Movie Review: Flightplan and Proof: Blondes, Grim and Dreary
Published November 09, 2005
The play employs melodrama, but also tries to moderate it. Hal, for instance, turns out to be as nice a guy as his face tells us he is, he just has to learn to have faith in Catherine. Claire is more problematic because the script goes back and forth on an ad hoc basis: she became a currency trader in New York to support her demented father and she is genuinely concerned about Catherine; but she's also a shallow yuppie who cares about hair conditioner, nice clothes, and gourmet coffee, as well as a power freak who sells the house she paid for out from under her sister. Plus she has no faith.
Of course we're in no better position to judge Catherine's competence, and to me the heroine's insistence that she be trusted came off as pretty unreasonable. In the real world, her claim to have written the proof would as a matter of course be subject to verification; it's only in romance that you just know who's right and who's wrong. If you doubt, it's a sign there's something wrong with you. Thus, although mathematics provides the central symbol, the script is not a work of mind but of the theatrical craft involved in disguising Catherine as a loser as long as possible. The editing of the masterly Mick Audsley (My Beautiful Laundrette (1985), Sammy and Rosie Get Laid (1987), Dangerous Liaisons (1988), The Grifters (1990)) provides some cinematic enhancement to that craft, but he's a mosaicist not an alchemist.
At her father's memorial service Catherine stomps up to the church lectern and makes an unpardonable speech chastising all the other mourners for not having called or come around during the final five years of his decline. (She's Antigone, she's the Little Red Hen.) We're to think of Catherine as at least potentially mad, and certainly off-putting, yet in the absence of naturalistic character development, or even a modicum of ironic distance from her disheveled emotionality, the romance by default justifies all that she says and does. Catherine acts like a petulant adolescent but the movie sets her up as a noble caretaker and a genius, and also as a girl who's appealing in some way that's meant to be superior to mere social ingratiation.
But the fantasy embodied in the romance regresses even farther back than adolescence. It's an infantile fantasy, really, of not just being daddy's favorite but being chosen, by some mysterious power, to inherit his gift. Catherine ascends to her father's throne, abashing the ordinary, dim-sighted mortals who questioned the line of succession as unlikely. The proof thus identifies Catherine objectively as the "preferred" daughter--I bet a lot of rivalrous siblings would love to have something comparable found among their deceased parents' effects. However well educated the implied target audience for this play is, Proof is not at bottom an entertainment for adults.
- Movie Review: Flightplan and Proof: Blondes, Grim and Dreary
- Published: November 09, 2005
- Type: Review
- Section: Video
- Filed Under: Video: Drama, Video: Romantic Comedies, Video: Suspense and Mystery
- Writer: Alan Dale
- Alan Dale's BC Writer page
- Alan Dale's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments
Hey Aaman,
Thanks for the comment. I think it was the breath on the window that made me realize about The Lady Vanishes. Gave me a point of focus for my carping, anyway.
What's up with Paltrow? This could start a brushfire here on Blogcritics, I suppose, but does anybody like her? I don't know anyone who can stand her and the critics who praise her don't sound like they actually like her but rather like they think they should. She's so classy, and all that. Every time I hear or read something she's said, I can feel my arteries harden. If she were fun to watch I wouldn't care.
Hey Alan,
First, I'd have to say great review, as always. Only if more critics could be as educational and witty as you in their reviews. I agree with Aaman that I didn't see the parallels with "The Lady Vanishes" until you pointed them out as well!
And thank God I'm not the only person who isn't a big fan of Paltrow! It's really quite disturbing to see critics fawning over her while ignoring how much of a crushing bore she is. And what's more shocking is that so many critics fail to point out that she's nothing but a mechanical actress with no soul. But can you believe she's going to play Marlene Dietrich in an upcoming biopic? Poor Dietrich; she's probably rolling over in her gave as we speak. I always felt if anyone could play Dietrich (or Garbo, for that matter) it should be Uma Thurman.
Anyway, I wanted to know if you've seen Wong Kar-Wai's "2046" yet? I'd love to hear your opinion on that film. I've read nothing but rave reviews and yet I can't understand why. I felt it was masturbatory in style and it just couldn't support the thesis Wong was working with. Maybe I'm wrong. Talk to you soon.
Hey Alan,
First, I'd have to say great review, as always. Only if more critics could be as educational and witty as you in their reviews. I agree with Aaman that I didn't see the parallels with "The Lady Vanishes" until you pointed them out as well!
And thank God I'm not the only person who isn't a big fan of Paltrow! It's really quite disturbing to see critics fawning over her while ignoring how much of a crushing bore she is. And what's more shocking is that so many critics fail to point out that she's nothing but a mechanical actress with no soul. But can you believe she's going to play Marlene Dietrich in an upcoming biopic? Poor Dietrich; she's probably rolling over in her gave as we speak. I always felt if anyone could play Dietrich (or Garbo, for that matter) it should be Uma Thurman.
Anyway, I wanted to know if you've seen Wong Kar-Wai's "2046" yet? I'd love to hear your opinion on that film. I've read nothing but rave reviews and yet I can't understand why. I felt it was masturbatory in style and it just couldn't support the thesis Wong was working with. Maybe I'm wrong. Talk to you soon.
Thanks, Jamal, for the compliments.
It really would be infinitely better to have Uma Thurman as Dietrich--esp. in her Henry & June mode. Paltrow is all wrong, but the one ray of hope I got from reading all those horrible interviews is that she said she was producing the movie but not necessarily starring in it.
I did see 2046 and "masturbatory" is a great term for it, except that it makes it sound like it would be fun, which I can't say it was. I'm not a Wong Kar-Wai fan. Gorgeous lulling visual style and no narrative traction. I can't remember the stories or characters or even the stars (or titles). I can't even remember which ones I've seen all the way through and which ones I've walked out on.













Interesting post, Alan - I didn't see the parallels with The Lady Vanishes until you pointed them out.
Gwyneth is just so Gwyneth