Filed under: Drama
It’s sometimes the mark of a masterpiece to set up a fascinating plot and group of characters at the beginning of a film, only to throw them away for something even better. The first half hour of Psycho could’ve been continued to make a good (who knows, maybe even great) movie about an alienated office worker on the run with $40,000. Synecdoche, New York could’ve been a good family drama about a sick theater director with weird poop and a failing marriage whose life was turned around by Fluorostatin TR. Hitchcock and Kaufman took huge risks by shifting their plots so drastically, and produced masterpieces. Julia, however, takes a fatally wrong turn when it changes from an honest and extremely well-acted story of addiction to a drawn-out and clichéd thriller.
I want to know more about the daily lives of the destructively alcoholic Julia (Tilda Swinton), her mysterious neighbor Elena (Kate del Castillo), her saintly ex-boyfriend Mitch (Saul Rubinek), and Elena’s observant but still childish son Tom (Aidan Gould). The performances of Swinton and the supporting players were so strong that there is no doubt in my mind that they were capable of making a movie as gritty and honest as The Wrestler, giving us a real window into Julia’s world rather than a cursory glance.
What is accomplished by denying us true character development, and instead taking the movie into the realm of the implausible? We see a few cycles of Julia’s drinking binges and mornings after, one scene in her office, and one scene at an AA meeting, a few scenes with Elena, and a few scenes with Mitch, but this isn’t enough to really get a good idea of who any of them really are. I suppose you could make the case that we learn about Julia from when she takes off her mask, where she points her gun, and how she chooses to deal with the suitcase full of money. But that’s the Julia who inhabits an implausibly exciting world, not the Julia who could be living down the street. At first I thought that Elena would remain mysterious throughout much of the movie, and that I’d have the joy of trying to piece together who she really is. Unfortunately, all of the mystery was resolved within fifteen minutes. I’d rather see more of Mitch trying to save Julia by warning her in his living room than by negotiating with her in Tijuana.
As slow and clichéd as the last hour and a half (or so) of the movie becomes, a few parts of it made it a little closer to bearable than it otherwise would’ve been. In a very impressive performance, Gould captures perfectly the phase of childhood when a kid understands what’s going on around him, but nonetheless is still a kid. Though the whole movie collapses along with the border fence, that shot was an especially effective transition. It was also nice to be reminded of Greed when the film took us to the California desert. You know what? Why not just watch that instead? Not only does it allow its characters to develop, but if you like gun-pointing and lots of cash, you can find them there too. How horribly ironic it is that so many of the best parts of Greed were cut, and so many of the worst parts of Julia were allowed to stay.
-Robert Henderson
2 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Love your last sentence, Robert (and the rest of the review, of course, ain’t bad either): ironic indeed — and funny as hell. I hadn’t thought of the movie in quite the way you did, though I pretty much despised it, Swinton notwithstanding. But looking at it again through your eyes makes sense.
Comment by James van Maanen
07.10.09 @ 6:04 pm
Robert – Love the “Greed” reference. I’ve heard nothing but good things about this film, especially Swinton’s performance, but it sounds like you found it quite tired and cliched. Too bad.
Comment by gcheath19
07.11.09 @ 2:04 am
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>