Brave

Year of release

2012

Directed by

Mark Andrews

Brenda Chapman

Steve Purcell

Written by

Mark Andrews / Brenda Chapman

Steve Purcell / Irene Mecchi

Michael Arndt

Starring

Kelly McDonald

Emma Thompson

Billy Connolly

Julie Walters

Brave

 

 

Plot – In an ancient and mythical Scotland a young and spirited princess by the name of Merida is an aspiring archer and a talented rider of horses. Desperate to fulfil these ambitions she is crushed when her mother informs her that she has to forget such pursuits, and instead marry for the good of the kingdom. When she defies her mother's wishes the fallout sends her running off into the forest. In the forest she stumbles across the domain of a witch and asks her to change her mother, thus changing Merida's destiny. The 'change' however is not at all what Merida was expecting, and now both the life of her mother and the safety of the kingdom are at risk. And now it's up to Merida to try and tidy up her own mess.

This is a pleasant if ultimately disappointing effort from the geniuses at Pixar. I just felt it failed to really capture the magic and wonder that a Pixar movie usually generates. At the film's conclusion I just couldn't shake the feeling of, “is that it?” I was just left feeling rather underwhelmed by it. I had been expecting to find a lot more action and adventure present, and was a little miffed to find a much smaller and more personal tale. Indeed it's all rather quaint. It's as if the bigwigs at Pixar came across an unfilmed script for a lost Disney film of the 40s, and they decided to make it with the use of modern technology. The story, characters and tone all feel very reminiscent of the old Disney movies I watched over and over as a kid. The only thing missing were a few big song and dance numbers. The technology really does feel about the only element which sets this aside from classic Disney fare. Following on from Cars 2 which seemed purely like a cash-in, I just hope this isn't a sign of Pixar becoming truly Disney-ised.

Were I not Scottish I think my level of enjoyment would have been even less. As a proud Scot however I viewed Brave through tartan tinted glasses and really took the Scottish elements to heart. I loved how they were able to capture and replicate the beauty of the Scottish scenery, and found myself really quite stirred by the film's score which had a very strong Scottish/celtic twang to it. I also got a massive kick out of hearing some exceedingly Scottish phrases being uttered in a big Hollywood film. Hearing insults like 'galoots', 'tumshie' and 'numpty', as well as hearing utterings of 'jings crivens help ma boab', 'jiggery pokery' and 'crivens' was probably my favourite part of the film actually. And then of course there was this little extract from a song sung by King Fergus - “we'll bile yur heed wae dumplin' breed, tae make an ursine stew!”

I'm very glad that the makers of Brave decided to go with an almost exclusively Scottish voice cast. As well as just the enjoyment I got from hearing so many genuine Scottish voices, it also means the film was able to avoid any botched attempts at the accent which would go on to become infamous examples alongside the likes of Keanu Reeves in Dracula and Brad Pitt in Devil's Own. So while I am a fan of hers I do dread to think what Reese Witherspoon, the original Merida, would have been able to come up with had she remained in the role. The cast who did feature all do a very nice job with Kelly McDonald and Billy Connolly being particular favourites of mine.

Film trivia - Some of the technology employed on Brave is astonishing. Indeed Pixar actually had to develop two additional software programs just for this film. One of the programs was required for Merida's hair to handle the 1500 separate strands it entailed, and to allow them all to move naturally in conjuncture with her movements. /// The film took six years to reach completion. Initially the film was to be directed by Brenda Chapman, with Mark Andrews acting as a consultant, providing information for the film's Scottish elements. In October 2010 however Chapman left after four years work and Andrews took over directing duties. He still kept much of Chapman's intended story and Chapman herself said she is still very proud of the finished movie as her “vision still came through.

I mentioned earlier how the film lacked the usual magic and story of Pixar. and there are a few other areas where I felt it came up short. As far as Pixar films go I found this to be amongst the least funny they've so far produced. The laughs came at a much slower rate than one would expect and I'm struggling to really remember any big laughs. I also felt it very much lacking when it came to memorable characters. Take a film like Finding Nemo for example which is just absolutely littered with them; from the main characters to the inhabitants of the aquarium and the sea turtles, all the way down to the seagulls who make such a memorable impact despite only having a single word to say - “Mine!” Yes you've got Merida with her flame haired locks and well rounded character but outside of that I didn't find much else. And after hearing much about them I found the trio of brothers disappointing, and even slightly annoying on occasion.

When I was discussing the film's Scottish elements I noted the beauty of the scenery, and the film as a whole does look astonishing. Indeed from a purely animation point of view this is right up there amongst the best ever produced. The highland landscapes are just gorgeous, the detail in Merida's flowing red locks is stunning and the action is terrific. The particular moment I'm thinking of is when Merida is out riding on her horse and shooting arrows. The movement of the horse is amazing and they were just able to create such energy and life in these shots. Another highlight of the film would be the character of Merida herself. For an animated film, even those of Pixar's quality, she really is an impressively rounded and fleshed out character. A character who has both good and bad qualities to her personality.

What I was probably most disappointed in is that the film just didn't live up to its own billing. It may be titled Brave but I certainly wouldn't describe it as such. It feels like a very safe venture for Pixar, especially when you consider the kind of ground-breaking and visionary work they have produced in the past. Through a combination of me being a huge fan of Pixar and my Scottish roots, I had been following the progress of this film ever since I initially heard about it (back when it was called The Bear and the Bow) and was very sad to find it didn't meet my high expectations of it.

Oh and the accompanying short was quite delightful. Titled La Luna it doesn't feature any recognisable words with the characters communicating only through grunts and gestures. It follows the more surreal and creative bent that some of the shorts have taken of late and is just a really sweet, touching little effort.

Conclusion – While it doesn't sound out the creative demise of Pixar it certainly isn't a shining beacon of hope that Cars 2 was a rare slip. Their next film, Monsters University, now has more scrutiny and pressure on it than perhaps any Pixar film ever has before. They need to deliver and prove they are still amongst the best creative forces that Hollywood has to offer. This is a nice film but one that I don't really see lingering long in the memory. The Scottish elements, even if they did go a little Brigadoon at times, certainly helped for me personally. Without them I'm not how much there would have been here for me.

Boys from Brazil, The

Year of release

1978

Directed by

Franklin J. Shaffner

Written by

Heywood Gould (script)

Ira Levin (novel)

Starring

Laurence Olivier

Gregory Peck

James Mason

Lilli Palmer

Ula Hagen

The Boys from Brazil

 

Plot - In the setting of 1970s South America, a notorious Nazi War criminal, Dr. Josef Mengele, gathers a group of former Nazis to work on a covert project to establish a Fourth Reich. But when famed Nazi-hunter Ezra Lieberman is enlightened to Mengele's bone-chilling scheme--to clone 94 young Hitlers and cause horror on a global scale--he attempts to unravel the conspiracy.

Look at that plot. I mean really look at it! Creating 94 Hitler clones? Surely that's a plot that belongs to a trashy 1950s B-movie. And yet somehow the project was able to attract such considerable and acclaimed talents as Laurence Olivier, Gregory Peck, James Mason and eh...Steve Guttenberg....Huh....Ok we lost steam a touch there but we'll carry on. What is quite interesting is that the film chooses to treat this silly, ludicrous concept with such seriousness. It's a losing battle right from the start but as a result I found myself almost getting behind it, willing it on.

While it's unlikely that either Peck or Olivier would have been placing this near the top of their CV, they both do pretty well, and bring a credibility to proceedings that the film doesn't really deserve. Their performances may be a bit pulpy and hammy, but they're quite effective and each has individual moments where they show their talent. Peck barks and smirks as the truly despicable Dr Mengele, while Olivier brings a touch of quiet dignity to the role of Nazi hunter, Ezra Lieberman. Considering the material they're dealing with they both give fairly admirable showings. Though how Olivier was nominated for an Oscar, and Peck for a Golden Globe seems like a bit of a stretch.

To be honest Mengele's grand plan of great genius seems a bit thin and illogical. Are we really to believe that just by recreating some of the same circumstances he is going to get a whole series of Hitlers? Even Bond villians have more realistic ambitions when it comes to their plans for world domination.

It looks like the film had a decent budget as there are some successes in the technical departments. The cinematography is quite impressive, giving a nice gloss to some interesting locations in the globe spanning story. The most striking perhaps being when a murder takes place at a monstrous dam in Sweden. And some of the directing is quite satisfying, able to create a few moments of real suspense and creepiness. And credit to the film for at least taking a reasonable, and I believe accurate angle on the science of cloning.

There are a few moments that are just so ridiculous that they really do create instances of unintentional humour. The main culprit perhaps taking place during a Nazi dance where Mengele attacks a man he believes to be a traitor, sending him crashing through a table of food, before telling the supposed traitor's wife to “shut up you ugly bitch.” This and other moments really do bring out the camp elements of the ridiculous story and over the top characters.

For such a terrifically high concept premise there is actually not a great deal going on for large stretches. Without the 'accidents' that befall the numerous old men my interest would definitely have been waning as for a good hour or so we just go back and forth between Peck cooking up his dastardly plan, and Olivier investigating and attempting to scupper them. And the fact that it takes Lieberman so long to figure it out, a long while after we already have, hurts the momentum. It's only when the two screen legends come face to face in an electric meeting does the film really start to deliver, and provide the excitement we're looking for. After they are hampered by that most formulaic of scenes where Peck pretty much tells Olivier “I'm going to kill you now, so I can tell you all of my plans.”, we get a brutal fight that is dirty and bloody.

Conclusion - It's not a great piece of film-making, or indeed a particularly 'good' film. You will likely guffaw and roll your eyes at it. However, as a daft guilty pleasure it is just about able to scrape a passing grade.

Black Swan

Year of release

2010

Directed by

Darren Aronofsky

Written by

Mark Heyman (script)

John McLaughlin (script)

Andres Heinz (story and script))

Starring

Natalie Portman

Mila Kunis

Vincent Cassel

Barbara Hershey

Winona Ryder

Black Swan

 

Plot - Nina Sayers (Portman) is a ballet dancer striving to win the lead role in a new production of Swan Lake. The director (Cassel) sees her as the perfect fit for the white swan, but wonders about her ability to portray the black swan. Under the domineering power of her mother (Hershey), and with competiton from new dancer Lily (Kunis), Nina attempts to channel the darker character elements of the black swan, but with detrimental impact to her mental wellbeing.

A few years ago on another forum (not a movie one) there was a topic with the title 'Natalie Portman/Mila Kunis lesbian film.' And in it a bunch of guys were salivating over the thoughts of it, and already praising Aronofsky as a legend/hero/God. Sadly that board closed down but I would have loved to read the reaction of those same people. While there may be one scene that matches the dreams they were forging, the package that surrounds it probably isn't what most of them were imagining.

I found this to be a strangely hypnotic viewing experience. I had actually only planned on watching the first 30/45 minutes, finishing it the next day. However I got so caught up in it that I ended up staying up into the wee small hours to watch the whole thing. Despite its prominence in the story this is not really a 'ballet movie'. The ballet just acts as the background for a story of a psychological breakdown, feeling reminiscent of my recent Take Shelter viewing. It's an exhilaratingly intense and wildly melodramatic production, certainly one that makes an impression and is unlikely to leave my memory anytime soon.

You could throw many labels at this film; 'subtle' however would not be one of them. Aronofsky's style is not that of a shrinking violet, coming across as very in your face. His constant use of mirrors (it feels like there is a least one in every single scene) is a rather predictable motif, and one that is certainly drummed into our minds. Its tremendous overuse ensures that it's unlikely to be missed by anyone. Metaphors are laid on very thick throughout, with the melding of both worlds being very obvious as the similarities between Nina's life and the story of Swan Lake begin to pile up. Indeed when she's in a bar relaying the plot of the ballet to a potential suitor, she pretty much telegraphs the remaining details of the story, including its finale.

In many ways the film actually felt very much like one of the classic Grimm fairytales. Despite some fantastical and fanciful elements, and moments of beauty, they are established in amongst a sinister and haunting atmosphere. With its phantasmal and chimerical nature we really do find ourselves placed firmly within the mind of Nina. Luckily I'm not one who is prone to nightmares. The few I have had in my life however really did quite resemble this film. They were fractured, disjointed, irrational and nonsensical.

While there is much to find odd and unsettling about the film, for me it was none more so than in the rather creepy mother/daughter relationship between Portman's Nina, and her former ballerina mother, Erica. Their interaction is that of a mother and a much younger little girl. The mother controls and suffocates her, while Nina speaks in such a young and submissive demeanour, even calling her 'mommy.' This apparent youth is also highlighted by Nina's bedroom. With its fluffy animals and wallpaper of pink hearts it feels like it hasn't been altered since she was about seven years old. She seems trapped by her mother's obsession and constant control. That along with her obsessive love of ballet and quest for perfection have created limits for the character in terms of emotions, sexuality and her mental acuity. It actually makes for a fun contrast with Leon were she played a young girl with emotions and thoughts well beyond her age.

After having such acclaim heaped on her I was initially underwhelmed by Portman's performance, even verging on finding her faintly annoying, particularly her mousy little voice. I was starting to wonder what all the fuss was about, and then her breakdown begins to intensify and she starts her transformation. From then on I was just completely hooked and mesmerised by her. It's a truly bravura performance as her innocence and virginal appeal give way to the Black Swan's darker traits and characteristics which bleed from the stage into her real life. The closer she gets to the perfection she craves, the faster her sanity ebbs away until she completes her transformation, in the process reaching her 'perfection.'

As her counterbalance Mila Kunis is the perfect embodiment of the Black Swan, delivering a truly sensual and edgy character. And doing so with the kind of ease and natural disposition that her character is attributed with in ballet terms. After hearing so much about their performances however the one that pleasantly surprised and intrigued me was Vincent Cassel's turn as the director, Thomas Leroy. He is a terrifically domineering and wonderfully arrogant presence. It was also a nice surprise and a treat when Winona Ryder popped up.

While you could put up a decent argument that Aronofsky's direction verges into some overwrought and pretentious territory, there is also much to admire and be supremely struck by. The camerawork in particular is impressive and effective. It frequently finds itself very tight to Portman; following in her footsteps, creating a very claustrophobic and paranoid atmosphere that reflects her own obsession and deteriorating mindset. And the way that the camera swoops along with each ballet movement gives the dance scenes a great deal of life and energy, and in turn beauty. Visually the film is stunning. The art direction and cinematography make for a lush environment. More successful a motif than the abundance of mirrors is the use of colour, with an affluent amount of blacks, greys and whites dominating the screen. This goes for the surroundings as well as the fashion, with Nina's clothes moving from white to black by way of grey.

It's certainly not a perfect film. The story isn't all that original, with a number of clichés kicking about. The film is a bit gauche and overly pulpy, at times descending too deep into horror territory, all lead by Aronofsky's somewhat dogmatic and peremptory direction. It would also have been nice if they had kept a little doubt about Nina's mental state. Right from the off it's made clear that it's all as a result of her mental deterioration, and nothing to do with Mila Kunis' character sabotaging her. However, none of this was close to enough to put me off.

I was in a bit of a quandary over the rating to award this film. It's the type of film were I feel I could really do with a repeat viewing to fully get a grasp of it and cement my opinion, but at the same time I'm not sure its a film I'd be in much of a hurry to revisit all that soon, or indeed that often. With its dark tone and macabre visuals, and its concept of having to destroy yourself to make art I wouldn't class it as fun viewing. While I perhaps wouldn't go as far as calling it a tough watch, it certainly isn't an easy one. My score was fluctuating; at times it was both higher and lower than the end product, but I settled on a solid 8.5, but certaily with the potential to grow.

Conclusion - A film of nightmarish beauty, full of striking images and led by a stunning, powerhouse showing from Portman. It's clear to see why it proved to be quite a polarizing film, it's certainly not for everyone. But it was for me.

Big

Year of release

1988

Directed by

Penny Marshall

Written by

Gary Ross

Anne Spielberg

Starring

Tom Hanks

David Moscow

Elizabeth Perkins

Jared Rushton

Robert Loggia

John Heard

Big

 

Plot - 12 year old Josh Baskin (Moscow) is embarrassed at a carnival when in front of the girl he has a crush on he is refused entry on to a ride. Stumbling across an old fortune telling Zoltar machine, Josh makes a wish to be big. When he wakes up the next morning his wish has been fulfilled, but not quite as he imagined. When Josh looks in the mirror he now finds that he is a fully-grown 30 year old man (Hanks). Unable to explain this fantastical transformation to his mother he runs away from home, leaving his mum to believe that he has been kidnapped. With the help of his best friend Billy (Rushton) the now adult Josh heads to the city to try and locate the same Zoltar machine so he can undo his wish. Facing a six week wait before he can discover its whereabouts Josh gets a job at a toy company which fully utilises his childish sense of play and embarks upon a life in the adult world, including his first romantic encounter with a co-worker, Susan (Perkins).

I think that Big is one the most feel-good and joyous films I've ever had the privilege to see. An ode to the joys of being a kid, and of holding onto that side of yourself for as long as possible, I think it's just delightful stuff as a fantastical occurrence kicks off a funny, sweet and touching journey. The body-swap angle is a storyline that has been done many times before, and will most likely continue to be done but I think this is definitely the best one out there, no other rival capturing such warmth, humour and tenderness.

A large part of the film's success most certainly rests upon the shoulders of Tom Hank's wonderful performance. It may not be as revered or award-worthy a performance as he delivered in the likes of Saving Private Ryan, Forrest Gump or Philadelphia but I think this certainly deserves to be counted alongside them as one of his absolute best performances. You could even argue that he has never been better than he is here. He gives such a wonderfully natural and endearing performance as he perfectly captures what he meant to be a kid; the excitement, the joy, the naivety, the innocence, the uncertainty and occasionally the growing pains of being a 12 year old kid. It just reminds you how wonderful it was to be that age. And sometimes how awful.

Film Trivia - Tom Hanks' immense likeability makes him seem like an obvious choice for the role but it was turned down by numerous actors before the role eventually found its way to him; and some of them are extremely surprising. John Travolta was the first choice of Penny Marshall and wanted to do it, but the studio considered him box office poison at the time. Harrison Ford and Albert Brooks were both offered the role but turned it down; could perhaps see them. Here's where we get to actors that I'm personally struggling to picture in the role. When it looked like Tom Hanks was going to be unavailable due to his schedule, the role was then offered to Robert de Niro! But they were unwilling to meet his salary demands. Oh and Gary Busey auditioned for the part!

And I think people tend to forget these days what a great comedic actor Hanks was and still is. For many people he may now be associated with serious Oscar winning fare like the films mentioned above, but throughout the 80s he was one of the go-to actors for comedies. And this is him at his absolute peak. Even in this light-hearted fantasy however he still has occasion to showcase a more serious and emotional side, such as the moment where he spends his first night away from home in a rundown hotel. With shouting in the halls outside his room, and gunshots on the streets below, he displays a wonderful sense of childlike fear. He also handles the relationship with Perkins' Susan very well, wavering between the giddiness a 12 year old would feel in such a situation but also the uncertainty and insecurity. In fact I just love his innocence and clueless nature throughout when it comes to living in an adult world. There's a great little moment where a co-worker, played by Jon Lovitz, points out a sexy female employee and tells him that if he says hello to her she will “wrap her legs around you until you beg for mercy." Josh's innocent reply? "Well, I'll be sure to stay away from her then."

It's got some great scenes throughout, none more so than the classic instance where Hanks and Robert Loggia bring a large toy store to a standstill with their renditions of “Chopsticks” and “Heart and Soul” by dancing on a large-scale piano. It's really quite a simple little scene, but I've rarely come across a scene that is more purely joyous. Like that scene the whole film is just so much fun. And while the romance between Hanks and Perkins is actually rather weird and disturbing if you stop to think about it, it actually turns out to be quite a sweet, tender and touching relationship. A relationship that allows Josh to grow up, but also allows Susan to regain a sense of fun and wonder that she had lost in her life. The moment where she gives in to Josh's encouragement and bounces wildly on a trampoline with gay abandon is another lovely scene. Perkins conveys the change in Susan in a believable manner, and makes us feel that it's perfectly understandable that she would fall for Josh. She really helps to ground the fantasy and make the whole thing feel convincing. There are also a couple of nice, lively performances to be found from child actors David Moscow and Jared Rushton, as young Josh and his best friend Billy respectively.

Given its premise the film is actually a more subtle and intelligent effort than you might expect. And that certainly proves to be the case when compared with similar body-swap films such as Vice Versa and Like Father, Like Son which frequently took a broader and more slapstick approach to the material. The excellent script, penned by Gary Ross and Anne Spielberg, never overplays anything. As well as not going so broad with the comedy the film avoids the pitfall of being overly sentimental with the material. Yes it's sweet, charming and even quite touching but they are able to maintain the balance perfectly. The film could easily have become a cheesefest but the script, and Penny Marshall's restrained, subtle direction ensure that it remains mature and intelligent work. She allows us to see the world through the eyes of a child but without it feeling trite or condescending.

Conclusion - Just a big warm-hearted hug of a movie. It's an utterly enchanting experience of laughs, sweetness, wit and sensitivity; one that makes you just want to break out your old childhood toys at its conclusion. While you could perhaps accuse the film of being quite flawed as concerns the whole kidnapping angle; for what it is, I think Big is just about a perfect movie. Oh and I actually just stumbled across a Zoltar machine very recently, and was so giddy with the biggest of grins on my face. Sadly I didn't have any change on me at the time but next time!

Behind the Candelabra

 

Year of release

2013

Directed by

Steven Soderbergh

Written by

Richard LaGravenese

Scott Thorson

Starring

Michael Douglas

Matt Damon

Dan Aykroyd

Rob Lowe

Scott Bakula

Debbie Reynolds

Behind the Candelabra

 

Plot - Based on Scott Thorson's autobiography the film details the relationship that develops between Thorson (Damon) and the flamboyant pianist Liberace (Douglas). Swaddled in wealth and excess, Scott and Liberace have a long affair, one that eventually Scott begins to find suffocating. Kept away from the outside world by the flashily effeminate yet deeply closeted Liberace, and submitting to extreme makeovers and even plastic surgery at the behest of his lover, Scott eventually rebels. When Liberace finds himself a new lover, Scott is tossed on the street. He then seeks legal redress for what he feels he has lost. But throughout, the bond between the young man and the star never completely tears.

Last month Behind the Candelabra was the toast of the Creative Emmys, taking home a total of 8 awards. And I'm not at all surprised. With the Creative Emmys focusing mainly on the more technical and behind the scenes elements that go into creating work on television it's easy to see why they were so taken with this film. Visually it truly is absolutely stunning to look at. With Liberace's warbrobe as their blueprint I imagine that the costume department had the absolute highpoint of their career attempting to recreate his iconic style and do it justice. And do it justice they do! The outfits that are draped over Douglas are fabulous; a luscious concoction of sequins, diamonds and furs. A while back when I reviewed Moulin Rouge I dubbed Baz Luhrmann the 'master of sequin porn.' Well following this film Steven Soderbergh may have a decent claim to that throne. In addition to the wardrobe department, also rewarded at the Emmys and very deservedly so was the film's art direction. It is just glorious, particularly in the case of the lavish set design that aims to recreate the astonishing furnishings that Liberace surrounded himself with across his three homes. Adorned in what Liberace describes as 'palatial kitsch' it is a dizzying collection of gaudy furniture, glittering décor, candelabra themed trinkets and a series of ego-stroking self-portraits. There have been very few sets that I wish I could visit in real-life more than Liberace's homes in this film; they are just bursting at the seams with so many delightful touches and hidden details.

And while the sets do succeed greatly in terms of being visually interesting, that is not their only purpose. As well as helping to build Liberace's character they also play an important part in a later aspect of the film. The longer their relationship continues the more possessive Liberace becomes of Scott, seeming to treat him more like a possession than a lover. Liberace's homes, so jam-packed with clutter, act as a representative of the suffocating nature that Scott begins to feel in the relationship. Another extremely impressive element is the make-up that is on show. It particularly stands out when it comes to depicting the after effects of the plastic surgery that plays a large part in the film, turning Damon and Douglas into creatures resembling living waxworks. Especially noteworthy is the job done on Rob Lowe's plastic surgeon. His face is so pulled back that it seems certain that at any moment its going to snap, turning his face inside out.

With all that glitz and glamour on show in the technical departments you might expect Behind the Candelabra to fall into the trap of being more style than substance. That is certainly not the case however. As well as being a portrait of a unique romance (which I'll get to later) the film is also a real examination of celebrity. To start with you have the notion of celebrity worship. When Scott first sees Liberace up on stage, displaying his immense talent and adorned with an outfit the likes of which Scott has never seen before, he is utterly transfixed. When he meets the man it's like he's in a trance, and when he attempts to converse with him he is constantly stammering and stumbling over his words. In his eyes, and in the eyes of many, celebrities are not like the rest of us. They are on another, somehow unattainable level to us for many people. The way that Damon's eyes sparkle when he first sees him is incredible. Through Liberace's outlandish actions we are also presented with an example of the preposterous nature and the vanity so often associated with celebrities. Not only does Liberace go to ridiculous lengths with plastic surgery to keep himself looking young, but he insists upon it for Scott as well. More than that though he wants his plastic surgeon (the scene-stealing Rob Lowe) to make Scott look like a young Liberace! Talk about your ego trips. Essentially he wants to have sex with someone who looks exactly like himself. In addition to the aforementioned absurd homes that he keeps, this certainly marks him out as quite a unique individual.

Film Trivia Snippets - One of the most impressive aspects of the film is the realisation of Liberace's Las Vegas mansion. While the interior design is down to the incredible art design the mansion itself that they filmed in is the Los Angeles home of Zsa Zsa Gabor. /// In Scott Thorson's book “Behind the Candelabra” he noted that “In celebrity-saturated Palm Springs only two stars...took the trouble to pay their last respects" at Liberace's memorial service. One was the actress Charlene Tilton, and coincidentally the other was Kirk Douglas, father to Michael Douglas (who in case you haven't been paying attention plays Liberace in this film! ) /// The film had actually been in development for quite a few years before finally going into procution. It originally went into development in the early 2000s with Philip Kaufman set to direct and Robin Williams attached to take on the role of Liberace. /// In the film Liberace's mother, Francis, is played by Debbie Reynolds. Reynolds actually had first hand knowledge of the story and its characters because she had been a very close friend of Liberace and actually knew both Scott Throson and Francis Liberace. She was said to be thrilled to take on the role as she was very familiar with Francis' peculiar dialect.

 

Through a combination of Liberace's flamboyant nature, and the numerous trailers and clips advertising the film which routinely focused on Rob Lowe's plastic surgeon being asked to make Matt Damon's character look like Liberace, I was expecting a much more fun and breezy experience that had a greater comedy quotient. With the film not being a full-on biopic however, instead focusing on the brief period in Liberace's life outlined in Scott Thorson's autobiography, what we essentially get is a relationship drama. And occasionally quite a dark one at that. It's such an intimate and personal insight into their relationship that it is actually quite uncomfortable to watch at times. You feel like you're intruding on something very personal and that should back out of the room. The film charts the highs and lows of the relationship, from the couple being gloriously happy to it getting quite nasty and confrontational. It actually reminded me of several stand-up comedians who have done bits on gay marriage and how they hope it happens because what they are really looking forward to is gay divorce and how bitchy that is going to be. I have yet to see Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? but from what I know of it I don't imagine that this would be a million miles away from acting like the gay equivalent of that story. It's a story of two individuals who did, and in some ways still do love each other at film's end, but who have completely poisoned each other and in turn destroyed their relationship. It turns into a real game of love and hate, complete with gloriously catty dialogue and more bitchy glances than you're likely to have ever seen on screen before. While I think it would be an exaggeration to say that after a while you forget that the romance you're watching is between two men, I don't think that the relationship we are presented with is overtly homosexual. It doesn't ever really feel like you are watching the facets of a predominantly gay relationship, so much as just a relationship pure and simple. There is also quite a disturbing element to their relationship, beyond even the strange implications brought around by Scott's bizarre plastic surgery. Both men consider their relationship at least in part be that of a father and son, with plans made for Liberace to actually adopt Scott, creating a creepily incestuous dynamic.

There are two elements which really make this film. The first as I've already discussed is its superlative production design. The other can be found in the performances of its two fine leading men. Michael Douglas has made a career of playing very tough, macho characters. By taking this role on however he made the ballsy move to completely eschew that image, instead immersing himself in the role of the highly camp, flamboyant showman that Liberace was. Liberace is a very interesting character and as such breeds a very interesting performance from Douglas. While at times the character is undoubtedly entertaining in a charismatic, larger-than-life fashion there are also many other sides to his character which are rather unsavoury. Throughout the brief spell of his life that the film covers we see that when it comes to relationships his life really is a revolving door of young men; when his current beau becomes too old or he simply becomes bored of them a new man finds their way into his home with a disturbing fine line between romance and employment present. There really is quite a reptilian and predatorial aspect to his character while we also see his very dominating and suffocating treatment of Scott. So I think it would be very easy to be disgusted by the character except that Douglas plays the character with a real sensitivity which makes him strangely sympathetic. While I had almost zero exposure to the real Liberace before this film he also seems to do a great job at capturing the man's mannerisms and voice. As great as Douglas is however, I'm not sure that his is the performance that I most enjoyed here. In a way his job is a touch easier than Damon's because he is gifted with so many colourful characteristics to help build his character - the flamboyant costumes, some delightfully campy dialogue, his larger-than-life personality etc. Damon doesn't have these facets to fall back on however but still delivers a wonderful performance; proving once again why I believe him to be one of the best and most dependable actors currently working today. I think it would have been easy to right his character off as being dim and deserving of everything he gets but Damon imbues the character with a sense of vulnerable naivety, convincing us that he is just completely out of his depth in such a lifestyle.

Film Trivia Snippets - The New York Times reported in May 2013 that Scott Thorson received close to $100,000 for his participation with the movie, and that he spent every penny of it “in about two months, mostly on cars and jewelry.” /// Costume designed Ellen Mirojnick and her team had to reproduce a large number of Liberace's iconic stage outfits for this film. These included a copy of Liberace's 16 foot long white virgin fox fur coat, which though made of synthetic fur was nonetheless studded with $100,000 worth of Austrian crystal just like the real one. The originals were too valuable to alter to fit star Michael Douglas and were used only as set dressing for Liberace's walk-in closet. Many were also extremely heavy due to the large quantities of rhinestones; each original suit weighted upwards of 60 lbs. /// Scott Thorson, played here by the 42-year-old Matt Damon, was in reality a mere 17 years old when he first met Liberace and just 23 when their relationship ended.

 

Damon and Douglas are also backed-up by a strong supporting cast that includes Dan Aykroyd, Rob Lowe, Scott Bakula and Debbie Reynolds. As a huge Quantum Leap fan I was particularly buoyed by Bakula's involvement. While they all contribute to the film it really is all about the two men at its core. And I think they have to be commended on their bravery for taking on their respective roles. Obviously you have the 'gay element' which however sad it may be does mean that they will be sacrificing popularity and respectability in the eyes of some small minded individuals. Even outside of that however I think it was quite a risky move to star in this film because I think it could very easily have turned out to be quite disastrous. Considering the story and its characters I think the film could have remained funny and very campy, but for negative reasons; I think it could have achieved them unintentionally. Both actors also really put themselves out there in terms of the film's sexuality and revealing nature. Damon and Douglas frequently kiss throughout the film, and it's never hidden by editing or blocking; perhaps a large part of the reason why it was considered 'too gay' for American audiences. While Damon is seen throughout the film in nothing but a skimpy speedo. I have no doubt that Soderbergh's involvement was a large part of what convinced both men to participate. Both characters could very easily have become little more than caricatures but thanks to the great script and the two excellent performances this is not the case.

With its relatively small budget Behind the Candelabra can very occasionally look a little bit cheap and on the TV drama side, but in general Soderbergh's assured direction papers over these issues and there really are very few other flaws to be found here. On just the occasional instance I perhaps felt that some scenes detailing the relationship were unnecessary and could have done with a little trimming. They could maybe have done with some of the plastic surgery that the characters indulge in; a little nip/tuck, some liposuction etc but that's about it on the flawed side of things. For whatever reason however the film just didn't excite me quite as much as I hoped.

I talked earlier on about the aspects of celebrity that the film covers, and there's one more facet to it. And it's actually proves to be quite an ironic, and indeed rather sad little twist that occurs. Throughout the film we see Liberace's constant attempts at hiding his homosexuality for fear of the damage it would do to his career if the truth were to come out. Taking place some 30+ years ago we can understand this and would like to think that it is something that has been consigned to that time. How sadly ironic it is then that all these years later Behind the Candelabra was unable to get a cinema release in America because studios deemed it as being 'too gay.' Between this and the current furore over gay marriage it makes for a sad statement on the ongoing sentiments towards gay people that still exist for many people. Very disheartening.

Conclusion - I feel that I'm being really rather harsh on Behind the Candelabra in respects to the score I've given it as there really is very little I can criticise it for. It's just that I didn't come away enjoying it as much as I expected. Though I do feel that a large part of the reason is that my expectations for the film turned out to be a touch off (created a slight disappointment), and now knowing what the film is I wouldn't be surprised if I was more significantly more taken with it on a repeat viewing. And certainly the film's excellent production design and performances mean that I would have no trouble recommending it as a worthwhile watch to anyone.