In my lifetime
there have been few actresses willing to lay themselves bare than Julianne
Moore.
I don’t just
mean the obvious fact that Moore has been, with the exception of Kate Winslet,
the most prominent actress who I’ve seen naked in so many great films. I mean I’ve
rarely seen few performers of either gender who are willing to lay themselves
bare emotionally than her. I remember the first time I saw her in Robert
Altman’s masterpiece Short Cuts. In it Moore and her husband, played by
Matthew Modine, are clearly a couple in conflict. In the most critical scene,
after Moore has taken off her pants to reveal she’s not wearing underwear,
Moore tears into her husband to reveal that yes, she did have an affair.
I think it took
far too long for both of critics and certainly the Academy Awards to realize
what a great performer Julianne Moore was because she’s also one of the greatest
portrayers of restraint. Her characters far too often have conflict and demons
beneath the surface but they spend their lives holding it all in. This was
perhaps the most clear in 2002, when she became the first Actress since Holly Hunter
and Emma Thompson in 1993 to be nominated for Best Actress and Best Supporting
Actress in the same year for her brilliant work as two 1950s housewives
struggling with the limitations of their era: Cathy Whitaker, who in Far
From Heaven learns her husband is gay and become attracted to her
African-American gardener and Laura in The Hours, who walks out on her
life for reasons that not even she is willing to admit. That she lost to Nicole
Kidman for Best Actress shows how the Oscars recognize showiness over
restraint.
Moore has the misfortune
of always choosing ill received sequels to legendary films: she appeared in The
Lost World and had the misfortune of following up Jodie Foster to play
Clarice Starling in Hannibal or remakes of much better films: Gus Van
Sant’s Psycho, Kimberly Peirce’s Carrie. The lion’s share of her
films have been brilliant on but she far too often is ignored by the Oscars:
she should have gotten nominated for both A Single Man and The Kids
are All Right but her co-stars were and she wasn’t. I’ve almost never seen
Moore give a bad performance and I think the director who used her best was
Paul Thomas Anderson. Her work in Boogie Nights was a master class and
she was robbed of a nomination for her work in Magnolia. In a film
filled with emotional breakdowns I’ve never forgotten the monologue she gave in
which she tells a pharmacist that she married her much older-husband for money
and now that he’s dying she realized she actually loves him. She deserved a
nomination for that rather than the period piece The End of The Affair, where
she was restrained emotionally but laid herself bare physically.
Moore is so versatile
in her work that she only won her Oscar for Still Alice because she was
willing to play the game. She hasn’t been nominated since even though she’s
given better performances, most recently in May/December.
I’m actually
kind of stunned, given how many great roles it has given to her contemporaries
over the last decade, that Moore has not done, well, more work in television
then she has. It’s not that what she’s done hasn’t been worthy of her. Any fan
of 30 Rock remembers her rollicky comic performance as Nancy, the former
girlfriend of Jack Donaghy where she took on an extremely obvious Boston accent
for humorous effect. Three years she took on the role of Sarah Palin in the
brilliant HBO TV movie Game Change, which dominated the Emmys in 2012
leading Moore to dominate the awards circuit, winning an Emmy, a Golden Globe,
a SAG Award and the Critics Choice Award, one of the first performers to make a
clean sweep of all four major TV awards in the same year. She then went back to
doing movies for the next several years, aside from the odd one-shot in the odd
series. Only recently did she make an attempt to do a limited series in Appletv
Lisey’s Story but the reception to the adaptation of Stephen King’s
novel was viscerally unfavorable.
But she has
persisted and now it seems she has found a role worthy of her in Mary &
George. It took a while for the British series to find a home in American
TV; AMC dropped before it was supposed to air but Starz was willing to grab it
up. Having seen the first two episodes, I’m grateful they did.
The title
characters are Mary Villiers and her son George. Historically George Villiers
was the first Duke of Buckingham. Villiers was the favorite of King James VI of
Scotland who eventually became James I. He was a key adviser to the King,
eventually became Lord High Admiral and de factor foreign minister. Under his
stewardship there were many failed military campaigns and he very quickly
became unpopular among the public. Finally in 1628 he was assassinated by John
Felton, a disgruntled Army Officer.
Those of us used
to series of the United Kingdom of this period – most notably The Tudors – are used to
seeing the elegance and refinement of the court. That’s not the story Mary
and George is interested in telling, for which I’m grateful. The mood for
the series is set in the first scenes when Mary has given birth but a maid has
dropped her newborn son on the floor. She seems indifferent to that as well as
reluctant to cut the umbilical cord – he is the ‘second son’. She is left in
the room alone and considers whether she should have left him there before
reluctantly letting him live. We then cut to him at the age of 18 hanging from
a tree branch. Mary walks by, and reluctantly cuts him down, saving him from
dying. Neither is grateful for the action.
Throughout the
first two episodes we see an England and Scotland that is filthy, dirty and
full of sex everywhere. This isn’t the England of Elizabeth; it’s the
world of Yorgos Lanthimos’ The Favorite
and I mean that as a compliment. Mary, we see, is a woman who has struggled
from nothing to find a place in this world. Her husband beat her extensively
and did the same to all her children. No one seems that upset when he’s dead or
even after burying him. Given the state of her finances, she knows the only chance
to survive is to marry again. Asked how long she should wait; her lawyer tells
her: “Four weeks. Six to be safe.” We then see a huge title card saying: “TWO
WEEKS LATER.” If we ever needed proof Mary was a woman who had no use for convention
we know it when she walks up to her future husband and introduces herself as
such.
Mary is
determined to find a future for her children and she is determined to find one
for George (Nicholas Galitzine). In their opening scenes George would rather
kill himself than go to France to become more cultured. He doesn’t think he’ll
survive in Europe and considered how seasick he is on arriving we wonder how he
made the crossing to France. It doesn’t help when he walks through the villa he
will be getting his ‘education’ and goes through a room to see robust coupling
going on. “The other way was worse,” he’s told and we helpfully see that too.
Mary’s ambition becomes
clear very quickly: she uses her husbands influence because she wants to meet
the king. The future James I has been hinted at over the centuries as being
gay; Mary & George based on DC Moore’s book states it outright. The
first time Mary sees James in private, he is engaged in kissing his current
favorite Somerset. Mary’s husband is repelled by this idea. Mary sees it as an
opportunity.
Mary & George
makes
it very clear that George Villiers managed his rise from his humbleness because
of his romantic relationship with the king.
It’s fascinating that neither mother nor son seem that bothered by this –
“Bodies are just bodies” is a refrain both have. To both of them it’s clear
being branded a deviant is a lesser fate than dying in poverty.
Watching Moore
and Galiztine interact, I was reminded of a previous Moore film Savage Grace
a deeply flawed but occasionally fascinating docudrama of the troubled
relationship of Barbra Baekeland and her son Antony (an early role by Eddie
Redmayne) Like George, Antony was homosexual who had a twisted relationship
with his mother. This is made clear in a critical when both mother and son share
the same male lover, first individually – and then together. Antony is regarded
as a failure by society, but its clear there’s an incestuous relationship
between Barbra and Antony that ends in tragedy for both.
It's not clear
if incest was involved between Mary and George Villiers but there’s a similar
dark relationship in the series, a willingness to do whatever it takes to get
to secure themselves. Both mother and son are more than willing to use their
bodies and its clear that the mother is already willing to kill to protect her
position.
I’m often drawn
to historical series and this is an era of British history I’m not familiar
with. We’ve already met James mother Queen Anne; Francis Bacon is a presence in
the court and Tony Curran is superb as James as much a buffoon as he is brute.
But holding it together is Moore, who gets to perfectly balance both parts of
her brilliance: restraint in the court, emotional rawness among her family. Watching
her in every scene, I was reminded of Roger Ebert’s line calling Charles Napier
as an actor who looked “like a wolf about to devour a T-Bone.” Watching Moore
as Mary, I see her playing someone who
would fight that wolf for a scrap of meat – and in that matchup, I’d fear for
the wolf.
Mary & George
is
what I hoped The Regime would be: a look behind the scenes at what
people will do to climb to power and how you have to fight for it when you have
it. The fact that Mary & George is historical and The Regime fictional
may be in part why I think this series is by far the better work. Yet as
experience has taught me the latter is more likely to see Emmy nominations than
the former: even with its rebranding HBO is still considered the home of
prestige TV and Starz it’s redheaded stepchild, no matter how many brilliant
shows it produces to the contrary. Never was this made more evident when two
years ago Julia Roberts led Gaslit on this network in what was one of
the best series of 2022 – and neither she nor the series got anything from the
Emmys. The fact that Roberts gave a far more visceral performance than so many
of the other nominees – including Julia Garner for the vapid Inventing Anna –
shows that quality is less important to the Emmys than pedigree - a lesson that Mary Villiers knows all too
well.
Still after just
two episodes I already know that Mary & George is superior to both
of the prominent HBO Limited Series this year heading by Oscar winning
actresses: The Regime and Night Country. And it’s not a close
question that Moore’s work as Mary comes from a deeper and rawer place than
either what Chief Danvers or Chancellor Venham did in what were far more
anticipated series. But Foster is certain to get a nomination for Best Actress
in a Limited Series and despite the decided mixed reception for The Regime (it
ranks a full point lower on imdb.com then Mary & George does) Kate
Winslet very well might anyway. Perhaps that’s not surprising considering that
it shows how Moore’s work is viewed. Restraint always gets less recognized
under showiness – even when that restraint is hiding something far deeper
beneath the surface.
My Score: 4.25
stars.
No comments:
Post a Comment