Well, not quite, but it is certainly one of the better films of 2010, a year that had a hearty crowd of terrific movies.
Barney’s Version stars Paul Giamatti, an actor who has made a career of portraying neurotic, left-of-center characters. His Barney Panofsky is one for the Neurotic Hall of Fame (which does not do much of a gift shop concession business, except for the hand sanitizers).
Barney is a TV soap opera producer in Montreal who likes his scotch, cigars and hockey. He comes from a middle class Jewish family background, but attempts social climbing through matrimony. The Jewish class struggle is a major backbone of the film.
Despite marrying three times, Barney loves only one woman– Miriam, who he meets at his second wedding (the marrying-up- the-Jewish-social-ladder marriage). Barney becomes instantly infatuated with Miriam, and she eventually becomes wifey-poo #3 . Miriam is well-played by Rosamund Pike.
This movie has a complex storyline and is much like a novel with intersecting characters and plots. It is based on a novel by Mordecai Richler and is probably fairly true to the book.
The supporting cast features Dustin Hoffman as Barney’s dad, Minnie Driver as Barney’s second bride, Scott Speedman as Barnie’s best friend and tortured writer pal. All of the acting is spot-on, as is the writing and directing.
So what does Barney’s Version lack? Well, it is always interesting, you do want to know what happens next, but ultimately it fails because we never really get a sense at exactly what makes Barney Barney.
Maybe in the novel Barney is fleshed-out, brought to believable life, but here he goes from situation to situation, like a pinball in a machine. He is motivated, but we never quite know by what.
And maybe that’s the point. Who can explain any one person’s behavior? But I needed a little more soul to Barney in order to buy his motivations of the heart.
That said, Barney’s Version is definitely worth seeing, if not in the theatre with $8 popcorn, than at home with a scotch and a cigar.
2 responses to “Barney, Oh, Barney!”
“Definitely worth seeing” would be my recommendation, too!
I saw “Barney’s Version” just the other day and loved it. Loved it so much, by the way, that I’m going to put it on my NetFlix queue so I can see it again.
If there’s a problem with the film, it’s the same one the film’s marketing mavens probably had with it, namely that you can’t describe the story and/or its “meaning” in a few simple words.
What the geniuses ended up calling the film was “picaresque.”
On one hand, that’s a brilliant description since “the picaresque novel is a popular sub-genre of prose fiction which is usually satirical and depicts, in realistic and often humorous detail, the adventures of a roguish hero of low social class who lives by his wits in a corrupt society.”
On the other hand, how many people standing on line for a ticket at a multiplex know what “picaresque” means? Not many, I’d bet. More importantly, would they really care? Probably not. “Picaresque” would mean storytelling with heart, not the bombastic, implausible special effects action flicks they came to see. (Can you tell that I’ve had it up to here with typical Hollywood fare?)
What makes Barney “Barney” isn’t all that obvious, as you point out. He’s a rogue/anti-hero. He’s a crusty curmudgeon. At the same time, there are moments throughout the film when the true depth and loving soul of the character are revealed, especially in the final reel. (No spoiler description here!)
Paul Giamatti, as usual, is wonderful. Minnie Driver and Rosamund Pike play two of Barney’s wives, and they’re both great. Dustin Hoffman plays Barney’s father, Izzy, and he hasn’t lost a step as one of America’s great actors. (FYI: Rent “Stranger Than Fiction,” an odd but wonderful movie starring Will Ferrell, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Emma Thompson and Hoffman.)
Mordecai Richler’s novel “Barney’s Version,” according to Roger Ebert, has been compared to Saul Bellow’s “Herzog.” Good company to be in!
Terrific perspective, Curvin.
Like you, I want to see “Barney’s Version” again, but I’ll wait a few months before doing so. I want to percolate on it some more.
And like you, I have had it up to here (and a little more) with the vapid special effects-driven movies that have no residue to recall or move one emotionally– besides the thrill (if there is one) experienced in the theatre.
“Barney’s Version” is a movie that occupies the mind and requires some thought, even if it cannot all be explained.
I confess I did not know what ‘picaresque’ means, but I certainly appreciate it when I see it.
The movie does make me want to read the novel. I believe the movie’s primary fault may be trying to be too accurate to the novel and not having the real estate to explain more about Barney so that we’d know about his motivation throughout the story.