Author: Alexander Larman

  • Prince Andrew no more

    It’s all over for Prince Andrew or, as he is now known, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. The former Duke of York, ex-trade envoy and, for all we know, Grand Pooh-Bah of Kazakhstan, has been stripped of every one of his titles. Andrew has also been ejected from his Windsor mansion by his brother, the King.

    In a terse, angry statement, Buckingham Palace that said that: “His Majesty has today initiated a formal process to remove the style, titles and honors of Prince Andrew. Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. His lease on Royal Lodge has, to date, provided him with legal protection to continue in residence. Formal notice has now been served to surrender the lease and he will move to alternative private accommodation. These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him. Their Majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse.”

    And, with those 109 words – six more than the original statement that sent this rather tarnished Adam out of his garden of Eden, or at least the Royal Lodge that he had been living in, rent-free for decades – Andrew was removed into banishment.

    The language of the statement is unprecedented. “Censures” is a word that is particularly damning. So, too, is the statement’s sign off: that the Royals’ ‘thoughts and utmost sympathies’ are with abuse survivors.

    No doubt some will still choose to defend Andrew. Seven percent of the public expressed sympathy for Andrew this week, despite the publication of Virginia Giuffre’s memoir. Yes, 93 percent of Brits may have turned their back on Andrew, but it’s still remarkable that anyone is willing to stick up for Andrew.

    Perhaps they are entitled to, just as there are those who believe that Elvis is living in platonic bliss somewhere. But the realists will see that Mr. Andrew Windsor, as we can now, finally, call him, has been served the punishment that his arrogant, selfish actions have merited all along.

    Andrew can skulk in some ignominious corner of the Sandringham Estate in Norfolk, England for the rest of his days. Few would see that as anything other than a fitting judgment on a man who refused to believe, even when confronted with the most damning of evidence, that he had done anything wrong. Posterity, and his public, will contend otherwise.

  • Del Toro’s Frankenstein deserves the big screen

    Del Toro’s Frankenstein deserves the big screen

    If you want to see Guillermo del Toro’s no-expense-spared adaptation of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein this Halloween, you’ll have to hope that you’re living in a major city with an arthouse cinema. That is because, as part of the Faustian deal that Netflix strikes with the filmmakers whom it gives blank checks to realize their dream projects, the pictures that they make get only the most token of cinematic releases before they are sent onto the streaming service, there to become part of the algorithm for all eternity. This has been the fate – albeit one willingly entered into – that has befallen films from the likes of David Fincher, Kathryn Bigelow and Martin Scorsese, but somehow it’s all the more depressing in the case of Frankenstein, del Toro’s passion project of many decades standing. If ever a film not only deserved but positively needed to be seen on the big screen, it’s this one.

    Del Toro has adapted the famous Gothic novel with a reasonable degree of fidelity, but he has also brought in aspects of the famous Universal Studios pictures from the early Thirties, Frankenstein and its superior sequel Bride of Frankenstein. While he retains the basic structure and characterisation of Shelley’s original, concerning a scientist who creates life but at a terrible cost, there are new characters – enter Christoph Waltz’s apparently charming arms dealer Harlander, who offers to fund Victor Frankenstein’s research into creating life, at a price – and a more redemptive approach towards Jacob Elordi’s Creature. Here, he is portrayed less as a murderous brute and more as a noble savage, coming to terms with both his immortality (a del Toro addition that works well) and his cursed status.

    Yet ultimately this is a well-trodden story that is told straight, without any attempts to make the saga seem “relevant” or “contemporary”. Oscar Isaac’s Byronic Victor is a dashing hero in the first half, told from his perspective, and a snivelling villain in the second, told from that of the Creature. He is undeniably a scientific pioneer, but also arrogant and lecherous; del Toro sensibly switches Mia Goth’s character of Elizabeth from being Victor’s betrothed to that of his younger brother William’s fiancée, thereby creating a love triangle of sorts which is only complicated when Elordi’s (surprisingly hot) Creature also forms a tendresse for her. This, naturally, enables del Toro to recreate his usual Beauty and the Beast themes, as last seen to Oscar-winning effect in The Shape of Water.

    If one wished to criticise the film, it feels its length at two and a half hours (this is where streaming may win out, as there’s an obvious midway point for a break) and, for a film supposedly billed as horror, it isn’t remotely frightening. The Creature is pitiable and noble rather than terrifying, and although there are several instances of creative throat-ripping gore – a del Toro specialty – this is less an exercise in shock tactics than it is a mournful examination of man’s overreach, complete with allusions to Paradise Lost and “Ozymandias”. The latter, of course, was written by Shelley’s husband Percy Bysshe, thereby providing a nice literary Easter egg for those so inclined.

    I did miss the intellectual cut and thrust that was found on stage between Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller in Nick Dear’s 2011 play, in which Frankenstein was presented as a Faustus-esque truth-seeker and the Creature took on aspects of Milton’s Satan. Yet set against this is del Toro’s signature lush costume and production design (Kate Hawley and Tamara Deverell both deserve Oscars), to-die-for cinematography by Dan Laustsen and a beautifully evoked sense of Gothic romance.

    This has been del Toro’s most eagerly awaited film for years, and after the relative disappointment of Crimson Peak, it proves that this kind of rapturous, beautiful cinema is not yet dead. So, this Halloween, give yourself a treat, rather than a trick, and get to the nearest place showing Frankenstein. There, you can wallow in its aesthetic glories, and breathe a sigh of relief that Netflix, for all its faults, is still bankrolling work as individual and striking as this.

  • Why was Steven Soderbergh’s Star Wars film rejected?

    Why was Steven Soderbergh’s Star Wars film rejected?

    Ever so often, a film project – especially one that never ended up happening – emerges into the public domain to a mixture of disbelief and disappointment. So it has proved with Steven Soderbergh’s Star Wars film, tentatively entitled The Hunt for Ben Solo. The picture was to have been a sequel to the little-loved The Rise of Skywalker and focused on Adam Driver’s character Kylo Ren, aka Ben Solo, the son of Han Solo and Princess Leia who finds himself torn between the noble impulses of the Force and the more dastardly influence of the Dark Side.

    Given that Soderbergh is nobody’s idea of a conventional blockbuster director, the results would, at the very least, have been interesting. He had worked with Driver on the 2017 comedy Logan Lucky and clearly established a good rapport with him: good enough, by his account, to work with the actor on spec developing a new adventure in a galaxy far, far away. Driver called the project “one of the coolest fucking scripts I had ever been a part of” and said that, after enjoying his initial experience working on Star Wars, “I had been talking about doing another one since 2021. Kathleen [Kennedy] had reached out. I always said: ‘With a great director and a great story, I’d be there in a second.’ I loved that character and loved playing him.”

    Driver described the film as “handmade and character-driven,” comparing it to The Empire Strikes Back, and, implicitly, the much-loved Andor, which was widely acclaimed for taking a series that has traditionally been aimed at children and adolescents and focusing it towards adults instead. Certainly, the Driver-Soderbergh pairing was tempting enough for Kennedy and Lucasfilm to informally greenlight the film, paying Soderbergh’s regular collaborator Scott Z. Burns $3 million to work up a screenplay (Driver and Soderbergh were unpaid) and putting the full package together for Lucasfilm’s owners Disney for their approval. And then matters went awry.

    According to Driver and Soderbergh, the reaction of Disney chiefs Bob Iger and Alan Bergman was simple incomprehension. The Ren-Ben Solo character dies heroically and redemptively in The Rise of Skywalker, becoming one with the Force, and as far as Iger and Bergman were concerned, there did not need to be any further exploration of the character; any idea of his being resurrected was complete anathema to them. Kennedy and Lucasfilm were not only surprised, but upset. As Soderbergh remarked in a BlueSky post, “in the aftermath of the ‘HFBS’ situation, I asked Kathy Kennedy if LFL had ever turned in a finished movie script for greenlight to Disney and had it rejected. She said no, this was a first.”

    The question as to why this has really happened has now begun to preoccupy conspiracy theorists and industry watchers alike. Development on the film – which had the working title Quiet Leaves – had begun in earnest and it was expected that it would be the next live-action Star Wars picture, following on from Ryan Gosling’s Star Wars: Starfighter, which is currently in production, and the dreadful-looking The Mandalorian & Grogu, which is being inflicted on cinemas next year. It has been suggested that the reason for the film being cancelled was because Iger, who is to step down from Disney next year, wanted to anoint Bergman as his successor and did not want there to be any potentially dicey (and expensive) outstanding projects hanging over them.

    That a Star Wars film – directed by an Oscar-winning filmmaker and starring one of the most popular and interesting actors working today – might even be seen as a risk says a lot about how tainted the brand has been in recent years. (It should also be noted that Soderbergh has not had a serious commercial hit since Magic Mike in 2012.) Certainly, it had the potential to be better than the ultimately underwhelming sequel trilogy (and definitely than the appalling Last Jedi), and, unsurprisingly, there is a fan campaign under way to make the film happen.

    Yet Driver and Soderbergh both consider themselves relieved from the necessity of keeping schtum about the picture, which implies it has joined the ranks of intriguing unmade films that litter Hollywood, and remains a “what if” to be reckoned with. Still, we’ll always have Andor.

  • Is Jeremy Strong our John Cazale?

    Is Jeremy Strong our John Cazale?

    If you’re a big Bruce Springsteen fan, then this weekend’s new release, Deliver Me from Nowhere, will be one of the year’s most eagerly awaited releases. But more-casual fans of the Boss – and I include myself in this category, despite a great admiration for a vast amount of the Springsteen recorded canon – may find the film, which focuses on the recording of his notoriously sparse Nebraska album in the early Eighties, a strange mixture of hard-going and unedifying. Jeremy Allen White may be an award-winning actor for his role in The Bear, but he neither looks like Springsteen nor sounds like him, and Scott Cooper’s film offers the actor little to work with, other than some rote daddy trauma that, we are supposed to infer, has led to all the troubles and difficulties that finally led to Great Art.

    The film does, however, have a saving grace – and it’s a considerable one – in the form of Jeremy Strong, who plays Springsteen’s manager Jon Landau. On paper, it’s a thin role, the kind of all-purpose mentor-cheerleader character who appears in virtually all biopics to tell us how talented the protagonist is, even when his actions seem to fall short of greatness. Yet Strong brings a wired intensity to the part that makes the film come alive every time he’s on screen. A million miles away from his star-making character, Kendall Roy in Succession, his Landau is a decent, thoughtful man who does not resent his status as Springsteen’s representative on earth, but instead sees his role as John the Baptist to the other man’s savage messiah. It is a tricky task to make goodness – the kind of dutiful, unglamorous goodness that exists a million times a day, but seldom gets depicted on screen – dramatically interesting, but Strong excels at it.

    Following on from his Oscar-nominated turn as the Machiavellian Roy Cohn in last year’s super-controversial The Apprentice, Strong seems to be cornering the market in mentors, good and nefarious alike. Next up is Mark Zuckeberg in Aaron Sorkin’s belated sequel to The Social Network, and it is a given that Strong will own the role. He is one of those rare American actors who is incapable of giving a bad, or dishonest, performance; for all his much-ridiculed method acting, which he is said to have learned at the feet of his mentor Daniel Day-Lewis, he remains an electrifying, wholly surprising presence on screen.

    I’ve been trying to figure out who Strong reminds me of, and it came to me the other day in a moment of blinding clarity. The late actor John Cazale, who died of lung cancer aged 42, has a deserved reputation as a peerless performer on stage and screen alike, for the simple reason that all five films he made – including The Godfather I and II, The Conversation, Dog Day Afternoon and The Deer Hunter – were nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars, and three of them won. Like Strong, he was an actor devoid of ego on-screen, whose saturnine demeanor could be turned either to weakness – as in his doomed Fredo Corleone in the Godfather films – or something shiftier, as in The Conversation. He was an actor’s actor who never did anything cheap, crass or uninteresting, and he died in Meryl Streep’s arms. There are, admittedly, worse ways to be regarded by posterity.

    Cazale’s reputation has never diminished in the decades since he died, and so it is that I increasingly believe that Strong will be regarded in a similar fashion by future generations. Thankfully, he’s still a relatively young man at 46, and, all being well, we can expect decades of interesting, challenging and honest work from him. Cazale was robbed of the opportunity to go on to household name status by his untimely demise, but let us hope that his true successor is able to steal films from the supposed leads for years to come.

  • Have the Virginia Giuffre revelations got Prince Andrew sweating?

    Have the Virginia Giuffre revelations got Prince Andrew sweating?

    It is a staple of Gothic fiction that the malefactor is often caught out by a document or apparition that appears from beyond the grave. And so it appeared for Britain’s scandal-riddled Prince Andrew, ever since it was announced that Virginia Giuffre, who the now-former Duke of York allegedly had sexual relations with when he was 41 and she was 17, was posthumously publishing a memoir, entitled Nobody’s Girl, in which she offered candid accounts of what, precisely, happened with Andrew, courtesy of the disgraced sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Everyone – including the royal family – braced for impact, and the decision to remove Andrew’s title and Order of the Garter must surely have been dictated by this latest humiliation.

    Although Nobody’s Girl is not published until next week, excerpts have now been released to newspapers and magazines on both sides of the Atlantic, and it is a strange mixture of the newsworthy and the unremarkable. Giuffre once again recounts how she had sex with Prince Andrew three times, courtesy of Epstein’s pimp, Ghislaine Maxwell, and how she was paid $15,000 by Epstein to keep the duke happy. She describes the actual sex as being unremarkable, if tending towards the fetishistic – “He was particularly attentive to my feet, caressing my toes and licking my arches” – and the whole thing was over in less than half an hour.

    The picture painted of Andrew is certainly unflattering and aligns closely with that Giuffre had already said in various court depositions – how she was taken to the exclusive London nightclub Tramp, despite being underage, and how the duke “was sort of a bumbling dancer, and I remember he sweated profusely.” (This, of course, led to Andrew’s reputational downfall in his 2019 Newsnight interview, in which he said, straight-faced, that he was medically incapable of perspiring.) The most damning statement is Giuffre’s reflection that “he was friendly enough, but still entitled – as if he believed having sex with me was his birthright.” After all, in her recollection, Andrew was the second son of Elizabeth II, and Giuffre was just one of the innumerable girls that Epstein provided for him, as if on a platter.

    Andrew, of course, denies all claims of wrongdoing and also has suggested that not only did he never have sex with Giuffre, but that he has no recollection of meeting her. Few are convinced. Resurfaced emails suggested that he and Epstein were “in this together” and that when the fuss had died down, “we’ll play some more soon.” These were far more damaging than anything that has so far been released from Nobody’s Girl, because the association with Epstein – which lasted far longer than Andrew had admitted – is so toxic that it will hang over him like a nuclear cloud for the rest of his life.

    With this calumny removing any chance of a public comeback, Andrew will now be grasping at what little comfort he can seize from the situation. It is highly unlikely, on present evidence, that criminal proceedings will be brought against him, and even if they were to be opened in the US, it is highly unlikely that an extradition attempt would succeed. It is widely believed that no member of the royal family would ever be tried in a criminal court in the UK – noblesse oblige dies hard – and so it is likely that Andrew will remain at liberty, even with his reputation shot to naught. Likewise, there is no revelation from Giuffre’s book – so far, at any rate – that dramatically worsens his situation. Yet there is every chance that, as the Epstein emails slowly drip-feed into public view, there is worse to come, and one could hardly blame the banned old Duke of York for lying awake at night awaiting the next revelation – and sweating profusely at the thought of it.

  • The Chair Company is the workplace comedy we need right now

    The Chair Company is the workplace comedy we need right now

    If you watched The Paper and, like most of its viewers, remained unimpressed by its comparatively limp updating of The Office – and I’m still haunted by the sheer awfulness of Sabrina Impacciatore’s performance in it – then you’ll be delighted to hear that Tim Robinson’s new show, The Chair Company, which is made by HBO, is the dark workplace comedy that the world needs right now. While it’s too early to say whether it’s a true classic along the lines of The Office, or a less impressive but still enjoyable achievement, it represents another success for Robinson, who is inexorably turning himself into one of the most interesting comedians and writers in the industry.

    If you’ve seen Robinson’s 2024 film Friendship, in which he and Paul Rudd gleefully dismantled the bromance comedy through a mixture of sharp writing and beautifully surreal comedy, then you’ll have a reasonable idea of the tone to expect, as well as the humor contained herein. Robinson plays William Ronald Trosper, a low-level factotum who designs shopping malls in Ohio and feels underappreciated at work, despite having been made project lead on their latest endeavor.

    Trosper is chronically insecure. After a contretemps with a waitress in the opening scene, in which he refuses to believe she has not recently visited a mall, he petulantly demands to take half a devilled egg home from the restaurant and then shouts, “I swear I have the worst pillow in town!” that night. So when an unfortunate furniture-based accident results in his public humiliation while he’s making a key presentation, Trosper becomes obsessed with tracking down the company that made the chair, only to be sucked into the eponymous conspiracy.

    For anyone who is familiar with Robinson’s work as a comedian or has seen his Netflix series I Think You Should Leave with Tim Robinson, The Chair Company will be a bracing mixture of the comfortingly familiar and the surreally innovative. Once again, Robinson is playing a furious man-child who has convinced himself, in the usual tradition of sitcoms, that he is the only sane man around madmen, and once again, his inability to read even the most basic of social signals results in his ostracization by those around him. (There is an extended, hilarious sequence in which he tries to bait an elderly co-worker into doing herself an injury by producing a succession of sugary treats for her).

    But this time round, there is a wider game at play and this enables Robinson and his co-creator Zach Kanin to have an almost indecent amount of fun channeling the spirit of Seventies thrillers such as The Parallax View and Three Days of the Condor, albeit in a more broadly comedic register than before. Certainly, Robinson is nobody’s idea of a Robert Redford or Warren Beatty, but that’s the whole point: his eyes dart shiftily around, daring anyone or anything to cause him offense, before his social awkwardness results in yet more outrageous behavior. This is cringe comedy at its most sophisticated and hilarious.

    At a time when Nate Bargatze’s determinedly gentle, apolitical comedy has made him the most popular comedian in the country, Robinson might be too strange and uncompromising for mainstream tastes. If so, The Chair Company should probably not be their point of introduction to him. Yet for those who thought Friendship perhaps the funniest and most quotable mainstream American comedy of the past two decades, then this is a worthy and thoroughly hilarious follow-up that it confirms its star and co-creator as capable of dark and warped genius.

  • Diane Keaton was a true original

    Diane Keaton was a true original

    The death of the actress Diane Keaton at the age of 79 was greeted with an understandable mixture of sadness and surprise. Sadness, because the death of one of the leading ladies of the Seventies and Eighties (and beyond) robs the film industry of one of its true originals, and surprise, because nobody had any idea that she had been unwell. Yet it is somehow typical of Keaton – perhaps the only woman in history to have dated the wildly disparate likes of Woody Allen and Warren Beatty – to depart the set in a wholly inimitable way. Nothing about her life and career was in any way typical or predictable, so it is equally fitting that her end should be equally confounding, too.

    For those of a certain age, Diane Keaton was Annie Hall. There are many pleasures to be had from Woody Allen’s Oscar-winning romantic comedy, but perhaps the greatest one was Keaton’s distinctive and unforgettable performance in the lead. Not for her the usual Manic Pixie Dream Girl clichés. Instead, attired in a distinctive wardrobe of fedora hat, tweed jacket and Oxford bags like a Twenties flapper relocated to Seventies New York, Keaton managed to make her Annie both a fashion icon and a fascinating, relatable and, yes, damn sexy protagonist, whose offbeat love affair with Allen’s Alvy Singer made her into one of the most iconic characters ever seen in cinema. She deservedly won an Oscar for the part.

    Keaton collaborated with Allen a further seven times, and many of these films – including Manhattan, Love and Death and Sleeper – were among the filmmaker’s best, suggesting that the actress’s work with him resulted in a unique alchemy that has seldom been captured elsewhere. Yet even when she wasn’t working with her one-time lover, she managed to be a fascinating presence on screen when used correctly. She played Al Pacino’s increasingly appalled wife Kay in the Godfather films, supplying those brilliant films with a moral center, and was superb in the dark Seventies thriller Looking For Mr Goodbar as a bored schoolteacher who drifts into a twilight netherworld of casual and increasingly risky sexual encounters with eventually fatal results.

    She suffered from a mixture of typecasting and lazy directors in her latter years, with Nancy Meyers’ romantic comedy Something’s Gotta Give, in which she convincingly battled for the attentions of both Jack Nicholson and Keanu Reeves, perhaps the pick of a mediocre bunch. (It was sadly typical of Hollywood’s inability to view her as anything other than quirky that in the 2017 film Hampstead, Brendan Gleeson’s ornery tramp was her love interest.) Yet she was always an interesting presence on screen, even in films that wasted her, and offscreen she was a bright, vivacious figure, refreshingly unpretentious and down to earth.

    Allen, albeit from the perspective of a biased observer, once called her “the finest screen comedienne we’ve ever seen”, and he may well have been correct. She could make audiences laugh themselves silly, and then tear up, with a gesture or a flick of her hair, and her premature end has deprived us of many of the great roles that she might have played as an older actress, including, potentially, a last collaboration with Allen. Still, we must be grateful for what we have, and, in Annie Hall in particular, she left her mark on cinematic history in a way that few others have ever come close to.

  • Why does Jared Leto still have a career?

    Why does Jared Leto still have a career?

    This weekend, Tron: Ares releases across US cinemas, and is expected to make a decent, rather than record-setting, amount of money in its opening weekend. It is a curious film franchise in that neither of the two films that precede it are especially beloved, but both have iconic soundtracks composed, respectively, by electronic music pioneer Wendy Carlos and French electro duo Daft Punk. (The honors this time around fall to Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, aka Nine Inch Nails.) Yet whatever the strengths and weaknesses of Tron: Ares – and the early reviews have not been kind – there is one aspect that can only make audiences groan in anticipation, and that is the casting of its star, Jared Leto.

    It is difficult to describe how spectacular Leto’s fall from public grace has been, and not simply because of incidents reported earlier this year in which he was accused of sexual misconduct with a series of women – claims he denies and that have not resulted in any further action. It is more because Leto, a famously handsome Oscar-winning actor and frontman of the commercially successful band Thirty Seconds To Mars, resembles a cautionary tale for our times. Give a talented, quirky young man all the fame and adulation that he could ever imagine, and watch him teeter under it. Let’s call it Shia LaBeouf syndrome.

    There is no reason why it had to be like this. Leto began his career opposite Claire Danes in the still-excellent Nineties teen series My So-Called Life. He took an apparent delight in dismantling his heartthrob image. He was excellent in films as varied as Terrence Malick’s The Thin Red Line and Mary Harron’s American Psycho, collaborated with David Fincher on Fight Club and Panic Room and was a convincingly vanity-free Mark Chapman, John Lennon’s assassin, in Chapter 27. Even as his band went stratospheric and he seemed to be lost to music rather than acting, he rebounded with an Oscar-winning performance in Dallas Buyers’ Club as a trans woman dying of AIDS. Back when that film was made in 2013, the idea of a heterosexual male actor playing such a role did not offend wider sensibilities, and Leto, who never broke character during filming, was lauded for his bravery and daring, rather than pilloried for, of all things, acting.

    Unfortunately, the film’s success and acclaim also turned Leto from an interesting and versatile actor into a tiresome attention-seeker. Few could have done anything to rescue Suicide Squad from torpor, admittedly. Yet Leto was not only tedious as the Joker on-screen, but his off-screen pranks – which included giving his co-stars “gifts” of used condoms and live rats – demonstrated that he now began to think of himself as A Great Thespian. As he grandly said a few years ago, “I’m an artist at the end of the day. If I do something risky and you don’t like it, basically, you can kiss my ass.”

    Leto’s “art” has not, so far, resulted in performances that the average cinemagoer would like. He was the worst thing about the otherwise excellent Blade Runner sequel as the blind tech mogul Niander Wallace – in a role earmarked for another musician-actor, David Bowie – and his tic-laden performance as a suspected serial killer in The Little Things was so annoying that when he is finally murdered by an exasperated Rami Malek, it is all you can do not to cheer. But worse was to come. Leto decided that he, too, needed a superhero franchise, and so he appeared as a vampire in the dismal Morbius, which flopped heavily. It was a mark of how bad the film was that it went viral for its perceived shoddiness, and that its desperate distributors Sony re-released it in the hope that it would become a camp classic of sorts: audiences were too savvy to be taken in.

    On a personal level, he (rightly) became a laughingstock March 2020, shortly after the outbreak of Covid and subsequent lockdown, for tweeting, “Wow. 12 days ago I began a silent meditation in the desert. We were totally isolated. No phone, no communication etc. We had no idea what was happening outside the facility.” It reinforced the idea of the actor as solipsistic and out-of-touch, someone whose Art cannot be affected by such trivial things as a global pandemic, and made him seem even more annoying than before.

    Yet Leto still can surprise, in a good way, when he can be bothered. His scenery-chewing performance in Ridley Scott’s House of Gucci as Paolo Gucci, speaking in an accent that sounds like a Little Italy ice cream vendor, was widely panned by critics, but it’s a hilarious piece of opera buffa that peaks when Leto, encased in prosthetics like a circus attraction, says of his imprisoned papa, “how can I think about my line when my father could be dropping the soap!” It demonstrated that Leto can still be an excellent character actor of great versatility – and humor – when he is not trying so damn hard.

    Tron: Ares represents Leto the movie star, and it is a tiresome thing now to see. Yet weirdly, his next performance, as the villainous Skeletor in Masters of the Universe, could be a return to form of some kind. In the Eighties version of the film, Frank Langella stole the show from beneath a ton of make-up as the campy nemesis of He-Man. If Leto channels a similar sense of fun, then a whole new career could open up to him, with this most earnest of actors – or artists – not taking himself so seriously. If so, then he could yet recapture the promise of his earlier career. But if not, we will be stuck with an awful lot more movies like this one, with a lot more irritating, self-regarding performances by an actor who really does know better.

  • Will Dwayne Johnson always be The Rock?

    Will Dwayne Johnson always be The Rock?

    Over the past couple of weeks, two expensive, auteur-driven films with big stars have been released at the American box office, both conscious throwbacks to the kind of Seventies cinema that isn’t supposed to be made any longer. In the case of Paul Thomas Anderson, his Leo DiCaprio-starring Thomas Pynchon fantasia One Battle After Another seems to have been a success by the skin of its (yellowed) teeth: it has already made over $100 million worldwide, helped by excellent reviews and strong word of mouth. But in the case of another A-lister, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, the critical and commercial reception of The Smashing Machine has been rather more muted, suggesting that audiences know what they want from Johnson, and it sure as hell isn’t arthouse fare.

    There comes a point in the careers of many actors who are so bored of being pigeonholed as musclebound lunks that they take on an altogether more challenging and interesting role. Stallone did it in Copland, Jean-Claude Van Damme appeared as himself in the decidedly meta JCVD and Mickey Rourke nearly won an Oscar for The Wrestler, the picture that most closely resembles Johnson’s attempt at respectability. While the last of these was based on a fictitious wrestler, Benny Safdie’s The Smashing Machine tells the life story of the wrestler and MMA fighter Mark Kerr – who is still very much with us. It is constrained by biography, as well, inevitably, an obligation to present its protagonist in a reasonably positive light.

    Johnson is an actor who has always excelled at being liked. Even reports of some of his more bizarre off-screen behavior – urinating in water bottles and handing them to assistants, tardy timekeeping on set, a strange feud with his Fast and Furious co-star Vin Diesel – have done little to tarnish his appeal. His blockbuster films are usually successful, though he was unable to begin his own superhero franchise with DC’s Black Adam, in which he was more convincing as the heroic than villainous incarnation of the character. He appeared to be sliding into well-paid self-parody over the past few years, coasting on screen with a practiced charm that at times saw him turn into a more musclebound version of “Alright, alright, alright” era Matthew McConaughey. Escaping from a straitjacket was a skill that Houdini perfected; might Johnson do the same?

    The major problem with The Smashing Machine, and the reason for its lackluster box office performance, is that it does not appear to know who it has been made for. Audiences who want a rousing sports film with their hero in the lead will be disappointed, on the grounds that Safdie – best known for co-directing the anxiety-inducing Uncut Gems with his brother Josh – has made a strangely muted, decidedly unheroic version of Kerr’s life, which offers almost random vignettes of his existence rather than sticking to any conventional biographical narrative, and concluding in a downbeat, almost shrugging fashion. Yet A24 habitués, who are far more likely to enjoy the film, are also not the obvious audience for a film about MMA that stars the man formerly known as The Rock. Hence the disappointing opening weekend (a mere $6 million at the box office, a third of what it was expected to make) and the indifferent-to-poor response from audiences, who awarded the picture a poor B- CinemaScore.

    There is no denying Johnson’s commitment to the part, which he undoubtedly hoped would win him an Oscar. (The film won the Silver Bear at the Venice Film Festival, the second highest accolade.) He is unrecognizable as Kerr, thanks to prosthetics and a wig, and he manages to strip away any vestige of his usual persona to portray a big, frustrated man whose almost comical disparity in size with his wife, Emily Blunt’s Dawn Staples, makes their scenes together both humorous and poignant. It is, by any reckoning, a brave, even daring performance, which attempts to shrug off the bondage of The Rock forever, but audiences refuse to accept him, or it.

    Johnson will, of course, be fine. There is a supposedly final Fast and Furious film coming in 2027, which he will be returning for, and, more interestingly, there is a new Martin Scorsese film, billed as a Hawaii-set answer to Goodfellas and The Departed, which is also set to reunite the wrestler-turned-actor with Blunt again alongside Scorsese’s usual collaborator DiCaprio. Yet The Smashing Machine’s failure will undoubtedly hurt more than all his various bouts in the ring, and even this most cheerful and charismatic of public figures might be forgiven for experiencing a twinge of self-doubt as a result. Can Dwayne Johnson, actor, ever be taken seriously? The jury, alas, remains out.

  • The closest look yet at David Bowie’s mind and imagination

    The closest look yet at David Bowie’s mind and imagination

    What would David Bowie say? The much-missed musician – dead a decade next January – is the beneficiary of a new, bespoke space inside the Victoria & Albert Museum’s East Storehouse outpost. Although Bowie is by no means Britain’s most commercially successful rock star, he is surely its most interesting – and certainly the most chameleonic, making his legacy ripe for serious re-evaluation. Now, thanks to the David Bowie Centre, the curious public can get its closest look yet into the artist’s mind and imagination. And as a bonus, it’s free, too.

    The space is composed of one room with nine rotating displays showing about 200 items. There are, however, another 89,800 items available in the various archives (all of which are on display in gray folders on shelves, in a splendidly Nineteen Eighty-Four-esque touch that no doubt would have amused Bowie), which can be requested by the curious.

    Since Bowie died in 2016 he has only strengthened in repute and popular standing

    What can be readily seen in this inaugural display is fascinating. There are a few crowd-pleasing objects that any Bowie aficionado will readily recognize: his Alexander McQueen-designed tattered Union Jack frock coat, which he wore for his 50th birthday celebrations, for instance, and the original lyrics for “Heroes.” But this gallery also provides a deep dive into Bowie obscurity, which is likely to make prospective scholars and biographers feel a mixture of excitement and panic at the sheer onslaught of the material available.

    There’s a letter from Apple Records curtly turning Bowie down in 1968 – “We don’t feel he is what we’re looking for at the moment” – and another from his father, Haywood, rather sweetly providing a reference for his son, saying that the 19-year-old David has “a good name in showbusiness as a performer, as a person and as a real trooper.”

    There’s an emotional fan letter from Lady Gaga – “I feel as though my entire career has been an artistic plea for you to notice me” – and some random notes of Bowie’s, in which, inter alia, he assesses his place in the British music firmament, claiming that he feels closer to Marshall McLuhan, who coined the phrase “the medium is the message,” than he does to Robbie Williams.

    In another note, he remarks that the reason Oasis never broke America was that “swearing, fighting and doing drugs are de rigueur” already there. All the while, a giant screen plays suitably fragmented snatches of Bowie videos and live performances on a two-hour loop. Designed by the London and Paris-based architectural company IDK, the center is bold and adventurous and of a piece with Bowie’s aesthetic daring.

    You see a restless, questioning intelligence that never faltered until Bowie’s extraordinary exit stage left

    Since Bowie died in 2016 he has only strengthened in repute and popular standing, continuing to inspire filmmakers, musicians and artists from beyond the grave. A particularly nice touch in the archive is that Bowie kept a vast number of fan-made objects and trinkets that were sent to him. For a man who often seemed remote, even disengaged from the world, especially after the 2004 heart attack that led him to quit public performance, it is an affecting reminder that he genuinely cared about being liked. While there are no missteps – because there couldn’t be – I would question the emphasis in a very brief exhibition of an entire display devoted to “Jungle and Drum & Bass,” which ended up inspiring Bowie’s weakest album of the 1990s, Earthling. Here, there seems a curatorial reach to marry Bowie with the diverse East End setting of the center, and it might end up being a reach too far. More attention is paid to the forgotten late 1990s gangster film Everybody Loves Sunshine than, say, The Prestige or The Last Temptation of Christ.

    The real coup here is the “Unrealized Projects” section. The revelation that just before he died, Bowie was planning an 18th-century musical named – naturally! – The Spectator is fascinating, as is his desire to preview the Outside album with a lavish theatrical show in Mumbai. You see a restless, questioning intelligence that never faltered until his extraordinary exit stage left.

    This is not merely a major coup for the V&A – just imagine how many American institutions would have killed to get their hands on the Bowie archive! – but probably the most thrilling venture into the psyche of a great artistic figure in recent memory. Bowie may have sung of “a god-awful small affair” but this mighty, wholly rewarding venture is anything but. And I suspect that the erstwhile Thin White Duke would have loved it, too.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s October 13, 2025 World edition.