Color Me Kubrick
Color Me Kubrick
is an odd duck of a movie. Much of it is
rather enjoyable and it is certainly worth seeing, but you do have to wonder
why such a lightweight story was made in the first place. I can only
assume it is because director Brian Cook and screenwriter Andrew Frewin knew and worked with the famed
director Stanley Kubrick extensively. Cook and Frewin were aware of how the "true-ish story" (as the poster
and credits refer to the film) effected their mentor, though from what I
hear Kubrick was more amused than offended by the identity theft which forms
the backbone of the plot. Perhaps the film idea was
something of a tribute to the late filmmaker. Still it seems an inside
joke, more of a personal nod than one that an audience in general would
share.
Color Me Kubrick
tells the tale of Alan Conway, a balding, gay, British con man
who became a
pop-cultural footnote in the 1990s by using a somewhat extravagant scam.
He conned dozens of people into believing he was the reclusive filmmaker
Stanley Kubrick. Through his assumed fame, he was able to get money,
free food and drink, sex and travel.
The movie suggests that
Kubrick was so reclusive that no one knew who he was and what he looked
like. Conroy actually looked and acted nothing like the man, including
not having the famous beard. (In fairness, Conway does take the time
to tell one person he shaved it.) In fact, they had a character who had extreme access to the New
York Times press archives state that they were only able to find one picture
of him from 1971. The truth is, though, even as a moderately
interested party I do have a very clear memory of his visage through a
series of pictures released of him over the years. Granted, perhaps
the average person on the street wouldn't know what he looked like, but the
fact that they felt the need to put this false proviso there shows that they
were a little unsure of the believability of their source material.
The problem here is, you
never really get for a second why so many seemingly intelligent people fall
for his act. Conway, as portrayed by Malkovich, has a strangely
flamboyant and odd pattern of speaking and acting. He always seems to
be a few seconds behind everyone else, a dead giveaway that he's working out
the angles. He's constantly babbling on about latest projects that
make no sense nor do they seem the least bit salable. And eventually,
wouldn't everyone catch on to the fact that he never pays for anything?
He was even reckless with his characterization -- playing the role in front
of New York Times scribe Frank Rich, who quite possibly would know the
director, and
if not would certainly have access to information that could prove or
disprove his contention that he was the filmmaker. Even worse, the
whole Rich thing was just for hubris -- he got nothing from the
critic, in fact he gave his wife a gift of a (probably worthless) ring.
As one of the few
characters here that called him on his ruse points out, for a con man at
least he could have done his research.
I mean, I only have a
rudimentary knowledge of the director's work and even I knew that he didn't
direct Judgment at Nuremberg. It's not like the notoriously
perfectionist director was particularly prolific -- in the later stages of
his career he'd go years between movies. He only made thirteen movies in
a career lasting well over 40 years. You'd think that a man who had
dedicated his life to portraying the man could memorize those. Granted
that is a knock on the character and not the film -- but in this case the
character and the film are completely intertwined.
Malkovich has a lot of fun
with the ostentatious role -- even touching on his late career tendency to
mock himself on film (see also: Being John Malkovich) by doing a
hysterical monologue as Alan pretending to be Kubrick, telling a tale of how
he wanted to make 3001: A Space Odyssey, but the studios wouldn't get
behind it because his choice of star -- Malkovich -- was simply not a big
enough draw to open a film.
However, no matter how
flamboyantly fun his put-on Kubrick persona may be (and Conway actually
plays him a few different ways for different marks), we never get more than
a glimpse or two of the real man. Conway's life is all an act here --
the film does not even really try to impart what pleasure or pain he gets
from his ruse, how he feels about it, or any background as to why or how he
started. Instead, we get a long line of gullibles falling hook, line
and sinker for the dramatic proclamations and lazy storytelling of a man
without ever learning what goes on behind those shifty eyes.
(3/07)
Jay
S. Jacobs
Copyright ©2007
PopEntertainment.com. All rights reserved.
Posted: March 17, 2007.
