 |
| Genius - Even a genius needs an editor. |
Written by: A. Scott Berg (based on the book by), John Logan (screenplay)
Directed by: Michael Grandage
Starring: Colin Firth, Jude Law, Nicole Kidman, Guy Pearce, Dominic West, Laura Linney
Rated: PG-13
My rating is simple, Watch It, It Depends, Skip it. Read my previous movie reviews!
Plot
As the editor of Scribner during the 1930s, Max Perkins (Colin Firth) edited the novels of Thomas Wolfe (Jude Law), creating literary classics.
Verdict
This is a really engaging topic of how genius needs to be focused, but it's a movie that's not going to connect with everyone. It's about writing a book, and while the acting and dialog is top notch, it's a very measured pace. This focuses on creation instead of the drama. Perkins managed to harness the energy of Wolfe, and in turn helped create influential novels. Who's to credit for the work, Perkins or Wolfe?
Watch it.
Review
This is a history comes to life story, based on the 1978 novel Max Perkins: Editor of Genius. I can't account for accuracy of the movie as I didn't read it.
This isn't exciting in the traditional sense, it's still a lot of fun to watch Jude Law at work. He visited Wolfe's childhood home in Asheville, NC, having gotten the part after Michael Fassbender had to drop out due to scheduling delays.
It's put together well, but it just doesn't lend itself to standing out. Law dominates each scene as the bombastic Thomas Wolfe, but his acting can only take this so far. Like his writing, the character is never at a loss for words. The movie doesn't attempt emotional moments, instead focusing largely on the creative process of editing.
I like the genre of a struggling artist wrestling with demons and the world. The underlying question is always, how far do you go to create something great? Both men sacrificed their families, but the movie never explores whether it was worth it. While they created a classic, does Perkins wish he had been there to see his daughters grow up? Is Wolfe upset that he lost his wife due to negligence?
Wolfe is the wild genius and Perkins is the mediator that attempts to control it, seeing the skill in the work but realizing that few people would read an 1,100 page rambling book.
The title card is perfect. Perkins has been enraptured by this overly long manuscript, reading through the night. As he reads the last page on the train and looks up, the title, "Genius" appears on screen. It's a clever way to convey his thought. When Wolfe visits his office, Perkins quickly recognizes him due to his verbosity.
They are a dynamic pair. Wolfe embodies madness, while Perkins is reserved and practical. For two years they work on the book Look Homeward, Angel.
Would that happen today? While an editor may recognize genius, how many would put in the time to draw it out or craft it to be easily digestible? Finding an editor like that may be as rare as Wolfe finding Perkins. While Wolfe was immensely talented, he need Perkins to distill it. Regardless of whether they made the right choice, to be great you must be devoted.
The movie doesn't explore their relationship much further than their professional agreement, though they had to be friends to work together for so long. Since the movie didn't really build that bond, when Wolfe leaves Perkins to find a new editor, that moment doesn't hold much impact. That's accentuated because we don't delve into that rift. It happens off screen, instead having Perkins visit Ernest Hemingway (Dominic West), and F. Scott Fitzgerald (Guy Pearce). Hemingway especially felt out of place. He seems to be the token name drop when literature is referenced.
When Wolfe complains that reviewers attribute his success in part to Perkins, we know a rift is imminent. Wolfe is eager to prove his talent is his own. While the movie tries to build a moment with Wolfe writing one last letter to Perkins, it doesn't land. The movie, like the relationship is professional and cordial, lacking unbridled emotion. Another struggling artist movie that captures that emotional impact I wish this had is Inside Llewyn Davis (2013).
Perkins wears a hat in every scene until the end of the movie. While it could be a metaphor, some research indicates Perkins was a bit obsessive and believed a hat would ensure better health. Little mysteries are great, but the lack of explanation just makes Perkins seem odd in many scenes.
No comments :
Post a Comment