The movie industry has long survived on so-called “biopics” of real people of note. It is not surprising, therefore, that two examples of the genre are currently in release.
Blue Moon attempts to depict the final part of the life of Lorenz Hart, the lyricist who, along with Richard Rodgers, the composer, was responsible for a multitude of memorable songs in the 1920s and 1930s. In fact, the breakdown of that partnership has already been the subject of a highly sanitized version in the film Words and Music — notable only because of its presentation of many of the team’s songs.
Nothing could provide a greater contrast than Blue Moon.
Here we are presented with a portrait of Hart as he reacts to the enormous success, on opening night, of his former partner’s collaboration with Oscar Hammerstein II in the iconic Oklahoma!
Hart is shown as an embittered, jealous drunk, angry at everyone except himself, though there are times when he is clearly full of self-loathing. Not even his obvious wit can soften the image.
The film is clearly a vanity project in which director Richard Linklater collaborates with screenwriter Robert Kaplow.
Filmed entirely in a bar and essentially in real time, the film wallows in Hart’s misery, depicting him as a sex-obsessed, small-minded man, hell-bent on self-destruction. It is not a pretty sight. What is more distressing is that the film simply reiterates the same ugly theme over and over again. Indeed, it opens with a long monologue by Hart — far too long — and then simply embroiders it continually for the rest of the movie.
One can admire the director rising to the challenge of filming in a small space throughout; one can admire, at times, the acerbic dialogue; one can be occasionally diverted when famous people, such as E. B. White and an obnoxiously precocious 12-year-old Stephen Sondheim, make cameo appearances; one can even find some small pleasure in hearing some of the songwriters’ hits played in the piano background. But Blue Moon, brilliantly acted as it is — particularly by Ethan Hawke as Hart — and artistically filmed, very soon outlives its welcome. Negativity can be very boring.
On the other hand, Nuremberg is a fascinating, though decidedly fictionalized, account of the trial of the Nazi leaders — a subject that was memorably explored in Judgment at Nuremberg.
Here the focus is on the relationship between the Nazi leaders, particularly Hermann Göring (Russell Crowe), and a psychiatrist, Douglas Kelley (Rami Malek). While much of the depiction of the trial is accurate, it should be noted that, for dramatic purposes, the latter’s actual participation in the proceedings has been exaggerated.
The result, thanks to the fine acting of the cast and excellent work by writer-director James Vanderbilt, is intriguing, surprisingly suspenseful — given that we are all familiar with the general outcome — and, above all, a timely reminder of the horrors of the Third Reich.
Indeed, it is obvious that the film is intended to have political reference to the way the creators view the world today. Whether one subscribes to that view or not, Nuremberg remains both an arresting and fascinating reminder of a horrible past — and perhaps a warning about the present.
Your voice matters! Join the conversation by submitting a Letter to the Editor here.
