So, I went and saw The Lady in the Van the other day.
So, I went and saw The Lady in the Van the other day. I think I was hoping it would be funnier? Also, if you care about being spoiled run away now because not editing this.
Somehow, I did not realize before going in that this was Alan Bennett (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Bennett). More on that later.
I highly recommend the score. Classical music is a key element in this story, so that is there, but there are lots of other bits and it's quite well done.
As for the movie, Maggie Smith is a-freaking-mazing. Had they made her most of the movie, she should have been awash in awards. In fact, if it wasn't for her, there'd be no point in seeing this movie. Sorry, Mr. Bennett.
There are many scenes of note, and, in fact, she is funny in a very great deal of this. The one scene, though, I'd particularly call out is one in which she doesn't even say anything. She says nothing and you want to weep. You want to fight the horribleness of the world and what it's done to her and fix it. You want to take away the anguish and the misery and the hurt and confusion. She rips your heart out and she doesn't make a sound. That scene is an acting lesson. And if you watch it and feel nothing you are dead inside.
In spite of the title, this is not really about Maggie Smith's character. It is a semi-autobiographical (or possibly straight up autobiographical) story about the author, Alan Bennett. I've never seen the stage play, never read the book. Maybe they are different. However, when you see it, the homeless person is just a device to not really tell you about his struggles with his life. The movie never really seems to decide whose story it's telling - his or hers? Frankly, hers seems much more entertaining, so let's go with that one. There's also some devices that while I get them on an intellectual level, they just don't work for me as executed. (SERIOUS SPOILERS)
The author is played as two people, both himself, but one is more passive, and one complains about the other's passivity. It could work if they'd used it less, or differently, or something. Mostly, though, it's confusing, distracting, and doesn't tell a story that couldn't have been told otherwise. It's annoying.
Further, I have no idea if Alan Bennett is such a completely passive doormat in real life, but boy, howdy, does his character read that way as played, and unsympathetically, at that. I suspect part of that is because during the 15 years of his life that this covers, he struggles with his own sexuality and his mother becomes demented and, I think, dies. None of which is really dealt with directly; it's all hints and innuendo.
I mean, my god, people, just come right out and say, a) Mom has Alzheimer's and it's a stressful bitch of a situation to deal with and it's tearing me up, and b) I think I'm gay, but it's unacceptable to be gay, and I'm conflicted about being gay, but maybe I'm bi, and I'm lonely and suck at relationships and omg, what if I'm gay?!?! I mean, people are STILL struggling with both of these things, as well as weird relationships with their parents, themselves, and their successes and failures. Don't be so damn coy about it.
To be fair, the main character does have lines that are dryly funny, and sometimes you will laugh at them, but something just seemed to really undercut a lot of that bit.
Other suspicions on my part are that this is an extremely British movie. After a lifetime of being inundated by British film and television, this may be the distillation of everything you couldn't possibly truly grok if you hadn't lived in Britain. Or, you know, they sucked at providing the expository info you needed for all that. Ahem.
See, they say some stuff, but it doesn't mean anything. I went and looked it up afterwards. This is set from about 1974-1989, in London, in a particular area (Camden) that apparently saw a socio-economic conglomeration of successful, wealthy (or at least very upward middle class), liberal, artistic residents at that time. Based on what I looked up, as well as what I confirmed after not being sure that's what they said in the film, a lot of them were/are people whose names are recognizable. This was quite the little neighborhood.
There are constant mini-scenes and references that suggest that this is an important part of the odd, but perhaps entirely logical presence of a mentally ill homeless person who lives in a van they move around the street. The cast that fills in these cameos is a bunch of very recognizable people who do a great job of just popping in and out, in some ways acting as a sort of Greek chorus. Also some of the bits of humor that work. So, artsy, liberal, uncomfortable with their success, guilt. Check.
I gather mentioning bodily functions is obligatory in Bennett's work. It's entirely sensible in this context for it to come up as part of dealing with mental illness, dementia, problems of hygiene, etc. I don't think it's necessarily overdone, but the point is made more than once, thus, ymmv.
Based on what I looked up, the author is not Catholic, but, boy, he is not a fan of the British incarnations of that institution. If all you knew was from this movie, they are cold, abusive, twisted, controlling, uncharitable, and downright mean and nasty.
They had a very Monty Python moment toward the end of the movie, very Terry Gilliam illustration. It made absolutely no sense, but was probably one of the most fun bits and I wish the movie had taken itself a little less seriously, or something. I mean, it was bizarre and didn't fit at all, but it also could have been a great ending. If the movie was about the crazy lady. Which it wasn't. But it should have been. Really. Alan Bennett's life would have been an interesting movie on its own, or an interesting sub story, but it was a boring main story in this film. The crazy lady in the van? Should have been the main event in a much bigger way.
Btw, I tried looking something up about the woman, who was real, but it may be that Alan Bennett's chronicle of what he discovered over time in dealing with her is the only extant information about her. Stupidly, after all that, I suppose I shall not tell you about her, since discovering her is what the movie is all about, well, when it's about her. It's tragic, and horrible, and sad, but it is human.
And even if you can't enjoy the whole movie - lugubrious comes to mind in describing the pace - you can play recognize the famous cameo bingo in between Maggie Smith's scenes.
Somehow, I did not realize before going in that this was Alan Bennett (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Bennett). More on that later.
I highly recommend the score. Classical music is a key element in this story, so that is there, but there are lots of other bits and it's quite well done.
As for the movie, Maggie Smith is a-freaking-mazing. Had they made her most of the movie, she should have been awash in awards. In fact, if it wasn't for her, there'd be no point in seeing this movie. Sorry, Mr. Bennett.
There are many scenes of note, and, in fact, she is funny in a very great deal of this. The one scene, though, I'd particularly call out is one in which she doesn't even say anything. She says nothing and you want to weep. You want to fight the horribleness of the world and what it's done to her and fix it. You want to take away the anguish and the misery and the hurt and confusion. She rips your heart out and she doesn't make a sound. That scene is an acting lesson. And if you watch it and feel nothing you are dead inside.
In spite of the title, this is not really about Maggie Smith's character. It is a semi-autobiographical (or possibly straight up autobiographical) story about the author, Alan Bennett. I've never seen the stage play, never read the book. Maybe they are different. However, when you see it, the homeless person is just a device to not really tell you about his struggles with his life. The movie never really seems to decide whose story it's telling - his or hers? Frankly, hers seems much more entertaining, so let's go with that one. There's also some devices that while I get them on an intellectual level, they just don't work for me as executed. (SERIOUS SPOILERS)
The author is played as two people, both himself, but one is more passive, and one complains about the other's passivity. It could work if they'd used it less, or differently, or something. Mostly, though, it's confusing, distracting, and doesn't tell a story that couldn't have been told otherwise. It's annoying.
Further, I have no idea if Alan Bennett is such a completely passive doormat in real life, but boy, howdy, does his character read that way as played, and unsympathetically, at that. I suspect part of that is because during the 15 years of his life that this covers, he struggles with his own sexuality and his mother becomes demented and, I think, dies. None of which is really dealt with directly; it's all hints and innuendo.
I mean, my god, people, just come right out and say, a) Mom has Alzheimer's and it's a stressful bitch of a situation to deal with and it's tearing me up, and b) I think I'm gay, but it's unacceptable to be gay, and I'm conflicted about being gay, but maybe I'm bi, and I'm lonely and suck at relationships and omg, what if I'm gay?!?! I mean, people are STILL struggling with both of these things, as well as weird relationships with their parents, themselves, and their successes and failures. Don't be so damn coy about it.
To be fair, the main character does have lines that are dryly funny, and sometimes you will laugh at them, but something just seemed to really undercut a lot of that bit.
Other suspicions on my part are that this is an extremely British movie. After a lifetime of being inundated by British film and television, this may be the distillation of everything you couldn't possibly truly grok if you hadn't lived in Britain. Or, you know, they sucked at providing the expository info you needed for all that. Ahem.
See, they say some stuff, but it doesn't mean anything. I went and looked it up afterwards. This is set from about 1974-1989, in London, in a particular area (Camden) that apparently saw a socio-economic conglomeration of successful, wealthy (or at least very upward middle class), liberal, artistic residents at that time. Based on what I looked up, as well as what I confirmed after not being sure that's what they said in the film, a lot of them were/are people whose names are recognizable. This was quite the little neighborhood.
There are constant mini-scenes and references that suggest that this is an important part of the odd, but perhaps entirely logical presence of a mentally ill homeless person who lives in a van they move around the street. The cast that fills in these cameos is a bunch of very recognizable people who do a great job of just popping in and out, in some ways acting as a sort of Greek chorus. Also some of the bits of humor that work. So, artsy, liberal, uncomfortable with their success, guilt. Check.
I gather mentioning bodily functions is obligatory in Bennett's work. It's entirely sensible in this context for it to come up as part of dealing with mental illness, dementia, problems of hygiene, etc. I don't think it's necessarily overdone, but the point is made more than once, thus, ymmv.
Based on what I looked up, the author is not Catholic, but, boy, he is not a fan of the British incarnations of that institution. If all you knew was from this movie, they are cold, abusive, twisted, controlling, uncharitable, and downright mean and nasty.
They had a very Monty Python moment toward the end of the movie, very Terry Gilliam illustration. It made absolutely no sense, but was probably one of the most fun bits and I wish the movie had taken itself a little less seriously, or something. I mean, it was bizarre and didn't fit at all, but it also could have been a great ending. If the movie was about the crazy lady. Which it wasn't. But it should have been. Really. Alan Bennett's life would have been an interesting movie on its own, or an interesting sub story, but it was a boring main story in this film. The crazy lady in the van? Should have been the main event in a much bigger way.
Btw, I tried looking something up about the woman, who was real, but it may be that Alan Bennett's chronicle of what he discovered over time in dealing with her is the only extant information about her. Stupidly, after all that, I suppose I shall not tell you about her, since discovering her is what the movie is all about, well, when it's about her. It's tragic, and horrible, and sad, but it is human.
And even if you can't enjoy the whole movie - lugubrious comes to mind in describing the pace - you can play recognize the famous cameo bingo in between Maggie Smith's scenes.
Comments
Post a Comment