A One Mann’s Movies review of “The Favourite” (2019).
Bob the Movie Man’s Movie Rating:
Certification:
UK: 15; US: R.
So, ignoring the preview of the FANTASTIC “Green Book” that I saw in December, this is the first real foray into the awards season production line of January films: my favourite period of the movie calendar. (Interestingly I saw a post on a US blog saying “oh no, we’re into January films” typifying how the Oscar releases come out so late in the UK!).
I’ll just put it out there. “The Favourite” is a masterpiece of movie making on just so many different levels.
The story
The story grips you from the off. The gout-suffering Queen Anne (Olivia Colman) is being maniupulated from her bedchamber (both physically and mentally) by Lady Sarah Marlborough (Rachel Weisz), wife of a war-hero General. Arriving at the palace (actually Hatfield House in Hertfordshire) is Sarah’s cousin Abigail (Emma Stone), fallen on hard times. But although joining the court as a “dirty parlour maid”, Abigail is more than a match for Sarah in terms of political scheming and sculduggery. The scene is set for a no-holds battle royale to gain the affections of the queen and be the power behind the throne.
The turns
First and foremost, the film presents a triumvirate of female star turns that would – I hope – immediately grab three of the slots for Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress Oscar categories.
We all know Olivia Colman as a UK national treasure, but with a movie past that has seen her primarily in smaller supporting roles, this should catapult her onto the worldwide stage. Colman is just unbelievably good as the mentally unhinged monarch Queen Anne. (If you look at the history of Queen Anne in relation to motherhood, referenced in the film, you can understand and sympathise with her mental state.) The camera spends leisurely periods focused on her features and many of these are just extraordinary. One such scene at a dance, with Anne unblinking and mentally deteriotating for what must be a good minute or two is so breathtaking that it made me giggle (inappropriately) with pure movie joy.
Equally good is Rachel Weisz as the incumbant favourite Lady Sarah. Her transformation from someone fully in control to someone seeing a yawning turn in her fortunes approaching is just brilliantly done. Helped by superbly scripted lines (“How did you sleep?” asks Abigail; “Like a shot badger” spits out Sarah), she delivers brilliantly on a role that was reminiscent to me of Glenn Close‘s turn in “Dangerous Liaisons”.
Probably in 3rd place in the awards ranking, but not taking away anything from her excellent kick-ass performance, is Emma Stone as Abigail. We’ve seen similar performances from Stone before: indeed the film has a nice recreation of her “La La Land” audition breakdown at one point!
“Throw” (not “Pull”) – Emma Stone as Abigail taking aim at an important prize. (Source: 20th Century Fox).Excellent in supporting roles, but rather overshadowed by the ladies, is Nicholas Hoult fully be-wigged as the leader of the opposition and the ever-reliable Mark Gatiss as Lord Marlborough
More arthouse than mainstream?
Based on the strong UK-talent and the Oscar buzz, the film has received a widespread distribution into UK multiplexes, but I think it has more of an arthouse feel to it that might trigger some disatisfaction from the general cinema-going public. (Looking back, I made exactly the same comment about “The Lobster“.)
But it is technically brilliant, and I’ll call out some of the star turns in the technical department (since it’s impossible to read any names from the crazily over-stylized end-titles).
I’ve already referenced that the script has some memorable whip-smart lines (“Look at me! How dare you! Close your eyes!”) all the more impressive that this is the debut movie screenplay by Deborah Davis and Tony McNamara.
It is strikingly filmed, using fisheye lenses and to reflect an air of disquiet and paranoia. This always seem to be in use, but seem to be “more fishbowly” (not sure what the technical term is!) in some scenes than others. There are also some remarkable low-angle tracking shots: one of Rachel Weisz walking along a passageway is breathtakingly done. The cinematography is by Robbie Ryan, who did “I, Daniel Blake” and “American Honey” and I would approve of seeing it recognised in the awards season.
Also fantastic are the costumes on show, particularly those worn by Rachel Weisz which are just stunning. As such, there’s a second shout-out in two films (“Mary Poppins Returns”) for Sandy Powell here.
Also outstanding is the music composed and coordinated by Johnnie Burn. He’s collaborated with the director on his previous films in various capacities as well as the surreal “Under the Skin“. While the soundtrack comprises well-chosen period chamber music, there are also periods of intrusive and persistent electronic tones that reflect Sarah’s rising crisis just beautifully.
Holding the whole thing together is Greek director Yorgos Lanthimos. Lanthimos is a bit of an acquired taste that to date I haven’t fully acquired. My one criticism with the film is the same one I levelled at “The Lobster” – that it is a tad overlong. A comedy, particularly a black-comedy, can outstay its welcome, and for me I think it would have been a better film if cut down to nearer 90 minute than two hours. (The film is divided into different titled segments, and if you want to orientate yourself as to where you are there are 8 of them.)
I did appreciate though that Lanthimos managed to cheekily include a couple of lobsters into the script, along with his usual menagerie of rabbits and ducks! Having his work cut out then on this film was animal coordinator Gerry Cott!
Not for the easily offended.
This is marketed as a “bawdy comedy-drama” and be warned that it is very, VERY bawdy
It’s a 15 certificate in the UK (R in the US) and for once I’d view it as quite a lenient rating. There are lesbian sex scenes in the film which although subtle (you see less than in “Colette“) are still relatively strong. However, the language is decidedly on the fruity side with liberal use of the F-word and the C-word. As such, it will not be for the easily offended. (I’m not offended by such things, and a variant of “lovestruck” from the script has been added directly into my list of Anglo-Saxon ‘think but never say’ words!)
I don’t bandy the word “masterpiece” around often, but in this case I think it’s justified.
Trailer:
The trailer is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYb-wkehT1g .
Gives away some good lines, but certainly sets the right mood for the film.
I wasn’t offended by the bawdy language but despite the fine acting, elaborate setting and production etc. I hated it. Nearly left at several points during the film.
On that basis alone it’s bound to get a load of Oscars.
I’ve said it before, but one of the great joys of cinema is the range of visceral reactions to different movies. As this is the internet, I’m clearly RIGHT and you’re clearly WRONG – no question! 🙂