A Failure to Communicate
Hollywoodland / Daniel Carlson
Only people who live or work in Hollywood think of the dirt, grime, tourists, gaudy veneer, and occasional glimpses of hookers down on Santa Monica. No, when most people think of Hollywood, they think of an era as much as the place: the golden age of the 1940s and ’50s, when stars were under contract and the town exuded a slick confidence that hid all manner of secret sins. The filmic allure of sex and scandal is infinitely more enticing when imagined as being from that era, when men wore hats, women wore cones, and everyone smoked like it was going out of style. Stories like L.A. Confidential remain popular because they take place in that magic hour when Los Angeles was still defining itself and when people still could believe that movie stars might be better than normal people, that brief moment when the die was cast but before it had cooled. It’s that moment of sad promise that Allen Coulter’s ambitious but disjointed Hollywoodland seeks to explore and, though it succeeds for the most part, the film’s relative failures are just as interesting as the parts that work.
It’s 1959, and Louis Simo (Adrien Brody) is a private eye working out of a dumpy apartment he shares with his assistant/girlfriend, Kit (Caroline Dhavernas). Screenwriter Paul Bernbaum doesn’t exactly go out of his way to give Simo any depth: He’s got an ex-wife, a young boy growing distant and disillusioned by his parents’ split, a drinking problem, etc. He’s even manipulative, going so far as to string along a client who suspects his wife of adultery just to keep cashing the poor guy’s checks. Simo finds out from an ex-partner that George Reeves (Ben Affleck), an actor best known for his role as TV’s Superman, has died, an apparent suicide, and that Reeves’ mother suspects foul play. The hint of press coverage and brushes with fame are all Simo needs to sweet-talk the mother into hiring him to investigate Reeves’ death. At this point, Coulter flashes back to Reeves’ life in the ’40s, with his career at a crossroads: He’d appeared in Gone with the Wind and a few minor successes, but had yet to capture the public’s eye with “The Adventures of Superman.” The rest of the film plays out between the two story arcs with at times a minimum of connection: The plot lines are working toward the same event — Reeves’ questionable suicide — but there’s no feeling of immediacy or consequence: Reeves is doomed to die, while Simo is almost pathologically unable to come to any real conclusions about anything.
Reeves’ career begins to pick up when he meets Toni Mannix (Diane Lane), wife of MGM general manager Eddie Mannix (Bob Hoskins), who maintains a fairly open relationship with her husband, and so takes on Reeves as her boyfriend. Toni buys him a house, clothes, jewelry, the works: Reeves is a kept man, but he still wants to make it as an actor. His agent, Art (the always enjoyable Jeffrey DeMunn), scrapes up an audition for the “Superman” series, and Reeves loathes the part from the moment he gets it. Affleck emits a palpable charm as Reeves, and conveys a genuine sense of regret as he takes the only work he can get and begins to resent his image as a jokey television superhero. All of this is intercut with Simo’s ongoing investigation into the murkier aspects of Reeves’ death: the bruises on the body, multiple shots fired at the scene, and the multiple suspects, each with a legitimate motive. There’s Eddie the jealous husband, for starters, and also Reeves’ girlfriend and one-time fiancée, Leonore (Robin Tunney). It’s to Coulter’s credit that Simo’s detective work is primarily just that: He doesn’t get in any shootouts or even carry a weapon, there are no car chases, and Simo even gets beat up by anonymous paid hoods when he begins to close in on what might have actually happened to Reeves. Coulter is willing to let Simo get on with the dull, grueling business of solving the case; unfortunately, the movie gets in the way.
Bernbaum’s bloated script winds up placing more emphasis on vague ideas of ambience than on any actual meaningful bits of dialogue or interplay. At one point, Simo accuses Eddie Mannix of engineering Reeves’ death, shouting, “There’s blood on your hands!” Eddie coolly responds: “My hands? I’m in the picture business.” What does that even mean? It’s the kind of generic but perfect pseudo-noir dialogue that so suits the film that I doubt anyone will notice, or care.
Still, the packed cast does quite a job with the script they’ve been given. I mentioned Affleck earlier, and I’ll do it again: His Reeves, though occasionally gimmicky and the victim of a fluctuating accent, is always watchable, and in some instances downright magnetic. Affleck works through a slow decline as Reeves slowly accepts the limits of his career and the bizarre pitfalls that come with being Superman: Not only can’t he land decent parts, he also has to deal with legions of children as the only supporters of his work. At a live appearance, Reeves drinks and smokes offstage while joking with the crew about the idiocy of the job, only to have one of the boys in the audience later approach him carrying a real gun, asking if he can shoot Superman to prove the hero’s invulnerability. In an instant, Affleck grows serious, and worried, and there’s even a glint of regret that he’d never be in this position if it weren’t for the damn job to begin with; this is easily the best thing Affleck’s ever done (though given his résumé, that’s not saying a whole lot.) Hoskins chews scenery when he gets a chance, and Lane tries to bring humanity to what is essentially a caricature. Brody is cool and low-key, though there’s no indication that Simo’s actually up to the task of unraveling the mystery: His past work is mentioned, but never any specific cases. He also bumbles the other cases he’s got going on, which hurts his credibility as a character. After all, how are we supposed to believe he’s pursuing the real truth when he can’t do anything else right?
The dueling stories often make Hollywoodland feel like two separate films in search of greater meaning: One film is a brassy detective thriller about a lonesome private dick chasing a murder and possible cover-up that extends throughout Hollywood; the other is a soberly paced drama about the trappings of fame and one man’s sad descent into a life he never really wanted. But by attempting to merge the two, Coulter winds up with an ungainly film that never seems to know what it wants. It strives at times to be a period drama with elements of a crime thriller, and also to be a potboiler with poetic flourishes. And here’s the kicker: They’re both good movies. Just incomplete ones.
Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a low-level employee at a Hollywood industry magazine. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.
The Best Movies You've Never Seen | | How Much TV Could a Woodchuck TiVo if a Woodchuck Could TiVo TV (2006 Edition)
Comments
What I'm most interested to find ut is whether Brody's Simo comes to any conclusion, being as how it's an unsolved case.
Posted by: Thea at September 8, 2006 10:48 PM
I LOVE Caroline Dhavernas! Wonderfalls, people! Check it out, fall in love!
I'm happy for Ben Affleck, too. I hope this movie is a success for him. It sounds like the most interesting role he has ever scored.
Posted by: Loob at September 8, 2006 11:44 PM
I don't possess the wit to justify posting on this site. However, as a child of the 50s who thought George Reeves was God, I loved this film. Thank you for this review. I thought you would decimate the film, but I was pleasantly surprised.
Posted by: Hippo at September 8, 2006 11:50 PM
“There’s blood on your hands!” Eddie coolly responds: “My hands? I’m in the picture business.”
--This was the line from the trailer that I liked the least. It's something you roll your eyes at, not only because the line doesn't really make sense, but you can tell just from that little tiny clip that it's terribly bad acting, like the actor saw some movies from this time period and tried to do a present day actor's portrayal of a then-actor's portrayal of what a person would act like back then. I know that sentence is confusing, but you get what I mean.
If King Kong proved anything, it's that Adrien Brody really has no ability to provide depth to a character (well, Dummy proved that for me, but I doubt many people saw that one). Stick him in a heavy-handed film like The Pianists, and yeah, he can pull it off, just like any mediocre actor could, but the man isn't a very talented actor.
Posted by: Simon Owens at September 9, 2006 1:17 AM
So many things in this film were done right-- the acting, the period setting (the world had a believable, lived in look) the cinematography--- everything except the story. That's the only thing they left out of the film. Individually almost all the scenes were great, fairly well-written, enjoyable acting, like lots of tiny short films. String them all together and it was just an unfocused, disjointed, emotionally flat mess. So frustrating.
Posted by: Jenn Lewis at September 9, 2006 10:32 AM
"Brody is cool and low-key,"
The Inquirer review describe Brody's characterization as a mass of tics that distracted from the story...interesting that two reviewers can see two totally different things in the same movie.
Posted by: Theresa at September 9, 2006 11:49 AM
You know it's a disappointing/boring movie when the person who you see it with turns to you and says, "I wish there was more of Ben Affleck in it."
Posted by: theTVaddict at September 9, 2006 11:50 AM
He also bumbles the other cases heÕs got going on, which hurts his credibility as a character. After all, how are we supposed to believe heÕs pursuing the real truth when he canÕt do anything else right?
Well, it makes sense to me; if he were a GOOD detective, mightn't he have actually solved the case? Instead, it remains unsolved (unless it was actually suicide -- and even then, is it really SOLVED if there remain so many doubts in the minds of so many?).
This picture will be referred to henceforth as having received "mixed reviews," but the cast and plot are interesting enough to me that I know I will see it. Especially since Affleck seems finally to have found the part that will shut up those people who insist on classifying him as a "bad actor."
Critics have already pointed out the parallels between Reeves and Affleck in terms of their having been hamstrung by questionable choices and personal dramas overshadowing professional abilities; I'm hoping, because I truly like him and always have (especially in light of his political tendencies), that this is the role that pushes Affleck into the tier of respected character actors where he belongs, rather than the loathsome B-list of lead actors. Is there anyone who'd prefer being a B-list lead actor to being an A-list character actor? If there is, that person is an idiot.
Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at September 9, 2006 1:11 PM
"Hoskins chews scenery when he gets a chance."
What does that even mean?
Posted by: LordTentacle at September 9, 2006 4:57 PM
I have always taken scenery-chewing to mean overacting, but my definition may be wrong.
As for Affleck, I agree with MSOC - I'm hopeful that this role puts him back on the road to recovery, professionally speaking. I always liked the guy, and never thought he was a bad actor. Besides, it's no secret that being popular (or unpopular) doesn't always correlate to actual talent. And yes, that also tranlates to indie movies.
Posted by: Daphne at September 10, 2006 11:45 AM
I haven't seen this yet, but I'm looking forward to it. Affleck's work in Kevin Smith's films always led me to believe he is more talented than he's given credit for and also (so refreshing in Hollywood) doesn't take himself too seriously. I sincerely hope the coincidences between his and Reeves' career end with this role, and he is no longer pigeon-holed as a barrel-chested caricature.
Posted by: Becca at September 10, 2006 1:06 PM
Well I guess film noir is making a comeback, judging from the nearly simultaneous opening of The Black Dahlia. Time to break out the Hitchcock and ignore this attempt at exhausting another genre for lack of true originality in Hollywood.
Posted by: Gina at September 10, 2006 6:11 PM
"Hoskins chews scenery when he gets a chance."
What does that even mean?"
"I have always taken scenery-chewing to mean overacting, but my definition may be wrong."
I thought it meant scene-stealer. ? :)
Posted by: Loob at September 10, 2006 7:37 PM
your reviews suck.bad.
Posted by: duncan at September 11, 2006 8:53 AM
To "chew the scenery" means to overact.
http://www.theatrecrafts.com/glossary/pages/chewingthescenery.html
According to this and other explanations, it can be either good or bad; I've only ever understood it to be unflattering, however.
Posted by: isabelle at September 11, 2006 12:10 PM
Whatever it means, the mental image of Bob Hoskins "chewing scenery" just seems so oddly perfect- even if you don't know the definition, it somehow defines itself. I love it.
Posted by: Go Big Red at September 11, 2006 1:19 PM
I have liked this guy since Voyage of the Mimi (yes, I am embarassed), and I am glad that he has found a role that shows what he can do. Chasing Amy proved that to me, but I can see how, in light of his recent films, someone could assume that he isn't talented.
And I love Diane Lane. Not only is she an amazing actress, but she's a sexy, non-plastic older woman who still looks like herself. That alone is a major achievement in Hollywood.
Posted by: MaiGirl at September 11, 2006 3:01 PM
I saw this film opening night, and it WAS worth it. The only off-putting thing was Adrien Brody, who was hopelessly miscast and just plain irritating. Just ignore him and go to watch Ben Affleck put on the performance of his life. No heroic pretty-boy stuff this time (although I enjoy that), just a grim portrait of growing older and realizing your life isn't going to be anything like you hoped, no matter what you do. This always sucks, guys. Affleck with 25 extra pounds and grey in his hair makes you pay attention. He deserved the Venice Film Festival award, and I hope that is just the beginning.
He's my favorite actor, and I've been waiting for him to smarten up and choose good scripts instead of the dreck he's done lately. Bet he gets offered really good stuff now!
Posted by: MizLiz at September 11, 2006 3:54 PM
How can ben affleck be your favorite actor, that just isn't reasonable.
Be that as it may, the part going to affleck shows just how important the casting of a movie is. Same with Diane Lane. And the issues with the script, show you why till today the Hollywood screenwriter gets no respect, lowest on the totem pole, etc. (outside of the usual suspects whose blockbusters arent really scripts anyway) It would have been easy to just start with a better script that focused this flaw of two films in one, but I am sure no one either listened to the author's first version, and probably asked for some detective story to be pumped up a bit further to get in the audience. We are lucky they didnt ask for brody to have a young daughter to be played by Lindsay Lohen, who seems to be the insert-of-the-month into films. Yes, script was not up to par, but as scriptwriters have the least power, especially in rewrites, who exactly was the main chef for this stew?
Posted by: art at September 11, 2006 4:21 PM
How can ben affleck be your favorite actor, that just isn't reasonable.
What? So an opinion isn't reasonable now? I'm so confused. I thought this was a blog where those who loved movies and their reviews scathing and bitchy could come and, call me crazy, [i]express[/i] their POV. It's one thing to disagree, it's another to condescend.
Posted by: Daphne at September 11, 2006 5:06 PM
Daphne - I didn't take it as condescension so much as true puzzlement. It IS sort of baffling that out of all the truly great actors in Hollywood, Affleck would be your favorite.
What you wrote reminds me of the guy who continually bets on a losing horse because he feels deep in his gut that eventually the old girl will prove everyone wrong.
:)
Posted by: S. at September 11, 2006 6:02 PM
Just to be irritating and off-topic, the "die" in "the die is cast" is the singular of "dice." It means that an irrevocable step has been taken, and chance is now in charge. Caesar is said to have uttered this (in Latin, of course) when deciding to cross the Rubicon with his army.
Posted by: Ann at September 11, 2006 7:35 PM
While I wouldn't say Ben Affleck is my favorite actor, he strikes me as reasonably bright, talented, and quite handsome in the kind of big, hunky way that seems to drive most mainstream (nerdy middle-aged male? hmmm...)film reviewers nuts. I've noticed a general tendency to dismiss the acting of really good-looking guys like Aaron Eckert, Peter Krause, Hugh Grant, etc while lauding to the gills the acting of Average Joes like Ed Norton, Paul Giamatti, Jason Schwartzman, etc. (Guys who tend to be paired onscreen with stunningly beautiful women who would never in real life give them the time of day.) Maybe it's just me, but I prefer to see a truly handsome man paired with the requisite impossibly young and gorgeous ex-model du jour. Even better is a good-looking man with a gorgeous older(gasp!)woman.
Posted by: KD at September 11, 2006 7:43 PM
I guess my problem is that I think Ben Affleck is boring as mashed potatoes. Handsome in that middle America, 1950s kind of way. Blah blah. The good solid guy you bring home to Ma, and he becomes an accountant, and he likes meatloaf on Friday nights.
You can have him, KD. My kind of guy you don't bring home to Ma; he's got shifty eyes, grease under his fingernails, and he knocks the meatloaf off the table when he pushes you back onto it. ;)
Posted by: S. at September 11, 2006 7:57 PM
well, real life ben affleck, with his alcoholism, drug use and his penchant for gambling, is as far away from an accountant as you can get.
and i really hated chasing amy. am i the only person who did? i talk to people who rave about that movie and i fail to see the greatness.
also, affleck might have been able to relate to the reeves character because in some ways reeves career and affleck's own mirror each other. i hope ben's new found sobriety helps him on the path to better movie making.
Posted by: WTF at September 11, 2006 8:56 PM
What you wrote reminds me of the guy who continually bets on a losing horse because he feels deep in his gut that eventually the old girl will prove everyone wrong.
Huh? Call me dense, but this totally went over my head.
I'm not saying that Affleck has to be anyone's favorite actor - hell, he's not even mine. But if someone loves him that much, so be it. And I totally get why one wouldn't like the guy. However, I commend someone for having the guts to say something fairly unpopular. I don't presume to insist that the guy should win an Oscar, but I never thought he was a bad actor. He's on par with his pal Matt Damon, IMO. Major differences between them are that Matt chose better scripts (and got lucky with Bourne Identity), and his love life wasn't on display for all to mock and ridicule (although, admittedly, that can be fun). Oh, and Matt being 2nd best friend to Clooney.
KD, I totally agree with your comments. Of course, who's considered good-looking is somewhat subjective (Hugh Grant never did a thing for me); otherwise, I'm right there with you.
As for Ben - newfound sobriety? Hasn't he been sober for a few years now?
Posted by: Daphne at September 11, 2006 11:58 PM
"While I wouldn't say Ben Affleck is my favorite actor, he strikes me as reasonably bright, talented, and quite handsome in the kind of big, hunky way that seems to drive most mainstream (nerdy middle-aged male? hmmm...)film reviewers nuts. I've noticed a general tendency to dismiss the acting of really good-looking guys like Aaron Eckert, Peter Krause, Hugh Grant, etc while lauding to the gills the acting of Average Joes like Ed Norton, Paul Giamatti, Jason Schwartzman, etc. (Guys who tend to be paired onscreen with stunningly beautiful women who would never in real life give them the time of day.)"
KD - this theory is fascinating and one I've never considered even once. I'm really going to think about it now. I've always been irritated by the fact that (male) reviewers will go on and on about an attractive woman, but not even once mention how good-looking a man is. It's bizarre to me. I read so many reviews of "Brokeback Mountain" that mentioned how pretty Anne H. was and would think to myself "How can you laud the attractiveness of a marginal female character and not even once mention the two gorgeous male leads?" It's not that I think appearance should constantly come up while assessing acting, it's just so damn lopsided when it does. Leading men seem to be assessed on their charisma or magnetism, but you don't hear too often how straight-up handsome they are from reviewers.
Interesting.
Posted by: Samantha T at September 12, 2006 10:08 AM
I thought Affleck was really great--he carried this movie. In fact, I thought the whole piece would have been stronger if they cut the frame story down to the bare minimum--got rid of Simo's troubled family and his other cases--and just focused on Reeves' slow decline.
Posted by: ecp at September 12, 2006 10:53 AM
Also, there was a comment about Diane Lane being a gorgeous older woman. She is gorgeous, but she's not much older than Affleck--I think she's only 41 and he's in his mid-thirties.
Posted by: ecp at September 12, 2006 11:02 AM
"well, real life ben affleck, with his alcoholism, drug use and his penchant for gambling, is as far away from an accountant as you can get."
Actually, I work in an accounting firm; there's a difference between tax accountants and auditors. Affleck would be an auditor. :)
Posted by: S. at September 12, 2006 1:17 PM
I hateed Chasing Amy, too. For a LOT of reasons, not least among them the idea that a lesbian will change her spots if the right guy comes along. Oddly, that same bullshit was on sale in Gigli, yet ANOTHER Affleck flick. But I forgive him both those films; it's not his writing, after all, and what straight guy WOULDN'T love to be the guy who's so appealing he makes gay women switch teams?
Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at September 12, 2006 3:12 PM
Ben Affleck is a mediocre actor, ok, get over it already...
Posted by: Gina at September 12, 2006 3:49 PM
In the original cut of Gigli, Lopez's character was supposed to remain a lesbian and Affleck's character died. The studio showed the film to a series of test audiences though (apperently Bennifer fans) who were dissatisfied with this ending, so it was re-edited for a more Hollywood feel.
http://shagpro.com/mrbrown/movierpt03-08.html#giglihttp://shagpro.com/mrbrown/movierpt03-08.html#gigli
Posted by: Thea at September 19, 2006 7:33 PM
Regarding the ages of Diane Lane and Ben Affleck: their actual age difference is not great, however, they are PLAYING a ten-year age difference.
Posted by: Hippo at September 21, 2006 6:09 PM