All the Money in the World (Film Review)
Aug. 29th, 2021 07:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakAka the film famous for, in no particular order: Ridley Scott deleting Kevin Spacey as J. Paul Getty one month before the scheduled release, reshooting all the relevant scenes with Christopher Plummer as Getty, Plummer being so good in said part that he got his last Oscar nomination for it, the film actually getting released on schedule, and the belated reveal that Michelle Williams got stiffed in terms of reshoot salaries, getting far less than Mark Wahlberg despite doing the same a mount of work. Having seen the movie now: it's even more unfair since her character really carries the film, and she's superb in every scene.
This said: the film, built around the kidnapping of J.P. Getty III. in the mid 1970s, is a solid thriller. Some of Ridley Scotts latter day movies can be self indulgent, but this one never felt that way to me. It works as a tense thriller and a morality play, with some superb acting (Michelle Williams and Christopher Plummer being the standouts, which is good since their characters are the protagonist and antagonist of the film). Also, the editor, Claire Simpson, is awesome: you really can't tell about the reshoots. Googling reviews and reading wiki entries as well as using some assumptions, it's guessable which parts of the film depart from reality the most, to wit, most physical action sequences like young J.P. Getty III's escape attempt, Gail (Michelle Williams' character) and Fletcher Chace (Wahlberg) being anywhere near events like the police trying to bust the original kidnappers, and making J.P. Getty's II's drug addled state even worse so that he's basically out of commission during the majority of the film, leaving Gail as the sole parent who has to deal with the kidnapping.
Otoh, all the examples of the sheer amount of Getty the First's miserliness seem to be solid canon, so to speak, and they are indeed beyond anything Charles Dickens lets Scrooge display. Where the cast-upon-incredible-short-notice Plummer really earns his plaudits is that he gets across the monstrosity of all this greed as well as the intelligence and cunning that enabled Getty to make his cash in the first place, and the longing for beauty (and, which is a different issue, to own beauty) that produced the collections currently on display in Los Angeles. Oh, and the megalomania. When he tells his grandson Paul in a flashback (when Paul is still a child), walking with him through the Villa Adriana, Hadrian's old stomping grounds, that he's really a reincarnation of Hadrian and discovering this place was the first time he felt at home anywhere, Plummer plays this utterly straight. There are other scenes where Getty is bullshitting people and Plummer gets his famous twinkle on, but not this one. The movie's Getty really believes this is true, never mind that if he thinks Hadrian had "concubines" (as opposed to, famously, the lover he later deified, Antinous), he clearly hasn't a clue about the original.
Michelle Williams as his former daughter-in-law Gail has the less showy but way more central part. The script takes care not to make her a saint; in the first flashback, we see her push her then husband, J.P. Getty II., to reconcile with his estranged father (whom she doesn't know at this point), clearly with an eye of getting out of the small flat they're currently living in. But she quickly becomes wise to the sheer amount of fucked upness that comes with the living-ike-a-Getty territory. The script is careful to let most of the film's developments result from the decisions Gail makes. Because in her divorce negotiations, she offered to forego any money (other than alimony for the kids) in exchange for being granted full custody, she really does not have the money to pay the kidnappers once her son is kidnapped and is depended on somehow making her ex father-in-law, who a) is still irritated about that, b) doesn't want to pay out of sheer miserly principle, something compounded once his sidekick finds out his grandson used to joke about staging his own kidnapping, produce the money.
Incidentally: the kidnappers, with one exception, remain peripheral figures - little bads, since the Big Bad is definitely Getty himself. They provide the physical menace, but the emotional dynamic that carries the movie comes from Getty's unwillingness to part with a non tax deductible dime vs Gail's determination to save her son. Their shared scenes are few - since Getty prefers to let flunkies deal with Gail - but precious and a masterclass in acting, since Gail really does have Getty's number and Michelle Williams manages to convey the way Gail somehow manages to channel desperation into even greater resolve and brings her own considerable intelligence on the table.
As for the kidnapped Paul aka Getty 3, he's played by Charlie Plummer (no relation), going from cocky rich teen to increasingly emotionally stripped down kidnapping victim. The standout scene being That Spoilery Thing Which Really Happened During The Kidnapping, which is also a directorial tour de force by Scott since it manages to convey the horror without coming across as exploitative.
But the two scenes that remain with me most right now both involve Gail. One is when Gail finds out what a present her father-in-law gave young Paul during the later's childhood really is worth. There isn't a word said. Michelle Williams does it all through body language and expression. But this is a "big" scene, so to speak. The other, otoh, is a quiet one. At the very end of the film, when our heroine on the one has achieved what she wanted and more - her son is back and alive, her father-in-law is dead (Getty died three years later, which you wouldn't know from the movie as it presents Getty's death scene quickly following the resolution of the kidnapping plot), and she's in charge of the obscenely ginormous money (for now). But: the damage is done - not just the physical one - and she knows it. She also knows what money already did to her ex husband, and has a good guess what it'll do to her son. Maybe also to her. Michelle Williams' changing face as this all catches up with her is incredible.
In conclusion: the woman should have won an Oscar. Also I'm glad I finally got around to watching this movie. (On Netflix.)
This said: the film, built around the kidnapping of J.P. Getty III. in the mid 1970s, is a solid thriller. Some of Ridley Scotts latter day movies can be self indulgent, but this one never felt that way to me. It works as a tense thriller and a morality play, with some superb acting (Michelle Williams and Christopher Plummer being the standouts, which is good since their characters are the protagonist and antagonist of the film). Also, the editor, Claire Simpson, is awesome: you really can't tell about the reshoots. Googling reviews and reading wiki entries as well as using some assumptions, it's guessable which parts of the film depart from reality the most, to wit, most physical action sequences like young J.P. Getty III's escape attempt, Gail (Michelle Williams' character) and Fletcher Chace (Wahlberg) being anywhere near events like the police trying to bust the original kidnappers, and making J.P. Getty's II's drug addled state even worse so that he's basically out of commission during the majority of the film, leaving Gail as the sole parent who has to deal with the kidnapping.
Otoh, all the examples of the sheer amount of Getty the First's miserliness seem to be solid canon, so to speak, and they are indeed beyond anything Charles Dickens lets Scrooge display. Where the cast-upon-incredible-short-notice Plummer really earns his plaudits is that he gets across the monstrosity of all this greed as well as the intelligence and cunning that enabled Getty to make his cash in the first place, and the longing for beauty (and, which is a different issue, to own beauty) that produced the collections currently on display in Los Angeles. Oh, and the megalomania. When he tells his grandson Paul in a flashback (when Paul is still a child), walking with him through the Villa Adriana, Hadrian's old stomping grounds, that he's really a reincarnation of Hadrian and discovering this place was the first time he felt at home anywhere, Plummer plays this utterly straight. There are other scenes where Getty is bullshitting people and Plummer gets his famous twinkle on, but not this one. The movie's Getty really believes this is true, never mind that if he thinks Hadrian had "concubines" (as opposed to, famously, the lover he later deified, Antinous), he clearly hasn't a clue about the original.
Michelle Williams as his former daughter-in-law Gail has the less showy but way more central part. The script takes care not to make her a saint; in the first flashback, we see her push her then husband, J.P. Getty II., to reconcile with his estranged father (whom she doesn't know at this point), clearly with an eye of getting out of the small flat they're currently living in. But she quickly becomes wise to the sheer amount of fucked upness that comes with the living-ike-a-Getty territory. The script is careful to let most of the film's developments result from the decisions Gail makes. Because in her divorce negotiations, she offered to forego any money (other than alimony for the kids) in exchange for being granted full custody, she really does not have the money to pay the kidnappers once her son is kidnapped and is depended on somehow making her ex father-in-law, who a) is still irritated about that, b) doesn't want to pay out of sheer miserly principle, something compounded once his sidekick finds out his grandson used to joke about staging his own kidnapping, produce the money.
Incidentally: the kidnappers, with one exception, remain peripheral figures - little bads, since the Big Bad is definitely Getty himself. They provide the physical menace, but the emotional dynamic that carries the movie comes from Getty's unwillingness to part with a non tax deductible dime vs Gail's determination to save her son. Their shared scenes are few - since Getty prefers to let flunkies deal with Gail - but precious and a masterclass in acting, since Gail really does have Getty's number and Michelle Williams manages to convey the way Gail somehow manages to channel desperation into even greater resolve and brings her own considerable intelligence on the table.
As for the kidnapped Paul aka Getty 3, he's played by Charlie Plummer (no relation), going from cocky rich teen to increasingly emotionally stripped down kidnapping victim. The standout scene being That Spoilery Thing Which Really Happened During The Kidnapping, which is also a directorial tour de force by Scott since it manages to convey the horror without coming across as exploitative.
But the two scenes that remain with me most right now both involve Gail. One is when Gail finds out what a present her father-in-law gave young Paul during the later's childhood really is worth. There isn't a word said. Michelle Williams does it all through body language and expression. But this is a "big" scene, so to speak. The other, otoh, is a quiet one. At the very end of the film, when our heroine on the one has achieved what she wanted and more - her son is back and alive, her father-in-law is dead (Getty died three years later, which you wouldn't know from the movie as it presents Getty's death scene quickly following the resolution of the kidnapping plot), and she's in charge of the obscenely ginormous money (for now). But: the damage is done - not just the physical one - and she knows it. She also knows what money already did to her ex husband, and has a good guess what it'll do to her son. Maybe also to her. Michelle Williams' changing face as this all catches up with her is incredible.
In conclusion: the woman should have won an Oscar. Also I'm glad I finally got around to watching this movie. (On Netflix.)
