While Ethan Hawke's central performance is enough to recommend the movie, Blue Moon could use more of the same incisive wit as its main subject.
Listen at the podcast providers of your choice.
There are days where it feels like filmmaker Richard Linklater should be...bigger. He's been turning out a movie about every two years since 1990, writes and co-writes most of his projects, and has been met with critical acclaim for most of his career ranging from his breakout Slacker to this Oscar-nominated film Blue Moon. So why doesn't he, and his partnerships with Ethan Hawke, hold the same level of acclaim as contemporaries like Quentin Tarantino or other famous actor director pairings like Scorsese and DiCaprio/DeNiro? In my opinion, it's because Linklater movies are mostly movies about people talking...without the visual flourish. He's had fun with animation in films like Waking Life and A Scanner Darkly, but if you ask someone what a Richard Linklater movie looks like or feels like. You'd likely think of the significant conversations in the Before trilogy, some choice moments of slow motion paired to music in Dazed and Confused. But he certainly has a way with actors, both in identifying talent (see him casting Glen Powell Zoey Deutch in the same movie about half a decade before their breakouts) and also leveraging said talent to meet the movie. Which brings us to Blue Moon, a movie that is part biopic, part comedy, part drama, and all Ethan Hawke.
The Setup
Taking place in 1943, the film follows famed lyricist Lorenz Hart who has slipped away from a opening night of Oklahoma! the new musical of his former writing partner Richard Rodgers who is now working with Oscar Hammerstein II. Hoping to steel himself before the adoring public greets his former creative partner, Hart does his best to hold court at the famous Sardi's restaurant while also prepping for the arrival of a young ingenue named Elizabeth. But as the night progresses, the sad reality of Hart's life comes into focus.
Blue Moon is an interesting movie for Richard Linklater to make. Unlike some of his other "historical" movies, it feels devoid of nostalgia like Dazed and Confused or its spiritual successor Everybody Wants Some!! while also being so of its moment in time and so Linklater in other aspects that you can't help but notice the similarities. So let's start with what works, and then dive into the stuff that holds the film back.
The Great: Ethan Hawke
Ethan Hawke has been on what feels like a decade of a heater where he's continued to find roles that are either perfectly suited to his talents or hit great directors at just the right moment before their foibles eat them up. See doing First Reformed with Paul Schrader before that kind of film became Schrader's blueprint or his finely tuned blend of hilarity and sincerity that made his John Brown in The Good Lord Bird so memorable.
And because of the structure of this movie, that entirely centers around Hart's conversations throughout the evening, the film lives and dies by Hawke's performance as the moody, often charming, and just as often abrasive Hart.
The key to playing a character like this, at least in my opinion, has less to do with getting all of the mannerisms down, than it does with getting the vibe right. Because in about five seconds you can gauge that Hart is charming, funny, witty, and clearly much more sensitive than he likes to let on. See how he orders drinks with a backhand, yeah it's ok, despite clearly attempting to be sober minutes beforehand.
The key to playing a character like this, at least in my opinion, has less to do with getting all of the mannerisms down, than it does with getting the vibe right. Because in about five seconds you can gauge that Hart is charming, funny, witty, and clearly much more sensitive than he likes to let on. See how he orders drinks with a backhand, yeah it's ok, despite clearly attempting to be sober minutes beforehand.
The movie really needs us to like Hart, he's the film's driving force, but also makes his limitations and foibles very obvious, which the script and Hawke, working in conjunction, do very well.
The Good: Limited Location
While some reviewers seem a bit mixed, I really like that the movie all takes place in one night at one restaurant for the entire run. Partially because it forces the movie to weave in a lot of exposition about who Hart is and all of his pre-existing relationships, but also because every new arrival peels back another layer of Hart's facade.
When he arrives amongst people who know him or know of him and the night is young. He's charming. Easy-going. Caddy.
But as the night progresses and the disappointments mount, you can see him shrink by either pulling punches, being less authentic or behaving more desperate and sad. In many ways it feels how a lot of "best night ever" nights out actually go with a lot of energy and excitement about what could be to start followed by a parade of sadness that's not helped by the freely flowing liqour.
Not exactly an upper, but certainly in line with the character on screen and most nights I've experienced like this. They don't go out with a bang. They go out with a whimper.
Not exactly an upper, but certainly in line with the character on screen and most nights I've experienced like this. They don't go out with a bang. They go out with a whimper.
Mixed Bag: Intertextuality & What's The Takeaway?
Something that's so odd in this movie, at least in Linklater's filmography, is how much the film leans on the audience's presumed knowledge. As an example, the kickoff event for the entire film is that this is opening night for Oklahoma! a renowned Rogers and Hammerstein hit that is one of the most successful musicals of all time. And the kickoff of a partnership that is one of the most successful in the entertainment business ever.
So the film is having an interesting blend of fun as Hart takes the show down a peg for being shallow and stupid, while also acknowledging that it is going to be a smash. Clearly sounding like a jealous lover that's been spurned.
That mostly works. Where it stretches is where we start pulling in folks like E.B. White just so happens to be in the restaurant at the same time, and somehow receives inspiration from Hart for a signature creation in true cringe-worthy biopic style.
So the film is having an interesting blend of fun as Hart takes the show down a peg for being shallow and stupid, while also acknowledging that it is going to be a smash. Clearly sounding like a jealous lover that's been spurned.
That mostly works. Where it stretches is where we start pulling in folks like E.B. White just so happens to be in the restaurant at the same time, and somehow receives inspiration from Hart for a signature creation in true cringe-worthy biopic style.
We're also poking at some interesting ideas here about popularity versus depth when it comes to art, with Hart clearly wanting to imbue his work with satire and humor in an era (the film seems to drift in an out of remembering we're in the middle of WWII) that wasn't looking for moral complication. Which is especially interesting if you know the moral clarity Rogers and Hammerstein would speak with in their later work that includes a musical taking place during WWII.
Basically the longer things go, the messier things get in terms of takeaways and messaging.
And because Hawke plays the role so convincingly it really feels like the movie is saying, man he was so insightful and talented....too bad he couldn't get out of his own way.
Conclusion: Well Acted, Could Use Some More Thematic Weight
While Ethan Hawke's central performance is enough to recommend the movie, Blue Moon could use more of the same incisive wit as its main subject. 7/10
No comments:
Post a Comment