Movie Review: Love & Friendship

Love & Friendship

Directed by: Whit Stillman.

Written by: Whit Stillman based on the novella Lady Susan by Jane Austen.

Starring: Kate Beckinsale (Lady Susan Vernon), Xavier Samuel (Reginald DeCourcy), Morfydd Clark (Frederica Vernon), Tom Bennett (Sir James Martin), Chloë Sevigny (Alicia Johnson), Emma Greenwell (Catherine DeCourcy Vernon), Justin Edwards (Charles Vernon), Stephen Fry (Mr. Johnson), Jemma Redgrave (Lady DeCourcy), James Fleet (Sir Reginald DeCourcy), Jenn Murray (Lady Lucy Manwaring), Lochlann O'Mearáin (Lord Manwaring), Kelly Campbell (Mrs. Cross), Conor MacNeill (The Young Curate).

 

The best book to screen adaptations are the ones in which it seems like both the novel and the film are meeting each other halfway – that even if it isn’t possible, that the author of the novel was writing it specifically for this filmmaker to tackle it, and turn it into a movie. I’m thinking of adaptations like Quentin Tarantino’s Jackie Brown (1997), where although he changed a lot of Elmore Leonard’s novel, really does seem like a merger between two of the best writers of dialogue out there. Or the Coen Brothers No Country for Old Men (2007), which is nowhere near Cormac McCarthy’s best novel, although it feels like it was written for the Coens – it’s more heavy on plot and character, and less on McCarthy’s tough to parse prose. Both of those now feel like marriages that were inevitable – and so to does Whit Stillman adapting Jane Austen. Stillman took an unfinished novella instead of one of Austen’s longer, more famous (and celebrated) novels – and yet, that’s the right choice for Stillman. He is not a director who excels at – or even seems to give a damn about – plot. He’s at his best when his characters are simply sitting around, shooting the shit with each other – especially when those characters are highly educated and pretentious, who are basically saying stupid things, in ways that are designed to make themselves seem smart. Had Stillman chose to adapt Sense & Sensibility or Pride & Prejudice, or another Austen novel, he may have been stuck doing what other directors have had to do – focus on the complicated plots, or who is in love with whom, who hates whom, and why, and then why that all changes. Instead, by choosing Lady Susan, and turning it into Love & Friendship, Stillman doesn’t have to worry about all that. There’s barely a plot in this film, and what there is, doesn’t matter. This makes Love & Friendship little more than an enjoyable trifle – but when trifle is this enjoyable, who could possibly complain?

 

The film stars Kate Beckinsale, giving the type of performance she does once every five years or so, that reminds just how great she can be in the right role – and simultaneously remind you of how infrequently she gets to do it. She is so jaw-dropping beautiful, that it seems like most directors want her to do little else except look jaw droppingly beautiful (what has the Underworld franchise been really, except an excuse to dress Beckinsale in skintight leather every couple of years). In something like Love & Friendship, Stillman (who cast in The Last Days of Disco in 1998 – another one of her great roles) writes a brilliant role for her. She’s at the center of most of the scenes in the movie – she is the widow of a rich man, now in a precarious financial situation, and trying to snag a rich husband for daughter, Frederica (Morfydd Clark), and herself, while also carrying on an affair with an already married, rich man herself. That affair blowing up has made her pick up, and move into with her brother-in-law Charles (Justin Edwards) and his wife Catherine (Emma Greenwall) – even though Lady Susan had tried to get him to call off their wedding. The man he wants her daughter to marry is Sir James Martin (Tom Bennett), who, to put it mildly, an idiot – but he’s such a jolly idiot, you cannot possibly hate him – unless, of course, you’re being pushed into marriage with him. Lady Susan has her eyes set on Catherine’s brother, Reginald (Xavier Samuel) – a young man, of good breeding, who has a catalogue of expressions to make whenever someone says something stupid that rivals John Krasinski on The Office. Lady Susan is shameless in her flirting, and her scheming, but she gets away with it all, in part, because everyone else is too polite to say anything about it to her face. It seems like no one really likes Lady Susan – aside from her friend, Alicia Johnson (Chloe Sevigny, an American who doesn’t want to get sent back Connecticut by her husband – Stephen Frye), and the various men who are in love with her. Behind her back, everyone insults Lady Susan – but to her face, they are polite – so polite in fact that none of them will even call her out for her own rudeness.

 

The movie moves quickly through it 90 minute plot, where nothing of any real significance happens – and what does, you can probably see coming. This isn’t an Edith Wharton adaptation after all, so things are going to work out for the central characters – which of course they do, and everyone ends up with precisely the partner that will suit them best – except for that poor woman, who won’t stop complaining about her marriage that ended weeks ago. How shameless!

 

Beckinsale is the star of the show here – and her Lady Susan is such a force of nature, and gets all the best lines, that to be honest, no one else really has a chance to keep up with her. The lone exception is Tom Bennett as Sir James, who somehow finds a way to extend every conversation much longer than he should – and even if he’s proven wrong, he just keeps right on talking. In real life, this may be annoying as hell – in the movie, it’s hilarious.

 

Stillman is still thought of as a better writer than director – and Love & Friendship won’t much change that – the dialogue calls so much more attention to itself than the visuals. But, Stillman is a fine visual director as well, and he seems to have an instinct for camera placement – the best way to get two laughs out of his best lines – the line itself, and the reaction it inspires. The film is a definite improvement on Damsels in Distress (2011), which was his first in 13 years at that point (many love that film – I did not, I found it too mannered and stilted). This, though, is a return to form – a Stillman film that stands alongside Metropolitan, Barcelona and The Last Days of Disco – and an Austen adaptation that stands alongside the best of her work onscreen. When you can say all of that, does it matter if the film ends up being completely superfluous?

Movie Review: Damsels in Distress

Damsels in Distress ** ½
Directed by: Whit Stillman.
Written by: Whit Stillman.
Starring: Greta Gerwig (Violet), Carrie MacLemore (Heather), Megalyn Echikunwoke (Rose), Analeigh Tipton (Lily), Ryan Metcalf (Frank), Jermaine Crawford (Jimbo), Caitlin Fitzgerald (Priss), Zach Woods (Rick DeWolfe), Nick Blaemire (Freak Astaire), Aubrey Plaza (Depressed Debbie), Hugo Becker (Xavier), Meredith Hagner (Alice), Adam Brody (Fred Packenstacker / Charlie Walker), Billy Magnussen (Thor).

Whit Stillman became a cult figure in American Indie cinema in the 1990s, with his trilogy of young, urbanites, caught between school and the workforce and their love lives. Starting with Metropoltian (1990) and continuing with Barcelona (1996) and The Last Days of Disco (1998), all three films were witty, hilarious and insightful comedies – or at least I thought so at the time - it has been years since I have revisited any of those films (he also directed a particularly great episode of Homicide: Life on the Street, which I bring up because I love that show, and find any excuse possible to praise it). Then, for whatever reason, Stillman disappeared from the film scene for 14 years – which seems to have simply advanced his cult status. Now, finally, comes his long awaited fourth film – Damsels in Distress, which revisits much of the same terrain as his earlier films, and has the same absurd dialogue. And yet, to me it was a disappointment. Fourteen years, and this is what we get?

The film takes place at a University, that was one of the last to go from a women’s college to co-ed – and is now crawling with a bunch of idiot boys in Roman Fraternity’s. It concentrates on four women who view themselves as helping others – they volunteer at the campus Suicide Prevention Center, and date guys who are neither good looking or smart as an act of charity so that these lunkheads can improve themselves. Violet (Greta Gerwig) is their leader – supremely confident in herself in everything she says and does. Heather (Carrie MacLemore) and Rose (Megalyn Echikunwoke) are her followers. And when they see Lily (Analeigh Tipton) at the new student orientation, they draft her to be their fourth. The setup recalls Heather or Mean Girls, except these girls aren’t really mean, although they certainly are elitist, even as they decry elitism (how can the fraternity’s be elitist, they ask aloud, if everyone in them are idiots that desperately need their help?). Lily doesn’t quite fit in with these girls – she wants to date good looking guys, and has two prospects – Xavier (Hugo Becker), a French grad student who shows her Truffaut’s Stolen Kisses, and has a bizarre religion, which requires even more bizarre sexual morals. Then there is Charle (Adam Brody), an older professional, who sees Lily in a bar and sends over drinks – which makes Heather dismiss him as an “player, operator type”, which while Violet agrees he may well be, she does appreciate the gesture. Drinks are, after all, expensive. And if people didn’t make such moves, would the species be able to propagate itself?

I have to admit, I hated the first 20 minutes or so of Damsels in Distress. The dialogue seemed absurd and like it was trying too hard to be funny and clever. The characters seemed one dimensional, and worse, not all that interesting. But after that first 20 minutes, I got on the wavelength of the film, and went along with its absurd comic tone, and at the very least, Damsels in Distress became a pleasant, if meandering little movie. There was at least one scene that had me laughing more than most other recent comedies – when poor, dumb, frat boy Thor admits that he doesn’t know the names of the colors – a bizarre running joke throughout the movie that was always good for a laugh. Another good running gag was all the attempted suicides by the future teachers of America jumping off the Education building – which not being a big building, simply led to a lot of people hurting their ankles.

But while I enjoyed much of the later parts of Damsels in Distress – and Stillman’s ultimate point eventually becomes evident – they film never really won me over. The moments I admired were mainly isolated incidents – a few scenes with dialogue so bizarre I couldn’t help but laugh. One of the problems is the casting, especially Greta Gerwig. I love Gerwig as an actress, who has quickly ascended in her career. But she’s ill-suited for the role of Violet. Gerwig’s strength as an actress is how natural she is – and Violet is all about pretense, and the walls she puts up to protect herself.

The characters all lie about who they are, and put on a mask to the outside world, and even to a certain extent themselves. Eventually, their lies come out in the open, but rather than mock or humiliate these characters, Stillman takes a more sympathetic view of them. They may not have “found” themselves at the end of the movie, but at least they are on their way.

Damsels in Distress marks a welcome return by Stillman, but not a very good one. He still has unique ear for dialogue that he always had, but the movie never really builds any comic momentum. Some jokes work, others do not. I’m glad Stillman is back, and I hope that we see his fifth film before 2026 – I also hope it’s better than this one.