Norman

If there is a theme in Norman: The Moderate Rise and Tragic Fall of a New York Fixer (2017) it may be that sycophantic fixers are everywhere. They are the loners who gravitate towards successful people, offering favours, dropping names, and arranging introductions to ingratiate and elevate themselves. They are driven by self-interest and thrive in communities of self-interest. Politics is full of them.

The 'fixer dynamic' drives the film's titular character, Norman Oppenheimer (Richard Gere). He is a lonely middle age Jew without visible means of support except for being a life-size parasite on other people. The archetype of a pathological liar and dreamer, his modus-operandi could be labelled corrupt in an ethics debate: he flatters, panders, and gives gifts to those richer or more powerful, always manouvering for return on investment. By chance, he latches onto low-ranking Jewish politician Micha Eshel (Lior Ashkenazi) and gifts him a pair of outrageously expiensive shoes. They lose contact, but Norman has bought the right to drop his name anywhere. Three years later, Eshel is elected Prime Minister of Israel and Norman attends the celebrations. They re- unite and Eshel repays Norman by inviting him into the tent of influence where he is quickly out of his depth. As an inveterate fixer, he builds a complex web of promises that mostly cannot be delivered. While he does some good for some people, his house of cards eventually collapses and we are invited to judge where moral culpability lies. For every successful Eshel there are scores of Normans.

Richard Gere's superbly enigmatic characterisation of Norman is the heart of this dialogue-driven film. He is irritatingly unlikeable, like a fly on a hot summer day, yet somehow endearing. He is arrogant yet vulnerable; desperate for acceptance yet with few admirable attributes. His story is whimsically satirical rather than funny and at times it wobbles precariously on the inter-personal dynamic between two unpleasant stereotypes, Norman and Eshel. Some filming gimmickry, like split screens and freeze action scenes, is unhelpfully distracting and two hours is a long time for a character study. But with clear echoes of Woody Allen-esque existentialism, this film outs the fixer caricature that feeds voraciously in circles of influence. In professional domains they are called lobbyists.

Good film, first chapters might be boring but from the third i really liked it and richard gere was nice

Full title of this Joseph Cedar movie is Norman: The Moderate Rise and Tragic Fall of a New York Fixer. Norman the person is not very likable. He stands too close when he talks to you, he's relentless in searching for an angle, he's quick with the half-to-full-lie. But in Richard Gere's nuanced portrayal, initial discomfort turns to something more like sympathy. How he's treated by the people who see him for what he is becomes simultaneously justified and painful. The sympathy is possible because Norman isn't angling to benefit himself, at least not financially. He only wants to feel important, that he matters in the world, yet he remains "always just a few capillaries removed from the beating heart of power," says A.O. Scott in the New York Times. When he has a setback, and he has plenty of them, you see the gears turning until he hits a way to make the best of it. When Norman "bumps into" an Israeli diplomat and does him a favor, right there you know the seeds of calamity are planted. I won't say more about the plot, which is complicated in the delicious way that only someone like Norman could complicate it. Israeli actor Lior Ashkenazi plays the diplomat; Michael Sheen plays Norman's put-upon nephew; Steve Buscemi as the rabbi of a financially distressed congregation is "a marvel of wit and off-kilter humanity," Scott says; and Manhattan plays itself, beautifully.

This is my first time posting a review, but I felt that this picture in particular needs the introduction that I can give to it:

When initially asked if I would recommend this film I responded, "Ah, recommend? ... I don't think so." In retrospect, I think that it can be appreciated, provided that one understands the viewpoint of its Israeli writer/director.

I'll digress briefly to address the elephant in the room: Richard Gere. I was initially offended that he was allowed to (and that he had the gall to) play a Jew, but he was actually very good in the role. Without chewing the scenery, he showed that he's a talented actor who can "just go into character," and for him "less is more."

Now, there are two main points I think every viewer needs to know: First, it's a very Israeli movie (and that's what it is); you either know what that means or you simply do not. And, secondly, Israelis are looking for "the message" or "the lesson" of the film, which isn't clear, and most complain that "it has no plot." Non-Israelis, on the other hand, are left asking themselves if there are gaping holes in the film that are just not filled in, and thus find it "very confusing" or "totally unrealistic." I, however, understand what the director is going for. He's seeing Israeli politics through the eyes of 90% of Israelis (who all want pretty much the same thing: "to part with the Arabs"). Through that lens, he presents the image of an ideal Israeli political candidate who's actually capable of making a difference (i.e. "peace"), and when the wheels start moving to oust him, as they do in Israel with any successful politician, our attention is focused on the internal conflict of his "Diaspora Jewish businessman" vis-à-vis whether he can be altruistic enough, or just desperate enough, to realize the greater picture and appreciate the sincere relationship he has with this great scion, and perhaps to be ready to give up the short-lived glory he can finally reap from these events and even to fall on his own sword for the sake of the greater good.

Once I realised what it was, I sat back with no vested interest in the outcome and just enjoyed it like a foibled fairytale (or a story submitted by a child) portrayed onscreen by an A-list cast.

Without actively recommending it, I'm just telling the public what it is. A fourth-to-sixth grader's story (including that child's perception of reality and wishful thinking) presented by an A-list cast ... in which, if any of it were to happen then this is actually how it would play out. When you accept that this is the case, that you're missing nothing and that this is how Middle East politics actually plays out on the ground (that's right, you're not missing anything, this really is the circus of politics in Israel as it's portrayed in this film), then maybe you can sit back and allow yourself to enjoy it too.

This movie definitely has some things going for it. It has an intelligent script and great acting by Richard Gere and the rest of the cast. But in the end I could not get past how annoying Norman is. In real life you couldn't stand to be around this type of person for more than five minutes. Yet he is in almost every scene. To make matters worse, we don't get any backstory for Norman and no scenes with his family and friends. His private life is a total mystery. We never even get to see him sitting down for a meal with his acquaintances. All we see is scene after scene where he is trying to manipulate someone for some advantage. And ultimately this becomes so annoying and monotonous that it doesn't even matter that Norman is doing it for altruistic reasons.