Denzel Washington directs Michael B. Jordan in the cloying melodrama A Journal For Jordan
Washington moves from August Wilson to morbid memoir in this Christmas Day dud
Film Reviews Jordan
Denzel Washington’s last directorial outing, Fences, was an almost foolproof project, given its source material: a classic of American theater by one of the country’s greatest playwrights, August Wilson. The same can’t be said of A Journal For Jordan, which marks the first time that this most charismatic of actors has stayed entirely behind the camera for a project. Adapted from a 2008 memoir by former New York Times writer and editor Dana Canedy, it trades in cloying sentimentality and romance, the gooey melodrama done no favors by Washington’s stiff, anonymous direction.
At the film’s center is 1st Sgt. Charles Monroe King (Michael B. Jordan, disarmingly clean-shaven), a Mr. Right who first meets up-and-coming journalist Dana (Chanté Adams) while he’s putting up a picture in her parents’ living room. As far as A Journal For Jordan is concerned, he’s the perfect guy: A man in uniform who appreciates art (especially the French impressionists), respects women, knows it’s manly to cry, and loves his country. The only thing that’s really wrong with him is that he happens to be dead—not a literal ghost, mind, but in the sense of the story being told in the past tense after his death, via a clumsy assemblage of flashbacks, flash-forwards, and voiceover.
These rudimentary elements of collage aside, the plot is straightforward. Dana and Charles first meet in 1998 while she’s visiting her family from New York. He insists on calling her “ma’am” and on referring to himself as “1st Sgt. Charles King.” Otherwise, they hit it off. (In the movie’s only fun period detail, the two have their first long chat over cans of Brisk Iced Tea.) From there, they begin a long-distance courtship over the phone, and he starts visiting her in the Big Apple. Things get progressively more serious, relationship-wise, but the only source of conflict remains Charles’ unwavering commitment to his men: He cares about them just a little too much, to the point of missing dates and, eventually, the birth of his and Dana’s son, Jordan. But even this is presented as a testament to his selfless good character.
Is he, in this respect, a sacrificial figure? The one thing A Journal For Jordan gets right about the time-tested tearjerker formula is the unabashed morbidity; it never stops reminding us, through framing devices (including the journal of the title) and scenes of an older Dana and a tween Jordan, that Charles is going to die. The question of where and how is left unanswered until the end, but given his profession and the approximate period in U.S. military misadventure, it’s not hard to make an educated guess.
Take his incessantly foreshadowed demise out of the equation, and what you’re left with is a generic romance, complete with even more generic New York best friends, that never works as the opposites-attract scenario it’s partly intended to be. (Who could imagine a New York Times reporter falling for military charm—in the 2000s, no less?) Death defines Charles’ character. It is arguably the thing that, from the movie’s point-of-view, makes him so perfect. Wouldn’t we all be so lucky, it asks, to have such a great dead guy in our lives?
The generous might call this a gender-flipped variation on the cinematic and literary tradition of mourned female beauties, or even an inversion of the male gaze; the film’s only memorable image, after all, is a screen-filling close-up of Charles’ bare posterior. But those stories usually involve a dimension of obsession that’s obviously the opposite of the maudlin feelings A Journal For Jordan is meant to inspire. It’s about people being very happy and then very sad, but lacks the stylistic extremes necessary to make those emotions intoxicating. Anyone who doesn’t start bawling at the very idea of a handsome dead dad-soldier will just be bored.
21 Comments
Sadly, I thought this movie was really bad. It was sort of shocking considering who the actors, director and writer are, I was expecting something much more elevated but this had a really hardcore PureFlix/Hallmark feel about that was very cringey.
This is based on a true story? Huh, I’d just assumed Nicholas Sparks was trying to diversify.
Can’t be a Nicholas Sparks story, nobody dies of cancer.
Like I said: diversify.
Fine, he died of AIDS complications.
Apparently the one about the guy who loved football almost as much as he loved Jesus was true too.
Saw a commercial for this that showed nothing about the movie and was just the director talking about how great the story is. Always a good sign.
I’ve seen a trailer for this a couple of times and been shocked at how cloying it looks, I expected more from Denzel.
Not sure if the parenthetical about the implausibility of a NYT reporter falling for a soldier in the 2000s is meant to be sarcastic, since after 9/11, everybody was gung-ho about the military, especially the New York Times (see Judy Miller).
(I see you, Judy Miller!)
Take his incessantly foreshadowed demise out of the equation, and what
you’re left with is a generic romance, complete with even more generic
New York best friends, that never works as the opposites-attract
scenario it’s partly intended to be.
Right, which is why I doubted my first reading that it was sincere as accurate and said “Not sure.” Just making sure; I know Iggy is smarter than to think otherwise.
‘This is an implausible premise.’ (BASED ON A TRUE STORY)
I love Michael B. Jordan but I don’t like his agent.
Seriously, what is he doing. I guess this one is partially understandable because he gets to work with Denzel, but still.
We may hate hit his choices in roles, but they’ve set him up for leading man success with the broadest audience possible for a black actor (without in any way seeming like a sell out). It’s not that dissimilar path from the one Washington took — though Washington was more charismatic and perhaps took a few more risks. In fact, its not even dissimilar from Matthew McConnaughey’s career path. What’s missing from Jordan’s catalog are the truly risky roles that leading men typically take further into their careers, like Training Day. Killmonger is not really that role imo because Jordan gets to have his cake and eat it too: he’s a sympathetic villain. I’m not saying I like these choices or the strategy, or defending his management. I’m just noting the recognizable pattern. I think, or at least hope, we are going to see more interesting choices from Jonathan Majors, who is more like a character actor in a leading man’s body (and more similar to Adam Driver in his choices).
There’s a moment in the trailer when some red balloons float into the sky and my theater openly laughed, which I don’t think was the intended effect
The only source of conflict remains Charles’ unwavering commitment to his men: He cares about them just a little too much, to the point of missing dates because he’s giving them bubble baths.
“Why do it gotta be like this?” – The only MBJ screen death that matters.
Looks like This Is us but atleast with that show you can stay safe at home and watch it for free.
I have no doubt this movie is bad by conventional standards. But is it good for people who like romantic/sentimental films? Like horror movies, some gems transcend the limits of genre but some movies just appeal to fans of the genre.