W.E., Chronicle, and The Woman in Black

Various kinds of scary

W.E.

One positive thing to be said about Madonna’s new movie, W.E., is that it is leagues better than her first directing effort, the 2008 Filth and Wisdom. But then many things are, periodontal surgery among them. Unlike that earlier film, this one is beautifully photographed (by Hagen Bogdanski, who also shot The Lives of Others), and so the endlessly shuttling Grand Tour locations—London, Paris, Cannes—glide by in preening detail, and the deluxe interiors speak softly of serious money.

That’s the good part. The picture’s problem—well, one of its problems—is that it presents for our appreciative contemplation two of the most worthless jet-setting parasites of the last century: Edward, Duke of Windsor, and Wallis Simpson, the American clothes-horse divorcee for whom he abdicated the Throne of England. In 1937, directly after stepping down, Edward married his brittle inamorata, and together they spent the next 35 years doing absolutely nothing but spending epic amounts of his hand-me-down royal fortune in the gaudiest possible ways. Having no other purpose, they became style icons among the international idle rich—he in his tailored tweeds, she in pricey Dior and Vionnet and the emeralds and pearls with which he continually showered her. Unsurprisingly, Madonna excavates this aspect of her subjects with gusto.

To focus on fashion in depicting a couple who once had dinner with Hitler, and are widely attested to have maintained a chummy relationship with the Nazis well into the war, is an appalling decision. (Madonna’s take on this is: Hey, lots of people had dinner with Hitler—and indeed we can picture the Führer in his Berghof, sitting down with Goebbels and Göring for a hearty Bavarian repast.) She also attempts to present Edward as a man of conscience—a man of the people, even. (At one point we see him rousing a crowd of miserable jobless Welshmen with a cry of “Something must be done!”) These feeble rehabilitative strategies are too unpersuasive to maintain, however.

Apart from the gaping vacancy at the center of the film, Madonna chose, for some reason, to write the script with Alek Keshishian, heretofore best-known for directing her 1991 tour documentary, Truth or Dare. The result is a garble of scattershot incidents strewn with clots of overripe dialogue. In one scene, set in a drafty mansion, Wallis (played by Andrea Riseborough in the movie’s only lively performance) tells Edward (James D’Arcy) that she’s cold; his reply: “Maybe you need someone to keep you warm.” Later, when Edward tells Wallis that he has decided to quit the monarchy in order to marry her, her prescient response is, “I will be the most despised woman in the world.”

Even more debilitating is the movie’s structure, which defies sustained comprehension. Madonna cuts back and forth between the duke and his consort as they go about their trivial lives—from the 1930s into the early ’70s—and a separate story, set in New York in 1998, in which a fictitious young woman named Wally (Abbie Cornish), obsessed with her deceased namesake, moons around among a display of the Windsors’ possessions, which are being offered up for auction at Sotheby’s. Like Wallis, in one of her earlier marriages, Wally is burdened with an abusive husband; and like Wallis, she yearns for true love. That she eventually finds it in the arms of a lowly Ukrainian security guard (Oscar Isaac) who plays classical piano in his shabby loft is a conceit ridiculous beyond the call of implausibility.  

There are moments in this movie of such honking absurdity that one can only slump in wonder. A decadent party scene, for instance, presumably set in the 1960s, in which the wealthy revelers writhe about to the strains of the Sex Pistols’ “Pretty Vacant.” And a later scene in which Edward, on his deathbed, asks the similarly elderly Wallis to dance for him, and she totters over to a record player and cranks up the Chubby Checker version of “The Twist”—and then proceeds to actually do the dance, for rather longer than any other director might feel it wise to show. Of a special silliness are the moments when Wally and Wallis somehow interpenetrate their separate eras to spend time together – sitting side by side on a park bench, encountering each other on a Paris street (“Get a life!” Wallis hisses). Our amazement is unending.

A lot of time and effort has gone into the making of this movie, particularly in the areas of art direction and costume design. But the purportedly grand love story of Wallis and Edward is a puny thing in the context of their deplorable lives. The actors here are ill-served, the sometimes impressive visual textures are squandered, and a bout of desperate reediting following the movie’s disastrous premiere at last year’s Venice Film Festival has been in vain. W.E. remains at the end what it was at the beginning and continues to be throughout: a flamboyantly misconceived mess.

Chronicle

With Chronicle, the shaky-cam “real footage” movie, on the cusp of propelling some viewers into face-clawing lamentation, finally grows up. The picture has a rousing spirit and an unexpected emotional warmth. It features good (if little-known) actors, a solid genre plot, and surprisingly slick effects that are especially impressive for being so seamlessly woven into the film’s low-budget look. The movie hustles by in less than 90 minutes, and it’s a lot of fun. 

The story, by director Josh Trank and screenwriter Max Landis—both feature-film first-timers—is a clever riff on the superhero theme. Andrew Detmer (Dane DeHaan, a True Blood alumnus) is the kid with the video cam—a lonely nerd documenting his miserable homelife with an abusive father (Michael Kelly) and bedridden, dying mother (Bo Petersen). Andrew is a high-school senior, shunned by the cool kids and tormented by the usual crew of varsity troglodytes—all the more so after he starts bringing his new camera to school. His only semi-friends are his amiable cousin Matt (Alex Russell) and, for reasons unclear, the gleamingly popular Steve Montgomery (Michael B. Jordan, of Friday Night Lights).

One day, out in the woods, these three happen across a large hole that leads deep underground. Descending into it, they find something very strange, and soon after clambering back up to the surface discover that they’ve suddenly developed nifty new telekinetic powers. At first they use this gift for fun and pranks—floating little Lego bricks up into the air, baffling car owners by shuffling their vehicles around in parking lots. Then, with continued practice, they discover that they can rise up into the air themselves, and soon they’re swooping around through the clouds.

As an early reference to Schopenhauer (!) suggests, such lighthearted enjoyment can’t last. Andrew is a young man gnawed by teen trauma, and his hunger for payback—now entirely possible—festers darkly. He starts small—levitating a spider and then pulling it apart in midair with his mind (a striking effect)—but quickly moves on, dispensing rough justice to highway tailgaters and settling scores with his loudmouth dad. As his taste for mayhem mounts, we marvel that some of the film’s elaborate havoc could be covered by its reported $15-million budget.

The basic challenge in pulling off a movie like this is camera POV. Here, an antidote for hand-held visual monotony is built into the concept: among the many things Andrew can levitate is his vidcam, thus enabling plausible overhead shots and traveling side views. And the introduction of a pretty blonde video blogger named Casey (Ashley Hinshaw) allows for the recording of scenes in which Andrew plays no part. You still wonder how feasible it would be to descend a crowded school staircase with your eyes glued to a viewfinder (and at the end you wonder how all the footage we’re seeing was somehow assembled), but genre fans will accept that you have to roll with this sort of thing. At its conclusion, the picture leaves open the possibility of a sequel—on the evidence of this film, possibly a not-bad idea.

The Woman in Black

Find this and hundreds of other interesting books at the Reason Shop, powered by Amazon.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Joe M||

    Like Wallis, in one of her earlier marriages, Wally is burdened with an abusive husband; and like Wallis, she yearns for true love. That she eventually finds it in the arms of a lowly Ukrainian security guard (Oscar Isaac) who plays classical piano in his shabby loft is a conceit ridiculous beyond the call of implausibility.

    That is fucking hilarious. That's the kind of sentimental crap a first year creative writing student would be embarrassed to write.

  • ||

    This is about the most critical I've ever seen Loder towards a movie and he still seems to be pulling punches. It would be entertaining to see this reviewed by someone much more vicious.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Yes. I get the feeling this could have been like Ebert's North review:

    "I hated this movie. Hated, hated, hated, hated, hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it."
  • ||

    I don't agree with Roger a lot, but usually when I do, we agree completely. And he has written some scathing reviews over the years. And that one was a doozy.

  • kinnath||

    The "your movie sucks" was a classic review.

  • ||

    Don't all eastern erupean hourly wage workers play orchestral or classical instruments?

  • ||

    man, I haven't even started drinking at the liberty on the rocks meeting tonight and I'm already typing like I'm a few doubles on the rocks into the night!

  • Gojira||

    Will there be some banner saying, "Reason Commenters Sit Here!"?

  • spencer||

    Bald fat due with a beard. We'll be in the front.

  • Gojira||

    Bald fat due with a beard.

    1. I don't know how you knew how to describe me, but it's creepy.

    2. I kind of imagine all libertarians who would meet at a bar to fit this description.

  • lily||

    looking for the bilover?---datebi*cO'm--- is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.Here you can find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.sign up for free.

  • ||

    I'm glad to hear that Hammer is back in the production business, but this doesn't seem like an auspicious start.

    I had seen the commercials for Chronicle and it looked sort of interesting (it reminded me of Alan Mendelsohn, the Boy From Mars), so I think I'll go check it out.

  • ||

    I'm glad to hear that Hammer is back in the production business, but this doesn't seem like an auspicious start.

    There's another haunted-house movie coming out at the same time called The Innkeepers that looks somewhat promising.

    Two of my favorite horror movies are The Others and The Orphanage. Both used atmosphere and slowly mounting tension to great effect (versus blood and gore and monsters). These two movies look like they're in somewhat the same vein.

    I'm still not sure if I'll ever buy Daniel Radcliffe as anyone other than Harry Potter.

  • ||

    The Orphanage is easily one of the creepiest and unnerving movies I have seen in a while. In fact I probably would not have to see it had I known it would be so nerve racking. I have an overactive imagination that seems to repulse all efforts from my rational mind to calm it down so I end up not sleeping well for a week or so. Some of the visuals in that movie are just pure nightmare fuel. It also had an unusually touching end for a horror movie. Highly recommended (for those who like horror movies).

  • ||

    The Orphanage is easily one of the creepiest and unnerving movies I have seen in a while. In fact I probably would not have to see it had I known it would be so nerve racking.

    And to think it accomplished all that without taking the easy way out and resorting to violence, bloodshed, monsters, and "boo" moments, the way most Hollywood horror flicks do. It's the same sort of skillful filmmaking that made The Others such a great film, and which has me intruiged with these two new movies.

  • Xenocles||

    I went through periodontal surgery a few months ago. It wasn't all that bad.

  • ||

    Now imagine if madonna was your periodontal surgeon!

  • ||

    Now imagine if madonna was your periodontal surgeon!

    Now imagine you're Madonna's gynecologist! No speculums necessary!

  • BakedPenguin||

    The Woman in Black reaches back into the horror-movie past, long before mad slashers and crazed gore frenzies infested the genre, to present us with an unapologetically old-fashioned haunted-house exercise.

    Japanese horror movies kept that alive. Dark Water was pretty much like that, IIRC.

  • MBC||

    Having fun with the old 'Postmodernism Generator' website?

  • John Locke||

    How did you know?

  • ||

    Having fun with the old 'Postmodernism Generator' website?

    I'd never seen that, but it makes perfect sense that it should exist. Foucault must be spinning in his grave right now.

  • John Locke||

    Indeed.

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

    You all know the title of the third movie reminds you of Queensryche.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr4qpH77Yio

  • ||

    Good reviews, Kurt, but for one small error: Hammer Studios was in fact resurrected last year with "Let Me In," the better-than-the-original remake of "Let the Right One In."

  • Katherine ManGoo Wad||

    We got a little naughty in the theater.

  • Katherine ManGoo Wad||

    We got a little naughty in the theater.

  • Katherine ManGoo Wad||

    We got a little naughty in the theater.

  • Dekedin||

    About W.E., I have no problem with completely amoral movies in theory. I think a movie about two shameless people squandering their wealth, cavorting with Nazis, etc., with no inherent message, could be pretty good. It would be like, "Hey, we're awful people who never got their comeuppance, deal with it." However, even amoral movies end up moralizing and wrapping everything up at the end. Judging solely by Loder's review, it seems the end of the movie seems like a desperate attempt to redeem the characters in the audience's eyes. Because they were truly in love, none of the stuff before really mattered. That's the point where movies about terrible people turn terrible themselves.

  • ||

    Kurt, I have a question about Chronicle. I wanna see it with some friends, but the shaky-cam footage is making me hesitate a bit. When I saw Cloverfield, I was on the verge of throwing up from the shaky-cam until I moved more to the back of the theater, but even that was kind of rough for me. Is the shaky-cam as bad as Cloverfield was? Or is it a bit more steady? No reviews I have seen have made this a point in their articles, so I take that to mean it must not be too bad, but I am still hesitant.

  • ||

    Dude is clearly corrupt as the day is long.

    www.surfing-anon.tk

  • ||

    Dude is clearly corrupt as the day is long.

    www.surfing-anon.tk

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement