Which brings us to Mary Ann Bernard's latest editorial effort called The Laundromat, and um... did I watch the same movie here? My partner in crime was reading reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Universal condemnation. Two stars from Roger Ebert. Okay, so Meryl Streep's probably not going to get a nomination this year. Gary Oldman's accent was terrible. Fine production values, but nothing made sense. A fine story, and the cast and crew shot for the moon, but to no avail. The only other time I can think of is when Siskel and Ebert said Six Degrees of Separation was too confusing... I'm an old guy, you see. They in particular cited how the couple recited the story to the police, and it developed a rhythm of its own in the process. If you watch the whole movie, you're able to follow along. Sometimes I feel like asking one of these critics... now, did you see the whole movie or just the trailer?
I should probably stick to the plot for now. Clearly I've been avoiding the news cycle for the last ten years or so, because I'm just finding out about the "Panama Papers" and the Stratton-Oakmont-esque law firm called Mossack Fonseca. Apparently, it's all part of the formerly great Julian Assange leveling of the world's playing field from the hacker's digital level. Somehow, the hack of Sony just isn't as juicy yet! Some awkwardness for Angelina and Adam Sandler in the Sony boardroom, but that's it. But just as the plainly-titled The Insider peeled back the layers on what we all already suspected about cigarettes, so too does The Laundromat peel back the layers on the lawyers that protect the rich. If I remember correctly, Gary Oldman's character helpfully informs us that there are about 15 million millionaires in the world, and about 1,500 billionaires. And as of this writing, someone's already toppled Jeff Bezos as #1! But given my current state of lower middle-class ennui, I didn't even bother to take the bait to find out who. Too depressing. Maybe Bill Gates just outmaneuvered Bezos a little bit in his stocks or something.
But I am a big-time sucker for those little pearls of dialogue, and this film's got quite a few. Even some ammunition for my Atheist friends, who continue to gain infrastructural confidence as the years since the year 2000 go by. "The meek shall inherit the earth" is a particular target here. I believe it is Antonio Banderas' character who says "Maybe the meek just need a better lawyer." Once again, Sting was ahead of his time and we all just didn't know it.
SPOILER ALERT - But perhaps it's a problem of advertising. The Netflix (TM) (R) (C) plot description says that 21 people end up dead, but if you watch the film you'll find that it's more of an act of nature, and a rather mild one at that. But that's how it goes sometimes. There's also another act of nature that forces the two lawyers to scramble, and it just might leave you wanting to read the book that the film's based on. I mean, did it really go down that way? It's like the fifth season of "Homeland" where one single act of hacking leads to... well, I won't spoil that one, but needles to say it leads to rather repercussive consequences... but that's Blogger for you. That's what I get for not using Grammerlee - I get a red underline for "repercussive" but not for "needles."
And perhaps the film wanders too much, but hey, isn't that part of the joy of cinema? I mean, Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 3 had a lot of problems, but the scene where what's his face makes dinner for Kirsten Dunst wasn't one for me. For some of the professional critics, sure. But back to the wanderings of The Laundromat. Take, for example, the "for example" story of Charles, a rich dude with unfortunate, um... hobbies! Let's just say, hobbies. Actually, they're tame compared to some of the things I've seen on "Ray Donovan," for example. Charles is a client of Mossack Fonseca, and we're treated to an example of a lawyer for the rich at work. More musings from Antonio Banderas: Fonseca originally started out thinking he could save the world... well, what the heck. One of the benefits of having a Netflix (TM) account. I'll include the text of his speech:
Saving the world, as it turns out, is very hard. Long hours, bad pay, and perhaps the world does not want to be saved. Inside all of us there are packs of wolves and flocks of sheep roaming through our thoughts. We want to be fair, and yet, we want to win. We want to be righteous, but we want to get ahead. Such is our struggle. And some point, you decide it might just be easier to save yourself!
Sure, maybe his struggle between choosing good and evil probably didn't take as long as he thought, but whatever. He was briefly a lawyer at the United Nations. Oldman's lawyer has a similar self-realization that he no longer wanted to be just another sheep in the lawyer barnyard. Benjamin Franklin's quote about democracy being two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner probably comes to mind. Or perhaps the old Cherokee legend about which wolf to feed... too cliché?
As of this writing, the IMDb Plot Description of The Laundromat compares the film to The Big Short, the 2015 classic about some of the inner workings behind the big financial crash of 2008. For whatever reason, God bless 'em, 2011's "Too Big to Fail" went by like a blur. The Laundromat is certainly gimmicky, but Soderbergh is somehow much more restrained with his gimmicks. And I do gotta say, my HDTV just keeps growing on me. Somehow it's not kind to the old films, but the graphics of the designs of American currency, for example, are very crisp... except for those occasional moments when Netflix (C) is buffering, or semi-buffering, whatever. No cameo from Margot Robbie here, but there is a Saturday Night Live reunion of sorts here, involving Will Forté and Chris Parnell... they were on at the same time, right?
But as long as we're wrapping up with Comparative Cinema 101, the ending did remind me a bit of the ending of Casino, just not as violent. But speaking of violence, maybe I'm just getting squeamish, but I could've done without the part about Chinese organ harvesting. It's not like Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, I'm just sayin'. And structurally, the film is similar to his 2009 effort, The Informant! But that was probably a better movie, because the stakes weren't as high, and Matt Damon took a bit of a risk with his character.
Ultimately, the target is us, and our twisted way of life here in America. We want to live like Charles in the giant mansion, but we don't want the consequences, especially not the taxes. More specifically, the target is campaign finance reform, which our senators and representatives occasionally pay lip service to, but don't actually do anything about. While the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court isn't specifically mentioned, it's certainly proof that campaign finance reform is now going the other way! Money is apparently still considered speech in some quarters. Also, presidents of unions are now considered targets for political advertisements. That one should really be stopped. I guess taxes are more costly to these rich dudes than buying the politicians outright. But that's one of the other tenets of economics that always sticks in my mind like a sliver: money can always be used to pay someone else to do the jobs or the things that you don't want to do. Any chance we as a society can work on making the jobs themselves less shitty?
***1/2
-so sayeth The Movie Hooligan
No comments:
Post a Comment