The Whale review: Brendan Fraser does his best to elevate Darren Aronofsky’s latest
It's easier to root for Fraser and his much-lauded comeback than it is to actually connect with Aronofsky's inconsistent film
Film Reviews Darren Aronofsky
One of the most compelling stories this awards season has been Brendan Fraser’s big-screen comeback. Nary a day goes by without a story about a standing ovation he received at some film festival or a magazine interview where he revealed something personal and poignant. Fraser was a major star in the late 1990s fronting a franchise—The Mummy movies—that enjoyed a cultural resurrection the last few years, attracting new audiences and making him a figure of fan adoration online. Many people are rooting for him to succeed and that sentiment has crystalized in hopes that he wins the best actor Oscar next March for his performance in Darren Aronofsky’s The Whale. The performance is so linked to this buzz that the film’s marketing department is emphasizing Fraser’s award prospects instead of elements of the film, which make it fair to mention this in a review of the film’s merits.
Ostensibly a character study of a man desperate to connect before time slips away from him, The Whale becomes an exercise in watching a slow suicide. Charlie (Fraser), afflicted by obesity, has mostly isolated himself from the world. The first scene of the film hits the audience in quick succession: masturbation, a heart attack, and a young missionary (Ty Simpkins) trying to save Charlie’s soul. Audiences who love Aronofsky’s penchant for putting his characters through both physical duress and holy enlightenment will appreciate this bold opening.
As the story develops we discover that Charlie is grieving the loss of a dead boyfriend. This heartbreak is the reason for the isolation. Yet despite all that, he remains a positive soul, believing in the good of people whether they also show him grace, like his best friend and caretaker, Liz (Hong Chau), or are cruel to him, like his estranged teenage daughter Ellie (Sadie Sink), whose mother has kept her from him since their divorce.
Aronofsky is interested in how much people can push themselves physically and use their bodies, not only to accomplish physical feats but also to reach emotional nirvana, themes he’s explored before in 2008’s The Wrestler and 2010’s Black Swan. In the first film, a way-past-his-prime professional wrestler played by Mickey Rourke continues to push his tired and withering body to the extreme. In the latter, Natalie Portman’s ballerina struggles to be perfect as both the black and the white swans of Tchaikovsky’s famous Swan Lake ballet, pushing her body to its maximum limits in the process. Considering how similar these plots sound to The Whale’s, you’d think that makes him the perfect filmmaker to adapt Samuel Hunter’s play.
This is only partly true. Aronfosky tries to render the film’s thesis of treating the body as a shell and not the actual real person inside by using horror elements. The music becomes ominous as Charlie eats and bathes, and more so as he moves, as he cries, even as he laughs. It’s all horror. When all of this is shown repeatedly, the film loses empathy for its central character. Fraser’s trying to give Charlie grace, yet most of what we see is the physical difficulty he’s afflicted with.
Under heavy prosthetics, Fraser is nevertheless able to utilize his face to convey Charlie’s sunny side. That note of hope shines through bright and clear. Charlie believes everyone is good and has potential, positive notes that Fraser delivers with acute feeling. Beyond that, the performance is hampered by all the physical exertion he has to communicate. It becomes more about calling attention to the difficulties he has breathing and talking instead of showing us his emotional state. Unfortunately for a film claiming that the body is nothing but a container for the soul, the performance ends up being more surface, less vital spirit.
Fraser has potent chemistry with Chau. She plays Liz, his late boyfriend’s sister and seemingly the only friend he has in the world. As all good friends do, she wholeheartedly supports him, but also teases and cajoles, not afraid to tell it to him straight. Chau acts as the audience surrogate and we see Charlie through her eyes. Whatever empathy is lacking elsewhere in the film, Chau compensates for and more. Hers is a clear-eyed performance, tough as well as sensitive. The way Chau holds a phrase as she recalls Liz’s brother fills in the story gaps and tells us so much about all the characters, not just hers. She’s so good you can’t take your eyes off her, no matter who else is in the frame.
On the other side of that, Sink only plays the obvious elements of being a teenager. Other characters speak about Ellie’s abrasive personality, her mother (the ever-reliable Samantha Morton, elevating her brief screen time) even calls her “evil.” Sink seems to have based her performance on that, without trying to find what’s really driving this behavior.
The Whale has a few other problems too. Not escaping the theatrical confines of its source material is not one of them, since claustrophobia fits how this character feels inside. But Aronofsky and company aren’t able to give the audience a reason to root for Charlie besides his surface-level positivity. Even the many mentions of the novel Moby Dick do not hint at any intellectual link to the film’s title but are rather used as a trite excuse for a relationship the script has failed to render believably. Charlie’s queerness is not explored beyond a few easy jokes at desire and porn. The Whale’s raison d’etre seems to be about being the engine driving Fraser’s long-awaited resurgence. Beyond that there’s nothing much to see.
73 Comments
haven’t seen this yet but the buzz at tiff amongst my friends who saw it was pretty bad, fraser’s performance aside. interesting how little marketing has been done, pretty sure i only saw the first trailer within the last week.
I’ve heard nothing about it beyond the quality of Fraser’s performance, and his bravery at taking such a role given his own health issues. He seems like a great guy and I hope once this movie fades everyone can just go back to appreciating his work rather than circumstances. Because if this review is at all accurate, it sounds tedious as hell.
Really? “Sad fat guy” doesn’t sound like a fun night at the movies?
I could just stay home and look in a mirror for two hours for that. Save some bucks.
Brendan “Maverick” Fraser is a 60 year old naval aviator who, in 36 years, somehow has never been promoted above lieutenant. His old buddy, The Admiral, calls him to help train a bunch of sexy-yet-kooky misfits for a really dangerous mission. Unfortunately, Maverick weighs 600 pounds and can’t squeeze himself into the cockpit. His daughter, Sadie Sink, has no idea who he is, and Jennifer Connelly has sold enough beer to afford a Porsche.
But it got a thirty minute standing ovation or whatever the fuck insane shit they do at those film festivals these days!
This does seem to be the latest film in a recent string where the notable things about it are the background info and the story of people involved, rather than the film itself. (Not that I think it’s particularly surprising for Aronofsky.) Not to mention the “is this something we should be cancelling?” discussion has been had for months before most anyone saw the film. I predict it’s going to land rather quietly.
Further proving my theory that The Wrestler is the only great Darren Aronofsky movie.
Um, The Fountain and Requiem for a Dream would like a word.
The Fountain was so bad
Requiem is overrated and is just a fancy anti drug after school special that features a double ended dildo. Going to be honest I legit forgot about Pi.
You know if that guy from TV had shoved a dildo up his ass instead of frying a fucking egg, I might’ve stayed off the drugs.
Ahem… And what about The Fountain and Black Swan?I can see the divisiveness in regards to Requiem for a Dream, which is notably really hard to watch, but it’s not a bad film (maybe slightly overrated), but the soundtrack ruled and all the performances are great. But with Pi, The Wrestler, The Fountain, and Black Swan… that’s a pretty good list.
How can you ruin a Jennifer Connelly nude scene?
Those movies are also both great visually. Matthew Libatique definitely deserves credit for that too. I think Requiem in particular was very influential in modern cinematography and editing. And that style was evident to a lesser extent in Pi. I don’t think anything he’s done since those early films has been as good, which is a bit disappointing.
i get why a lot of folk dismissed or didn’t like the Fountain, but by jove, that film is transcendent…
It’s top 3 for me all time, and I listen to the score frequently.
same, Death to the Road of Awe is an all-timer, and introduced me to the majesty that is Mogwai…
Agreed. It’s a film I love but very much get why others don’t. I feel the same about Refn’s Only God Forgives. It delights me but I know why others aren’t into it.
I feel like this was a more effective meditation on grief than The Fountain was. In large part because I found Hugh Jackman (who I’m not really a fan of in general) so aggressively unpleasant that I didn’t really care whether he saw his wife again.
Requiem made me want to go Elvis and shoot the screen. Pretentious and awful.
Pi blew me away when I saw it as a youngster.
Same, I haven’t watched it as an adult though (I’m mostly afraid it wouldn’t live up to my teenage impression of it).
Black Swan is great imo, and even if you didn’t love it, has a lasting cultural impact.
mother! is the best Bible adaptation since Pasolini, though I get why it’s divisive. Fuck it, I’ll say it: I like the guy. Every movie is a huge swing, and some of them are outright bad, but he’s out there doing what film geeks always say they want: offering a clear voice, taking chances, and trying new things. People tend to forget that if a filmmaker is truly taking risks, then they should fail a significant percentage of the time. In that way, he’s more interesting than someone like Spielberg or even Scorsese, who, a few one-offs aside, have mostly found their lanes and generate reliable critical hits within it. Better batting averages, but fewer surprises.
I liked Black Swan but personally preferred Satoshi Kon’s Perfect Blue myself to be honest.
Blue myself
Hello Tobias.
I love Black Swan as its own thing. But I also love it for the legal shit it stirred so my industry internship was paid.
Pi
I wanted to put some updated comments somewhere, so I chose to put them here.Got to watch The Whale last night, and I definitely rank The Whale as one of Aronofskys’ great films. Oddly, I got a *lot* out of having read Moby Dick before watching this. If you didn’t catch that book in grade school it is hugely relevant to this film, as it extends the metaphor (well, one of the many potential metaphors) of Mellvilles work fairly literally and directly.I have seen a lot of people HATE this move – but the comments where the hate it don’t line up with my experience. For instance, I didn’t see the horror tropes the review here talks at length about. I saw some things very similar to those tropes, but I found them used in extremely unique ways to build and support the intended message of the movie. Same with criticisms about fatphobia – this movie has very very little to do with obesity. It a metaphor in the service of some higher meaning that I found deep and powerful. Aronofsky never works for everyone – he is very arch in his deeper meanings and consistently pushes you over the top in poetic ways – The Fountain, which I love, borders on the absurd. But this movie really worked for me. I was sobbing in my chair at the end of it. It was wonderful.
Hey Charlie! I got a movie for ya: A Fridge Too Far!
“Sir, if you just quiet down, I’d be happy to treat you to a garbage bag full of popcorn.”
And well done to you too, I still can’t stop laughing!
I mean that’s what he looks like in the photo! Well done. I’m crying over here.
“Our seats cannot possibly accommodate a man of your…carriage.”
A film by Darren Aronofsky
Who is this guy anyways? Sadie Sink’s never heard of him! He’s NOBODY!!!
Agree with this review. Fraser is great and Hong Chau is always incredible but beyond that kind of awful, and not just because of Aronofsky – it’s a bad script of what I can only assume is an equally shitty play.
Truly believe Aranofksy is so revered because we love saying, “Aranofsky.” Even typing it twice made me feel good. Haven’t caught the whole oeuvre (no way was I seeing, “The Fountain”), because every time I do it’s just arty sadism, which I posit, is not that hard to do, but you look like an original because very few really want to go there, both as artists and audience. “Black Swan” one of those movies where I felt like I was in the twilight Zone with how “great” it was supposed be vs. what I saw (Natalie Portman’s performance notwithstanding). And I wish the best for Fraser, who seems like a good dude. But will be skipping this ARANOFSKY, as ARANOFSKY doesn’t do it for me.
I actually love most of Aronofsky’s work. At his best, he reaches David Lynch-like levels of magical realism. But I suppose Lynch’s work could also be described as “arty sadism.” Maybe it takes a sadistic artist to lay bare the inner lives of damaged people. Any time you’re shining a light on the human experience (good, bad, ugly, banal), it’s going to feel sadistic and invasive.That creepy feeling adds to the “horror” element of both men’s movies. But the supernatural is always grounded with an unflinching look at human existence at its most absurd, joyful, cruel, and comforting.
Don’t be silly. It’s the combination. Darren Aran. Ofskyyyyyy
Definitely not trying to shit on Brendan Fraser, who I’m sure did a great job in his role, but wasn’t this movie supposed to be his BIG COMEBACK? How can it be a comeback film if it’s kinda just lackluster…? The guy shot up back into the stratosphere of praise and recognition recently, but so far, I’ve not really seen or heard any films of his garner much praise these past few years.I heard this same comeback talk with Eddie Murphy when Dolemite Is My Name was coming out, but that movie was surprisingly really good.
Even if the movie itself is lacking, the praise for him IN the movie is pretty universal. So… Yeah. Comeback.
If he’s getting consistent work it’s a comeback. Between this movie, the new Scorcese, and the canceled Batwoman movie, Brendan Fraser has been on fire, regardless of the movies’ quality. Sort of like how John Travolta’s comeback in the 90s started with Pulp Fiction but also included Get Shorty and Primary Colors, two buzzy, popular movies that nobody has watched in the last 20 years.
The Fraser/Travolta comp isn’t really a good one. Fraser has been working since 1991 consistently. Though more in voice roles, DTV movies, and small parts after 2009, up until 2015 when he started getting acclaim for his roles in stuff like Condor, The Affair, Trust, Doom Patrol, etc. Unlike Travolta, who had completely fallen off the map prior to his sudden “comeback” from Pulp Fiction, Fraser has been building up his cache as a previously underrated actor for years now. I’d term it more of a natural progression than the sudden, and fairly short-lived, boom Travolta got. On a more personal interpretation, Travolta is not a particularly good actor, which led to his boom then relatively quick bust for the time he made his comeback.
It’s easier to root for Fraser and his much-lauded comeback than it is to actually connect with Aranofsky’s inconsistent film*Aronofsky’s
The Whale’s raison d’etre seems to be about being the engine driving Fraser’s long-awaited resurgence.
It seems that the film’s raison d’être is about being an engine?
“Er-eh…NOFSKY!”
“*Aronofsky’s”Thank God You Were Here!!!
Hong Chau fan club! Someone please write more roles worth of her talent.
Under heavy prosthetics, Fraser is nevertheless able to utilize his face to convey Charlie’s sunny side. That note of hope shines through bright and clear. Charlie believes everyone is good and has potential, positive notes that Fraser delivers with acute feeling.This is just…. really poorly written. Like, sub-high school level. Who is the A.V. Club hiring these days anyway?
They pay them in Gawker NFTs
And your response post is… like… just such an improvement.
i mean, i may not rise to the level of the A.V. Club’s resident Voluntary Proofreader, but at least i can put together a coherent thought that doesn’t sound like a fifteen-year-old wrote it ten minutes before their book report was due.
But it is coherent, dull as it is. That’s the bar now. If you can write something slightly better than gibberish with random buzzwords sprinkled throughout then you can be a writer.
It’s lonely at the top
I’m going to ask a tough question. Does a character that’s gay have to have that aspect explored in every film? Yes I’m a straight (not narrow) white dude. But there’s “queerness” and a dude who just likes other dudes-or whatever combo exists. Put it this way, my brothers been gay since his teens and if I asked him about his “queerness” he’d laugh his ass off. He likes having sex with men, and he’s chosen a man as his life partner. But I’ll probably get roasted here.
1. That’s not a tough question.2. Given that a large motivator for the character’s depression is the death of his partner, it’s probably relevant to talk about his sexuality.3. If someone made a movie about your brother’s life, do you think it *wouldn’t* explore that aspect?
I suppose it would depend on his brother. Did he do something that, while worth making a movie about, was only tangentially connected to his sexual relationships? If so then why bother exploring his sexuality any more than the writers would a straight character? There are plenty of movies with a straight male lead character where the wife and kids are an afterthought or at best a motivation that’s usually off-screen. The same should be true of gay characters if the content isn’t specifically about their sexuality or the challenges they face because of it.
My mistake was not just shutting down the straw man of “my brother is gay, therefore blah blah“.
Ok, I’m not sure why you chose this place to critique your own response to a different commenter. Most people just think these things to themselves. If you’re looking for a debate coach or something I can’t help you.
Because you seized upon the least relevant part of my answer and I’d rather not debate that shit with you. And I was expressing that mistake to you in the hope that you would get the hint and jog on instead of me having to just say the straightforward “That’s not really the point and thanks for choosing to only butt in on the third of three responses.”
If you didn’t like what I said you could have ignored it. But that wouldn’t have given you an opportunity to be a condescending dick, would it? I guess I forgot that the third item in a series is meaningless and should not be commented upon. If that’s the case you must have been coming in third your whole life.If you’d “rather not debate that shit” with me the easy way to do that is to shut up. Like, by not airing your opinion publicly in the first place. Just like everyone else, what you think isn’t important and no one really cares. Certainly not to the point where you can palm off a legitimate, non-troll response with some high-handed, arrogant remarks aimed at some presumptive audience rather than the person you’re ostensibly speaking to.I don’t care what you believe or what system of morals and ethics you follow, regardless of all that you’re an asshole. You can think you’re right about things, you can feel superior to people. At the end of the day you’re a jerk, an unpleasant person, someone people dislike. Nothing you think will ever change that. Only behaving towards others differently can make you something other than an orifice for expelling shit. Maybe give it a shot. It might turn out that the world isn’t full of assholes, your head was just crammed up yours.
There’s a good bit of content here that’s specifically about sexuality & challenges faced because of it, particularly for his late partner. Especially for his late partner. It’s also ultimately the reason he’s estranged from his daughter. And very relevant to the connection with the young man who’s trying to save his soul. In other words, I agree and this film is one that needed to say more about it.
With the caveat that I haven’t seen the movie, the plot seems to center on the character’s relationship with his dead boyfriend and his dead boyfriend’s sister. If the whole narrative is built around his (gay) relationship, it seems bizarre that the review would assert that the movie doesn’t explore his sexuality. At the worst, “exploring” in this context kind of exoticizes gayness.
I thought it was clear from the larger context of the review that the writer was lamenting the lack of character exploration *generally*, and using his sexuality as an example. I agree that your “at worst” read of that is potentially bad but I also think too many commenters on this site are too quick to leap to that worst case. I would, in fact, say that SOME commentariat are bad faith shit talkers.
For a movie that seems to be primarily a character study, it seems like it would be a significant aspect of his character to explore, particularly considering that his life seems to have been shaped so heavily by his sexuality. He left his wife and was alienated from his daughter for a man, and his best friend is that man’s sister – being gay is a pretty big part of his life.
“Charlie’s queerness is not explored beyond a few easy jokes at desire and porn.”So the movie treats his character like a regular guy who just happens to be gay? The horror…
Also, the generic Hollywood feel-good Up With People dialogue in the trailer is rather pukey, to say the least…
Saw it tonight and liked this more than a lot of critics seem to. I know they all got a memo a few months ago that this film is morally wrong because a character wears a fat suit, but it is definitely not lacking empathy, and I’m not sure why a gay character’s queerness needs to be “explored” if the goal truly is equal representation. In the same way that scenes of drug addicts and alcoholics relapsing on drugs and alcohol can be a powerful engine, I would argue that food serves that purpose here.I’ve been trying to think: Aronofsky seems pretty unique in that he’ll switch between directing his own scripts and others (The Wrestler, Black Swan and this are all at least credited to someone else). Are there any other directors generally thought of as auteurs who do that? I’m having trouble. Roman Polanski, maybe.
Spike Lee?
Yeah, that’s a good one. Didn’t think of him. I’d actually go farther and say that some of his best stuff is what he didn’t write (25th Hour, Inside Man).
Wow. Gene Belcher is all grown up.
I’ll tell you this much, I’m partly rooting for Fraser over Colin Farrell because I think winning an Oscar would help Brendan’s career, but winning one right now would be a bad thing for Colin.I would worry he would get stuck in leading man roles again when he’s been doing such interesting work as a character actor lately.As opposed to Best Actress, where I get that Cate Blanchett is fantastic in Tar, but she’s fucking got two, so get out of Michelle Yeoh’s way, lady.
I don’t think anything is going to force Colin Farrell into roles that he doesn’t want to do. If he wants to do smaller movies, or supporting characters, that’s what he’s going to do.Just the same, “Colin Farrell is Reed Richards” would sell.