The Holdovers reviews

[Big Magilla]

Finally saw it.

First off, I don't get all this stuff about it "not" being a 70s movie. The film takes place at the end of 1970, not "the 70s" per se and is very true to the year which was really the end of the decade that began in 1961. Its sensibilities are quite true to the latter part of that decade (1967-1970). It is also one of the few films that doesn't screw up real film release dates. The film Paul Giamatti and Dominic Sessa go to see in a theatre in Boston is Little Big Man which opened wide on December 23, 1970.

If this were a film made in late 1969 or early 1970 as were most of the films released at the end of 1970, it would have been made at a time when films about schoolteachers were popular, following the 1969 releases of The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie and the musical remake of Goodbye, Mr. Chips. Giamatti's character is very much in the mold of Mr. Chipping (hard on the outside, soft on the inside).

Someone, I don't remember who, characterized Da'Vine Joy Randolph's son as having volunteered to serve in the Army to further his education. That would not have been realistic to the time in which the film takes place. Although possible, higher education did not become a real selling point for the Army and other services until the end of the draft at the end of 1972. Her son, like so many others at the time, was drafted or "called" as she says, "called" and "called up" being euphonisms for "drafted". He said that looking on the bright side, it would allow him to go to college.

I think that the film resonates for a lot of people who were of draft age at the time, whether they were drafted or not because of that and the very real possibility that Dominic Sessa's character could become a casualty of war thanks to the actions of his asshole mother and her new husband.

Very fine story telling with three good lead performances, it's one of the best films of the year though I'm not sure how many would consider it the year's absolute best. Da'Vine Joy Randolph is a certain nominee and probable winner for Best Supporting Actress at this point. Dominic Sessa will probably be passed over in favor of Charles Melton (May December) for the one slot in which someone under 50 besides Ryan Gosling will be nominated for Best Supporting Actor. Paul Giamatti should be a certain nominee and possible winner but he's in a very tough race for Best Actor. He could end up winning a Golden Globe for Best Actor - Comedy or Musical and no other major award but that would be a shame.

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
Unlike Sabin, I don’t regularly revisit films, especially ones that fully satisfy me. But those that leave me with questions I sometimes track down and further explore.

From the KotFM thread; it seems apropos to quote as I rewatched The Holdovers last night. Long story short. I fucked up. Whenever we saw the trailer for The Holdovers, my girlfriend would always remark "I want to see that with you!" I didn't know that meant, "No, asshole, hold off on seeing it until we're together" but that's absolutely what it meant. So, I went back again and I'll say this: nobody needs to see The Holdovers a second time. That said, I think it gave me a stronger grasp on what it's doing, what worked for me, what didn't, and why.

The Holdovers is a movie that doesn't have a plot. It's more concerned with creating a world and a vibe and letting its "story" unfold. It's what Quentin Tarantino referred to as "a hang film." It's a cozy movie to be in. Nobody has to go anywhere or do anything. It feels like 133 minutes of walking into rooms and looking around made punchy and palatable by Paul Giamatti's dialogue. I put "story" in quotation marks for a reason. I get the sense from The Holdovers that it wants to resist putting its characters into schematic boxes, asking the questions "Who needs to change and why? Great, then this character should be the opposite." The kind of thing you might expect from Jim Taylor. Thomas Haden Church's Jack isn't really a human being but he's exactly what Miles (the protagonist) needs to change and Payne/Taylor (and Church) are successful in fleshing him out. I wanted (and still want) a Jim Taylor pass in The Holdovers because the film could use that. Champions of The Holdovers might laud it for resisting easy characterization. But like Hannah Green told Grady Tripp, what I see is a refusal to make choices. At once, the film is saying that Paul Hunham needs to change. He's a stern disciplinarian obsessed with the Roman Era from a different time. But he also is someone who resents these children as being rich and undeserving of their education, especially in light of Vietnam. I'm just going to play captain obvious here. I really think they needed to do one or the other, with Paul being too up with class consciousness or not enough. But even more so in Angus he's not really given a character to provide him an arc. We're meant to believe he's a troublemaker who is doomed for military academy if he screws up again. But we don't see him screwing up throughout the film. In fact, he's presented as the only smart kid in class. In contrast to the rest of the holdovers (before they depart), he seems like the only kid with his shit together. So while that trip to Boston is nice, it's ultimately meaningless because we already know that he's smart...

What I'm trying to say is these characters don't learn anything new about who they are. They learn more about where they came from but that's it, and that story kind of fails Paul Hunham. It really could have used a little more of a "Teacher's gotta learn he doesn't know anything at all" arc.

So why am I more bullish on it? Because it's still just a lovely thing to sit through, and I can also now see it's a movie that trucks in vignettes and moments. The disappointment on Paul's face when he sees Lydia greet her beau. Paul's glee at explaining to the Santa at the ten pin alley about the historical inaccuracy of his costume. It's a movie full of wistful Christmas feeling without any semblance of Christmas arc. I'm not going to go so far to say that that's its organizing principle (Christmas disappointment = arc disappointment)...

Oh, I see that I was wrong about Dominic Sessa. He's quite good. I can see now he's basically doing a Holden Caufield kinda thing but it's a good one. You can still see his new he is from time to time but that actually lends his scenes with Giamatti a fun energy. Still wish he or the movie embodied more of a counterculture spirit.

Anyway, with the frustration that it wasn't doing what I thought it was going to do out of the way, I can see it for what it is: a fine movie that plenty of people are going to like for more or less good reasons. They could do a lot worse. Every year, they do. It's a shame that I see such a better film in there.

[Sabin]

This is how I feel. Terrific Gleiberman review.

https://variety.com/2023/film/columns/i ... 235788612/

[Mister Tee]

If I hadn't known going in that this was an Alexander Payne film, I don't know that I would have guessed it. Payne, for me, has always been gloriously cynical in the Billy Wilder/Preston Sturges mode, though, like them, humane enough the cynicism didn't curdle. The Holdovers, though it certainly has its share of cynicism in the margins, is at bottom an earnest film. Some people are jumping off from the use of 70s movies signifiers (the old-style MPAA rating frame, the gloriously evocative "The End" title) and saying this feels like a 70s movie, but they're wrong. A 70s movie would have made Giamatti's character a victim at the end, rather than a martyr (and wouldn't have given him his tiny triumph with the whiskey bottle). This rather sweet movie is, at most, something someone who didn't live through the 70s movie era might think was an equivalent.

All of this might make me sound as if I didn't like the movie, but I did...though, like Sabin, not in the way I did Sideways or Nebraska. It's a solid comeback from Downsizing (and considerably preferable to The Descendants), but a small thing, and one that feels like it borrows from other movies rather than having been conceived organically. I will agree that the film most came alive once it got to Boston -- though I liked the Christmas Eve party pretty well, and I thought everything from Boston on carried the mood forward reasonably well. The film gelled for me in the stretch.

I didn't have any large problem with Sessa, though I would take okri's point that any issues with him probably arise from the on-paper conception of the character: he seems to seesaw between asshole-for-no-reason and empathetic/sensitive fellow simply based on which mode was needed to push the story forward in the moment.

The other two primary performances I like quite a bit. On some level, this is a classic Giamatti role -- giving him a line like "Oh, don't underestimate yourself; you're perfectly capable of failing this class" -- is like serving up a fat pitch to Aaron Judge. And I don't think he reaches the heights he hit in Sideways. But the character deepens as the film goes on: part of the reason the Boston sequence feels alive is it reveals unexpected things about him, which both give more shading and propel him in more interesting directions. His final action doesn't feel unearned because of how we've seen him change (slightly) over the course of the final reel.

I'd seen DaVine Joy Randolph in Dolemite, where she was Loud Sassy Momma from start to finish, so I expected more of the same from her. What I got was something quite different. I'm thinking Alexander Payne's consistent directing note to her must have been "Less", because at every moment, she seemed happy to suggest rather than to wham something home. There was one moment where, in reaction to something Giamatti did, I anticipated a loud bawling out, but, instead, all she offered was a pointedly raised eyebrow, which did the job far more efficiently. Even in her final scene, she doesn't get a big speech; her mere presence next to Sessa is plenty to remind everyone (including the audience) what lay ahead if this boy was sent to military school. There's a lot of natural sympathy built into the role, and the fact that the Payne-directed Randolph never milks that sympathy makes the performance work all the better.

Bottom line: I don't think the movie reinvents the wheel, but it's a pleasing, low-key effort that I think might be quite popular with mainstream Academy voters. The way I see it, there are going to be such wide-appeal films figuring in the Oscars every year. In recent years, it's been dire efforts like Green Book and CODA, which ascended all the way to shocking best picture victories. The Holdovers is a film I think can satisfy those sort of voters while appealing more to me than those lamentable entries. So, maybe two cheers.

[Sabin]

Okri wrote
but it kinda did in the Boston stretch. For me, it was the strongest section of the film. I'm not entirely sure why, to be honest. Getting rid of the other students sorta helped (though I completely missed the joke at the end), but I thought it was a lot more adept at handling the sentiment here.

I didn't mind Sessa, but I think the issues with his characterization come from the screenplay, not the actor.

I'll agree to the latter point with Sessa.

I'll agree to the former point too. A couple of days out and those are the moments I remember the most fondly: wandering around the museum, bowling, and the liquor store.

[Okri]

Post-Election, I've not really embraced a Payne movie. And I didn't really embrace this one. I found some of the sentimental stuff a little desperate if not outright phony. In general, I found the early school stuff playing like a cynical Dead Poets Society. Some great lines sprinkled throughout, but I'll echo Sabin and say that it doesn't quite earn background with Vietnam at the school...

but it kinda did in the Boston stretch. For me, it was the strongest section of the film. I'm not entirely sure why, to be honest. Getting rid of the other students sorta helped (though I completely missed the joke at the end), but I thought it was a lot more adept at handling the sentiment here.

I didn't mind Sessa, but I think the issues with his characterization come from the screenplay, not the actor. Giamatti is quite strong, but it's very much a Giamatti performance. Randolph and Preston are fine.

[Sabin]

I liked The Holdovers but there were a handful of things that keep me from fully embracing it like Sideways or Nebraska. For starters, it's overly-sentimental. I'm going to crib a line from Mike D'Angelo. For all The Holdovers 1970's dressing, there isn't a Hal Ashby film around that would beg for sympathy this much. It's constantly doing so and at far too baggy a running-time. Also, I didn't like Dominic Sessa in this film. 7 years ago, it would've been Hedges or Chalamet and all the more better for it. I feel like there's a missing culturally specific charge to it that Sessa could've brought. He's described as rebellious and troubled but never quite enough (or interestingly) in a way the movie makes use of. If anything, it feels like he's supposed to be a sensible protagonist but then he just becomes whatever the script needs him to be at any moment. He always just seems central casting to me. The Holdovers may conjure the specter of Vietnam but it's not really earned, and I think this kid would've been a good conduit to channel some real conflict (but I digress...). The film has a lot of pleasures. It's a beautiful thing to look at and be in. It's much closer to Sideways or Nebraska but never quite locked-in with its characters. I don't think it ever quite commits to being a teacher-student affair or a shambling three-hander. I think this role is too much up Paul Giamatti's wheelhouse to be a true revelation (he's a dead ringer for Jack Warden) but he's a lot of fun in the role. Every line he rattles off is perfect but Giamatti sells his relic quality well. I wonder if Giamatti will miss out for Best Actor again though because the film doesn't shy away from his more fetid qualities.

If you like Dominic Sessa in this role, you'll like it more than I did. I'll say that it's gorgeously shot and directed, a little too long, and it's a pretty irresistable idea for a movie.

[Big Magilla]

Could be this year's dark horse. If they can give a Best Picture Oscar to CODA, they could easily give one to this for which Giamatti could emerge as the frontrunner for Best Actor.

[Sabin]

Last TIFF, The Holdovers screened privately and rumors were it was terrific. Reviews confirm its quality. Reviews are still coming out but Jeffrey Wells and Sasha Stone are over the moon. David Ehrlich is more mixed. But all in all, looks like a winner. Picture, Actor, Supporting Actress (Randolph), and Original Screenplay are good bets.

https://variety.com/2023/film/reviews/t ... 235709680/
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie ... 235579735/