Skip to main content

A Folksy Holland Lacks Cohesion

Mimi Cave’s Holland is a movie that can’t really decide what genre it is from scene to scene. I think what it is going for broadly is a fairly Fargo-esque mixture of intense drama with a comic undercurrent in the folksy personalities and tenor of its lead characters. But it actually comes off as the opposite, a largely fluff story with dramatic or dark subjects just in the margins until they very brazenly are not, and you can’t tell what exactly the movie is going for or who it’s even designed to appeal to.
Cave’s previous movie Fresh was much more direct, even with its own wry take on cannibalism -it never seemed so confused as this movie is with its retrograde Midwestern affects, slow tension, messy handling of themes and strange double-bluff play on expectations, where it subverts the story and dynamic it is evidently setting up by negating its own mystery. A thriller that is shot like a comedy, performed like a farce, yet ends like a romance of all things.
Nicole Kidman anchors the mess as a teacher called Nancy in the town of Holland, Michigan some two or three decades ago -a town that true to its name has embraced a very Dutch cultural aesthetic. Her mild-mannered optometrist husband Fred, played by Matthew Macfadyen in exactly the same cadence as on Succession, disappears frequently on apparent work assignments or conferences, to the point she starts to suspect he is having an affair, and in pursuit of solving that mystery herself joins forces with a fellow teacher Dave (Gael Garcia Bernal) who harbours a long-gestating infatuation towards her.
It could be argued that Cave does her best in working with this script by Andrew Sodorski, which leaves a lot to be desired on both a character and structural level. Indeed there are a few interesting choices, especially pertaining to the model village that Fred has set up in the basement, the plastic effigy of Nancy that occasionally makes an appearance as symbol of her Norman Rockwell community persona and priorities -that feel a bit off-the-cuff in a way that could be genuinely effective if the story itself weren’t so poorly developed. On the flip-side though, she must bear responsibility for the disjointed tone she is trying to strike. Nancy’s suspicions about Fred’s fidelity can feel like great leaps and she herself comes off as paranoid -not a good impression for a movie that would seem to otherwise endorse believing a woman’s suspicions. Her apparent indoctrination by the community, especially where an important local fair is concerned, doesn’t help matters -and Kidman plays the part as someone alternatively both in and out of control of her own life.
Dave winds up doing a lot more of the investigating, and both in this pursuit and how the character is written more generally as this hapless Midwestern sap, the Coen-like signature bleeds off him in every scene. A very distinct part for Bernal, he plays it pretty well actually, particularly the dopey way he stumbles into a few major twists. But he still feels unmistakably like a device and the mixture of tones he dances around in utterly fail him. He is confronted at one point with a very grisly scene, more disturbing and graphic than anything seen in the movie to that point, and the moment of this realization promptly gives way to a Marx Brothers gag (a very well-composed one at that -if this were a direct comedy it might land perfectly). Macfadyen suffers similarly -playing up this character to his usual strengths but without a framework to make the best use of it. And still the suspicion towards him is relatively dwarfed by the excesses of the other two characters.
Holland, for being the titular setting, doesn’t have much character of its own either beyond the occasional allusions to its old Dutch aesthetics -and this is purely cultural, what we see of the actual town is very generic for its region (the movie was shot on location in Holland and a little bit in Nashville). For a movie ostensibly looking to capture the kind of Scandinavian-style Minnesota nice personality of Fargo, it seems to rely a lot on just presuming such a thing comes across. Lennon Parham plays another local housewife, and she lends about as much colour to the place as the script is capable of generating. And it’s not so much a contrast that you are in any way shocked by the seedy subject matter beneath the pleasant surface.
Closing in on the climax and resolution is where things exponentially flail out of control, as the movie shifts gears quite dramatically into violent territory and pertinent themes that didn’t resonate in a serious way at all leading up to it. Though the truth about Fred is passed off as something shocking, it is really quite mundane in the context of this storytelling; and its consequence, though having the veneer of an incisive point, comes across rather as a hashing out of a trope the movie hasn't earned the severity of. There's something obnoxious even to its social commentary pretense, its clumsy inference of abuse and trauma -it feels disingenuous from a figure like Kidman and a conscious filmmaker like Cave. And the last critical sequence just plays out really awkwardly too, Kidman feels lost and the momentum never carries, even through the sudden danger to their often forgotten son played by Jude Hill. The movie goes out on a messy and confused note, and even all but forgets about that super important town fair. 
I have to imagine that the town of Holland, Michigan deserves better representation than this. Or at least a better movie bearing their name. This film's mix of identities is chaotic, but not in a thrilling or dynamic way. On the contrary, it is a perplexingly active choice to be so underwhelming. It is much more interesting to actually subvert and make fun of the ‘horror in a quiet village’ theme than to indicate that is what’s being done but then play it out mostly straight anyways. The disappointment in this rings all the more in concert with the pervasive tonal discord, disoriented performances, and the struggling efforts of a director to push through the noise unscathed. Sadly, she doesn't make it.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more