BEFORE: I'm sort of bouncing through the decades of American industry here - I started in 1980 with "9 To 5", then backwards to the 1960's, then forward to the 2000's, and tonight it's a movie set in the late 1950's, but made in 1994.
THE PLOT: A naive business graduate is installed as president of a manufacturing company as part of a stock scam.
AFTER: This film has a lot of elements in common with my previous "big business" films - we've got a corporate scam and an imbecile boss, like in "9 To 5", a mailroom clerk who somehow rises rapidly to an executive position, like in "How To Succeed in Business Without Really Trying", a female reporter seducing an executive, like in "Thank You for Smoking", and of course the backstabbing corporate politics seen in last night's film. Throw all these plot elements into a blender, and set it against a giant corporate structure like the one seen in "Brazil", and the resulting mix SHOULD work - in theory, anyway.
But there's something wrong with the corporate board's plan to install a moronic figurehead to devalue the company stock, then buy up a majority of the outstanding shares when they're cheap. The plan is actually a good one, so why did the board members sell their shares at the stock's lowest point? Geez, I'm not a businessman, but even I know it should be "Buy low, sell high"! (Even though my few stock investments have seemed to work the other way...) Why did they sell low, other than to create more misery for themselves?
Of course, no one let the figurehead, Norville Barnes (Tim Robbins, last seen in "Jungle Fever"), in on the plan - so he does his best to try and lift the company out of the gutter, inadvertently spoiling the plan. He's got an idea for an invention, which just looks like a simple circle on paper - doesn't anyone he shows it to ever take the time to ask what it does? It turns out to be a classic icon of the 1950's - you know, for kids - but it's one which already has a well-documented backstory, that completely contradicts the one depicted here.
Still, the movie has an OK premise, and sets up the conflict well between the figurehead company president and the board, but it took a long time for the third act to develop - it seemed like the story was just going to tread water until the ending. Then, the movie ended up running right off the reality rails, just before the climax, or more correctly, in place of the climax.
I hate to use the phrase "bad filmmaking" with regards to a Coen Brothers movie, but one of the earmarks of B.F. is that the seams are all showing - you can see that the only reason certain things happen is that there's no other way to advance the plot. The tail is wagging the dog, so to speak. Why does the board sell their stock? So they can be put into a more desperate situation. Why does the inter-office memo never get delivered? Because if it did, the plot couldn't advance in that way. Why does the movie end in the strange way that it does? Clearly, no one could think of a better alternative.
Plus, I've got to take points off for the vocal affectation of Jennifer Jason Leigh (last seen in "Synecdoche, New York"), who talked like Judy Garland mixed with Katharine Hepburn, but sped-up like the Keystone Kops on Krack. It's obviously meant to be a throwback to the 50's, or maybe the early talkies of the 1930's, but did anyone ever actually talk this way? (EDIT: I'm not familiar with the films of Rosalind Russell, but if she talked like this, I'm very not interested.)
Also starring Paul Newman (last seen in "The Hustler"), and a host of character actors like Charles Durning (last seen in "True Confessions"), John Mahoney (last seen in "Say Anything"), Bruce Campbell (last seen in "The Majestic"), Jon Polito (last seen in "The Freshman"), Mike Starr (last seen in "Dumb & Dumber"), Bill Cobbs (last seen in "That Thing You Do!") and Joe Grifasi, with cameos from Peter Gallagher, Steve Buscemi (last seen in "Escape From L.A."), and Anna Nicole Smith.
RATING: 4 out of 10 Monte Cristo cigars
No comments:
Post a Comment