Mixed bag

Rating: 5/10 (2 January 2006)

I watched this movie with a load of apprehension. I have always treated biopics with cautiousness, because I don't often get the point of making them. On one hand, the film could be a valuable lesson in history, an insight into the 'man behind the persona' etc... . On the other hand - what do I care? Of course a film like Gandhi breaks the mould once in a while due to its sheer watchability and accurateness, but mostly, Biopics fail to impress because there is nothing of substance in one man's life - no defining purpose or a linear storyline. Life is mostly a jumble of varied and vastly differing experiencing which may or may not be interesting when viewed as a 3 hour package. When the man is Howard Hughes, the risk increases, since even after watching the film I found myself asking the question - Who was this man? Aviator? Filmmaker? Spoilt kid of rich parents?
That said Aviator didn't disappoint me much. As a film it stands out due to a few aspects. First is the direction. Martin Scorcese is a director who has seen many of his creations run on the screen. And the confidence shows on screen, when he experiments with seemingly bizarre tools like painting the screen in colours of his choice, without an ounce of hesitation or explanation. He keeps the film going into places he wants and the viewer follows like a child following his father down the tunnels of New York. We don't see light at the end of the tunnel, but we follow it to the end. He pulls the hero into all the craziness of OCD and doesn't show him beating it to win the odds. That is a relief. Second, as I have mentioned before, the photography of the film is natural and authentic. Closeups of the lead characters, and the CGI generated airplanes rushing at the camera look splendid. Sharp cuts and flashes coupled with eerie sound effects combine to give us a peek into what really worried Hughes when he stepped into crowds and leery photographers. Third, the pace of the film is well maintained, and barring a few places, the story never grows boring or overdone.
But still, I'll have to say that this film is severely flawed in more places than one. The story of the film is feeble to the point of being non existent. There is no concrete purpose to this film - which I personally feel would have given it power and a reason to be. Barely being the child of a talented director cannot be the guarantee to a film's future. Once again I return to the question - What do I care for who Howard Hughes was? He may have been a great person or a mean one at that. But the film gives us no clue towards what we ought to feel for the main lead except pity. That combined with a host of other things, makes you feel as if you were watching a page of tabloid turned into celluloid, one that says 'Oh he wasn't responsible for his craziness, his mother was.' Also, Cate Blanchette puts in a performance which may suit the Oscar jury, but clearly irritated me. Is it the norm for academy to nominate actors who show a combination of insanity and self assurity no matter how averagely done? Cate's role was terribly predictable and I saw a bit of Dominique Francon showing through the chinks.
All in all, you may watch the movie, like it and forget it as one of those movies who have only a past, a present but no future.