El apoderado de Hudsucker

Another fascinating piece from the Coen Brothers, 'The Hudsucker Proxy' is an homage to the films of the 1930s. From the grey faux-Gothic cityscape to the over-the-top acting and rapid fire dialogue to the subdued colors to the stark sets, this film hearkens back to an earlier era of films.

The plot is simple enough. When company president Waring Hudsucker commits suicide, the board of directors, led by the deliciously evil Sidney J. Mussburger (Paul Newman) determines to devalue the stock by putting a 'shmoe' in charge of the company so that when the late Hudsucker's controlling interest in stock hits the market in 30 days, Mussburger's cabal can snap it up on the cheap. Enter shmoe Norville Barnes (Tim Robbins). Jennifer Jason Leigh is the newspaper reporter who infiltrates Hudsucker Industries under the guise of secretary, and is Barnes' love interest in the film.

Robbins performs more than adequately but is outshone by terrific performances by Newman and, in particular, by Leigh, who absolutely nails this role. Her saucy, lilt of the tongue is wonderful; she simply oozes sensual sass, and all in the very decent parameters of decades gone by in Hollywood.

Other highlights of the film include - the wonderful sets, where less is more; the usual Coen cinematography, which makes the film a visual delight above and beyond acting and plot; the clock (an unbilled role, in a sense). Curious characters pop up and return – Buzz the Elevator Operator, the Clock Maintainer, and many others. And, of course … that clock!

As will all Coen brothers films, this one calls me to see it again, as I always seem to discover new elements when watching their works for the second, third, fourth times, and beyond. A very worthwhile film – enjoy!

7 out of 10

This is one good looking movie and has many Coen recognisable signature quirks to make it worthy of a comparison to their earlier and later works. I will come back on those quirks later.

I love the way the Coens always combine high-brow subtlety with low-brow slapstick which makes it so accessible. This movie is not heavy on subtlety but there are some genius moments in it to make it watchable again and again. Newman for one is great in this movie and having the best of times. He makes minimal acting an artform. Really, he could act anyone of that screen with his eyes closed. Jennifer Jason Leigh is a contrast with her hand waving,her Katherine Hepburn- affected-ballsy way of speaking and general overacting but I guess she sets the scene quite brilliantly to complement the decor and general 30's feel of the movie. You see, apparently the Coens have a penchant for the 30's movies style(and so they should.. Many a great movie was made in that decade) but the story in which an imbecile's dingus, against all odds became a total Fad and all the rage, doesn't quite fit that decade. I can't think of any Dingus which became all the rage in the thirties (life was too hard for thingamabobs then, I suppose) and the earliest example, the hoolahoop, was definately a brainchild of the 50's (Life was good and spendable income to buy doodahs was more readily available ). I don't mind that at all but I was confused to find out that it was set in the 50's because of all the visual and audible references to the 30's. If Mussburgers office wasn't an art-deco Love-fest (that clock!)I don't know what is.

I guess this review is definitely style over content but you know what? That just doesn't matter because plot is secondary to the visuals, and dialogue in this movie. And that is just alright by me. It is the reason why these movies are so good for repeat viewings. Once you know a plot, you are not likely to watch it again just for the plot's sake. It is the sights, the sounds the dialogue that makes you want to watch a movie again and again. Oh you don't believe me? Name your favourite movie (not the one you tell your friends is your favourite but the one you watch again and again). What makes you want to watch it repeatedly? Is it because you want to know what happens for the 100th time? Ofcourse not! You want to watch it for the 100th time because of the dialogue, the fun, the special effects the object of your desire etc. etc...

Now I am not saying that plot is not important but I am saying that what makes Coen Brother's movies so good is that they think about their viewer/audience who wants to watch their movies until they can repeat every line in the movie(and becoming sad anoraks in the process). I actually know people who watched the Big Lebowski half way and walked out of the cinema only to find them Lebowski addicts after one more viewing. I am not naming names but you know who you are...

I liked this movie the first time round... I know I will love it later...

Now for the Coen parallels between this movie and the Big Lebowski:

Jennifer's way of speaking was similar to Julianne's Maud. They were both "feisty" Brunettes who fall for the main character(I wouldn't call 'em heroes)

The voice over to remind us that it is a fairytale at the beginning and end by guardian-angel-types. (Sam Elliot in Big and Bill Cobbs in the Hudsucker) Bizarre Dance Dream Sequences that have nothing to do with the plot but are hugely enjoyable. Blond Bombshell (Anna-Nicole Smith in Hudsucker and Tara Reid in the Big Lebowski)Who want to seduce the hero. Steve Buscemi. Memorable Lines...

So all in all I guess I recommend it!

****

This is a fun film - very lighthearted with beautiful sets, fast paced dialog and caricatures at every corner and turn.

It seems to pay homage to old Capra screwball comedies - and it's pretty much old fashioned farce right from the beginning.

The film is far from perfect. Jennifer Jason Leigh's performance is labored. She tries to squeeze every last snicker she can with her character. She misses the mark in my opinion, moving and talking with so much effort and pace - just to get a laugh - that in the end, she gets none.

Paul Newman goes the other way - he understates his character and when contrasted to the lunacy of both the environment and the story around him - it makes for some great scenes. He makes a great villain in this movie - and for me, he's a large reason why the movie works.

Tim Robbins does a good job, especially at the start of the film. His best moments come when the story and the environment overwhelm his character.

There's great moments, like the ridiculous Muncie fight song, the Monty Python-esque mail room, Charles Durning with wings and the grim, faceless board members - with their inane questions and so frightened to lose their authority that they agree to virtually anything.

This film isn't genius or anything, but if you enjoyed the antics of something like 'Arsenic and Old Lace' then this is worth catching. It's delightfully silly - and has some interesting visuals and symbolism along the way.

This film is frequently mentioned in college film classes for its interesting use of a door or window framing nearly every scene in the movie. I adore the art deco detail that encases the film from the doors, to the cars, to the clock machinery, it's a real beauty visually. There is something giddy and whimsical about watching it. I think critics of films are often scratching for a profound meaning when none is intended.

There is a particularly wonderful scene where an adorable little boy picks up the hoola-hoop for the first time and begins swinging it around his waist. I think I replayed the scene several times just for the expression of the boy's face.

Its theme song, Adagio of Spartacus and Phrygia, was composed by Khachaturian. The theme song has a majestic, soaring orchestration that stays in your head for hours.

I cannot understand why this movie has not earned the respect it deserves. Norville Barnes represents high hopes and bright ideas, and when he starts out his intentions are pure. But when money makes him lose his focus, only love can put him back on the right track. Tim Robbins and Jennifer Jason Leigh are masterful in this movie, which is one of my personal favorites.