Cannes Film Festival 2013

Review: 'The Paperboy' straddles the line between trash and treat

Lee Daniels's bonkers follow-up to 'Precious' aims for camp-classic status

  • Critic's Rating B-
  • Readers' Rating B
<p>Nicole Kidman in "The Paperboy."</p>

Nicole Kidman in "The Paperboy."

Credit: Lionsgate

Are you a fan of In Contention?

Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.

CANNES - Here are a few things you should know about "The Paperboy," the humid, lurid and exuberantly ludicrous new thriller from Lee "Precious" Daniels -- that is, if the swarm of dumbfounded Twitter chatter about the film hasn't informed you already. It features Nicole Kidman bitch-fighting a group of sunbathers for the privilege of urinating on Zac Efron's jellyfish sting, triumphing with the immediately immortal line, "If anybody's gonna piss on him, it's gonna be me!" It features Zac Efron dancing in the rain clad in nothing but a pair of tighty-whiteys rapidly losing their opacity. It features a close-up of Nicole Kidman's panty-covered crotch, as she publicly masturbates in front of three other men during a prison visit. It features Macy Gray as a weary, sass-talking Southern maid, her omniscient narration musing idly on the inappropriateness of a Kidman/Efron sex scene. Another sex scene, meanwhile, is punctuated with cutaways to alligators and grazing hogs.

By this point -- and make no mistake, I've scarcely skimmed through my notes here -- you've either made a mental note to be doing charity work in Eritrea when the film hits theaters, or you're already on the advance-booking hotline. On either score, you should probably trust your instincts. Critics can argue back and forth as to the level of knowingness at play here, but “The Paperboy” is a film built on its distended absurdities and polyester styling – certainly more than Pete Dexter’s cracking, tonally far slinkier, source novel, which comes in for some brutal renovation here, presumably more at Daniels’ hand than his own. (Both are credited as co-writers.)

Related

Want More...

Cannes Film Festival?
  • Joliepittcannestop_gallery_primary_thumbnail
    Check out everything there is including photos, reviews, videos.

The lusty boos that greeted its Cannes press screening were easily anticipated from the opening credits onward, in which the director’s haphazard shot construction and breathy over-sexing of material that doesn’t much want for kink in the first place come as a virtual taunt to critics not willing to acknowledge much in the way of irony. Daniels’s previous work hasn’t given them much reason to do so, after all: his incomprehensible 2005 thriller “Shadowboxer” remained almost heroically dour in the face of its own extreme stupidity, while his 2009 awards-guzzling breakthrough, “Precious,” assaulted the audience with hopped-up misery porn while weeping over its own humanity.

As a filmmaker, Daniels has therefore managed to forge rather a dramatic career arc while keeping his batty, brazenly ripe signature remarkably consistent. For many the gut-punch realism of “Precious” is a more effective foil for his heightened stylistic hysterics. For this hitherto skeptical viewer, however, such excess commands excess: nasty Southern Gothic noir is as apt a canvas as any for his specious talents, unleashing his latent high-camp sensibility without disingenuously dignifying it. True camp classics tend to be adopted by audiences rather than conceived as such; whatever its failings as genre piece or character study – and in an ugly, waftily resolved final act, Daniels does seem to lose authority over his own bad taste – “The Paperboy” might be a rare, calculated exception.

The story, as if either the film’s pre-booked sympathizers or pitchfork-wielders could care less, is heavily spiced gumbo, pitched halfway between florid Tennessee Williams perversion and the more terse moral view of private-eye pulp: in the splendidly named town of Lately, Florida, seemingly slack-jawed bimbo Charlotte (Kidman) enlists a trio of investigative reporters (most prominently, and implausibly, Efron) to clear the name of convicted-killer penpal Hilary (John Cusack) she has just agreed to marry. Things get messier when Efron’s unseasoned kid reporter falls hard for Charlotte, as his cynical maid Anita (Gray) watches gloomily from the sidelines, her voiceover adding more in terms of zonked atmospherics than enabling of the simple-enough plot. (“So Hee-lary took Charr-lotte to the shwaaamp,” she explains huskily, as if recounting gossip rather than telling a story.)

This uncluttered narrative allows ample storage space for the pungent clutter of Daniels’s own fetishes, which appear to range from synthetic fabrics to late-1960s Hollywood cinema in the cautiously experimental, post-Antonioni vein – Joe Klotz’s choppy, roulette-wheel editing rhythms make a lot more sense here than they did in “Precious” – to Zac Efron himself, who accepts his rather inflexible role as Vexed Ken Doll with markedly good grace. There’s also some thick commentary on racial and sexual discrimination in immediate post-MLK America that acquires a kind of burlesque resonance through sheer blunt repetition, despite (or perhaps because of) the way they curdle with the more salacious trivialities of the A-narrative.

Finally, Daniels again proves that even with his mind seemingly on his own shopping list of affectations, he can tease some remarkable performances out of his actresses in particular: Kidman, relishing the chance to allow most of the character to the surface for a change, is more sexually strident and earthily funny than she’s been since “To Die For,” but in her subtly brokered exchanges with Efron, smartly avoids patronizing Charlotte as a gone-to-seed Lolita. Gray, meanwhile, adds another spacily timed, implication-heavy, hazily sad character sketch to her growing gallery of striking miniatures – you’d say it’s a performance in search of a more coolly accommodating movie, but the ballsy, bonkers, sporadically dreadful but obnoxiously alive one Daniels has made thrives on all the conflicting textures it can get.

Guy-lodge-sm
Guy Lodge
Critic
Guy Lodge is a South African-born critic and sometime screenwriter. In addition to his work at In Contention, he is a freelance contributor to Variety, Time Out, Empire and The Guardian. He lives well beyond his means in London.

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    Will

    God, I can't wait to see this. Sounds bonkers.

    How many years have you been going to Cannes, Guy? From an outsider perspective, this sounds like one of the most bonkers Cannes line ups there has ever been. Do you find this to be the case?

    May 24, 2012 at 1:13PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    B

    Kidman is awesome, she always goes *there* for the right director.

    May 24, 2012 at 1:21PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Summer09hitfix_talkback_profile

    gregel

    Look forward to seeing it now.

    May 24, 2012 at 1:21PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Matthew M. Lingo

    Lusty boos are my favorite kind of boos.

    May 24, 2012 at 1:32PM EST Reply to Comment
  • N25501058_36871357_8293821_talkback_profile

    Mykill

    They should just quote your entire first paragraph on all of the posters for this film - that will guarantee curious people will want to see the film (it may not guarantee they will like it, but how could anyone not be intrigued to see what you've just described.) I am definitely excited to see this movie with a group of friends hopefully late at night and after some form of intoxication so that I can enjoy it for all it is worth. Great review Guy!

    May 24, 2012 at 1:51PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Liz

    I don't know what it is about me, but I seem to have been born without the camp-appreciation gene. It's not like I lack a sense of humor. But Mommie Dearest? Showgirls? Valley of the Dolls? Seen 'em all, and I was perplexed each time.

    So I assume that I am probably not the target audience for this movie. But good luck and Godspeed to those who are. I hope you have a blast watching it!

    May 24, 2012 at 2:21PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Andrew F

    This sounds AWESOME. Like, "Mangingo" awesome.

    May 24, 2012 at 4:20PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Andrew F ...er, make that "Mandingo".

      May 24, 2012 at 4:21PM EST
    • Chew_talkback_profile

      Shitegeist I believe "Mangingo" was that movie where ginger haired slaves had to fight each other, right?

      May 24, 2012 at 7:22PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Andrew F While yielding gingko biloba branches, yup!

      May 24, 2012 at 7:44PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    /3rt

    Can you call Daniels an auteur after this film?

    May 24, 2012 at 4:21PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Tumblr_linbqgiznz1qz9qooo1_r1_500_talkback_profile

    Dooby

    THIS. SOUNDS. SOOOOOOO. AMAZING.

    May 24, 2012 at 5:44PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Ladesh

    Sounds like a kind of film that people might expect Nicolas Cage to do but he probably wouldn't.

    Reading the description of the film bring up a weird thought. Has there ever been a western (non pornographic) film that showed urination? I don't mean to sound perverse (and don't ask for titles) - just curious if that ever happened (and how MPAA reacted).

    May 24, 2012 at 6:21PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      ungruntled Happens in Altman's "Short Cuts." Facing camera, from the bank of a river, Huey Lewis takes a long leak. Seriously.

      May 24, 2012 at 6:45PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Wozzaseds Holy smoke with Kate winslet and Harvey keitel as well.

      May 24, 2012 at 7:05PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      /3rt Oprah Winfrey in Beloved (1998) is shown urinating.

      May 24, 2012 at 7:38PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Cde. You must not watch a lot of movies.

      May 24, 2012 at 8:09PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Ladesh CDE, um, I have never been told off in this context before. Contgrats?

      Color me a bit suprised though. Interesting that MPAA gave all those movies an "R" and not "NC-17". One never knows what does it for them.

      May 25, 2012 at 2:14AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Cde. Apologies for my tossed off and condescending reply. I didn't realize you meant 'actual urination', which obviously is a rare thing in film.

      May 25, 2012 at 6:57PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Bjorn Actual urination. It happens in Black Book. I bet Lee Daniels likes Paul Verhoeven films.

      May 26, 2012 at 10:03AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Ladesh No problem at all, CDE. I suppose I should have been more clear.

      I haven't seen Black Book but I'm guessing that just like in the case of "Short Cuts" this involves a male character. Sexual politics and taboos in film are a weird thing.

      May 26, 2012 at 4:54PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Bjorn It is indeed a male character. And I can't remember having seen a woman actually urinating on film. Is it necessary to see it actually happening?
      Sexual politics and taboos are weird things in general.

      May 26, 2012 at 5:37PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Ladesh I didn't mean in it in that way. As a side note, I don't belive that literalness and explicitness is required in general (though the usefulness of showing *something* versus implying that same something *can* vary depending on context).

      It's just that it occured to me that (and please don't read this as a tirade - I'm just answering your question) in a film cutlure that's only too happy to applaud violence as long as its stylish and questions filmmakers like Haneke and Cronenberg on whether they lost their "edge" after a single(!) film (without ever wondering what that very act does to those filmmakers), this one act remains a final frontier of sorts of what can be shown on the big screen (among basic things that people do everyday anyway).

      But I had no idea if that actually was the case.

      May 26, 2012 at 7:55PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      /3rt The reason it isn't shown more is because most stories work without ever entering that territory. What purpose besides crass humor and shock value does it possess? A really esoteric story being told for it to be necessary.

      May 27, 2012 at 2:29AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Bjorn I didn't think you did. I think the same thing really, but I thought it would be fun to ask some questions to spice up the discussion a bit. Sorry if it came across as a bit blunt. English is not my first language, therefor it is a little bit choppy.
      Thank you for your well written answers.

      May 27, 2012 at 4:06AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Paul Outlaw

    So looking forward to this. Thanks, Guy!

    May 24, 2012 at 7:58PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Andrew

    Guy, are you going to review Amour? (or did I miss it?)

    May 24, 2012 at 9:05PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Guy lodge I am, yes.

      May 25, 2012 at 1:40AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Evan

    Your description of the filming style (and how the same one worked in Precious) supports my idea that some people luck into making/acting in well-reviewed films by no thoughtfulness of their own.

    All the same-- "Trash and treat"? SIGN ME UP!

    May 24, 2012 at 11:47PM EST Reply to Comment

Get Instant Alerts on In Contention

2012-2013 OSCAR PREDICTIONS

oscarside.jpg

Best Picture

Best Director

Best Actor

Best Actress

Best Supporting Actor

Best Supporting Actress

Best Adapted Screenplay

Best Original Screenplay

Best Cinematography

Best Costume Design

Best Film Editing

Best Makeup And Hairstyling

Best Original Score

Best Original Song

Best Production Design

Best Sound Editing

Best Sound Mixing

Best Visual Effects

Best Animated Feature Film

Best Documentary Feature

Best Foreign Language Film

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook