 |
| Left to right: Jason Schwartzman and Charlie Sheen |
A few weeks ago, Roman Coppola received his first Oscar nomination for co-writing Moonrise Kingdom. His follow-up is his first directorial effort since 2001′s CQ titled A Glimpse Inside The Mind of Charles Swan III, a tale that follows a program designer over the course of a mental breakdown. With many vivid and playful sequences, it is easy to see why the subject matter would seem appealing. Even casting Charlie Sheen as the titular character serves as a ripe opportunity to turn his antics into poignant commentary. Is Coppola capable of capturing the magic in the director’s chair, or is he best co-writing with other people?
The film has a very promise opening as it peers inside the mind of the title character. Choosing to use elaborate animation and psychoanalysis through voiceover, the film explores the character in a unique fashion that almost feels ground breaking. In under five minutes, so much information is provided in an abstract format that it feels like this film will succeed in being a modern version of Federico Fellini’s 8 1/2 by way of Charlie Kaufman. However, as the movie gets further into the mind, not even Bill Murray dressed as John Wayne can capture the magic of those first few minutes. The film attempts to acrobat realism and fantasy in a clever way that is unfortunately destroyed by the film’s final act, in which Charles Swan is supposed to become sympathetic somehow.
The problem with the film may largely be due to the indistinguishable differences between Sheen and Swan. People familiar with the actor’s breakdown and the launch of “tiger blood” will have trouble accepting that Swan is nothing but another moniker. He’s a reckless playboy who serves no purpose but to entertain his friends, notably Kirby Star (Jason Schwartzman) who seems to only encourage his bad behavior. Also, the flashbacks quickly turn from intriguing analyses to misogyny as Star dedicates a whole segment of the movie to describing women as life ruiners. The narrative seems to suggest that women are useless to anyone’s happiness. This only makes the ending more problematic when it is expected for people to sympathize with Swan. He doesn’t really change and there is more reasons to root for him being alone than to write everything off with a happy ending.
All of this may seem acceptable if Sheen gave a captivating performance that says something new. However, he is too much of a slacker. He doesn’t really have any range and Coppola doesn’t provide anything authentic. All that is given is numerous intriguing fantasy segments involving cowboys and secret agents ruined by Swan’s obsession with women being objects in his life. There is plenty of kitsch otherwise, but it feels forced as the film fails to glimpse further than sex. There isn’t more to the backstory and what once felt complex and ground breaking now feels like an attempt to make Sheen sympathetic for no reason. He barely exists in ways that The Comedy managed to satirize with far more effective results. The story just feels like it ends without much thought by having the cast tell the camera who they played. Even then, Sheen doesn’t sound convinced that he played Charles Swan.
The film’s most disappointing factor is how poorly the stellar cast was used. Schwartzman is poorly casted as a best friend who is mostly used to justify the themes. An otherwise intriguingly enthusiastic character, he appears to have been created more for reassurance than long term goals. The rest of the cast has no discerning features and Bill Murray’s brief cameo feels like wasted opportunity. As offbeat and original as Coppola made the film, he failed to give it much personality. In fact, Murray felt like an after thought, playing a role that undermines potential to an extreme. The comedy falls flat in favor of abstract ideas and misogyny. The writing is so problematic that it is hard to remember what Aubrey Plaza, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, or Patricia Arquette did in the story.
The one benefit is that Coppola has an odd, offbeat visual style that compensates. Schwartzman’s afro and beard have some retro charm that already makes him likable. Even before his personality turns him into a stereotypically chauvinistic character, there is a sense that these characters have the chance to be liked. At no point does the film look ugly and in fact recalls the kitschy, weirder elements of Wes Anderson. Small features like radio transmitters and a segment spoken in Spanish manage to give the film charm before the plot advances it into troubling directions. This feels like it could have been a fun world if the focus was on someone else. It is a shame, especially since the creativity is some of the more challenging cinematic moments currently out there.
It isn’t that Coppola is a bad director. The downfall more lies in being the sole author of his material and then casting an actor who doesn’t feel like much of a stretch. Charles Swan is a film full of opportunity, but like the actor, is too boggled down with sex to explore other interesting themes. It attempts to sympathize Charlie Sheen, but won’t do anything but annoy naysayers. Most of the supporting cast adds little to the film and not even Bill Murray dressed as John Wayne can raise a laugh. It also hurts that all of the female cast feels interchangeable and essentially serve little function. Along with the brilliant Moonrise Kingdom, Coppola is one of the more interesting voices in modern cinema. However, like Charles Swan, he would probably do better to seek some assistance.
Comments
Post a Comment