Film Review: Hail Caesar!
The Coen Brothers are one of my favorite directorial and creative pairs in the film industry. Their characters and stories generally have a unifying charm and offbeat (read oddball) sense of humor, regardless of story genre or tone. This is seen time and again throughout their work from Raising Arizona (1987) to True Grit (2010). If I had to assign a literary style to the Coen’s, their artistry most closely resembles the fantastic realism of Dostoevsky. Their characters and stories trend towards the real, but with such dedication to the strangeness of characters and situations that they take on a bizarre or fantasy quality. This style makes heavy use of symbolism, religious motifs, satire, philosophy, and absurdity. Whether one enjoys the complete work of art is a matter of personal taste, but each of their works will certainly leave a unique impression. Hail, Caesar is no different.
Hail, Caesar is, at least in terms of plot, a tribute to the studio system of Hollywood during the 1950’s. Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin) is the Head of Production as well as a fixer for Capitol Pictures. His job is to keep the movies being filmed on Capitol’s lots running and to avoid scandal for the studio even if that requires him to stay up till 4am to get young starlets home from late house party’s or lie to the media about the personal habits of his stars and directors. Capitol is in the midst of producing an epic called Hail, Caesar which is to tell the story of Christ from the perspective of a Roman general with Jesus more or less making cameo appearances in spots. The star of the film, Baird Whitlock (George Clooney) has been kidnapped by a group calling itself The Future and demanding ransom. Eddie then finds himself trying to ransom Whitlock along with keeping production moving on other projects, including a Western star (Alden Ehrenreich) being forced into a British period drama, and covering up a pregnancy scandal between the director of a sailor musical and an aquatic ballet star (Scarlett Johansson). If this seems too busy or unfocused, then you are following the film correctly. Hail, Caesar is a farce.
Hail, Caesar is a modern example of the classic farce. The audience is not supposed to follow the plotline(s) too closely and the farce is designed to be highly improbable and absurd. In this regard, Hail, Caesar has more in common with the works of Mel Brooks like History of the World, Part I (1981) or Blake Edwards’ Pink Panther (1963). Each of these films tend to the ridiculous as both a form of comedic convention and as a satire of genre convention. Mel Brooks tore apart the Hollywood epics in his film, Edwards created the world’s most iconic and idiotic detective, and the Coens have taken apart the film-within-a-film-about-making-a-film genre. The group that kidnaps Whitlock? They are communist Hollywood writers wanting to use the ransom money to forward the cause, and convince Whitlock of the rightness and totality of their ideas. The pregnant water ballet actress? They come up with a scheme to allow her to adopt her own child. The Western star? He is forced to try and say his dramatic lines without his country accent by an increasingly exasperated Laurence Laurentz (Ralph Fiennes). Ultimately this all culminates in the appearance of a Soviet submarine, a rescued yet still clueless Whitlock, and the continuation of production on Hail, Caesar. This is all silly and fun, but the film is also a clever examination on the purpose of cinema and film as a whole.
The meta-narrative and central theme of Hail, Caesar is man’s search for meaning, spiritual awakening, and purpose. Eddie Mannix’s central conflict is understanding himself, what he is to do with himself, and where to find the answers. One of the subplots of the film is Mannix being offered a very lucrative job with Lockheed. The pitch-man repeatedly belittles Capitol Pictures and the movie business as a bunch of phonies and a circus; it is all pretend and Lockheed is a real job in the real world for a man with Mannix’s talents. Mannix has the choice to continue with his difficult job of managing the insanity of the film studio or taking the easy and highly secure position with the military contractor. Further, the first and final acts of the film begin in a confessional booth. Mannix seemingly confesses every day before going back to work, and seeks advice from the priest as to what he should do. In one of the best scenes in the film, the religious debate and conflict is brought to the forefront as Mannix invites a Catholic Priest, a Protestant Minister, an Orthodox Patriarch, and a Jewish Rabbi to discuss Hail, Caesar. At first glance, the scene is just there as comedy to satirize how different religions react to Hollywood films and Hollywood’s attempt to avoid offending the different religious sensibilities. On the meta-theatrical level, Mannix is seeking advice about the nature of God in movies and whether it is possible for God to exist in movies. The religious leaders do not give him clear direction. Instead, Mannix finds meaning in movies themselves.
What is the point of film and movies? Are they a form of bread and circuses, a self-perpetuating and ultimately self-defeating capitalist construct according to the communist screenwriters? In this sense, have movies replaced religion as the opiate of the masses? Despite the communist critique of the film industry, whatever its merits, the Coens seem to reject this mechanical and fatalistic understanding of movies. Movies are the working man’s escape and the working man’s entertainment to be sure, especially in the “golden” days of Hollywood as an easily accessible and cheap form of entertainment and pleasure. Mannix ultimately rejects the offer from Lockheed and stays with Capitol. He has his epiphany after visiting the empty set of Hail, Caesar as it is dressed for the crucifixion scene. He considers the three empty crosses on stage, and after his final confession comes to his decision, after waving off the priest’s interpretation of God’s divine plan in finding meaning. Mannix finds it in the studio and film itself. When Whitlock comes to Mannix’s office after being rescued, Mannix roundly berates him for spouting off his communist rhetoric. In short, Mannix tells him of what Capitol Pictures has done for Whitlock, Mannix, and everyone else that works and the products and enjoyment they create and will continue to create as long as Eddie Mannix is with the studio. Art and entertainment has value beyond the dollar.
The cast of Hail, Caesar is one of its strongest attributes. The ensemble is terrific and no actor feels wasted, even in limited screen-time. Brolin is your principle lead and grounds the film, George Clooney gets to be a goofball and parody Kirk Douglas, and Johansson gets to really work her New York accent and tough persona under an innocent façade. Channing Tatum has one of the funniest scenes in the film as he hearkens back to Gene Kelly and Danny Kaye with his song and dance number, “No Dames,” which is a great side attraction for the rest of the farce. Tilda Swinton pulls double-duty playing a set of twin and competing journalists. One claims to be a serious reporter. The other is a gossip columnist. Both epitomize yellow-journalism and the scandal oriented nature of show business publications. If the symbolism were not obvious enough, one of her characters is dressed in yellow; another clever characterization from the directing duo. The great surprise and charming performance comes from Alden Ehrenreich as Hobie Doyle. Hobie is your classic, good-natured cowboy known for his simple charm, singing, and stunt work. I was not previously familiar with his earlier work, but I was surprised with the level of control he exhibited and his presence stands just as tall in his scenes with established heavyweights, including Brolin and Ralph Fiennes. His career is one to watch.
To conclude, Hail, Caesar is definitely worth your time if you want something light and a little silly. The Coens rarely misfire and their actors always seem to enjoy themselves or get stretched in ways or roles you might not expect. The film is a solid entry into the farcical tradition of Mel Brooks while also being a playful love-letter to the Coen’s Hollywood influences from the studio system era. There is just enough to ponder here thematically with the spiritual journey and purpose of cinema to please the thinking man intellectually as well as elicit some smiles and great chuckles. Is this the Coen’s best film to date? Probably not. I would argue No Country for Old Men still holds that distinction. Is it still worth seeing? Absolutely… Friendo.
3.5 stars out of 5.
