Because if you know anything about me, know this, Bill Murray is one of my favourite people in the world. I dislike most people by default, I like most people who are dazzling because I can't see past their shiny amazingness. Bill Murray stands apart from everything in his own bubble of appreciation, I admire him and I just think he's a person who just is, and he is intriguing and brilliant and timeless, everyone should know and admire Bill Murray for being Bill Murray.
So I saw this film for very simplistic reasons, Bill Murray, plus morbid curiosity. I do enjoy going to empty cinemas on my own and taking up the whole back row, kicking off my shoesies, stretching out my legs, I like to make myself comfortable, then there three other people in the cinema know I have marked my territory. I live about three minutes from the cinema so I took my hot water bottle with me, next time a flask of tea! This was about the time I saw Martha Marcy May Marlene last year on my own... It's been a year since I started traversing to the cinema on my own on days off, it's pleasant, plus I wouldn't dare ask anyone to join me to see such odd films I pick out to see on my own. It's been my first lonesome day off in a while, I like my lonesome days off, especially when I can't bare the thought of talking to another human being, the cinema is the perfect place to be.*
Which brings me to this film, I've avoided talking directly about it for a while now, why? Because I really have no clue what to say about it. It's a bit of a weird film! I want to say that it's a bit messy, a bit aimless, a bit stupid, a bit weird... But I say those things alot about films I can't figure out... You're not quite sure what to expect, you're sitting in the cinema going 'Come on then film, blow my mind.' then ten minutes in you see a beautiful field with a car parked in the middle of it and the President getting a handjob of his fifth cousin, and then you get the king of England biting into a hot dog to rapturous applause as the film finishes, you can't help wondering how you got to this point, and you walk away thinking 'What the hell was that?'
So the basic premise is this, Franklin D. Roosevelt is having a tête-à-tête with the King of England about the impending World War II, this all takes place at his mother's home at Hyde Park on Hudson**, this would be the first time the Royal Family were to meet with a President of the USA, it's supposed to be a social visit but of course it's to try and enlist the assistance of America. Whilst all of this is going on we also have the tale of Daisy, the President's fifth cousin or so, drafted in to keep him company, she swiftly becomes his lover and she sees the meeting takes place (most of it) and comes to terms with the reality of being in love with Franklin D Roosevelt. It's the same royals as those in The King's Speech so instantly recognisable, but it's a much lighter film that that, in fact it seems to be free of any concern about being taking seriously, perhaps that's just me though, it just seemed quite a carefree jaunt.
Is this film supposed to be about the significance of the Royals visiting, or is it about Daisy and her entangled love affair with FDR? This is a question I kept asking through the film, it seemed to want to straddle both ideas but didn't really give either enough room to breathe. The film is narrated by Daisy during events, and yet there are scenes in the film Daisy could not have been privy to, such as FDR's conversations with George VI, plus the interactions between the Royals themselves. If the film is narrated by Daisy, if it's based on her journals and such, why put so much emphasis on them and not her? She wasn't really there for a lot of the visit. What is even more confusing is the fact that at the end of it all it's so cheerful, so happy to let us know that Daisy forgave FDR, even though he actually had multiple lovers and had lied and manipulated her into believing she was special and that he genuinely cared for her in any way. Of course she's upset but she gets over that and is best buds with his other mistress and has a fabulous time until he dies, well good for her! Talk about principals! There's no reason why she forgives him or why she would agree to it, just that he seems to have an affable charm about him that made her forget all of the complications. How nice! Get to bunk up with the President and share him with a few other women, good for you!***
It's probably worth talking about the performances. Bill Murray brings his particular brand of charisma to the part of FDR but maintains an air distinctly unlike his familiar persona. He is very much not himself in this film, if that makes sense, he has a presidential air and conveys the likeability of Roosevelt as well as the steely professional air. Plus, it wasn't well known that Roosevelt had Polio as he made sure the press never showed him as such, this affords him the best scene in the film between him and Bertie as he laments his stammer and FDR responds with his own ailment. It's quite a touching scene and gives a neat insight into FDR, because he such a powerful figure people see of him what they want and ignore his fallibility; it's pretty damn good as far as any performance goes. Laura Linney looks beautiful... That is all. Olivia Williams rejoins Bill Murray after appearing with him in Rushmore (before Moonrise Kingdom it was my favourite Wes Anderson film.) She simmers with political rage as Eleanor Roosevelt****. Olivia Colman, who is awesome, managed to play the polite barely concealed irritation of a British monarch that was fun to watch, although her obsession with those damn hot dogs was less funny than the film seemed to be forcing us to believe. And the rest of the cast, blah that's it.
Well, it was a pleasant film, beautiful if anything, but irritating. If you're going to make a film about FDR's affairs, make that film, make sure you actually give us reason to believe why the women are fine to go along with his insatiable lust, give Eleanor more to work with, fully explore that whole thing. Or, if you want, fully explore the extent of the importance of the Royals visit, the implications on both sides, oh and of course mine all the available laughs from the culture difference*****. Don't mix both up into a froth and have it completely ineffectual. That's just me though, perhaps I want more, but in my opinion it should have been one or the other, both together with the jaunty happy mood seemed to be quite idiotic. I'm not saying splitting the film would immediately take away the light feel of the film, I just... I dunno, I thought it was a bit stupid that's all, it didn't really do anything, it's a shame too because Bill Murray as FDR was a good idea, and he played it well, just the rest of it didn't really work. Plus it's a smutty film, perhaps it's just me but it seems like a bunch of old folk making innuendos, ho-ho old people do sex too in the old days, ho-ho how clever is that? Hot dogs! Ok, that's about as constructive as I'm going to get, it was a fun light historical bit of fluff... I don't know what I was expecting, but I wasn't expecting that.
*I also watched Compliance in the same day, I've been tweaking this blog before posting it. You probably couldn't watch two more different films. In fairness they were both based on true events, and were some what seedy and weird, but on completely different levels.
*Queen Elizabeth points out that there is a Hyde Park in London, it's terribly confusing!
** Please note my raging sarcasm.
*** There are some complaints that it is insinuated Eleanor Roosevelt is a lesbian in this film. It's not blatant it just makes out that she lives with a bunch of women, if that makes her lesbian then that would be using my mother's logic (don't ask...).
**** I never knew the political significance of hot dogs until this film. I felt like I was beaten over the damn head with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment