Solitary Man

Solitary Man tells the story of Ben Kalmen (Michael Douglas in a good performance), a formerly successful car dealer now on a downward spiral. Now close to 60 years old, Ben seems to be living a sort of late identity crisis, chasing younger women and trying desperately to start a new business while his personal life goes down the drain as quickly as his financial situation.

The direction and writing, by Brian Koppelman and David Levien, takes a bittersweet approach to this story, chronicling the events while elegantly letting us decide what we think of Ben. In this respect, I felt they were honest and not manipulative. Unfortunately, this will also make it hard for some people to relate to the subject, unless they have contemplated those situations themselves.

The story is quite simple at its heart and tackles issues that are becoming more and more prevalent in our society. That is, we are constantly told we deserve it all, we deserve it now and we deserve it forever. Ben (implicitly and explicitly) would like to be the person he used to be, has a hard time redefining facets of his life.

Viewers will have different takes on Ben, ranging from admirable to pathetic but he is never demonized nor sainted in the movie. Unfortunately, while the themes are strongly driven throughout the film, the story itself looks more like a series of anecdotes, some of which are not stringed in the most elegant way.

The whole cast around Douglas (quite an ensemble) is excellent, except Susan Sarandon who is surprisingly bland and not up to her usually high standards. I felt her characters had few scenes but they were key to invest the audience and something was lacking there.

The film's ending is great and more food for thoughts but overall, Solitary Man falls short of being a classic due to a few writing issues.

It reminds me the classic Russian literature. A character with deep traits of looser.And the world around him. A splendid performance from Michael Douglas. And the right atmosphere. A film who you know. In each detail. Maybe, except the end. Short - bitter, honest, cruel, ironic.

It is rare for an American film to give us a despicable protagonist from beginning to end, but that is one of the notable achievements of Solitary Man (2009), the latest opus from Brian Koppleman and David Levien, the talented writers who gave us the very entertaining Rounders (1998) and Oceans 13 (2007). They have created a character who speaks his mind and will not hesitate to harm or manipulate others. I just wish the film lived-up to its quality beginning and ending. The middle of the film has clichés and lulls that could have been ironed-out. Nevertheless, Solitary Man is superior to two other films this year about white men going through late-life crises, Paper Man and Multiple Sarcasms.

The movie starts out very well. Dialogue is crisp and the static, medium-long shots quickly establish the film's clean aesthetic. We are immediately introduced to Ben Kalmen (Michael Douglas), a disgraced, unemployed, womanizing 60 year-old man who ruled a tri-state network of auto dealerships in the 80s and 90s. But now, he carries more pounds and no net worth (as Gordon Gekko might say). His dealerships were caught running a leasing scam that screwed both customers and the auto manufacturer. FTC fine and legal fees have washed him out. But he is no less bitter, cantankerous or cynical. Nor is he willing to grow up, a primary theme of this character study.

No sooner do we see him run away from prescribed heart tests, Ben agrees to escort his girlfriend's 18 year-old daughter, Allyson (played by British starlet Imogen Poots), to his ala mater in Massachusetts to grease her application interview and assure her acceptance. The movie treats us to two excellent scenes that should raise most viewers' expectations. First, Ben and Allyson exchange rapid-fire put downs and flirtations at the airport while other middle-aged businessmen stare at Ben in a mixture of envy and discomfort. Second, we're treated to one of the movie's best lines as Ben gets into a scuffle with a student on the quad. So far, so good. At times, the film has a beautiful mix of comedy, drama, and shamelessness that most guys (myself included) should like.

But the middle of the movie goes soft, it seems. Ben's life begins to tear at the seams, which is well established and directed. But the plot has him going back to his old campus with his tail between his legs. That would be fine if he was going to work for the university (he was a major donor when his businesses were at their peak). But the film chooses the uncomfortable comedy route of the dirty old man on campus. as Ben reconnects with his wiser sage (a refreshingly calm Danny DeVito), takes a job at his diner, and ends up embarrassing himself at more than one kegger. While I agree that the plot required him to go into exile out of New York City, I was a little disappointed to see his ex-wife (Susan Sarandon) disappear for a long stretch in the film, while his daughter (jenna Fischer) gets a boost of screen time in a contrived and somewhat false subplot. Jesse Eisenberg (Zombieland) makes a few appearances as a sophomore hoping to make Ben his mentor. We see time and again how Ben is a poor role model, and often his own worst enemy. But what could have been a satisfying on-campus subplot seemed to be where the movie ground to a halt, and ended up being as awkward and aloof as Eisenberg's character.

After some thought, I think I know why this film didn't work for me. I don't think Ben's back story was effectively presented. Quite often, he is told (and therefore we are informed) of his past actions by his daughter and ex-wife. We are introduced to Ben well after his late-life crisis has begun. I wonder if the film would have been better served by a prologue scene, or an earlier staring point (with the frat parties cut out towards the end). When Ben speaks to others, the film works. When others describe Ben's past to him (with the notable exceptions of Sarandon and DeVito) the film seems to suffer.

Artists are free to make decisions, of course. But I was a little surprised to learn that Levien stepped-aside and let Koppleman do most of the writing. They had toyed with this story for years. But I wonder if they had reviewed the script enough. They are clearly talented, experienced writers who know how to speed-up stories through the middle act (does anyone remember the blazingly-fast set-up in Oceans Thirteen?). But with Solitary Man, they set out to make a small independent film their way, at their pace. That, plus the non-Hollywood ending deserves a lot of credit. But perhaps such a strong performance by Douglas deserved a firmer and less clichéd second act. His character needed time in exile to build a respectable comeback. But instead he spent most of his time with characters and subplots that diminished his presence and the audience's enjoyment of the film. Having an unlikable character complete a personal journey is no easy task (see Mike Leigh's Naked (1993) to appreciate it done wonderfully). But I fear that Koppleman and Levien set a high bar that they could not reach half of the time in this film.

This movie is unlike any you are likely to see this year or the next few years. It seems somewhat like a French or Euro remake in that the story revolves around a man who "flaunts convention" and sleeps with any young woman who pleases him, even though his family (ex-wife, adult offspring) are well aware of his bedroom adventures and taunt him about his behavior.

His current girlfriend, who apparently knows something of and tolerates his loose standards, presses him to go with her daughter to a college admission interview over a weekend out of town. When he seduces the daughter, it is a shocking turn of events that marks this film as strikingly different. When she reveals the blatant transgression, the shocks continue. (Am I in Paris here?) So much for the first third or so of the film, which really amounts to the set-up. Disaster follows Michael Douglas' character around like a bad haircut. His chance for a comeback in business, and life, is squashed by the influential relations of his now ex-girlfriend and he descends farther into a world only he would want to inhabit.

With a more traditional storyline, this is where he would either become some sort of psycho killer or pull himself up and out to rebuild his life. Nothing doing here. There is a lot more down and self degradation to follow. He's on a mission.

I was wondering what could trigger not just a moral collapse, but that of a human being who, were are told, was one day the toast of the business world in New York and made so many millions that he had a college library named after him. You see, Ben Kalman, the main character, behaves like someone with no moral backbone at all, someone who either knows no limits or is bent on self destruction.

Fearing that the audience couldn't figure this thing out for themselves, the movie serves an explanation up complete, as if Ben Kalman, victim of himself, could somehow suddenly understand why he was doing what he was doing and consider the idea of change. All too pat, and not believable to boot. We are made to, forced to, care about a deeply flawed character and given an explanation that just doesn't hold water. If he were capable of this level of creepiness, it seems very unlikely that he would have risen to such heights and been loved and adored by so many. Obviously, there must have been some deep character flaw in him all along, but we have no idea what it might have been.

Otherwise decent people do, every day, go off the deep end. Some people commit acts of unkindness, even violence, for which friends and family can never forgive. How can one bit of unfortunate news about possible health problems send a man so far away from his grounding on planet earth and cause him to ruin everything in his life? I don't know, which is one reason, although this is a startlingly original movie with good to great acting all around, that I ultimately don't care about it and wish I could forget it.

There was one truly wise scene with DeVito discussing why he never chases young women that was almost worth the price of admission.

Doug Terry

"You can't cheat death, Benny. Nobody can, no matter how many 19-year-olds you talk into your bed."

The topic of the mid-life crisis and men losing their identity and sense of self as they get older has been fertile ground for movies in the past, and Solitary Man is another entry into that sub-genre. 

It's a drama with slight comedic elements. Michael Douglas stars as a once powerful man who lost his wealth and position when he was caught running a scam. He fills that void with ill-advised trysts with young women and depending emotionally on his exasperated daughter. When his last-ditch attempt to regain his past career is derailed because of another poor decision, he has to confront what his life has become, his own self- destructive behavior, and how his choices have affected the people around him. This isn't a ground-breaking story, but it's certainly watchable and occasionally emotionally involving. 

The real reason to see Solitary Man is the cast. Along with Douglas, the movie stars Mary-Louise Parker, Imogen Poots, Danny DeVito, Susan Sarandon, Jesse Eisenberg, and Jenna Fisher. Some of the parts are bigger than others (I really wish Sarandon would have been a larger part of the movie), but fans of any of them will want to see this. 

For everyone else, Solitary Man is a movie you should watch if it piques your interest. Will you be adding it to the list of your all-time favorites? Probably not. It's definitely worth ninety minutes on a Sunday afternoon, though.