Docterry

'Delovely' is alas a disappointment. I looked forward to this movie, I had high hopes for it and it was disheartening to get a film that was so incredibly unsophisticated- the antithesis of its subject. I've been singing and playing Cole Porter's music on the piano for fifteen years now as well as listening to his songs done by greats like Frank Sinatra and Ella Fitzgerald. I didn't have much knowledge of the man himself. To my great delight I found a CD recently called 'You're The Top: A Testimonial' which is a live recording of a dinner gathering at the University of Southern California in 1967 to commemorate the opening of the Cole Porter Library. Among the guests that evening were none other than Frank Sinatra, Fred Astaire, Ethel Merman, Alan Jay Lerner, Gene Kelly and Jimmy Stewart. They talk candidly about their experiences with Porter and also sing a few of his songs. For Sinatra fans I highly recommend this CD for Frank sings several intimate tracks with just Roger Edens on piano to accompany. One can learn more about Cole Porter from this CD then the entirety of 'Delovely'.

I can't understand why with the talented people involved with this film the end result is so cinematic ally clichéd and dull. The screenplay's structure simply misses. First of all, there's somewhat of a contradiction in Cole Porter's lyrics and the life he lead. His songs are clever, intricate entertainment. His life was a whole 'nother story put together and thus to imply that every one of his songs were inherently autobiographic and profound windows into his psyche is a misuse of the music. That's why the songs as employed here are all a dissonant fusion of Porter's delicate, lyrical greatness and the rough, mediocrity of such contemporary voices as Alanis Morrissette and Sheryl Crow. The songs aren't allowed to beam in their true nature and are forced to carry all this mysterious exposition- most of which is historically inaccurate. One example is how the movie uses the song 'True Love' to depict the seeming duality Porter had in his feelings towards Linda and his 'other life', shall we say. In actuality the song wasn't written until around 1957 when Porter, in conference with Saul Chaplin, the Associate Musical Director for the film 'High Society', was asked to create a song that sounded 'old fashioned'.

I wish somebody would explain to me why Hollywood bothers to make these 'biopics' if they aren't really interested in the subjects. What's amazing about 'Delovely' is how Jay Cocks's screenplay manages to make Porter's life less interesting or dramatic. I imagine Porter's life was filled with so many swellagant, jet set parties and countless interesting anecdotes. I was just reading one in the New York Sun involving Cole, Truman Capote and an airline steward. Porter's homosexual liaisons had to be a trifle more exciting then presented here otherwise he needn't have bothered. I know this film's PG but come on- Hitchcock's 'Rope' was sexier than this. Regardless, what we get for the most part is a fastidious Kline at the piano in a small room full of guests sipping tea like they're all living in Arthur Sullivan's era.

I'm still bewildered at how a movie about the life of Cole Porter was actually made in today's culture. I'm reminded now of the great CD from the early nineties, 'Red Hot + Blue: A Tribute that featured a whole mess of contemporary rock stars performing Porter's songs. What is it about Cole Porter that the entertainment industry deems so commercial or universal? Especially nowadays when movies are becoming less and less about the art or the idea and are unctuously fixated on perspective profits only. Most new releases in the past few years are that of tired action formulas and boring special effects extravaganzas involving comic book characters and trolls and hobbits and whatnot. That's why 'Delovely' was such a welcoming notion and I'm moved towards commending the film as, at the very least, a sincere attempt at raising the bar a little. Yet in the end, is it the good turtle soup or merely the mock?

I'm familiar with Peter Hedges's theatrical work. I've seen a few of his plays in New York- `Baby Anger' and `Good As New'; the latter I think would have made a better, more focused film- there was talk about turning it into a movie a while ago. Anyway, I was surprised by the screenplay here because Hedges is a talented writer and he's usually a pro at recreating the nerve-racking minutia of dysfunctional family quips and exchanges. There's certainly a plethora of cutting remarks made by the characters in `Pieces Of April' but it seemed to me that most of the dialogue here was dumbed-down to the point of real cliché. As a writer, of drama especially, you start with something you want to say, a founding notion and you try to shape your words until you find the finest, most incisive way of presenting them. In this movie the characters all speak in such broad sentences as if Hedges simply sent the first draft of the screenplay to the presses without any finessing or essential rewriting what so ever. Everything they say and do is so completely cut and dry and without shadow that unfortunately as many of the previous reviews have stated, the film turns into sitcom material and Hedges is much brighter and more capable than that.

It's odd how this film was not only written but also directed by Hedges which would imply that he made all the decisions. This was his first film, his first baby, so to speak and it simply has too many points that fall into the undeniable category of `indie', `Sundance', quirky for it's own sake, and it's kind of a failure. Ebert said in his review it was made for $200,000. That sounds really inexpensive. I guess in those terms Hedges managed to create a work that was `good'. For the resources he had I guess it was good enough. However, you would think coming from a theatrical background where a director is confined to one space and much of any setting is left to the audience's imagination, Hedges would have been dieing to branch out and delve into film's vast visual possibilities with greater artistry. Even though the screenplay is set in claustrophobic areas like inside a car or the interior of April's crappy apartment, there was still film's opportunity to paint the character's inner workings more deeply. Even though Hedges throws in annoying, off-beat sequences like the quick funeral service for a piece of road kill, he really can't escape from representational theater's format and limitations. Information about the character's pasts unfortunately fall into pure exposition where for instance a nice flashback sequence could have been used. I know it must have been a goal to keep the tension high in this film while April franticly searches for an oven to use. However, the interlacing of the family's road trip with April's quest certainly is a privilege of film and I don't think Hedges made the most of all the cinematic possibilities. I know Hedges didn't want to throw in many distractions that would seem separate from the core of his story. This story is a moving one and Katie Holmes gave such a great, unexpected performance of depth beyond the confines of her generalized dialogue that I was wishing there was more development of her character. However, upon reflection I think it would have been more dramatic if April was older. She's supposedly twenty-one. Her need to be accepted by her mother would have been more powerful had April been say a thirty-five year old screw up.

I think ultimately `Pieces of April' is too raw and unfinished even for a low-budget film. It bothers me because this really could have been a great picture. It's a bittersweet little story that anybody with a family could relate to. Some of the emotions going in the film are just too potentially touching to be rendered less effectual by poor filmmaking.

I'm not exactly sure what the motivation was behind the casting of Charlize Theron in this part. Was it a gimmick? Was it inspired by Nicole Kidman's defacing nose job in `The Hours'? Was it meant to garner a deeper consideration of the painfully beautiful Theron's other talents? I don't know, this just strikes me as weird, weird casting- perhaps unnecessary. The producers could have given one of the thousands of struggling, undiscovered actresses out there a shot. However, the fact remains that Charlize is simply wonderful in this movie. Her performance contains, as they teach us in acting class, multiple layers. She manages to exist in this role as both a somewhat non-realistic, grandiose drunken bad girl and also an insular woman filled with moments of self-realization and private emotion. This role is for the most part a firecracker whose audacity is hard to resist. Another film, `Boys Don't Cry', comes to mind in that Hilary Swank's performance was another big transformation for an actress however her sexually confused character was more subtle and elusive and thus more challenging to portray. Swank did a beautiful job.

Again like `Boys Don't Cry', much of the film could be described as a love story. Christina Ricci is quite adorable here and her character's quiet passive aggressiveness feels right on target. She gives an impressive performance keeping the viewer's attention all the time while competing with Theron's vivacious portrayal.

Charlize is awesome though. When I think about the black and white image of her walking down the runway in `Celebrity' and striking a pose that just stops your heart, I can't help but think Hollywood has gone crazy having her make this movie. Why take a gorgeous face like Charlize's and blotch it all up? Is it simply to prove that she can really act, that she's the real deal and her looks don't matter? Well, that's just a stupid idea. She's got nothing to prove. The whole movie system is messed up anyway since the advent of the independent film. You have the big studios dishing up tons of money for Lord of the Rings, special effects type movies where years ago they were making films like `Looking for Mr. Goodbar' and nobody really goes to the movies anymore for true cultural illumination. Does Hollywood really have to keep looking under rocks for story ideas?