10 February 2016

RENDER UNTO CAESAR WHAT IS CAESAR'S

My instinct to say of Hail, Caesar! that you will love it if you fall into the enormously specific niche of people who adore Studio Era Hollywood but are still totally okay with making fun of it, and also consider themselves somewhere firmly entrenched in the Leftist-Socialist-Marxist end of the spectrum but are still totally okay with pointing out how totally feckless those philosophies tend to be in practice, and also have a deep fascination with religious doctrine and religious iconography but are generally atheist/agnostic in outlook. But then, every conversation I've had with somebody who isn't exactly the same as me about the movie has ended with them enjoying it every bit as much as I did. So perhaps the real truth here is simply that Joel & Ethan Coen, making their 17th feature film, are extremely good at making extremely interesting movies.

Hail, Caesar! very clearly positions itself as a cinephile's acid-inked Valentine to Hollywood in the 1950s, with a large proportion of its running time given over to note-perfect parodies and re-creations of the movies and surrounding culture prevalent at that time. It's an impressionistic copy more than a documentary one: the most conspicuous historical error is the appearance of widescreen cinematography in 1951, two years ahead of schedule. The most telling is that our protagonist is Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin), head of physical production at the fictional Capital Pictures (the same studio that figure into the Coens' Barton Fink, set a decade earlier), and an extremely clear analogue for MGM's legendary "fixer" of the same name; but as much as the two men have in common the film's Mannix is a variation on the theme of the real-life Mannix, for there are simply too many small things they don't have in common.

Anyway, I interrupted myself: Hail, Caesar! very clearly positions itself as a collection of Hollywood in-jokes designed for an audience who loves (sometimes ironically) all the same movies that the Coens do, but it is actually a morality play about faith and good works: it is the Coens' Christian movie - specifically Catholic - in much the same way that their damnably under-appreciated A Serious Man was their Jewish movie. With the admitted caveat that the Coens have a fair degree more insight into the lives of Minnesota Jews in the '60s (the exact environment they came from) than they do into Catholics from any time or place, and while A Serious Man comes from some unnervingly exact and precise and accurate place deep in the filmmakers' soul, Hail, Caesar! draws down more from depictions of Catholic practice, doubt, and piety as picked up from the movies.

Which is a pretty fair strategy to adopt in the making of a movie that is, itself, all about what gets shown to us in movies, and how, and why, and to what potentially ideological ends. Mild spoilers for the rest of this paragraph. Herein is a film in which a self-aware pantomime of gay behavior is acted onscreen by a man we'll later learn is homosexual, and in which Communist screenwriters proudly describe the way they smuggle leftist messages into movies by hiding them under so much obfuscation that they don't really count as messages any more. A certain enthusiastic ambivalence about the way that "movie meaning" and "reality" speak past each other is present throughout all of the otherwise quite disconnected, even arbitrary anecdotes speckled throughout the film. Why should its depiction of how Mannix grapples with his faith be any different? And so it is, from the unmistakably leading and clichéd opening scene (in a confessional, that most unsubtle of locations), to its remarkable last shot, in which The Movie Industry is blessed with the light of Heaven; whether ironically or not, I cannot say. Irony and the Coens are like peanut butter and jelly, but the final act of Hail, Caesar! is remarkably, almost creepily sincere, doling out happy endings to characters whether they've earned them or not, and not apparently having any sardonic misgivings about doing so. To wrap up the Serious Man comparison, perhaps the two films' endings are themselves reflective of religious themes: the Jewish film ends with the cruel director-gods dumping one last mean-spirited punishment on their characters, the Christian film ends with senseless love. And, maybe, a false messiah in the form of Mannix, who sacrifices himself to not redeem the sins of a system that will barely survive the decade.

700 words and change in, it's worth mentioning that Hail, Caesar! is a comedy. A tremendously smart and on-point one, if you're up with all of the specific references in the script and the images (I'm sure I missed a few), though I have to imagine that it's still adorably silly even if you're not. It's gratuitously shaggy, with the same basic structure of shuffled-up anecdotes of O Brother, Where Art Thou? and the same willful joy in wandering away from its own apparent plot as The Big Lebowski. In principle, the film is about Mannix's difficulties with the production of Capital's biggest production for the upcoming season, Hail, Caesar!: A Tale of the Christ (a dual reference to 20th Century-Fox's 1953 The Robe and MGM's 1959 Ben-Hur), starting first with a meeting of four religious leaders to debate whether the film captures the fine points of theology enough to serve as an appropriate panacea to the audience's souls (it's also the snappiest Coen scene since the "Goy's Teeth" sequence from A Serious Man, and hilarious on the level of the masterful opening sequence in Raising Arizona), and then going on to his woes with the production's meaty leading man, Baird Whitlock (George Clooney). For one thing, the viper-like twin gossip columnists, Thora and Thessaly Thacker (Tilda Swinton) both have different, equally damaging stories about Whitlock ready to go; for another, the star has just been kidnapped by a Marxist group calling itself The Future.

Like many another Coen film, though, Hail, Caesar! takes its title largely in reference to the thing it's going to keep driving around and forgetting and looking past. Mannix has far more to deal with than just one missing A-list star; there are out-of-wedlock pregnancies to handle, capricious requests from the New York office to shift stars around, and on top of it all, he's weighing a job offer from Lockheed. The result is a shambolic tour of a Hollywood studio in the full swing of production, right in that little window when the Golden Age had died but the corpse had so much built-up momentum that you can't tell from looking at it how nigh the end really is (I'd set the boundaries as the 1948 Paramount case, which ended the star system, and the assault-in-earnest on the Production Code that started ramping up in 1953 with The Moon Is Blue. But if you wanted to say that 1951 itself was the turning point, thanks to the modernist jolt of A Streetcar Named Desire, I wouldn't fight you).

The result is a little tragic, in addition to be so damn fluffy: all that goofiness we see, and Mannix's spiritually restorative appreciation for the little good he's able to do in his job, are coming right at the end; we're watching a star slowly cooling down to white dwarfhood. Not that it keeps the individual moments from being utterly delicious, as the Coens immaculately re-create the aesthetics of '50s Hollywood with their terrific band of regular collaborators: production designer Jess Gonchor, costume designer Mary Zophres, composer Carter Burwell, and of course cinematographer Roger Deakins, shooting on film for probably the last time in his career, and turning out a dewy film in the colors of saltwater taffy, sunny and bleary at the same time. Three musical numbers, an aborted attempt at a drawing room melodrama, and quite an array of stilted Bible epic scenes are both ingenious presents to cinephiles and also exciting, colorful, elaborate pieces of cinematic craftssmanship in their own right, a reminder of how damn good Old Hollywood could be that is also an admission of how damn corny it almost always was.

Credit, too, to an excellent cast, mostly made up of people much too big to have such tiny cameos: Scarlett Johansson, Channing Tatum, Alison Pill, Frances McDormand, and Ralph Fiennes all show up for one or two scenes, among others. The far-and-away standout, besides Brolin himself (who plays as similar sharp screwball brittleness mixed with a deep inward-looking moral crisis as the one that Jennifer Jason Leigh gave to the directors in The Hudsucker Proxy), is relative newcomer Alden Ehrenreich, whose drawling singing cowboy Hobie Doyle is this film's analogue to Marge Gunderson: the obvious rube with a thick accent, who turns out to be the most perceptive and capable member of the whole cast. And if Ehrenrich can't match McDormand's authority in that role (who could?), it's as perfect a star-is-born performance as a movie about Hollywood myth could hope for.

As fuzzy and meandering as this can all obviously get, it would be exceeding unfair to accuse Hail, Caesar! of lacking a very deliberate strategy and structure. It's a study in human brokenness, given the illusion of smooth perfection by the Hollywood machine, which turns chaos into formula, and a slow-boil comedy in which the very shapelessness of jokes is what makes them funny. There's a lot of depth here that I think will take the usual 3-4 viewings that most Coen comedies need before they start yielding up everything, but it's still an intoxicating classical movie lover's pleasure even without that.

9/10

18 comments:

  1. Uh...wow. I have to say, I'm not quite feeling all the love that this movie is getting. Don't get me wrong, I thought it was okay, but no more than that. As you note, it's incredibly shambolic, but not, to my taste, in a fun way like The Big Lebowski. Fitfully amusing with a few real high points, but, frankly, often kind of boring. Is this really less than two hours? is a thought I had a number of times while watching it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "the appearance of widescreen cinematography in 1951"

    This film is actually set in a concrete timeframe? If so, I missed it: the Hail, Caesar!: A Tale of the Christ footage rubbed me the wrong way from the other direction, because I kept asking why it wasn't in 'Scope (or, better yet, a simulacrum of the 70mm 2.76:1 format), and also why they weren't showing anything especially cool. Anyway, I thought it was supposed to be interpreted as "195X," with aquamusicals coexisting with the last successful Biblical epics.

    Anyway, bearing in mind that I liked Hail, Caesar! quite a bit, I think your narrowing of its intended audience is very much on point, though I might add the question, "How much affection you have for Ben-Hur?", since if the answer is "nearly none," the Coens' have made a film that scratches that particular itch. (Personally, I thought their schizophrenic attitude toward what was worthy of outright contempt, and when, was a little disingenuous, but then, I think Ben-Hur is better than all but maybe one or two of the Coens' own movies, a sentiment that I know you do not share at all.)

    However, I think the religious angle (which I noticed, but didn't parse with the same insight you did) makes me like it a little more. Who knows? Hail, Caesar could well wind up getting on my personal Coen Classic list on rewatch.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh, and Tim! Did you notice the bitchin' "Ozymandias" reference? That was probably my favorite thing about the movie (certainly my favorite image), and it definitely helped leaven the film's slightly sneering attitude toward its subject matter, since while most everything else was tongue-in-cheek, the vast and trunkless legs somehow didn't seem to be ironic, at least not the way virtually everything else was.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm with GeoX, I'm really surprised by the reviews for this. It's a total mess, with random scenes barely fitting together, showpieces that have little to recommend them beyond their earnest authenticity. Still, some of the bits are great -- McDormand's in particular was hilarious -- but ultimately I found the thing not interesting enough to withstand its haphazardness, and too haphazard to evoke any emotion for the characters.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yeah, I'm in the "fitfully entertaining but not much of anything" camp. But I felt the same way about Burn After Reading, so I knew Tim would love this one, too.

    I feel like this will be the Magic Mike XXL of the year, where certain critics REALLY love it and include in their top 10s, but audiences HATE it. Dat C- Cinemascore/47% Audience approval gives you an idea of the general perception.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "...it is the Coens' Christian movie - specifically Catholic - in much the same way that their damnably under-appreciated A Serious Man was their Jewish movie."

    Yes, and True Grit was their Protestant film.

    I found Hail to be more harsh towards its characters than many critics have--to me, Mannix seems like a hypocrite who doesn't know he's being hypocritical. Consider the way he confesses to slapping a movie star, forgetting (or not caring) that he has actually slapped two people since he last confessed. If there is grace in the movie, it lies in the fact that moments of real beauty are created in a place so choked with self-importance (like all grace, I suppose, it's undeserved). The only character who really escapes unscathed, Hobie, is not coincidentally the only one with the humility to know exactly who and what he is.

    It's one to ponder, though, so I may well change my mind after a couple more viewings.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @GeoX: It's not just you. The beginning riffing on noir and movies where a good solid backhand solves everything had me hoping it would really, affectionately, tear into the old movies, with both a deep abiding love and a constant reminder that these religious epics and Passion plays were put on by a morally bankrupt industry for purely mercenary reasons.

    The bit Mannix trying to wheedle all the religious leaders got my hopes up, but then it just kind of...wandered around. Yeah, there were funny bits and pieces (George Clooney gossiping like a schoolgirl with the Marxist professor, the notion of a Russian sub surfacing just off the coast of Malibu with hardly any eyes batted), but it was all part of a long road to nowhere. Everyone gets introduced, wanders around in their little circles, oops it's almost over, time to wrap up all the loose ends, roll credits.

    It felt like some kind of in-joke I wasn't in on. Which means me sitting there, awkwardly waiting for what felt like hours until it quit laughing with itself.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's a good theory to see oneself accidentally described to a T:

    "adore Studio Era Hollywood but are still totally okay with making fun of it, and also consider themselves somewhere firmly entrenched in the Leftist-Socialist-Marxist end of the spectrum but are still totally okay with pointing out how totally feckless those philosophies tend to be in practice, and also have a deep fascination with religious doctrine and religious iconography but are generally atheist/agnostic in outlook."

    Yup, that is me in a nutshell! Consequently, I adored this movie but had no idea if anybody else would. I will say that even with how much I loved it it didn't seem A little loosely put together and on first watching to a bit less substance than something like "Hudsucker Proxy", but as Tim pointed out, it might take a few more watchings before I'm sure.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It was pretty good, and that production design was delicious, but...I dunno, it was also a bit quieter and, yes, more aimless than I expected. After that Soviet submarine surfaced, I wasn't sure how seriously to take this film anymore. But then, I'll admit the only other Coen movies I've seen have been Fargo and O Brother.

    The AV Club, in their review of Caesar, describes the Coen brothers as "crypto-conservative". Would you agree with this? On the one hand you could note that they don't exactly demonize Communism in this movie; in fact I'd almost say they come off as some of the more rational types in this farce. Of course, on the other hand, given your Christian framing of this movie, you could compare this moment with Satan tempting Jesus (of course, then Whitlock would be the Jesus analog here). But going back to Jesus and Communism, well, I find it interesting that Whitlock gives his passion-play soliloquy about unconditional charity to the less fortunate with such sincere-sounding vigor after having spent time with Communists.

    So, if Hail Caesar is their Catholic film, will the Coens' next be Eastern Orthodox, or perhaps Buddhist?

    ReplyDelete
  10. The opening paragraph describes me pretty well too, but considering how often I disagree with Tim, it's certainly not to be taken as complete description of character. But in everything directly related to this particular movie, it may very well be it.
    So, I haven't seen this movie yet but I just wanted to say, judging by the trailer, I would have identified the biblical epic as "Quo vadis", which was a 1951 release with an aging star as the lead, and also maybe the first biblical epic of the 50s. But of course mixing it up with"Robe" and"Ben hut" and cinemascope would make sense in this movie.
    Dying to see the movie now.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I really liked this one. It never got stale for me, mostly because it was so unpredictable. One scene would be a noir pastiche, the next would be a song-and-dance number. I was invested because I wanted to see what crazy shit would happen next, rather than the (admittedly aimless) plot.

    One thing that kinda took me out of the movie a little was the scene where Hobie takes his date to his new movie. They shelled out for VistaVision on this random western, but not for their "biggest release of the year?"

    ReplyDelete
  12. For what it's worth, the film is set in 1956, according to the copyright info on Hobie's latest western, which implausibly enough is a singing cowboy film in color and VistaVision. It doesn't really look that late, but this is fantasy time, after all.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I can't remember where I saw the year 1951 now, but I remember being shocked by the precision of it. It's a calendar or something.

    Could be that it really is set in a "pan-'50s" unreal space, after all.

    ReplyDelete
  14. So far it also sounds to me like the movie presents a very MGM-centric outlook of Hollywood. I guess the idea that they were the epitome of it is really widespread and in place.

    ReplyDelete
  15. When Whitlock (SPOILER) signs up for the Communist party, I believe he does actually write 1951 on his card, and maybe I missed part of the Roman numerals, but I think the copyright date on Hobie's Western was MCMVI.

    Given that the second Red Scare was arguably at its height around 1950-51, and that McCarthyism effectively ended with his censure in 1954 (he drank himself to death in 1957), I think an early '50s date is perhaps more appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
  16. MCMLI, pardon me. Although, was there a "V" in there? Because then it might have been MCMLVI.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Andrew- Yes! That was where I got the date from.

    javi75- I'd say Capital is a pretty close 50/50 mix of MGM and 20th Century-Fox. Whitlock = Victor Mature, for one thing. But the film certainly tends to celebrate rather than undercut the Established Myths of Hollywood, that's definitely true.

    ReplyDelete
  18. But there's also that point where the guy from Lockheed shows Mannix that picture of the hydrogen bomb mushroom cloud at Bikini Atoll, and says that was just a couple weeks before. And that bomb was tested on November 1, 1952. But actually, I learn from Wikipedia, it was tested on Eniwetok atoll, not Bikini. Tests at Bikini Atoll were ongoing from 1946 to 1958, and the first dry fuel thermonuclear hydrogen bomb was tested there on March 1, 1954. But at that point the world already knew we had hydrogen bombs, and this was just a new design. I'd have to see the movie again to remember the Lockheed guy's exact words, and to remember which picture of a mushroom cloud he showed Mannix.

    So whatever you can make of that. It seems like the Coens were probably intentionally dating things a little loosely--"somewhere between 1951 and 1953," say.

    ReplyDelete

Just a few rules so that everybody can have fun: ad hominem attacks on the blogger are fair; ad hominem attacks on other commenters will be deleted. And I will absolutely not stand for anything that is, in my judgment, demeaning, insulting or hateful to any gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion. And though I won't insist on keeping politics out, let's think long and hard before we say anything particularly inflammatory.

Also, sorry about the whole "must be a registered user" thing, but I do deeply hate to get spam, and I refuse to take on the totalitarian mantle of moderating comments, and I am much too lazy to try to migrate over to a better comments system than the one that comes pre-loaded with Blogger.