De-Lovely

'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 generally hate biographical films and musicals, but this biographical musical is one I really liked. From the beginning with Gabriel (I always love Johnathan Pryce - I never got over "Brazil") and the old Cole Porter together in the empty theatre, I was sold on the film. Sometimes flashbacks annoy me. In this case, the interaction (one-sided, but still there) between the old Cole Porter and his past made the transition to his life magical and fun. It didn't feel like a biographical view of his life.

From the opening scene in the theatre, it just got better as it went along. Kevin Kline's portrayal of Cole Porter was rich and nuanced. He seemed to be truly in love with Linda, yet he still had his other side. Ashley Judd as Linda seemed perfect. When the old Cole Porter sees her again, he says, "My god, she was lovely!" and she was. I identified enough with her and with Kevin Kline that I was saddened by her death in the movie. They sold me on their characters. I ended up feeling empathy for Linda; the lovely, lovable and steadfast; and respect and admiration for the Cole Porter figure.

But, what made the movie fly for me was the music (go figure!). It was Cole Porter, release 1.1. A bunch of his great songs were re-arranged and presented by modern singers - all the way from jazz (Diane Krall) to varieties of pop (Elvis Costello). Each of the singers brought a new feel to the Cole Porter songs and really made the movie a pleasure.

When my wife and I finished the movie on the DVD we spent another hour watching all the special features. We both hated to see the movie end. We just wanted it to go on and on. Like the beat, beat, beat of the tom-tom.........

Cole Porter wrote many of the wittiest and most beautiful songs ever, and had a very unconventional love life to back them up. Overall, this movie does a fair-to-excellent job of showing both the highs and lows of a complex relationship and of the man himself.

I was pleased to see that accomplished singer Kline was able to croak out the songs that his character wrote, because Porter was known to be a poor singer. It would have been a big mistake to have him sing like an angel.

That said, I can only presume that the studio's desire to pander to a young audience is the explanation for an absolutely horrible series of botched attempts by various pop artists to sing Porter's songs. Some, like Elvis Costello's effort, are just able to slide in under the radar, and Natalie Cole's is pretty reasonable. But somebody in charge should have stricken the songs sung by Alannis Morissete ("Let's Do It") and the even worse Sheryl Crowe ("Begin the Beguine"), or at least replaced them with other singers in body or at least in voice. I can see how Morissete's croaky, glitchy vocal stylings work for her in her own pop music, but they only annoy in this context; she also has no sense of the style required. Crowe's voice is actually less irritating in her number, but what were they thinking otherwise? Doesn't she know the melody? Does she only have a range of 5 notes? Instead of attracting younger people to Porter's songs, I expect that it will only make them ask 'why do people like this rubbish', not realizing who is really at fault.

This one would be a DVD keeper for me, if it were not for this glaring problem.

This film looks well and has several performances, both dramatic and musical, that are worthy of note. Of the latter in fact Elvis Costello and Natalie Cole in particular came off very well. My biggest beef, however, was with Sheryl Crow's performance of "Begin the Beguine." I haven't heard or read it commented upon so apparently it wasn't noticed that she didn't sing the melody nor did the arrangement follow the fairly complex chord structure that Cole Porter wrote. Taking liberties in jazz is one thing. It's common practice among jazz musicians to take interpretative flights far from the source material and yet still stay fairly close to the general structure and melodic line. In this travesty of a straight, non-jazz performance Ms. Crow quite simply didn't sing the tune as written and the arrangement fairly clobbered the carefully structured co-relation of major and minor chords, altered notes leading to secondary dominants and shifts of key and melody that lead to the tune's climax and denouement. I suppose it's some sort of comment on the general unfamiliarity with popular song of the golden age of Broadway in general and Cole Porter in particular that is to blame but it seems a pity that someone somewhere along the line didn't call her on this. It's plainly and flatly wrong and she should have been told.

Maybe it was recent events in my personal life, maybe I'm a sucker for a great song, but the final section of the film saw me fighting back the tears and left me speechless. This film may not be historically accurate, some of the vocal performances may have done the songs less than justice, but this was a great, great movie. The performances of Kline and Judd were magnificent. The use of Porter's songs was astonishing. The sets and costumes sublime. However, it was the way that the director swept you along and hurled you into the final sequence with Porter saying goodbye to Linda and going to meet his maker that will linger in my mind forever. With the possible exception of Moulin Rouge, the only musical film of the last 40 years that could live up to those of the classic era.