RSS

Contact us

Tuesday 2 December 2008

Family at war

Margot at the Wedding
Nationwide, 15

Margot is bitter, angry, spills with passive-aggressive bile and is always swiping at others’ weak spots, particularly Pauline’s, who has her own problems, believe me. We are never exactly told why these sisters are the way they are. We know their father has something to do with it. But while the father is referred to — ‘What was it about Dad that had us f***ing so many guys?’ Pauline asks Margot at one point — he is never elaborated on. We hear things only in passing, as you might if you were plunged suddenly into the life of someone else. Exposition is explicitly avoided. There is even a third sister, Becky, who is alluded to but whom we never meet. Meanwhile, Margot’s relationship with Claude is layered in such sexual confusion that there is every chance you will end up as confused as they are. This is a film that sometimes has you not knowing where to look — oh, the squirm and the cringe — but more often has you not knowing what to look for. You will be hunting for clues, nose to the ground, just like a sniffer dog.

OK, this all sounds a bit tiresome and shop-worn; as if Bergman had somehow been channelled by Woody Allen via a séance with Rohmer. Yes, it is very much that kind of film. But, as well as being savage, it is also savagely droll, with several truly laugh-out-loud moments, and the performances are stunning. True enough, Kidman’s forehead looks as if it’s been cast from iron, but her portrayal of narcissistic egotism is almost exhilaratingly chilling while Jack Black’s manic persona is used to tremendous effect, particularly as Malcolm pathetically unspools.

Margot at the Wedding is unsparing and uningratiating but once your nose hits that ground it wants to stay down there, wants to sniff about and find out more about these terrible people. But what does it all add up to? I’ve no idea, not the faintest, but suspect that it’s symbolised by the age-old tree with the deep, troublesome roots that sits outside the childhood home and may or may not get felled. The tree bothered me then and bothers me now because, yes, this is a bothersome film. Still, you could get chips anyway. There is no rule against it, as far as I know.

More articles from: Deborah Ross | this section

Print this article  |  Email to a friend  |  Permalink  |   Comment

Post this entry to:   del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Advertisement

Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine

Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms

Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP

All Articles and Content Copyright ©2008 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved