"Genius" - disappointing movie - review

How many good writer movies can you list? There are "Barton Fink", "Adaptation" and "Misery", there are a few that are not so good but are nice to watch - "The Society of Dead Poets", "Finding Forrester". It's hard to tell visually about a profession that requires silence and privacy. So most writers' films focus on a different aspect of the profession - whether it will be the obsession or the obsession of a fan. Despite the theatrical wealth, I have not seen a movie about the editorial role so far. Hence the impatience for Michael Grandege's "Genius" (former director of Donmar Warehouse Theater in London after Sam Mendes). Based on A. Scott Berg's book "Max Perkins: Genius Editor," the film tells about the stormy relationship between editor Max Perkins (Colin Firth) and writer Thomas Wolfe (Judd Law). Perkins is the genius editor who contributed to the development of authors such as Fitzgerald and Hemingway and helped create their unique style. One day, on his desk, a massive manuscript of Thomas Wolfe's unknown man hit. Perkins does not raise his eyes until he reads the entire novel. Recognized by William Faulkner and influenced by Jack Kerouac, Ray Bradbury and Philip Roth, Wolfe today ranks among the most prominent American writers of the twentieth century. All this would not have happened unless it was his joint work with the uncompromising Perkins.

"Genius" is not a good movie. It's not even a good compromise, as are some of the above. He's not too stupid to pay more attention. It falls into that category of easily forgotten movies that open the abyss of nonsense. I do not mean that it reflects the existential state of the tortured writers, but that it just does not take advantage of it. With unnatural replicas and replay, it brings us back to the banality of everyday life, which, in the era of a permanently connected world, is more and more reminiscent of a badly written melodrama.

Image source

Colin Firth is one of the few things working in the movie. Although he again plays Colin Firth, his play has been revived and greatly illustrates the spirited Max Perkins. The last time I watched a well-played editor was in Spotlight (a terribly undervalued performance by Liiev Schriber). The profession in which you take away the excess all day is inevitably transported into everyday life. I liked the scenes at Perkins' house, which was supposed to be locked in the closet to escape for a while from the noise of her huge family. The title of the movie appears around the tenth minute. Everything before is great. We are engrossed in the world, like the strong passages of Wolfe's novel, wondering what will happen to this undiscovered still talent. Then the Genius appears. Played by Judd Law, Wolfe is an exaggerated Avene who wants to be the greatest writer in the world. Every word he pronounces is accompanied by bombastic epithets, always verbose, both in speaking and in writing. Long theatrical monologues that Low exposes might be suitable for a theater scene, but on the screen they look fake and intrusive. In his performance, Low reminds House Hemingway, who (this may sound like a mischievous) in his grotesque was a more interesting character. I was ready to close my eyes for some misconduct of the Genius. If there is something about a writer in a movie, if one of the characters writes, if someone learns how to write, I am coached to compromise to my liking. I take the guard and I do not care about the qualities of the production. In this case, however, the bad level of the script, which struck all the time as a forge hammer, unnatural dialogues, and poorly defined heroes, disguised the Genius to such an extent that, after the middle, each scene had an unbearable agony. Ironically, when in a writer's movie, the script is the weakest link. Did I mention that Nicole Kidman plays Wolf's mistress? If I am not, it will not be a big omission because her role is so crowded in the corner that her dramatic scenes in which she pours tons of exposure (for example during afternoon coffee) stand as dramatic patches imported only to illustrate the negative effects from Wolfe's obsession. The film is something like the return of Kidman and Low, who were wonderful at Cold Mountain. At moments like this Anthony Mingela is missing more than ever.

image source

The end of the 20's never looked more fake. The epoch is recreated elementarily, without care for the details. Most scenes seem to have been taken from other movies. Streets, clothes, and jazz clubs do not have the energy and authenticity that the Lost Generation has enjoyed. Illumination and the murdered brown colors add to the feeling that we are witnessing schooling. Everything seems cheap and compromising, the action is limited to an office and several apartments. We do not see the world in which these people lived. But at least there are some famous writers, right Dominic West and Guy Pierce appear, respectively, as Hemingway and Fitzgerald, but their roles are nothing but an ordinary fan service. Of course, there can be no mention of all the famous works of the writers and say something fun on the occasion of someone else famous, otherwise we will not understand who these are on the screen and why they are great work. I do not understand the meaning of such a compression of meaning, given that "Genius" is not a commercial production, and Grandey was certainly aware that the film would not be projected in any cinema. In fact, there is one reason that may cause people to watch the "Genius", and these are the actors who have been adored for centuries. I respect and like Nicole Kidman, Judd Law and Colin Firth, but I did not feel any of them put a heart in their characters. These are just sketches, the next day in a movie that will be watched and (maybe) liked, just because big stars are playing inside. There's a scene in which Law reads Wolfe's dedication to Perkins. In male tears and patos, two big actors are forced to hang in the calves in a weak scenario. It is sad, but we who love the books and want to watch more films about the craft, the labor that is cast, but remains in the shadow, once again we are confronted with the possibility of something extraordinary. Because of the elementary desire to please, "Genius" is one of my biggest disappointments. Michael Grandee's debut is a cynical "Hollywood film," without respect for the viewer and the written word.