Skip to main content

Fackham Hall is Neither a Clever nor Silly Enough Spoof

If there was ever a genre for the British to do the definitive spoof of it would be the costume drama. It is such a ubiquitous form of British media -every U.K. actor has done at least one somewhere in their career, they are a constant in the national media landscape with their own dramatic language, tropes, and conventions ripe for riffing on. But then the parody film itself is a bit of an awkward animal on the pantheon of British comedy, which traditionally tends more towards wit and more general absurdity. There isn’t a culture of spoof films over there like there is in America; even where British comedy has incorporated parody it has been less about specific stories or genres, and more general events or conventions perhaps linked to a theme like history or class. The best British parodies I have seen have been short-form sketches by the likes of French & Saunders or for Comic Relief. And I would still say that holds true.
Fackham Hall is a spoof very much in the style of ZAZ comedies of the 80s and 90s. It was conceived and scripted by the Dawson Brothers (referring to two actual Dawson brothers and Tim Inman), and comedian Jimmy Carr and his brother Patrick -all with significant experience in British TV comedy but none of whom had written a film before. However you can tell that they studied their sources incredibly closely -not so much Downton Abbey as The Naked Gun and Airplane! And though there are some good jokes that come out of this, it does feel like a bit of an awkward blending of material and approach.
Set in the early 1930s at the titular estate of the Davenport family the story is of course about the aristocratic politics of marriage. When Poppy Davenport (Emma Laird) runs off on her wedding day to an obnoxious cousin Archibald (Tom Felton), her parents Lord Humphrey (Damian Lewis) and Lady Prudence (Katherine Waterston) try to rearrange the marriage for their elder ‘spinster’ daughter Rose (Thomasin McKenzie). But she of course is attracted to Eric Noone -pronounced “no one”- (Ben Radcliffe) a lowly new servant to the family and thief in hiding from London. This comedy of manners plays out with occasional sight gags and absurd bits of deadpan humour.
Perhaps in keeping with a tactic that worked for the early ZAZ films, none of these actors are veterans in slapstick comedy. In fact, McKenzie, Waterston, and Lewis are well-known and highly regarded for their dramatic work. But unlike in ZAZ movies, they aren’t particularly utilized in a distinct or deadpan way. Lewis has a few good deliveries and McKenzie can play serious against absurd situations, but they don’t take ownership of any kind of joke or comedic style. There is no equivalent to a Leslie Nielsen or a Lloyd Bridges, and both McKenzie and Radcliffe lack a silly earnestness  like Julie Hagerty or Val Kilmer that keep the otherwise dull characters from being boring to watch. They play it okay, but in an understanding of the artifice. The performers who best understand the assignment are Felton (aiming at a Cary Elwes-style over-the-top villain) and Tom Goodman-Hill as an inspector who comes in when inevitably a murder enters the plot.
The film is a bit smarter at playing with its subject of parody, which of course naturally intersects with a lot of general comedy around the old British aristocracy (the Davenport family motto is “Incestus infinitum”). Occasionally there is a very sharp visual gag, again in the style of ZAZ, that works pretty well. Director Jim O’Hanlon obviously studied those movies for his blocking here, with some gags revealed in a pan or slight motion of the camera. The humour is quite situational, and thankfully avoids pop culture referential humour. The closest it comes is a butler called Cyril (Tim McMullan) -often pronounced as "Siri"- who gives simple monotone answers to questions posed to him, and a running gag involving J.R.R. Tolkien (Jason Done) as one of the Davenport's social circle routinely picking up references that will become part of Lord of the Rings. But as you might tell by this example, the jokes of this film aren't often very original -when Eric manages to get a hold of a pick-axe outside his jail cell you know that rather than use it to escape he's just going to use it to steal a spoon for that purpose instead. The same is true for the verbal humour, like a sequence at a pub full of incomprehensible cockney accents, and while Jimmy Carr's initial routine as a priest who keeps misreading his script so that it comes off as pedophilia innuendo is funny at first, it is notably more tired by the time the bit makes its first reappearance -much like Carr's actual stand-up.
Jokes do not dominate this movie, which half the time comes off as more of a direct romantic comedy and straight satire of British class dynamics in the early twentieth century than a constantly irreverent parody film. But the storytelling isn't strong or interesting enough to make a point or keep the proceedings engaging. The commentary is very mundane and a tad irrelevant -the class issues here played in a way that restricts them to this time and place and manner of people. And none of the actors are invested enough in the material by design. So especially in the latter, more plot-heavy portions of the movie, the film drags, with jokes that aren't inventive or outrageous enough to buffet it. Even with a goofy sensibility overhanging everything, it's just mundane at the end of the day, with no comic bits or characters that really stand out on their own.
Fackham Hall is not unique in any of this. There really have only been a handful of truly great spoof comedies that have disproportionately represented the entire genre. Fackham Hall is less like an Airplane! or Top Secret! and more like a Hot Shots! or a Naked Gun 2. Not particularly good, in no way memorable, though at least a far cry from the worst excesses the genre has sunk to. The effort here is appreciated, and a handful of jokes do get a pretty good laugh. But its humour isn't groundbreaking or terribly clever and is stretched thin over a concept that really should produce more than this movie allows. Having the recent Naked Gun reboot to compare it to is just a dour coincidence as well. It takes you a moment to get the joke of the title -the movie has to spotlight it on a couple occasions. It is mildly amusing when you do figure it out, which is the tenor this movie hits at its best.

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