The Weinstein Company has a real knack for producing films
portraying complex moments in history and reducing them down to simple morality
tales, often through the ostensibly moral lens of a court battle. Woman
In Gold is certainly no exception to their formula, representing an old
woman’s reclamation of stolen artwork from the Austrian government as an
underdog battle against the evils of Old World prejudices. And consequently, the whole
experience feels just a bit trite.
Helen Mirren plays Maria Altmann, a Holocaust survivor
driven out of Austria. Fast forward to
the early 2000s, and Maria is an old woman who discovers through family
documents that the Austrian government is in possession of paintings, including
the titular “Woman In Gold,” that had belonged to her family and had been taken by
the Nazis, so she decides that she wants to make a stand to get them
back. She enlists the help of a rookie
attorney named Randol Schoenberg, played by a dully ineffectual Ryan Reynolds,
whose struggle through the court system is compounded by uphill precedential
battles and a distinct lack of support from his employing firm.
Where the film actually shines the most is in a concurrent
plotline flashing back to Austria as the Nazis are taking over. Though these scenes aren’t dissimilar from
any other film where the oppressive Reich begins committing atrocities in
occupied states, the film makes a point of demonstrating that the Austrian government
welcomes the Nazis with open arms, making Maria’s struggle to retrieve her
family’s paintings one of forcing Austria to admit that they were in the wrong
by not resisting. There’s a certain
poignancy to this that makes the film emotionally resonate where other films
using the same formula are lacking.
Alas, though, this is still a Weinstein formula piece, and
there’s nothing else about this film that really stands out. The plot beats are predictable as ever, as
the biggest struggle seems to be in not giving up in the face of insurmountable
odds. Mirren is in the same sort of role
she’s always in: boisterous, no-nonsense, and loveable in a grandmotherly
way. And while Reynolds is pretty
ineffectual at breathing any sort of interesting life into Randol’s character,
he’s written as a determined, hardworking underdog that you can’t help but root
for, even if the complexities of his legal battles will escape you. And these aren’t really bad things, but they
are certainly boring things, particularly if you’re one to recognize genre
tropes and how generic writing does nothing to subvert them.
So does that make Woman
In Gold a good film by default? For
the purposes of labelling, I must begrudgingly say yes, as there is nothing
outright wrong or offensive to this film, and it did even manage to hold my
interest in the flashback scenes. But I
also feel like I’ve seen this film a million times before, and it’s not one I’m
very enthusiastic about recommending. If
the plot synopsis interests you, you might have a decently enjoyable couple of
hours ahead of you. If not, I’m not
going to try to convince you otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment