Little Man Tate

Dir: Jodie Foster

1991

***

1991's Little Man Tate is well written, a bit dream-like and full of heart, it shouldn't however, be taken particularly seriously. It is the story of a child prodigy with Asperger's syndrome who comes from a humble home, living with his hard-working, wise-talking mother (played by Jodie Foster). When Fred (the little man Tate) is discovered to be highly intelligent, his mother becomes ever so slightly separated from her son as their strong bond becomes strained. Fred's curiosity soon needs attention and a school for gifted children soon gets in contact. As the Tate's aren't very wealthy, it is agreed that Fred is tutored for free by specialist teacher Jane Grierson (played by Dianne Wiest), although Fred's mother soon has reservations, not only because she is to become separated from her son but also because she feels that Jane is becoming too close to Fred and could be taking advantage of him for her own personal and professional development. The story is about how little Fred navigates his way through life with the mind of a genius, held back by Asperger's syndrome. It's sweet, it's lovely and it has plenty of that early 90s nostalgia that I have little resistance against. However, it gets Asperger's syndrome so incredibly wrong, it's hard to take seriously. I blame Rain Man in many respects but at least Dustin Hoffman's character showed real signs of the syndrome. Jodie Foster's direction isn't perfect but I actually quite liked it and I would argue that for a debut that wasn't planned it's very strong. Many people involved in the film were vocal in their disapproval of Foster's directional methods - in particular Dianne Wiest who, in a poorly judged moment of professionalism, criticized her in an interview with a visiting journalist while they were filming, and apparently one of the producers threw his mobile phone through Foster's car windscreen when filming over ran by a few days (mobile phones were quite big in those days). It is a bit of a mystery as to why original director Joe Dante walked out of the project so late in the day but it is a bigger mystery as to why a director with his unique style was hired in the first place, as I can't how his talents suited the story at all. The film's main strengths are the great script and the brilliant debut performance from young Adam Hann-Byrd. Foster is great and I love Dianne Wiest but Hann-Byrd pretty much carries the whole film on his small shoulders. The ending is something of an anti-climax in many respects but it somehow works and works really well. It's a little too sugary than it should have been but I enjoyed it.

Money Monster

Dir: Jodie Foster

2016

***

A few minutes into 2016's Money Monster I had wondered whether I was watching Network for the post-financial crisis generation, but I'm afraid Jodie Foster is no Sidney Lumet. That said, there is nothing wrong with the film's direction, after all, Foster didn't write it and it is the script I have issue with. Screenwriters Alan Di Fiore and Jim Kouf wrote the story (Jamie Linden joined them for the screenplay) and while I think Di Fiore has a bright future, I think the thriller suffered from Kouf's input. It is a great idea; George Clooney plays TV host and financial expert Lee Gates whose show is over the top and full of gimmicks but hugely popular. After backing the wrong horse, Gates is suddenly held hostage live on TV by a disgruntled shareholder (Jack O'Connell) who has suddenly lost everything. Suddenly Network turns into Lumet's Dog Day Afternoon. Gates stays on the air and realizes the only way to save his own life is to find out exactly why the shares he told people to invest in failed. This raises some very interesting issues that are relevant to today's social and economic climate. Jack O'Connell's would be hostage-taker represents today's knee-jerk reactionary. He blames the messenger rather than the source but is unwilling to take responsibility for his own risk-taking. A deeper look into why the shares failed reveals predictable underhand goings-on, all legal, such is the world of banking etc. Bankers are bad and the little man gets screwed, dog bites man. However, it is the darker, more satirical element of the story that really works here. A live hostage situation one minute is old news the next. Money Monster shows just how bleak the reality is in the most subtle and simplest of ways. However, as good as all the performances are and as clever and exciting as it is, what really makes the film good is dumbed down by a misguided level of humour. I liked it, I really did but I felt that a huge opportunity was wasted right at the last minute. I sat and watched the film in a full cinema and the audience laughed during all the serious bits and felt silent during the funny bits. Maybe this is the reflection the film is highlighting but I think if you change the tone from one extreme to another you will lose some viewers and your punchy conclusion will fall short of the target area. Money Monster could and should have been the next Network, it fails at explaining the real problem with banking (The Big Short covered that earlier in 2016) and it actually works better as a comment on the problems with the modern day media, but the real irony is that it is average, entertaining definitely but sadly, if it is considered memorable, it'll be for all the wrong reasons. A solid three star film but it could have been so much more.

The Beaver
Dir: Jodie Foster
2011
*****
As debuts go, Jodie Foster has done pretty well, especially as she co-stars in it too. She could have taken the story and really schmaltzed it up or turned it into an awful physical slap-stick comedy - missing the point entirely. She knew what she was doing and she achieved it, not perfectly but at the required level. I do feel sorry for her though, as this film should and would have done better had it not have been for Mel Gibson's public downfall. I'm not judging this film based on Mr. Gibson's personal views though, I'm basing it on his performance and I have to say, it's one of the greatest performances I've ever seen. I exaggerate not. To do what he did convincingly takes pure talent; it might be overlooked now but I have no doubt that this will be regarded as a future classic - A contemporary Harvey even. It's just a shame then that he is somewhat let down by his younger co-stars who are given far too much screen time considering their (lack of) talent. Ignore them though, Gibson's performance alone rockets this films rating to a 5 star rating.