Julia


As we near the announcement of the Oscar nominations, there has been a drumbeat by some critics, notably Roger Ebert, for a dark horse: Tilda Swinton, for her performance of the title role in Julia. After having seen the film last night I can understand the sentiment, but I'm not sure if I'm in entire agreement. I think there is a difference between best acting and most acting.

Written and directed by Erick Konca, Julia, which appropriates the title of a much better film from 1977 starring Jane Fonda and Vanessa Redgrave, was inspired by the John Cassavetes film Gloria, which itself was remade with Sharon Stone. One wonders if the essence of the story--a hard-bitten floozy learns she has a maternal side while on the run with a child--needs to be retold. But here it is, anyway. Swinton is Julia, an alcoholic who has just lost her job. A boyfriend (Saul Rubinek) forces her to go to AA meetings, where she meets a troubled young Mexican woman, who seizes on a new friendship to ask if Julia might help her kidnap her son.

Swinton, who cares about nothing except where her next drink is coming from, rightly thinks the woman is crazy, but when she learns that the boy is in the custody of a rich grandfather, she gets some ideas about double-crossing the woman and taking the boy herself. Armed with a gun she buys from a local street thug and an eerie plastic black mask, she snatches the boy (Aidan Gould) and sets off on an ill-thought out adventure that ends up in Tijuana, where real kidnappers get involved.

I found this film distasteful and ungainly. For a film in the thriller genre, it is long--about two and a half hours, and feels bloated. It is badly paced, and (obsolete reference here) plays like a forty-five record played at thirty-three-and-a-third. The scenes in which the boy is trussed up like a Christmas goose are unseemly, and the subsequent bonding between Swinton and her hostage, though perhaps true to the effects of Stockholm Syndrome, struck me as false.

Swinton, a fine actress, leaves nothing in her trailer here. She seems to have chugged Red Bull before each scene, and gesticulates wildly in a twitching fashion. What troubles me about the performance is that the effort shows--I never once believed she was the character, simply an accomplished performer flexing her acting chops. Sorry, Roger, I don't think she deserves a nomination. She's not likely to get one, anyway.

Comments

  1. I think there is a difference between best acting and most acting.

    Amen, bro. I went to see it on the strength of Ebert's 4-star review, and ... well, "distasteful" is a good description. A good example of filmmakers having a story to tell without having anything to say.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts