Colour Me Kubrick: A True...ish Story

"Color Me Kubrick" will remind you a bit of Steven Spielberg's "Catch Me if You Can," in which Leonardo Di Caprio played a world-class con artist who duped people into believing he was a myriad of Very Important People whom he was really not. In "Colour Me Kubrick," the imposter is a man named Alan Conway who goes about London telling people he is the famed (and famously reclusive) director, Stanley Kubrick, in order to bum rides, free drinks and even sexual favors off of them. I guess it's appropriate that I just happened to catch this film on April 1st of all days.

Written by Andrew Frewin and directed by Brian W. Cook, "Color Me Kubrick" is clearly a godsend for its star, John Malkovich, who seems to be having the time of his movie-acting life doing this role. Malkovich tailors his demeanor and accent to fit the audience to whom he is playing, running the gamut from Capote-esquire fey for his gay "clients" (Conway is himself gay) to regular-guy macho for his straight targets. Yet, Malkovich never resorts to mere playacting to create his effect; by fully inhabiting the character, he keeps Conway from descending into a merely clownish figure and allows him to register as a fully fleshed-out human being.

Unfortunately, although the screenplay is frequently witty and even downright hilarious at times, the movie itself is never quite as good as Malkovich is in it. Despite its overall originality, there's an innate one-note quality to the setup that the movie cannot completely shake, so that, even at a mere eighty-six minutes, the conceit tends to wear a bit thin after awhile. The filmmakers somewhat make up for that weakness by also showing us the means by which Conway is eventually unmasked for all the world to see. There are also a number of surprisingly poignant moments in the film in which we are shown just how sad, lonely and pathetic an individual Conway really is. The most touching sequence comes when a movie-savvy young man in a bar uncovers Conway's ruse by trapping him with a trick Stanley Kramer question. As Conway slinks away from the scene humiliated and crestfallen, we can clearly see why Malkovich is one of the finest actors of his generation.

Beyond the Conway character, the film provides a gently satirical jab at our culture's overwhelming obsession with celebrity and our willingness to suspend critical judgment on a person or a scheme if we can discern a benefit for ourselves by doing so. For, indeed, virtually everyone who allows himself to be duped by this impersonator has starry-eyed dreams of one day making it big in either the entertainment business or the world of corporate financing. Conway has merely come up with a clever way of exploiting that obsession for his own personal benefit.

There's also something wryly humorous in the fact that, although Kubrick is universally recognized as being one of the greatest directors in the history of cinema, his face was so unfamiliar to both the general populace and even people in the movie industry that Conway was able to pull this ruse off for so long without getting caught. Can anyone imagine an individual trying that same stunt with Spielberg, Tarantino, Scorsese, etc.?

This is a slight but endearing comedy that is a must-see for John Malkovich fans.

Congrats to Tony Frewin who scripted this movie. Am I right in thinking the characterisation of Conway is based partially on a guy called Gary Ness who Malkovitch resembles? Presumably Tony didn't get the opportunity to interview Conway and wasn't able to write a precise portrayal of his character. It doesn't matter. Malkovitch is totally convincing in the role. The fact that Malkovitch and Kubrick look nothing like each other just adds to the deliciousness of the surreal situation. The manner in which the audience sees how Conway conned his victims was effective and convincing and often very funny. The special London vibe from that period came through strongly. The story is perfect for film adaptation and adds to the discussion of the power of celebrity in modern life. Its a great story for a scriptwriter to take on.

It's definitely a Kubrick-ish movie and that's hardly surprising as many of the Kubrick film family were involved. There's a particularly good scene where Conways Kubrick trick fails which is very satisfying and will please many a fan.

It's rare that I laugh out loud in the cinema but I was giggling away like a hyena. I also loved seeing well known and loved British character actors in cameo roles. Lets hope the team do more.Kubrick fans will be pleased.

I have to say, after years of seeing Malkovich receive critical acclaim for acting roles in which he seemed to do little more than portray himself, I had pretty much written him off as another one of those American actors whose sole talent lay in having a charismatic persona. I gained renewed respect for him when I saw the priceless, "Being John Malkovich" - which, although not a film to challenge the former accusation, certainly showed that he had a sense of humour about himself and his established "persona". But with "Colour me Kubrick", he deserves full credit - both for allowing himself to appear absolutely ridiculous on film, and for a performance in which he truly transforms himself (multiple times) to portray the grotesque, yet strangely endearing character of Alan Conway. It's a fantastic performance that renews my belief in his skill as an actor. The film itself is cleverly written and well-executed, with excellent performances by all supporting characters. If it weren't for the many, hilarious sub-plots, involving Conway/Kubrick's hapless victims (all of whom, in some way, deserve what they get), the main plot - which is indeed a rather thin premise on which to base an entire film - would have grown tiresome quickly. As it is, the film probably couldn't have stood to be five minutes longer, and ended rather weakly. However, for what it was, it was very entertaining. As a small footnote: very surprising is the - totally uncharacteristic, and as a consequence, quite enjoyable - soundtrack work by Bryan Adams, usually known for his cheezy, lighter-waving, nausea-inducing rock-ballads. Since when does he make music like this?

Allow me to preface this whole review by saying that the more familiar you are with the works of Stanley Kubrick, the more enjoyable this film will be for you.

If you are only slightly familiar with Kubrick, and are not interested in seeing a John Malkevich playing an impressively nuanced, yet unprogressing character (after seeing, one has to admit it was quite the feat), then your $10 is probably better spent elsewhere. However, if you are like me and get a kick out any work that can thread in a Kubrick allusion without making any excuses, this film might be right up your alley.

Within this film there is no great commentary, no grand message, and no prevailing plot. What it does contain is one compelling character, one twisted journey, and whole host of inside jokes which, if you are in on the bit, make this film worth every penny of the ticket price. A confidence man, Alan (Malkevich), grifts his way through every episode of this linear yet non-Aristelean film by pretending to be the reclusive film director, Stanley Kubrick. Every episode is structured around an allusion (which Alan never seems to get because it appears as though he has never actually seen a Kubrick movie) to one of Kubrick's greatest scenes.

I believe giving too much more else will ruin the ride for those that care to take it. And, oh my, what a weirdly wonderful ride it is.

This is an interesting film, if for no other reason for the talent of Malkovich. His performance is a study of excellent acting: He is so good as a reckless alcoholic pulling off acts of incredible chutzpah that the viewer literally cringes and winches in fear of his becoming exposed. Its not long into the movie that I was completely accepting of the lead character's complete asocial pathology. I accepted such for what it was - without any hope of redemption, rehabilitation or remorse! The problem with the film is that since the character soon becomes so one dimensional, the scenes just flow as episode after episode in a manner, way, etc., that makes one long for some personal epiphany, crisis, etc. This flick would have played well as tongue-in-cheek biography with a heavy dose of comedy, much like the films about; e.g., Ed Wood, Larry Flynt, etc. The movie might have been bettor with some modest introduction to the lead character, allowing some empathy.