Maestro (Bradley Cooper, 2023)

[Never Cursed]

Bradley Cooper will co-write, direct, and star in a Leonard Bernstein biopic for Netflix, which reportedly focuses on Bernstein's relationship with his wife, Felicia Montealegre. Like The Irishman, the film was previously at Paramount (with Scorsese tapped to direct before he decided to commit to The Irishman) until Netflix bought the rights.

[therewillbeblus]

Bradley Cooper will co-write, direct, and star in a Leonard Bernstein biopic for Netflix, which reportedly focuses on Bernstein's relationship with his wife, Felicia Montealegre. Like The Irishman, the film was previously at Paramount (with Scorsese tapped to direct before he decided to commit to The Irishman) until Netflix bought the rights.

Also, like The Irishman, first-look photos show a pretty radical aging transformation! Oscar in the bag

[domino harvey]

He’s very well liked in the industry, so your joke aside it’s only a matter of time until he does win

[therewillbeblus]

Oh I’m being serious- he’ll be honored for the transformation + playing real historical figure. I like him so I’m fine with it- haven’t even seen the movie yet somehow know it’ll be better than this year’s actor win..

[hearthesilence]

I guess this was predictable in this day and age.

[knives]

I guess this was predictable in this day and age.

I’m not sure about your tone, but I think these are reasonable questions to ask. In an age when face acting without purpose, e.g. Cloud Atlas, is rightly scrutinized for its negative history this is a reasonable question to ask. Certainly it makes me uncomfortable that not only did Cooper find himself best to play a significant figure of another ethnicity, but that he had to do so under heavy prosthetic. Certainly it would be clear why this was not the best choice if the movie was one Duke Ellington to give a more extreme example. The history of antisemitic casting in Hollywood is a serious one that I’ll gladly see discourse break through on.

[Matt]

The stills of Cooper as the young Bernstein in profile are giving Alec Guinness as Fagin, just a little bit, but I think Bernstein would have been thrilled to know he was being portrayed by a handsome, heterosexual, blue-eyed WASP.

[hearthesilence]

Actually, just to confirm, is he wearing prosthetics as an older man or in the younger photos as well? It's hard to tell based on a few images, especially when they're in long shot, but my initial impression was that he wasn't wearing much make-up, much less a prosthetic nose, as the younger Bernstein. I'm not exactly comfortable scrutinizing someone's natural born face for ethnic details, but digging up one example (taken from 2018), I don't immediately see anything to suggest that he altered his facial appearance for the younger Bernstein. But I'm guessing I'm wrong about that?

As for the older Bernstein - and again, this is under my initial impression that make-up was only applied for the aging process - it didn't occur to me that anything was amiss because adding flesh on the ears and nose is pretty common for aging anybody, simply because that's what happens when you do get older - your nose and ears do continue to "grow" a bit more. This is something that comes up in VFX de-aging. (From an article on Michael Douglas's de-aging for Ant-Man: "And since human ears and noses never stop growing, they also had to shrink Douglas’s back to their 1980s’ sizes.")

Regardless, I'll let the debate play out more - hopefully Cooper et al will respond soon - and listen to what others have to say.

[Matt]

It’s very high quality, but there’s definitely some schnozzolery going on there.



I don’t care to be the Ethnic Features Police either. I’m more galled by the vanity of Cooper choosing himself as the best option to play Bernstein in a pretty naked bid for an Oscar instead of choosing to boost the career of a more appropriate actor for the role. But even then I really don’t care.

[swo17]

This makes me wonder about the ethics of using AI for Val Kilmer in the new Top Gun. Why couldn't his character have also had throat cancer in the intervening years? Would that have made him "less of a man"? If someone did a Back to the Future reboot, would they CGI Michael J. Fox to not have Parkinson's?

[DarkImbecile]

This makes me wonder about the ethics of using AI for Val Kilmer in the new Top Gun. Why couldn't his character have also had throat cancer in the intervening years? Would that have made him "less of a man"?

SpoilerShow

Not to give too much about Kilmer’s appearance in Maverick away, but I think it was handled pretty tastefully and pretty much in line with what you’re asking for here.

[hearthesilence]

I’m more galled by the vanity of Cooper choosing himself as the best option to play Bernstein in a pretty naked bid for an Oscar instead of choosing to boost the career of a more appropriate actor for the role. But even then I really don’t care.

In terms of wanting the role for himself, I'm not sure that's something to get worked up about - with some notable exceptions, most leading men who step behind the camera take on a major role for themselves. Sometimes it's the most expedient way of getting a film off the ground, especially if it's got limited commercial prospects and a budget that isn't very small. I've always been pretty neutral about his work, but I really don't know Cooper's motive for doing this is so I'm not going to assume anything.

I know Jake Gyllenhaal pursued the role, but while he may be Jewish, I can't say he strikes me as being a great fit either - he's done good work, but I've found him underwhelming more often than not. I don't doubt there could be someone out there who would've been better, but the movie's done so I'm more interested in the debate over physically changing someone and how that could tap into sensitive issues of ethnicity rather than speculative casting.

[therewillbeblus]

Reminds me of the Bill Burr joke about the public outcry over casting Bryan Cranston as a paraplegic instead of an actual paraplegic: "It's called 'acting'!" Or, the reverse situation, in that Ed episode where the outcry over discrimination against a black student who was the best actor in the school is made complex as he didn't get the lead because the role was Abraham Lincoln in his fight against slavery and it would be "confusing" for the audience, and undermine the themes of the play, to cast out of race. But I digress, in all seriousness, while I don't have a personal problem with Cooper casting himself in the role, there's definitely a noteworthy conversation if there weren't behind-the-scenes talks occurring around altering his nose and the implications of such... and people who do have such issues with it surely have arguments that are worth listening to outside of my privileged scope of experience. The key is the word "conversations"- not extremisms of outright dismissals when looking back at 'history' (that surely never led to progressiveness) or unsheathing pitchforks without any intention of topical engagement

[knives]

Reminds me of the Bill Burr joke about the public outcry over casting Bryan Cranston as a paraplegic instead of an actual paraplegic: "It's called 'acting'!" Or, the reverse situation, in that Ed episode where the outcry over discrimination against a black student who was the best actor in the school is made complex as he didn't get the lead because the role was Abraham Lincoln in his fight against slavery and it would be "confusing" for the audience, and undermine the themes of the play, to cast out of race. But I digress, in all seriousness, while I don't have a personal problem with Cooper casting himself in the role, there's definitely a noteworthy conversation if there weren't behind-the-scenes talks occurring around altering his nose and the implications of such... and people who do have such issues with it surely have arguments that are worth listening to outside of my privileged scope of experience. The key is the word "conversations"- not extremisms of outright dismissals when looking back at 'history' (that surely never led to progressiveness) or unsheathing pitchforks without any intention of topical engagement

That’s why I feel like the reaction to black face and the other face acting should have been to embrace a broader spectrum of possibilities which only Hamilton and Cloud Atlas seemingly have embraced. I think, in this debate, a lot of Kazan’s America America which cast an African American women as a Greek. That should have become the norm. Sadly that isn’t the way we’ve gone and the way we have gone has effected me to be sensitive. For example, my wife is a big fan of a show called Grace and Frankie. Due to all of this ones intially apprehensive about Martin Sheen and Sam Waterson playing gay men. The quality of their performances won me over, but that initial sensitivity remained. That’s perhaps not intellectually the most honest argument, but it’s psychologically true. Therefore I would have preferred either a Gyllenhaal or Cooper do it without makeup, but it’s also not a fight I’m overly willing to make. I likely wouldn’t have gotten even this vocal or noticed in a pejorative way if not for others not to mention how American Hustle is one of my favorite all time films and Christian Bale does basically the same thing. I am understanding and appreciative of those who do more actively discuss this though because if we as a society have taken in response to the prejudice of face acting to limit an actor when an actor is unlimited it is worth discussing.

[therewillbeblus]

I'm not sure what to make of this one, and I'm not sure Cooper does either. I have no idea where his interests or sympathies lie amidst the characters, dynamics, or passions depicted - lots of stylish montage clashing with fixed long shots/takes that are artfully-placed to show banal 'objectivity' (we knew it would be in the realm of 'performance', but Maestro is also a strangely 'show off'-y film in this sense - technically diverse, but obvious and pronounced directorial interventions), mentions of genius aren't accompanied with much validation of it, etc. I guess it's pretty safe to pepper in all these elements of a life without engaging with them for any meaningful arc of time, but that's not the only way to deliberately-not justify behavior, and it makes for a more consciously empty film when little 'cathartic' character moments happen without any actual activity occurring between the 'problem'-introduction and them to earn dramatic heft. Just generally, I have no real sense of what drove Cooper to Leonard Bernstein after seeing this movie and that's probably not good [Even in respect to decadence, the film has two very opposing structural positions - first, it narrative elides any positive signification when we're watching family members get hurt by simply omitting Bernstein's experience entirely, thus disempowering that side to the equation.. but then Cooper-the-director will inebriate us in The Moment during another later scene where Bernstein is having a gay romantic encounter on the dance floor, now to apparently empower that aspect of his subject's identity and take a more 'embrace the moment' attitude (vs. the prior distancing from that idea as one of propagating harm from selfish compulsions). Carey Mulligan is great at elevating underwritten parts and she's easily the best thing here, but she can't stop the seams from showing.

[Roger Ryan]

I think Cooper is taking that Bernstein quote he opens the film with seriously and seeks to avoid providing the kind of “answers” biopics typically deliver. Maestro is a series of episodes that require the audience to bring their own interpretation to. I’m not sure Cooper is consistently able to avoid putting his thumb on the scale, but given how tidy these kind of films usually are, I found the absence of judgment (or the lack of a point of view if you prefer) refreshing.

[JamesF]

If the film is about anything, I think it’s asking whether the pain and betrayal Bernstein inflicts upon Felicia (and to a lesser degree his children, especially in the scene with Maya Hawke) is “justified” or validated by his great art. I think it’s absolutely to Cooper’s credit that he doesn’t offer any easy answers to that question, and the film has felt bleaker and haunted me more than I expected it to. It’s certainly much less hagiographic than your usual family-sanctioned biography, again to the Bernsteins’ absolute credit.

[nicolas]

Maestro is great - not the epic disaster some made it out to be and neither a gargantuan masterpiece but for a project of this scale it follows its own POV way more radically than anticipated.

In short, Bradley Cooper could have done it way easier on himself and the Academy voters if he really wanted to have his Oscar(s), as hinted at everywhere. He could have given the world yet another formulaic biopic (three hours long, of course) and following all the familiar Wikipedia beats.

This is not the case and it’s wonderful. I precisely love how conflicted Cooper portrays his Bernstein. The (unnecessary) quote at the beginning gives it away but it really deserves emphasis that he tried to paint a layered portrait of the man and maestro and succeeded. All the gaps in “Maestro” feel as if they increase the further the film continues, as does the relationship between Bernstein’s personalities and the people around him. Moments of triumph are hard-spliced into those of turmoil, often (if not always) without any narrative buildup.

Cooper acknowledges that even he can’t understand the man fully despite having apparently committed years of preparation. We can’t either, yet generic biopics make us feel that we do. Cooper gives us multiple angles to view Bernstein from - music, his words, his behavior. Sometimes, they all feel relevant, sometimes they don’t as in moments when years (which Cooper omits) pass and Bernstein’s behavior doesn’t change, therefore affecting his family the most.

It’s a moving and tense film because it’s so “unsafe” in its construction and the images leave so much room for us to expand on our own.

[therewillbeblus]

I think Cooper is taking that Bernstein quote he opens the film with seriously and seeks to avoid providing the kind of “answers” biopics typically deliver. Maestro is a series of episodes that require the audience to bring their own interpretation to. I’m not sure Cooper is consistently able to avoid putting his thumb on the scale, but given how tidy these kind of films usually are, I found the absence of judgment (or the lack of a point of view if you prefer) refreshing.

I'd like that too if he effectively conveyed such an approach to exploring his subject. But when you arrhythmically oscillate between eliding and hyperfocusing on sometimes dissonant, sometimes mirrored material.. it just feels carelessly strung together (and, honestly, cowardly for not addressing or truly appreciating the different effects evoked from these episodes) rather than admirably restrained.

[Matt]

This film could have been called “Scenes from a Marriage” as that’s mainly what it is. It feels like there is a whole other movie that’s been cut away from it, leaving these disconnected scenes—sometimes only individual shots—that give the viewer nothing to connect with.

Carey Mulligan, as always, is brilliant. She’s given top billing (which seems like false modesty on the part of Cooper) and it’s deserved. It’s a slightly arch performance of an arch character undergoing lots of noble suffering, but she saves it from being camp (which cannot be said of Sarah Silverman, who is “good” but in a way that makes it seem like she’s guest-starring in an episode of “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel”). Mulligan reminded me of Deborah Kerr a bit in the way she is visibly holding a lot of emotion back behind a polite facade, or Meryl Streep in one of her classic ‘80s accent roles. She honestly devours everyone else on screen.

Cooper, on the other hand, is just buried under his own character. I get that Bernstein was a broad personality, but there are scenes where it just seems like Cooper is doing a very committed SNL bit. The most unfortunate (and pervasive) type of biopic acting: the makeup, the voice, the mannerisms, and the physical business are doing all of the work and there is often nothing else behind it. His eyes seem vacant sometimes. The film ends with a scene of the real Bernstein conducting, and there is more emotion in his eyes in that brief moment than in anything Cooper was able to conjure in the rest of the film. In short, Cooper either needed a different director to help him break through all the silicone and technique, or Cooper the director needed a different lead.

I have a hypothesis that the acting style in each period depicted in the film is meant to echo the predominant mainstream cinematic performance style of the time. It begins in 1943 and has a sort of presentational, pre-Method feel to it. It’s a little madcap with the meet-cute at the party and the whirlwind romance amid the New York Cultural scene, and it gestures toward the coming heyday of the movie musical. We seem to skip through the ‘50s, the Brando revolution and ironically the most important decade of Bernstein’s career, to the early ‘60s. Here we get a stagier style of acting in long, static shots, reminiscent of those widescreen dramas or drawing-room comedies that might star Deborah Kerr. Forward to the ‘70s, we get a lot of close-up face acting à la Woody Allen’s serious films. And the ‘80s (a very short portion of the film), we get a lot of flash and personality. The filmmaking, to a lesser extent, does the same thing. Most obviously the switch from black-and-white to color, but also in the staging and framing. It’s a bit like The Aviator in this latter respect, but on a smaller scale. But I could be seeing things that are not there or giving a huge amount of undeserved credit to Cooper as a filmmaker.

The technical work in the film is all first-rate. The makeup, despite the nasal controversy, is absolutely believable, even in tight close-up. The cinematography, sound, editing, costumes, production design, etc. are all perfect.

As a try-hard prestige biopic, this is probably going to clean up in the Oscar nominations, but it seems to have lost any buzz it had and probably won’t win a single one. Typical Netflix hype-and-dump distribution and marketing which was no doubt exacerbated by its release happening when its stars were unable to promote it.

[Roger Ryan]

…
I have a hypothesis that the acting style in each period depicted in the film is meant to echo the predominant mainstream cinematic performance style of the time… But I could be seeing things that are not there or giving a huge amount of undeserved credit to Cooper as a filmmaker…

I was seeing the same thing and believe your assessment is correct. This is also why I am probably more forgiving of some of this film’s faults in that I always appreciate when a film can capture a golden period with effervescence, entrancing the viewer with lightness, before transitioning to darker tones which make the viewer nostalgic for the early scenes. In Maestro, this is accomplished by going from Hawks or Donen to Bergman!

[allyouzombies]

She’s given top billing (which seems like false modesty on the part of Cooper) and it’s deserved.

This is a small detail, but I'm glad you mentioned it. With both Maestro and A Star is Born, Cooper has gone out of his way to promote his female co-leads, but the whole thing feels very performative. Or, as you say, false modesty.

As for the film itself, I agree with much of your assessment. I do think that if Cooper ever directs a movie that he doesn't also star in, it could be great.

[thirtyframesasecond]

I quite liked ASIB but found it one of the most self-absorbed actor-director films I've ever seen.

[pistolwink]

this felt like a feature-length cinematographer's highlight reel, in a way. every scene had some singular, striking visual "idea"--be it a particularly demanding camera movement, some ostentatiously recessive staging or distant framing, long-lens impacted group shot, etc.--and ran until that idea was exhausted. (and yes I think at times these ideas were supposed to evoke visual styles appropriate to the time period depicted.) then an ellipse moves us to the next episode. also, the use of Bernstein's music often drew my attention, since so often it seemed deliberately antipathetic—going against the grain of the scene, rhythmically, tonally....

for a while I was impressed, simply because I didn't expect a film by Bradley Cooper to be so ambitious (in a sense), but I gradually began to realize the film had nothing else up its sleeve. and indeed I started to feel like the stylistic strategies served primarily to draw attention to themselves—and thus to Cooper as an artiste—and had little or no expressive value in themselves.

I found the two central performances (and some of the minor ones) to be enervating. both are in the realm of showy and bravura performances whose technical perfection alienates you from whatever emotion is supposed to be expressed (or left unexpressed). this was particularly true in the second half of the film, when Cooper places Mulligan in some very lengthy and tight close-ups which seem to beg for us to admire her detail work. Cooper does a remarkable impression of some of Bernstein's vocal mannerisms and gestures but so what?

"so what?" is probably the key question I had. now this issue applies to lots of biopics, good, bad, and ugly, but one wonders what—other than the marquee value of the name—interested Cooper in making a film about LB? the movie shows very little curiosity about his music-making, his careers as conductor and composer, his relationship to his musical colleagues, his role as a popularizer, his educational efforts, his catholic tastes, etc. etc. as others have noted above, the film is about his marriage. and while the marriage seems like it had to be an interesting one, the film doesn't really communicate much beyond the wife's initial indulgence of and eventual exhaustion with his wandering eye (and dick). ok.

there are plenty worse ways to make biopics (I watched the Netflix Rustin and that film has nothing at all to recommend it) but despite or because of its artiness, this one was pretty forgettable and likely to be forgotten after awards "season"....

[thirtyframesasecond]

Having now seen this, I feel very similarly to pistolwink and was pretty underwhelmed by this. I didn't really think there was much of a message here besides 'genius is an arsehole who treats others badly'. Even the music isn't afforded a huge amount of reverence besides the Ely performance of the Mahler, which is where the film really comes to life. Mulligan is good, but despite her top billing, I tend to think her role is a bit underwritten - she doesn't really exist outside of him. And then you have nothing about both of their politics, which would have made an interesting film. They supported civil rights and the Black Panthers and the FBI held files on them. Make the movie about that! This will get a lot of Oscar noms but ideally few wins. It's a fairly unremarkable film and as actors turning their hand to directing goes, Cooper has done less than Affleck, for sure.