Formula: Rashomon / (Mary Queen of Scots * King Arthur)
I doubt there are many movies this year with more intriguing parts to it. To start, it's one of two films this year from 84-year-old director Ridley Scott. The man is making everything I said a couple weeks ago about Clint Eastwood look foolish. Few people have a better command of a big cast and big production than Scott. He makes it all look so easy. The screenplay also marks the first writing collaboration between Matt Damon and Ben Affleck since their Oscar winning work on Good Will Hunting 24 years ago. And they appear on screen together in what has become an uncommon occurrence. Finally, their co-screenwriter is Nicole Holofcener, who is most famous for writing and directing coastal female-led indie movies. That is a savvy and refreshing move. From my understanding, she was brought it when Scott, Affleck, Damon, and co. recognized a shortcoming in their own ability to tell this story. The end cocktail from this mix is quite delicious.
This film is set in 1300s France. It tells the story between two noblemen and one's wife. Sir Jean (Matt Damon) is a headstrong knight who believes strongly in honor but is incapable of politicking. He's that guy who you know is right but is so annoying about it that you want to root against him anyway. His tenuous friendship with Jacques (Adam Driver) is fractured when the Count Pierre (Ben Affleck) favors Jacques to his personal detriment. Jacques is more naturally skilled at playing the games than Jean. He's arrogant but often seems charming. The uneasy truce between Jean and Jacques is fully ended when Jean's wife, Marguerite (Jodie Comer), accuses Jacques of raping her while Jean was away. Due to legal maneuvering, the only way Jean can find to defend his honor is to challenge Jacques to a decision by duel. Whichever man survives the duel is legally declared right, and if Jean loses, Marguerite is to be executed for making a false claim.
What's fun about the movie is that it is told in a Rashomon style. We see largely the same story from three perspectives. First from Jean's POV, depicting him as a loving husband who has been unfairly persecuted by his lord. Then from Jacques' POV, showing him as a man whose intelligence and skill has gotten him the things he deserves in life. Finally, from Marguerite's POV, where she is a woman of accomplishment who is used as a prop in these men's feud. This does shift somewhat away from the Rashomon conceit in that there's no debate that Marguerite's perspective is the truth. The point of the movie is not to examine how the truth is subjective and unknowable. Rather, it's about how the victims can get lost in crime stories. Both men think they've treated Marguerite nobly. Jean thinks he dotes on her and acts in her defense. Jacques believes she is spellbound by him despite being married to another. In actuality, Jean is selfish and brutish to her and Jacques...well, is also selfish and brutal.
I hesitate to call this a #MeToo movie, only because that implies it is more preachy than it actually is. It's not preachy. It's not subtle either. It's effective. I don't have a better way to say it. It's a good movie for pointing out our blind spots and challenging the idea that we're all the hero of our story. It's telling how the characters even tell on themselves. We have to see the rape scene twice, but even the "consensual" version in Jacques’s mind is uncomfortable to watch. The movie has some fun with dramatic irony, pointing out "science" of the time like how women can't conceive a child unless they enjoy the sex. It's a little chilling though when those are followed by more timely discussions about consent or "wanting it". In the least cheesy way I can say it, some things get better, while others very much stay the same.
This is more of an entertaining movie than it sounds like, I promise. There are several battle sequences. The titular duel is brutal. I got a thrill out of seeing how the same scenes played out from different perspectives. Characters will cut scenes short in which they look bad. Their egos will translate dialogue a different way. It's a very playful screenplay in how the different chapters are in dialogue with each other.
I'm torn on some of the casting. Damon and Affleck really don't fit in this setting. They have very modern faces. The hairstyling for them is pretty severe too. They are good in their roles though. Damon is great at playing this kind of feckless man-child. It reminded me a lot of his character in The Departed. Affleck is the scene-stealer. I'm with a lot of people who assume he wrote the middle chapter, because his character gets to do so much in that one. Adam Driver and Jodie Comer fit in the setting better. I think it's a huge credit to Comer's performance that I wasn't constantly wondering why Villanelle wasn't slaying these insufferable men. I feel like Affleck and her are the only real Oscar hopefuls, even though this type of movie historically has some trouble getting acting nominations*.
*Remember, Gladiator benefitted from an Oscar season where all the big fall hopefuls crashed and burned. When Crowe won lead actor for that, he did so after losing the SAG, Golden Globe, and BAFTA.
I liked this movie a lot, and there's a chance it could grow on me even more. I'm a fan of medieval action. Rashomon structures have worked on me for years. There are a lot of movie star performances in this. The screenplay is smartly done and really would reward at least two viewings in order to appreciate the men's story edits.
Verdict: Strongly Recommend
No comments:
Post a Comment