The Descendants
is a good film but it does not match the catharsis/emotional release
in Sideways (2004). It is not nearly as funny as the latter film simply because
there are no effective contrasts to the main character, Matt King (George
Clooney), which would have made his story more poignant. It is clear now, while
at the same time not so clear, why
director Alex Payne took a hiatus from filmmaking after making Sideways which certainly represents the
peak of his career so far. Let us hope that this film is not a sign that his
craft is in a state of decline. The various elements of the film’s structure
were not unified sufficiently so as to distinguish it as a clearly original
film in the cinema. When a film displays its influences without properly
subsuming them in the form of a new creative thrust it opens itself to the
maudlin sentiment which is on display here. Sideways was able to distinguish itself as a true original because
the emotions were allowed to unfold without any pretentious moralizing and
trite domestic episodes. The setting in
Hawaii does not alter the fact that the emotions in this film are bottled up
and are not allowed to project forward unabashedly. This is probably because
the characters are not eccentric enough or distinctive to make them interesting
enough to care about. There is no sense of the compulsions that make the
suffering of these characters seem so understandable. The elements that make
the main character suffer are all external it does not seem to arise from the
worldly interpretation of his subjective characteristics. It is a petty drama
surrounding the landed aristocracy of Hawaii. I was saying to myself while
watching this: O Great! another drama
about this long suffering class where millions of dollars cannot compensate for
their lack of happiness. There are not enough memorable moments in this film
that would make the experiences of these characters seem unique. The outcome
was predictable and I am stunned to hear critics suggest that the ending would
be something to look forward to. I was let down by this sort of inflated praise
I suppose. It is still a well made film but it will be forgotten in a couple
years time because there is no momentum generated by the unique experiences of
these characters that would give the ending that bittersweet taste that Payne
was striving to achieve here as he did in Sideways.
The Descendants is a sanitized drama
and the moments that pull punches (no pun intended; those who have watched the
film or the trailer know what I mean) are too distant from another and so it
does not gather momentum. The ‘pull punches’ moments are the eccentric elements
every film (or work of art for that matter) needs to make it distinctive. Sideways had the superficial and the sublime
in the form of Jack and Miles respectively and this relationship was the source
of the memorable moments. The character of Matt King in The Descendants, does not have an effective contrast and at first
it seems that his eldest daughter would provide that foil for his character but
the compromises come too early on in the film and not enough moments to
highlight their distinctive characteristics and the reasons for their unity. If
the film wants to move future audiences it should have emphasized the sense of
disunity more effectively and this would make the eventual unity more
rewarding. I understood the element concerning the cheating wife and her
mysterious lover but it did not resonate effectively through the children and
the members of Matt’s extended family. It is hinted at but never developed
sufficiently to have an impact and so it comes across as superficial without
the element of the sublime or that eternal motif sought out by every artist .
The notion of inheritance was also not fully explored but it was described in
typical fashion however the notion of the descendants does not shine through
effectively.
The film is about a real estate lawyer, Matt King, who is forced to reconcile with his family
following the boating accident involving his wife which puts her in a permanent
coma. He also has to contend with the fact that his estrangement from the
family resulted in his wife’s infidelity and his unfamiliarity with his two
daughters who he tries to fathom. He also has to contend with the sale of his family
landed property throughout the Hawaiian archipelago especially as the
entitlement will expire in 7 years or so.
What’s good about
this film?
Despite my opening remarks the film is still well
constructed and is easy to follow. I still maintain that the film is
superficial however there are moments that do evoke some sense of emotion.
These moments of emotion normally occur when Matt discovers that there is the
possibility that the essence of his life is about to be taken from him. He
already lost his wife, not only through the boating accident but to the man
with whom she committed infidelity. He is about to lose his inheritance, the
land in Hawaii, to developers and he is in danger of losing his daughters with
whom he cannot relate to. He has therefore become estranged from the elements
that stabilize him. When this does become clear to him these are the moments
that are most striking in the film. When he encounters his cousin Hugh (Beau
Bridges) it all becomes clear to him what he is truly losing when he sells the
land. This is erroneous but I will speak of that later. His attempt to unite
with his daughters thereby restoring some sense of family unity, also ties in
with the theme of what constitutes the descendants which is tied in with the
landed property of the land. It reminded me of the stagnant mode of thinking
present in Gone with the Wind (1939)
(see my review) where the land represents some sense of family pride and its
root cause of existence. ‘Land is the
only thing that matters; the only thing that lasts’ says Scarlett’s father.
When Matt refuses to sell the land to the capitalist developer it is a form of
regression as he chooses to focus on the ideal as opposed to the material
realities. The economic themes also present in the film reflect the struggle
between landed property and the emerging bourgeois class. Matt clearly makes
references to the fact that he and his family live off the land by way of lease
and sales. They live a luxurious lifestyle backed by excess consumption and the
dissolution of character associated with this for they miss the essence of
production necessary to make individuals fulfill a certain purpose. This is
also reflective of how the aristocrats or landed barons lived prior to the rise
of the bourgeois class who used the land productively through mass production.
The descendants in this film are therefore landed barons and this is documented
well early on in the film where Matt traces the line of his descent. Landed
barons, however, represent stagnation in a purely economic sense and the
attachment to the land is not necessarily justified apart from emotional
reasons which are what you see in this film regarding the sale of the land.
This is what occurred in Gone with the
Wind where the protagonists were incapable of coping with development. It
is no wonder that this film is set in Hawaii, which is more of an exotic
location, as opposed to main land America. Hawaii is no great developed area it
is dominated by landed barons. It is more of a hindrance to economic growth than anything positive. These barons
extort whatever rents they can from the locals and are not reflective of great
production but cottage style industry or peasant based subsistence
farming. This is why Hawaii, an exotic
location, caters to tourists who pay rent at the hotels. This is all put
forward in the film and this is credit to the writing for at the beginning it
is clear that Matt and his family wish to sell to the real estate developers
who will convert the land into some resort. The pressure to sell is also
reinforced by law where the entitlement to the land expires in 7 years. It
makes you wonder what Matt plans to do with the land especially as he is the
executor. Is he just going to let it lie idle or will he invest his own
accumulated funds and become a capitalist style developer. It is smartly
mentioned by his wife’s father who repeatedly berates him for sitting on all of
this money without investing it. Matt can therefore make the transition while
maintaining his family’s stake in the land. His accumulation of money
represents the starting point for most capitalists to invest it in raw
materials, instruments of production and exploited wage labour. The other good
connection established in this film is the relationship between Matt’s wife and
her outside lover. It is ironic that this lover is brother in law to the
developer who plans to buy the land from the King family. Is it any irony that
Matt’s surname is King? The lover can be seen as a reflection of capital’s
greed where it removes all barriers to its expansion and in this case it is
Matt’s wife. (This was seen in Melancholia)
In a poignant scene where Matt confronts the lover with his wife in the
background unaware of what is going on; it is clear that his wife’s lover never
loved her but was only using her to get to Matt and thereby destroying his
social being or his means for living through the family. It would therefore
remove him completely as a barrier to its expansion. This film merely shows how this is reflective on a
personal level. Hawaii as a primarily agrarian area highlights that it really
is a small world. In the city trying to find the man who cheated on your wife
is pointless. Hawaii seems like a suitable location as a result. All these elements were explained very well
in this film.
The film does try to capture the Hawaiian culture and this
is reflected in the musical score and the island hopping of the protagonists
and by speaking to the relaxed dressing style of the people. As Matt says the
most relaxed dressing style is carried out by even the richest individuals. If
you were coming from elsewhere you would feel that these people were bums of
some sort but you must not be fooled for it only means that you do not grasp
the internal cultural expression of the place. The cinematography is well done
and it captures all the spectacle of the Hawaiian environment. There are some
moments of surprise such as when an old man punches a younger man. The film
needed more physical moments such as this. When matt runs down the block to
confront his wife’s friends about his infidelity it was shocking because George
Clooney is not as dashing as women make him out to be. Lot of flab there.
What’s bad about this
film?
This film regardless of the moments of insight cannot help
but seem predictable there are few shocking moments that resonate as the
credits start to roll. The film seems a bit superficial as a result because the
core of the film is not clearly revealed following the superficial discourse as
to whether Matt should sell the land or not. Firstly these people seem to have
well to do lives and the problems they are going through do not seem
significant. It is an illusion to believe that this story will resonate with
future audiences simply because it is elitist. There is nothing that suggests
that Matt will truly lose out on his life should his inheritance be lost. If
the land is sold he will get a pretty hefty sum and so there is no love
lost. His family could still benefit
from the inheritance. In Sideways
there were certain elements to suggest that Miles aspirations concerning
material property were slowly vanishing in his middle aged years. We see this
with his old fashioned car, his small apartment, his small wine collection and
that he steals from his mother. In Miles we see a man near the brink of
extinction and this is why his story is so moving especially as he does not
have children. Matt has everything Miles does not his life is well to do and he
does not stand to lose much especially as reconciliation with his daughters
comes early on in the film. He has bucket loads of money and so does it really
matter that his wife was cheating? He won’t
be the first and last man whose wife cheats on him. Does it matter
whether the lover loves her or not? The woman wanted to divorce him. Get over
it. The story does not seem to be
saying anything new about humanity. We have to take for granted when Matt
harangues his comatose wife about her stupidity despite him showing no
affection. It comes across as stupid. When the wife’s lover’s wife starts to
wail over her it seems pathetic and unnecessary. It seems like a lifetime style
of film but with the feel of Hawaii. It seems so unnecessary. If George Clooney
was not the leading man you can see where the film would fail all around.
Clooney with his weathered sort of narration anchors the film with some form of
world weariness.
It also seems superficial because there is no effective
contrast to the Clooney character. There are flashes and hints but compromises
come too neatly. In Sideways, Miles’
counterpart was the superficial Jack who was able to provide Miles with certain
insights which would allow him to brush aside his depression. In this current
release I thought that the person to counter matt would be his eldest daughter.
There are hints that she would be such a person when at first she appears to be
a drunkard but father and daughter compromise relatively early and it comes
across as a mundane and uninspired relationship. If they clashed more
effectively the relationship would clearly have highlighted the risks that Matt
faced of losing his family and how difficult it would to reconcile himself with
the family he is so close to losing. In the character Miles we see a man who
nearly loses all of his close relationships with people before he is reconciled
with Maya. This tension is not built sufficiently towards the end and had it
been the tension and the idea of life hanging by a thread would be developed
more effectively. The reconciliations come too early on in the film. With
regards to the inheritance we do not get a clear discourse on the line of
descent from a philosophical perspective. Yes the line of descent is described
but it is not explored or the idea of descent. There is no sense of letting go
here and so the film seems stagnant. There is no sense of a new break or a new
thrust in life. The fact that he keeps the land seems like a stagnant move
because it is a convenient response to the events in the film. The end is cheap
no cycle has been broken no clear new directions are made. Payne should have
seen this especially as he expertly rounded off the story of Miles in Sideways by giving that character a new
lease on life. The character of Matt does not really get a new lease for he
keeps the land and he has some petty reconciliation with his daughters. I never
saw the line of descent. This is why although the extended members of the
family are mentioned in name they are not given much perspective apart from the
cousin Hugh. His role is limited and he just opposes Matt who wants to keep the
land. When Matt denounces their lifestyle he seems to be denouncing himself. It
is too centred on his views and what he thinks. There is no contrast no proper
perspective that runs throughout and makes it clear to the viewer instead of
having the film being criticized in such a manner as I am doing now simply
because it was not provided in the film. As I said it is hinted at in the form
of the elder daughter and cousin Hugh but their characters are not developed
sufficiently to provide the necessary contrast that have them resonate apart
from the eventual caricatures they eventually become. In Up in the Air (2009) the character played by Clooney was constantly
challenged by the youthful character who saw things a different way. This is
not present here it only occurs in fits and starts. There are some moments when
he consults with his daughter’s male friend but what he says seems maudlin and
ineffective and I forgot what he said. The father in Law provides the best
contrast but he is dismissed as an old geezer. There is no sense of who the
wife is. The character of the wife is not given a chance to defend herself but
the clause in her will saying that her life must be terminated should she ever
wind up comatose says it all. Free spirited. This is why the daughter who is
said to be like her could have provided a more effective contrast instead of
her character being compromised. There is no tension as a result. She should
have sided with the mother instead of opposing her and this would make for a
more lively debate.
The idea of descent is not only limited to the material but
to the subjective approach. The descriptive nature of the film does not
compensate for the fact that descent implies a definitive break. How surprising
it would have been had he sold the land? We would have seen him at sea with his
daughters starting a new life with a bittersweet taste for all that they had
lost.
The idea that landed property must dominate capital is
pretty crude and old fashioned and so there is not much to relate to when you
see a man refuse to sell the land and have it lying there in waste. There is no
hint about what he plans to do with it. He just wont sell it. There must be a
sense of loss and victory. In this film you should be able to have your cake
and eat it which is pretty crude in art. Change is compromised by tradition. In
Gone with the Wind at least there
was a sense of transition to something new despite the sense of melancholy.
Landed property must eventually be submerged under the high levels of
productivity that comes with capital. When asked what he will do he does not
seem to know; he just won’t sell it. Rubbish. There has to be a sense of change
but there is none just a lot of compromises. There is no sense that Matt cannot
stop what is coming especially as he sees everything centred on him. The film
is retrograde and elitist and so there is little sympathy here.
This film might be nominated for best film at the academy
awards but it will not win. If the academy has any sense this film will not
win. A Golden globe cannot hide that this film has been receiving inflated
praise.
No comments:
Post a Comment