Film Review: The Fabelmans
Flabby, Flacid Filmmaking
And I so wanted to love this film. On a recent long flight, I rewatched Jaws (Spielberg 1975) and was STILL mesmerized and STILL found details I missed in the last 30 or 40 times I’ve watched. I rewatched E.T : The Extra-Terrestrial (Spielberg 1982) as well, and though not my favorite of the auteur’s films, I sat happily wrapt in the palm of a great storyteller, engrossed. If there’s one thing you can expect from a Spielberg film, whether it’s a rousing adventure like Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), a clever caper like Catch Me If You Can (2002) or a necessary, somber lesson like Schindler’s List (1993) — you will experience fine filmmaking, you will be well taken care of for the next few hours.
The Fabelmans, Spielberg’s own coming-of-age origin story is sweet, perhaps cloyingly so, with a stodgy, lumbering plot which is ironically, out of focus. It rambles, it ploddingly slugs along, though beautifully so, in a 50s era golden patina of nostalgia.
Most performances are breezy, non-confrontational turns and as uninteresting as the plot. There are two notable stand-outs: Michelle Williams’s overacting as Mitzi, his zany? selfish? (but definitely dangerous) mother — she drives the children into the path of a tornado to get a better look — is hard to watch. If I was meant to feel sympathy for, or like this character, I certainly did not (except that her undiagnosed mental illness was a tragedy). The countless close-ups of her porcelain perfection pulled focus from the other members of the family, from their story as a cohesive entity. Perhaps if The Fabelmans was told from her point of view, the film would have been more interesting. However, Judd Hirsch’s delightful over-the-top performance was a bright spot and brought one of the only few really enjoyable moments.
Though almost entirely an even, deliberate narrative, a big bowl of featureless oatmeal, one scene was disturbing and out of place — the finger nail scene. I won’t give it away, but it was jarring and it was uncomfortable. Was it meant to highlight 1950s social constraints? The dominance of the white patriarchy? Was it a metaphor for their un-consummated domestic threesome? I don’t know, but it felt forced and misplaced and so specific, I wonder if it really happened in the young Spielberg’s life.
Ultimately, the reviews, are of course, resoundingly positive for The Fabelmans and I am in the minority. Considered one of the year’s best films on many lists and will certainly be a nominee for Best Picture — for me it lacked the usual Spielberg mastery and magic. Some reviews, however reflected my view, but none better than Barry Hertz in The Globe and Mail “It is about the great promise of a young man named Steven Spielberg– a portrait of the artist as a young man that is all canvas and no paint.” Amen to that Mr. Hertz.
