They are the satellites around the stars – and sometimes, they become the centre of the film’s universe.
Have you seen Eat Pray Love? It’s the kind of movie where the heroine, who goes to Rome to rediscover the pleasures of food, is played by Julia Roberts, who looks like she’s never had a square meal in her life. This is, in other words, hardly a must-see motion picture event (and I didn’t see it when it came to our theatres), but movies that underwhelm on screen can often redeem themselves on television, where, shrunk to a size that suits their ambitions and achievements, the missteps don’t seem all that egregious. It is with this hope that I watched the film on TV, but I quickly became aware that even the smallness of the screen wasn’t going to help this one. Here’s Julia Roberts whining in Rome, about not being able to love food the way she used to. Here she is, whining in India, about not being able to pray, before she goes on to whine in Bali about not finding love.
The film was generally insufferable (David Edelstein in New York magazine called it a “golden turd,” the descriptor most likely owing to Robert Richardson’s sunlit cinematography) – about halfway through, I was drooping like the artfully arranged noodles on Roberts’ plate, until Richard Jenkins walked into her life and made me sit up. You may know Jenkins, as I did, from his work in the fantastic television series Six Feet Under – or you may not know him at all. Actors like Jenkins exist so that stars like Roberts can fall back on them and rise to greater glories. They’re some sort of human trampoline, and that elasticity is the thing that defines great character actors. They can do anything, anywhere. In Friends with Benefits, Jenkins is Justin Timberlake’s Alzheimer’s-afflicted father who doesn’t like to wear pants. He’s a bit of comic relief. He’s also wallpaper. But sometimes, character actors luck out and get a scene or three that makes them, for an instant, the centre of the universe, the sun, dwarfing even the stars around them. In Eat Pray Love, on a terrace in India, Jenkins gets one of those scenes.
Before this moment, we’re led to believe that he’s a jerk, a loud Texan who happens to be in the ashram that Roberts visits in order to justify the middle third of the film’s title. He calls her “Groceries” because she eats so much, and he seems to exist solely to mock Roberts and her spiritual quest. (He may be a stand-in for the audience.) But gradually, they become, if not friends, at least some kind of two-member, away-from-America support group, and he lets her in on his great trauma, the reason he’s here in India. This scene is the textbook definition of an actor’s delight, pages and pages of monologue with nothing but cutaways for the costar (Roberts), and Jenkins tears into its meat like a hungry lion that’s lost its way and wandered into the pretty landscapes of this chick flick. He begins to narrate his story, looking into the distance, away from Roberts, away from the camera. And this silly film finally gets itself a bit of a soul.
I suspect Jenkins poured himself into this part because character actors (I suppose you could also call them supporting actors) don’t usually get such distinctive showcases in mainstream cinema, whether Hollywood or Bollywood, where they are typically called upon to play instantly identifiable stereotypes. Like itinerants with luggage, they wheel their well-established personas through film after film, saving screenwriters the trouble of thinking up elaborate backstories. Just as stars embody, more or less, the same persona throughout their careers – you’ll never find James Stewart, for instance, playing a rapist, though there are certainly exceptions like Henry Fonda, who played a cold-blooded murderer in Once Upon a Time in the West – character actors are usually typecast as “the sinister and odd-looking bloke from a strange country” (Peter Lorre or Vincent Schiavelli), or “the oafish but essentially good-hearted man who’s always two steps behind everyone else” (John C Reilly), or “the intelligent, dignified black woman who makes your movie at least look like it has colour-blind casting” (Viola Davis).
In Bollywood, we’ve had Om Prakash (“the kindly, bumbling uncle you can’t help adoring, and whose female counterpart is Leela Mishra”) and Lalita Pawar (“the scary lady who’s evil incarnate, at least until shown the error of her ways or cast against type in films like Anand and Anari”) and Ranjeet (“the mountain of muscle who’ll rape anything, even a lampshade”) – whenever they appeared, we smiled and welcomed them like guests we loved having, or else, in the case of Ranjeet or Pran, dreaded what they’d do next. But there’s a small change happening in the multiplex cinema, where little-seen actors are taking familiar parts (that would have been played, earlier, by an established character actor) and making them seem mint fresh, as if we’d never seen these characters on screen before. The nervous journalist (Brijendra Kala) of Paan Singh Tomar, the boozy mother (Dolly Ahluwalia) of Vicky Donor, or even Emraan Hashmi in Shanghai, a leading man resized (not reduced) to character actor, with rotted teeth and a paunch and a slow-spreading idiot-grin – the Richard Jenkinses may have begun to trickle in.
Lights, Camera, Conversation… is a weekly dose of cud-chewing over what Satyajit Ray called Our Films Their Films. An edited version of this piece can be found here.
Copyright ©2012 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Niranjan
July 20, 2012
” Lalita Pawar (“the scary lady who’s evil incarnate, at least until shown the error of her ways or cast against type in films like Anand and Anari”) ”
You left out a nice gem from Shri 420.
LikeLike
Karthik
July 21, 2012
With all due respect, I don’t understand what you are stating here. Are you saying that supporting actors are getting fleshed out characters nowadays or, the opposite of it?
LikeLike
rameshram
July 21, 2012
Batman returns: like a meth addled Hunchback of notre dame by a confused old reconteur. Batman as a viable superhero proposition was always under fire from his gayitude, his lack of superpowers and his not having a steady girlfriend. The new nolan flic converts batman into some kind of a momento protagonist with a mobile.
Maybe Murugadoss will make a viable tamil adaptation one day.
LikeLike
Manreet S Someshwar (@manreetss)
July 21, 2012
‘sort of human trampoline’ – brilliant! Take a bow Mr Rangan!
LikeLike
Raj Balakrishnan
July 21, 2012
Have you seen The Dark Knight Rises? Greatest superhero movie. I was completely blown away. Waiting for your review.
LikeLike
rameshram
July 21, 2012
Raj balakrishnan:
My capsule above was about TDKR. I was misdirecting intentionally.
LikeLike
KayKay
July 21, 2012
Fuck Murugadoss! If celluloid was underwear, he’d be a shit stain that wouldn’t wash out after 5 rinses.
LikeLike
rameshram
July 21, 2012
I can see it now. Ajit and tamannah . Tamannah spreads her legs wide in a short orange skirt , ajit has a handlebar mouchtache and drives the batmobile on the beach in a shot between her legs 😉
LikeLike
KayKay
July 21, 2012
Raj, I loved TDKR, though I’m not blind to it’s faults. A sluggish beginning, overlong running time, a villain that couldn’t quite match the sheer ferocity of Ledger’s Joker (not that I thought they would be able to, the terrific Tom Hardy nothwithstanding) and a plot that didn’t feel as organic as the previous 2 installments. But it’s rousing climax, an ace cast not to mention Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine finally getting some much needed scenery to chew and seen in context with Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, it’s a triumphant conclusion to the tale of Bruce Wayne and collectively, a trilogy that finally rescued the Batman story from the jaws of increasingly grotesque and preening villains from the last quartet of movies (the 1st and 2nd Tim Burton movies remain at best a curio and the 3rd and 4th Joel Schumacher ficks were and remain, quite rightfully, shit).
LikeLike
KayKay
July 21, 2012
Eat, Pray Fuck & Shit is a monumental failure from a narrative perspective. It fumbles the Golden Rule of story-telling: if you want the audience rooting for a privileged white woman on her “journey of discovery”, said privileged white woman had best engender some sympathy from the get go. A successfully published writer, given a hefty advance that practically self-funds her sojourn of food, faith and fucking who embarks on the trip after cheating on and then dumping her husband, played by the vapid Roberts ( Sandra Bullock 10 years ago could probably pull it off) is a recipe for how NOT to do these type of stories.
How to get the whole “White People Getting a Second Chance at Life Circa The Exotic East” right?
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.
LikeLike
vijay
July 22, 2012
Gaaliwood’s obsession with Batman and Spiderman is borderline laughable. I wish someone went James Homes on these franchises.
LikeLike
rameshram
July 22, 2012
Vijay. in poor taste dude.
Kay kay,
I liked eat pray love (although it probably reminds you of an undesirable type of tourist in south east asia.
Murugadoss can’t do much about that one.
LikeLike
Raj Balakrishnan
July 22, 2012
KayKay,
It may have its drawbacks, but the movie is bloody awesome. I didn’t find the movie long or tedious, was the perfect length for a grand finale. I also thought the opening sequence (Bane being rescued mid-air) was outstanding. And yes, Michael Caine had a good part, others like Joseph Gordon-Levit and Anne Hathway were terrific in their respective roles.
LikeLike
Raj Balakrishnan
July 22, 2012
rameshram,
I guess you didn’t like greatest superhero movie ever. And please don’t give any ideas to Murugadoss. Let him not murder this one like the way he did Momento.
LikeLike
KayKay
July 22, 2012
Yes, I too wish Hollywood would keep recycling the same turgid love stories with a slapped on non-related comedy track and 5 songs with jiggling white boobs to crank out star vehicles for die hard fans to cum in their shorts at the utterance of a single punch line.
Suggest you wait for Thuppu..aakki, and exalt in the rise of another Dark Knight:-)
LikeLike
KayKay
July 22, 2012
I’ll take Tamannah with the spread legs…the rest you can keep, Prof:-)
LikeLike
rameshram
July 22, 2012
” greatest superhero flic ever … until next week.
LikeLike
rameshram
July 23, 2012
Trishna
Is the film Kay Kay wants to see.
Crude but effective michael winterbottom – Anurag Kashyap production that loosely is inspired by Tess of the D’urberville (thomas hardy). It feels like a continental (european) made for TV flic with nondescript Music and camera work, But a tight focussed script and some late payoffs make the boring first half worth it. Freida pinto looks like a bai that cleans the railway station.
LikeLike
vijay
July 23, 2012
Right, thats because when Iam making a point on those Hollywood franchises, Iam indeed using Thupaakki as the benchmark. Maybe I should use Perarasu’s movies as the benchmark next time around, point taken.
LikeLike
venkatesh
July 23, 2012
BR: As far as “character”/side actors go – what did you think of Rutger Hauer’s performance in BladeRunner ?
LikeLike
KayKay
July 23, 2012
You had me at Freida…..
LikeLike
KayKay
July 23, 2012
No, it’s because your usage of the word “laughable” to describe H/Wood’s obsession with comic book heroes suggests a passing fad or Heaven’s Gate type folly which displays an ignorance bordering on naivete of a comic book/graphic novel culture that’s so firmly entrenched in American Literature, comic book geeks are no longer a fringe presence, they’re a vital demographic that make or break a franchise.
If you haven’t spent a sizeable portion of your childhood or adolescence devouring Marvel or DC comics, have never read Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns or Batman:Year One to see just how far you can take the Batman mythos and cannot grasp the fact that long-running titles like Spider-Man & Batman (about 5 decades each) have undergone numerous permutations, reimaginings and reboots, and that their screen incarnations have barely scratched the surface on what they can do with them, then these movies aren’t for you.
Batman and Spidey are Nandi to Hollywood’s Shiva and they’re perfectly aware of how valuable this cow is.
LikeLike
Apu
July 24, 2012
‘Eat, pray and love’ is probably one of the most boring movies I have seen, and I guess my last encounter with Roberts being ‘Pretty Woman’ had something to do with me getting disappointed by her in this movie. And I agree with Kay kay about the ‘get sympathy for the protagonist’ part – she jsut seemed like one more of those dissatisfied-restless-confused women who still think they are teenagers and are out to figure out the world, and thinks that they can get it by going to different places and getting readymade wisdom. I heard the book is better, but after the movie, I did not have courage to handle the book.
Back to your point BR, I agree about Bollywood getting more and more “characters” that people would remember, and they are played well too. The one that comes to mind is the ‘retired school teacher’ in ‘Lage Raho Munnabhai’ – perfect clothes and body language.
LikeLike
rameshram
July 24, 2012
I never had you darling! you’ll get hung in malaysia if I had you.
LikeLike
Shankar
July 25, 2012
TDKR was okay, for me. It seemed like an indian masala film where all the knots were tied properly in the end and everything was spoon fed. Sure, the action sequences were great but I was pretty much rolling my eyes when every single thing was being detailed out. Well, one thing I can say is it was great watching it on IMAX.
LikeLike
menzsam
July 25, 2012
Richard Jenkins was great in Six feet under and was the main character in The Visitor. Its better to watch The Visitor over Eat…
LikeLike
brangan
July 28, 2012
Raj Balakrishnan/Kay Kay: TDKR didn’t work for me. As Kay Kay says, it gets better towards the end, but too much padding, and too many people with too little to do. Ultimately felt a bit hollow. (Maybe IMAX would’ve helped.)
Liked the last reveal though. That sort of winking wit elsewhere would have really helped the film. Also, did anyone else feel that that Bane character was somewhat redundant?
venkatesh: Hauer’s performance there is one of the great “doomed performances” IMO. Very stylised (by Scott), and a perfect balance between human emotion and the inhuman perfection of the staging. I really like that film.
LikeLike