There have already been several movies about the subject matter of alcoholism and beating addiction in general. While not nearly as abundant as, say, superhero films, biopics, or tales of alien invasions, there have been more than enough to at least facilitate a template of sorts, spanning back to classics like "Days of Wine and Roses," to the more recent films like the turgid "28 Days" with everyone's favorite sweetheart, Sandy Bullock. And while the general consensus seems to more or less be that these films are often hit and miss, I think it's safe to say they all eventually at least follow convention at one point or another, no matter how much the filmmakers attempt to break it.
Consider said template:
Person A has an alcohol problem. Person A experiences a semi-traumatic event caused by their alcoholism. Person A takes measures, either forced or self-appointed, to get clean. There's a scene with an AA support group, the meeting of a sponsor. A scene with a relapse, and an emotional breakdown because of it, followed by a really huge cathartic confrontation with Person B, a person who plays a significant role in Person A's life, and keeps dragging them back into addiction. Then Person A takes measures to finally stay clean, leaving the audience to hope for the best.
Off the top of my head, I can name 2 movies in 1 second that follow that template, essentially beat-for-beat: The aforementioned "Wine and Roses" and "Smashed".
And therein lies the biggest weakness of "Smashed."
I was fortunate enough to attend a showing with a post-screening Q&A writers/director and the film's star, Mary Elizabeth Winstead. And while I am grateful they took the time to discuss the film with us, it actually made me dislike the movie a bit more. The films writers and director Susan Burke and James Ponsoldt emphasized how they had so much trouble relating to other films about alcohol addiction and decided to create a movie unconventional from other films about addiction. They stated they wanted to prioritize the romance over the message. However the film does not do this. And apart from a few attempts at humor, there is very little this film does to break convention. It is unfortunately play by play a predictable, melodramatic portrayal of the issue that beats you over the head with the issue. So if the writers/director were intending to do anything different here, mission failed. Story-wise, beat for beat, everything follows the above safe template, which is quite rudimentary at this point on the whole, and does so in a fashion that's actually overly safe and quite over-the-top.
Winstead, for instance, is getting a lot of awards-buzz for her portrayal of Kate. And while it perhaps is her best role to date given her resume (which includes a very bland performance in Scott Pilgrim and a few supporting roles in Die Hard 4 and horrible Abe Lincoln Vampire Hunter), I can honestly say, that buzz is really not merited In my opinion it was actually incredibly melodramatic and over-the-top. When she's drunk, she either acts overly irresponsible--portraying your stereotypical caricature of the drunk "whoo" girl you see at bars in plenty of comedies--or completely over-dramatic with emotions flaring at all extremes--not unlike any other actor who's ever portrayed a recovering alcoholic. When she's sober and attempting to recover, she excels a bit more, playing a very haunted performance of someone desperate to change. However, with both sides of the character, how it was written, and Winstead's portrayal, the audience is explicitly being told what the character is feeling and thinking. Rather than making the character realistic or making any attempts at a more nuanced, human performance to allow moviegoers to feel, emote, or relate to the character, we are explicitly told what to think because the character and role require Winstead to flail at the screen shouting, crying, etc. in very on-the-nose ways. Winstead's performance in her major catharsis scene with co-star Aaron Paul towards the final third of the movie, in particular, is something we've seen written so many times, portrayed in the exact same manner--such that the audience literally hears the conflict rather than feeling it--that it literally comes across as (for lack of a better term) hokey. By that point any connection I had with the character is lost because it all feels so artificial and textbook.
Paul comes across slightly better in the film, in my opinion, playing Kate's even more irresponsible husband, Charlie. Charlie's character is of course the Person B in the template. The bad influence who's presence makes Person A keep regressing from rehabilitation. His chemistry with Winstead is quietly sweet most of the time. And the worry Paul conveys when expressing his fears about losing his wife is much more subtle than even Winstead's more quiet somber moments of reflection. However, way the character was written--with the slacker, irresponsible, party-boy mentality--pretty much forces a talented actor like Paul to retain type, and play Jesse Pinkman from Breaking Bad. And while I love Aaron Paul as Jesse Pinkman, the truth is this is not Breaking Bad, and isn't supposed to be Breaking Bad. So while he may have been suited for this role, admittedly I feel it's a bit of a waste of an actor capable of more.
The rest of the supporting case does a serviceable job with the script that was given to them. Both Megan Mullally and Nick Offerman play more serious roles than we're used to seeing them play, and do a good job with both. While Octavia Spencer does an okay job of portraying a the necessary-to-every-addiction-story sponsor. Of course there are just so any times we can see the homely wise, maternal, African American lady on-screen before it comes off as a tired archetype we avidly expect to show up and dispense wisdom when convenient--particularly ideal when it's the role of an alcoholic's sponsor.
Performances and predictability aside, one of my biggest complaints about the film is also how preachy it comes across. And that might be due to the melodrama of it all. This is another thing Burke and Ponsoldt explicitly stated during the Q&A session that they were seeking to avoid, but something that they also ultimately fail at. The movie really does come across as an extended PSA-D.A.R.E ad on the dangers of alcohol addiction. Alcohol addiction is bad. We get that. Don't beat your audience over the head with the message. If you want the audience to accept the message, give us something real and human. Not something fabricated and, for lack of a better term, "Hollywood". Otherwise the lack of honesty is just going to end up alienating your audience with something that doesnt feel genuine or sincere in its message or the execution of your message. Ultimately, the saddest thing about "Smashed" is the fact that it contradicts everything the filmmakers sought out to accomplish. And at the end of the day, that's unfortunately just bad filmmaking.
Overall Grade: C
No comments:
Post a Comment