Dir. Curtis Hanson, US, 2005, 130 mins
Cast: Cameron Diaz, Toni Collette, Shirley Maclaine, Mark Feurestein, Ken Howard
A lot of critics are going to refer to this film as a chick flick, but it’s much too clever for that. Admittedly it is a film about chicks, but these are no two-dimensional stereotypes. The film is a great example of how good writing – in this case from the original novel by Jennifer Weiner and the screenplay adaptation by Susannah Grant who also penned Erin Brockovich – can give females actors a good meaty role with which to shine.
The story centres round two sisters, partygirl Maggie played by Cameron Diaz and Toni Collette’s steady, dependable Rose, up to and after a huge rift in their relationship. The accomplished performances of these two actresses are what keep the film far from descending into stereotype.
The girls have been motherless since childhood and overindulged by a guilty father, a situation that the gorgeous Maggie in particular has always turned to her advantage. For her men, and for that matter most people, are there to be exploited, with little or no other purpose.
Diaz’s Maggie is thoroughly dislikeable at the beginning. A selfish, shallow individual who thinks nothing of ‘borrowing’ her sisters money, jewellery, those fabulous shoes and worse. One of those people who one feels needs a good slap and the lovely Diaz plays her in all her annoying glory.
The scene when the two sisters clash is deeply emotional and played with such absence of over-the-top melodrama as to almost guarantee both performers a nod at Oscar time.
In the aftermath, Maggie flees to a Florida retirement community, armed with knowledge of a long-lost grandmother Ella, a sterling performance from Shirley Maclaine. Rose at the same time rethinks her life as a successful, but ultimately bored lawyer and gives up her job to become, through a series of Maggie-related circumstances, a dog walker.
Now in synopsis, the film may sound quirky or sentimental, but writer Grant has filled the characters’ mouths with such witty and original lines that there is no time for ‘Aww shucks’ moments here. As produced by Ridley and Tony Scott, there has obviously been a strong momentum to take the film out of the ordinary, and all concerned deliver the goods. For instance, the occupants of the retirement community in particular are well researched, functioning and fully rounded characters, where usually in Hollywood movies, old folk are either bumbling or ‘hilariously’ foul-mouthed, or sometimes both.
These characters, who interact most with Maggie’s character and bring her some kind of responsible perspective on life, are given just as much care in development and almost equal screen time to the three female stars. The film is all the better for it.
It is down to her relationship with them that she comes to see there are some things in life that cannot easily be dismissed, particularly the unique bond of friendship and trust between two sisters. When Rose trades with Maggie the differing memories of their mother’s death, it could not be made more clear the chalk and cheese nature of their two personalities and how they are all the more balanced for having each other.
The weakest characters are probably the two leading men. Mark Feuerstein as Rose’s handsome, romantic boyfriend and Ken Howard as their hen-picked father Michael. However, their performances are still high class and counteract well with those of the female hard-hitters who command the film.
We can only hope that the film does not find itself marginalised in the chick-flick league. There’s a great deal more to this than some high-heeled Jimmy Choos and nice hairdos. It’s not the shoes the audience will be talking about as they leave the theatre.
Joyce Dundas
|
