Turning historical books into movies is down right dangerous. History nuts are bound to see the movie, and that is great for the box office returns, but not always great for us history nuts. Usually two camps form when those of us who love history see movie trailers for histo-flicks. One camp is book first. The other, movie first. Usually, I profess reading the book before seeing a movie, but there are some inherent risks with this approach. One risk is that the movie is better than the book (gasp!). The second is worst than the first; the movie takes a completely different direction than the book. Monuments Men is one of those movies. Get this straight, it was a fair movie (I will save my remarks for later), but for those us (meaning me) who took the book first route, it was a bit painful.
First lets get a few (very few because I do not want to detract from the movie review) of the historical factors out of the way. First and foremost were the characters themselves. Most of the character were amalgamations of the actual people. One of the best though is Cate Blanchett's character Clarie Simone who is based on the real life Rose Valland. Valland play a critical role in the tracking and recovery of many priceless works of art stolen from Paris museums. As a whole Clarie Simone is a pretty accurate portrayal of Valland who is described as meek and mild enough to have never been suspected by the Germans as a spy. Blanchett nails this description in her role. The other redeeming aspect is that Simone and James Granger (played by Matt Damon) never have a romantic tryst I had feared they would from the trailers. Whether the real life Valland and James Rorimer (whom Damon's character is based) were actually romantic is not detailed in Robert M. Edsel's book, but I speculate it unlikely.
The rest of the characters and story line is much too convoluted to detail, but the movie does capture the essence of the Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives Program. These men were dedicated to the preservation and recovery of the many works of art endangered by the war. One glaring misrepresentation that was of note was the fact that the characters in the movie acted as a team. In reality the men of the MFAA operated for the most part as individuals because there were so few to begin with and the territory necessary to cover was was vast. This understaffing made their role in the war effort that much more notable. Understandably this collaboration was needed to make the movie work, but it does steal from the herculean effort of the individual soldiers tasked with saving and restoring Europe's art.
Now to the movie itself.
As a whole I found it a little disjointed and the editing was just a little rusty. The central narrative thrived the length of the movie, but at times it failed to drive home the point. It is as if the movie never decides to fall off the cliff into being a full on thriller. I felt as though more of the history could would have helped. Members of the MFAA had to track down (by any means) and recover these works of art from some of the most unlikely of places. All the while in a war zone with little or no help from combat forces. Such work was laborious and time consuming. In the film, things tended to fall perfectly into place. To me, the film would have been bettered by fleshing out some of the details rather than glossing over them or tidying them up into perfect little packages. This would have a) made the movie more intense and b) helped to show the seriousness of the MFAA.
From a production standpoint, though, this was a pretty good historical flick. With big budget, big named movies you never have to worry about the historical accuracy of things like uniforms and sets. One interesting element from the book that remained in the movie was the infamous Volkswagen that Frank Stokes (George Clooney) drove over Europe. This was a nice little feature that sneaked its way in. In addition to the production quality, Monuments Men was very well acted and directed. With big names like Clooney, Damon, John Goodman, Bill Murray and even Bob Balaban you are going to get a quality film. One element that I did think lacked was the comedic value. Trailers and pre-release press made this out to be a wacky comedy that bordered on zany. Several blurps of humor did liven Murray and Goodman, but overall I felt it was a little flat. Again, this might stem from the film never pushing home on the story being told.
My bias towards the book should be pretty clear by now, but still I felt that Monuments Men was just fair. I enjoyed watching it, but had a hard time with a) not saying "That didn't happen that way" and b) not being a little disappointed in the failure to drive home the point of the movie. Couple that with the lack of comedy and I was left wanting a little bit more. As with other histo-flicks, I tend to judge them based on if I want to pick up a book and read more about the subject. With Monuments Men, I am glad I read the book first. Leaving the theater I was less than inspired to read up on the men of the Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives Program. Still it was is a well made movie, that tells a (albeit with a glossy finish) really interesting story
No comments:
Post a Comment