. The content on page is so scattered that it can't really work without a strong atmosphere to heighten to horror of what it depicts, and Cronenberg and his collaborators never supply it.

One can't blame the director for trying to branch outside of his body horror roots, but you'd think by now he'd have seen that films like Maps to the Stars really don't fit his skill set at all. I have no doubt that he has some genuine contempt for the seedier aspects of Hollywood, but Maps to the Stars ultimately gives the impression that he's just indifferent towards it. Were this his first foray into this sort of satire, it would be easy enough to lay most of the blame at Wagner's feet. Yet even though Wagner's script is heavily flawed, Cronenberg's directorial choices (or lack thereof) are equally lackluster. There is so much bark in what Maps to the Stars wants to say, but when it comes to bite, the film has forgotten to put its dentures in. 

Grade: C

Cannes '12 Review(s): "Cosmopolis" and "Mud"

 Cosmopolis dir. David Cronenberg [Competition]
A strong match of director and material, David Cronenberg's Cosmopolis, an adaptation of Don Delilo's novel, is an odd, icy film that remains compelling despite some intentionally brittle performances. Set over the course of a single day, we follows Eric Packer (Robert Pattinson), a 28 year old executive who wants to travel across town to get a haircut. For various reasons, the trip is delayed, and over the course of the day, Packer's life undergoes enormous personal and financial changes.


From the outset, Cosmopolis seems to be split in two. One half, the atmosphere, is quietly compelling, drawing you in even as the other half, the performances, seem designed to keep us at bay. The dialogue feels rigid, and the performers generally go along with the withdrawn oddity of the general tone. Trapped mostly in Packer's luxurious limousine, this is a surprisingly quiet film, one that mimics the protagonist's state of mind. Packer is part of the 1%, a man so dedicated to empty pleasure and wealth, that he pays almost no attention when he sees riots going on just outside of his car. The same is true of those who visit him, whether it's friend with benefits/art collector Didi (Juliette Binoche), or financial philosopher Vija (Samantha Morton). It's starts off oddly distancing, yet as it progresses, Cosmopolis' tone comes to the foreground, and the performances, appropriately, warm up. The non-1% characters, played by Mathieu Amalric and Paul Giamatti liven the film up considerably, knocking both Eric and the audience out of the stifling stillness of the limo. 


Pattinson, known mostly for the Twilight films, finally has his moment to prove himself, and he acquits himself adequately. At times he seems too hindered by the tone at the start, yet he really does improve as the character gets drawn out of his catatonic state. The show, however, belongs to Giamatti, who delivers a lived-in performance as a man filled with bitterness and philosophical resentment. Just as the movie starts to flag, Giamatti comes in and helps drive Cosmopolis through to its finish. Bolstered by Howard Shore's subtly mixed-in electronic score, there remains a quiet, pulsating energy throughout, although I suspect many will be left completely turned off by the chilliness of the entire enterprise. For those with whom the film actually connects, however, there exists a very good, perhaps not quite great deconstruction of the financial elite, as only David Cronenberg could present it.


Grade: B/B+

Mud dir. Jeff Nichols [Competition]
Thought it feels decidedly broader and more commercial than the incredible Take Shelter (2011), Jeff Nichols' Mud is a touching and effective coming-of-age story that should open the talented director up to a wider art house (and possible mainstream) audience. Set in Mississippi, two young friends, Ellis (Tye Sheridan of The Tree of Life) and Neckbone (Jacob Lofland), discover a fugitive named Mud (Matthew McConaughey) living in their favorite secret hangout. 


The hangout in question is a small boat that has, somehow, wound up lodged in a tree, and the image brings to mind the whimsy of films like Tim Burton's Big Fish, as well as classic stories like "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn." This is a film predominantly focused on one boy's experiences with love and betrayal, and all of the right ingredients are there on paper. What Mud is lacking, however, is a sense of surprise. Nichols feels comfortable with the material, but it doesn't feel like he's really pushing himself. It's good to know he can write this sort of indie crowd pleaser, but also disappointing in terms of how unremarkable (and occasionally repetitive) the plotting is. At 130 minutes, the film certainly isn't dull, but there are times when the nature of the story keeps it from being as taut or compelling as it could be. Then there's the climax, which, though handled well on its own, starts a little too abruptly, and borders on deus ex machina. 


That doesn't mean that there isn't a lot to like about Mud, because there really is. From the opening shots, including some lovely overhead shots of the Mississippi River, the nostalgic (but never sappy) tone comes through beautifully, thanks to Adam Stone's richly textured cinematography and David Wingo's lush, ambient score. The performances also help drive the story. McConaughey turns in his best performance in quite some time, devoid of his usual acting tics. He brings the sort of charming (but not smug) quality to Mud that makes you understand why people would be drawn to him, even if he might have ulterior motives. Reese Witherspoon is solid as well in a small role as the love interest Mud is hoping to reconnect with. Ray McKinnon and Sarah Paulson deliver strong turns as Ellis' parents, even though some of their material is among the weakest (one big fight scene turns uncomfortably on the nose). 


The standout, however, is young Mr. Sheridan, who really carries the film with his presence. He's an inherently watchable, likable screen presence, and Nichols extracts a performance from him that doesn't feel overly mannered or coached. When he finally gets his big moment, an outburst at Mud, he brings it home, cementing himself as a powerhouse. He captures Ellis' journey through romantic and idealistic disappointment with such naturalism, that I think it must be one of the best child performances to grace the screen in some time. For all its imperfections that keep it from greatness, Sheridan is excellent and, above all else, the best reason to stick through Mud all the way through its predictable, yet still touching finale.


Grade: B

Review: "A Dangerous Method" (2011)

It would be easy to dismiss A Dangerous Method, the latest from director David Cronenberg, as an overly dry, albeit fleet-footed adaptation of Christopher Hampton's play "The Talking Cure." As an examination of Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) and Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen), there's little that's revelatory or terribly insightful, despite the interesting subject matter. This is Cronenberg at his most calm, free of sensationalism or body trauma. And the film would almost be too calm if it weren't for one element: Keira Knightley's performance.

Tellingly, the film opens not with Jung or Freud (who is very much a supporting character), but with Knightley's Sabina Spielrein, a Russian woman sent for treatment due to "hysteria." And right from the start, Knightley grabs your attention, screaming at the top of her lungs, collapsing into bizarre laughter, and contorting her face in ways I didn't think fully possible without the assistance of CG. It's such a striking performance (I mean that in a neutral sense) that how you feel about the film may ultimately hinge on whether you find the actress' work intensely riveting, or wacky and over the top. That is, unless you're like me, and find that she oscillates wildly between the two non-stop, in which case forming a definitive opinion on Cronenberg's latest becomes somewhat more puzzling.

Covering roughly a decade in time, what's noticeable from early on is that Hampton's play (which he adapted himself for the screen) hasn't made the full transition so that it feels entirely cinematic. Granted, this is a film that revolves around conversation after conversation, and there are plenty of exteriors that help flesh out the locations, but at times it's not enough. In one early scene, Jung sits behind Sabina, with no other decoration in the room. The shot shows only two sides of the square room coming together in a corner, and the angle creates the sensation that we're very much in a set, possibly even on a stage with very convincing lighting. It's odd, because so many of the interior scenes (thankfully) lack this quality, but every now and then the staginess creeps through, whether in the mise-en-scene or the occasional transition that arrives too abruptly. The quickness of the transitions is perhaps the bigger flaw, as it throws off any sense of proper pace, and I counted several times when the film felt like it was ready to conclude, only to see it keep going. Thankfully it's never boring, but it also feels like A Dangerous Method feels content to play out scene after scene and then simply end, rather than reach a proper sort of resolution (which is done through, sigh, title cards detailing various fates).

And while the screenplay has a surprising amount of light humor and some compelling exchanges, it also has moments that are completely dry. These are usually scenes where characters are talking in language so technical, and so devoid of character, that it starts to feel like a lesson. It renders whatever theoretical breakthroughs people have totally unremarkable, when they should be the source of the film's most intriguing exchanges.

It's too bad, because there's really a lot to like, or at least admire, in the film. The production values are quite handsome, and Peter Suschitszky's cinematography is sharp, clean, and bright. Howard Shore's musical contributions, which basically amount to a single theme, are also quite effective. As for the performances, there are moments for everyone to shine, but the script isn't nearly as rich in exploring the conflicts as it ought to be. It all feels too sanitized, to the point where the much talked about spanking scene stirs little emotion. Of Fassbender's many roles this year, this is easily his weakest, by virtue of the academic nature in which Hampton writes the character. Mortensen has fun as Freud, but again, he's treated from an odd distance, and the academic approach hurts his efforts. When it comes to Knightley, I'm at a crossroads. She's either the best or worst of the trio, depending on the scene. Overall, though, it's too uneven of a performance to really exalt, as there are too many moments that feel overwrought that clash with scenes where the actress shines. At the very least, however, it feels like Knightley is really taking a risk, which is more than can be said for just about every other aspect of the film. A little more danger really would have been quite helpful.

Grade: C+

Venice Review Round-Up: "A Dangerous Method"

Another day, another major player making its debut in Venice. The next big one, and a big Oscar hopeful, is David Cronenberg's A Dangerous Method, which centers on the relationship between Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) and Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen). It's been buzzed about for quite some time, with many thinking/hoping that the film could prove to be Cronenberg's big break into the Oscars. Like many high-profile premieres, however, Method isn't making quite the splash that fans of the director and his cast (which includes Keira Knightley) had predicted.

The Telegraph - David Gritten (3/5 stars): "Much of this material...is frankly uncinematic, and Cronenberg has compensated with sumptuous locations..." "But it's Knightley that one remembers, for a full-on portrayal that is gusty and potentially divisive in equal parts."

The Guardian - Xan Brooks (2/5 stars): "What the spanking [scene] can't do, unfortunately, is knock some life into this heartfelt, well-acted but curiously underwhelming slab of Masterpiece Theatre."

IndieWire - Oliver Lyttelton (B): "Still, if the take off and landing are a bit bumpy, most of A Dangerous Method is fearsomely smart..." "But if anything keeps it from quite hitting the heights that it could, it's Hampton's script."

London Evening Standard - Derek Malcolm (4/5 stars): "...[Knightley] more than holds her own from the moment she arrives on the scene..." "It is a dark, troubling tale...with a calm appreciation of the passions that lay behind the trio's different views of treatment..."

The Hollywood Reporter - Todd McCarthy (N/A): "Precise, lucid, and thrillingly disciplined...brought to vivid life by the outstanding lead performances of Keira Knightley, Viggo Mortensen, and Michael Fassbender."

Variety - Justin Chang (N/A): "...the film's most problematic element is Knightley, whose brave but unskilled depiction of hysteria at times leaves itself open to laughs."

Venice Verdict: It has a cool head, a compelling story, and features a trio of solid performances, but A Dangerous Method may be too cold and distant to consistently connect with audiences.

Trailer: "A Dangerous Method"

Once tipped to open Cannes (it will now open Venice), A Dangerous Method is the latest film from director David Cronenberg (A History of Violence, Eastern Promises). Known for his rather dark, gritty, and intense depictions of physical and emotional violence, the director's latest seems a bit mild in comparison...at least on the surface. The trailer is certainly cut to give the sense that this is a baity period piece with slightly darker subject material (but not too dark, lest it be off-putting to AMPAS' eldest voters). I'm a little put off by the amount of white/beige in the shots, it somehow looks like the post-production team is trying to use white to cover up for budget limitations, but overall this has the potential to be a fascinating look at two of history's most fascinating minds.

That cast certainly doesn't hurt either. Fassbender and Mortensen have both built up impressive resumes of powerful work, and seeing the two play off of each other could prove to be one of the acting highlights of the year. Yet as much as Fassbender and Mortensen have been touted as early awards contenders (the former in lead, the latter in supporting), it's Knightley who really steals the trailer. Granted, the role is engineered to be the most outwardly expressive, but this seems like a nice change of pace for Knightley, despite the film's status as a prestige period piece. Maybe it's finally time for a follow-up nomination to go with her Pride and Prejudice nomination...