Director Report Card: Ridley Scott (2006)

16. A Good Year

Following "Kingdom of Heaven," the increasingly busy Ridley Scott would direct two different projects. The first of which was "All the Invisible Children." That project invited seven prominent filmmakers from around the world to contribute stories about children in perilous situations. Despite the number of high-profile names who worked on it – Spike Lee and John Woo also directed segments – “All the Invisible Children" is hard to find. (A region-2 DVD is currently selling for 54 dollars on Amazon.) Most of the segments are on YouTube in various, unsubtitled forms. Scott's segment, "Jonathan," features David Thewis and is pretty good. You can certainly recognize several of the director's trademarks, even within the brief fifteen minute. If that was something of a departure, Scott's second 2006 project, "A Good Year," would also find him in a more light-hearted mood than usual.

As a boy, Max Skinner spent the summers with his Uncle Henry at his French vineyard, learning about wine and life. As an adult, Max is a greedy day-trader who makes millions by screwing over other traders. After a particularly bold move, Max receives news that his uncle has died. No will was left which means Max, as Henry's closer living relative, inherits the vineyard. He discovers a chateau in disrepair, a cellar full of awful tasting wine, and an American woman claiming to be Henry's daughter. Max also soon meets Fanny Chenal, a beautiful waitress at a near-by cafe. Max is initially eager to sell the property and get out of there but Fanny, and the romance that blooms between them, begins to change his mind. 

After spending so many years making violent films about war and revenge, I can understand Ridley Scott wanting to kick back and make a comedy. He had done so previously with some success, with “Matchstick Men.” Yet even that movie had elements of deception and betrayal, the kind of themes Scott can really sink his teeth into. “A Good Year,” meanwhile, devotes itself to a totally cliched story arc. Max begins the movie as a big city asshole, who belittles the people around him and mostly cares about money. As soon as he moves out to the country, it's apparent that he will grow a heart, get back to his roots, and learn to appreciate the simpler things in life. It's completely obvious from the first frame that this is where the movie is headed and it never once nods in any other direction.

If “A Good Year” was about a guy realizing his own greed, learning the errors of his ways, and becoming a better person, that would probably be okay. Yet the film doesn't actually devote itself to showing Max getting better. Instead, he's healed when he finds love. His relationship with Fanny is the exact kind of meet-cute shit you've seen in a hundred romantic comedies. At first they hate each other, because Max almost runs her over with his car via contrived circumstances. After one or two more meetings, he's charmed and asks her out. They go on one date and immediately fall in love. Ya know, if a movie wants us to be invested in a relationship, it actually needs to get us to care about the characters. “A Good Year” is so committed to formula – to the idea that the love of a good woman is enough to redeem Max – that it doesn't provide any other important details.

If I'm being totally honest, “A Good Year” reminds me a lot of the scripts I read in my college screenwriting class. By which I mean it introduces a number of subplots designed to prop up the paper-thin story. So you have this idea of Uncle Henry's previously unknown daughter appearing, a question of her actual identity attempting to add intrigue. Max's business associate, who comes to visit for a day, develops a bit of a crush on her after a brief encounter. Max's bold, bullshitty trading methods pisses off his boss in such a way that he's offered a partnership. Of course, Max has to upset his new girlfriend, which leads to a dramatic split between them at the end of the second act. All of these plot points have to be resolved before the movie is over, leading to an overloaded last third. So overloaded that one of the story's more pressing concerns – whether or not the piss-poor quality of the vineyard's wine can be improved – gets completely brushed aside.

Like I said, I get why Ridley Scott would want to unwind with a less serious project, especially after a movie on the scale of “Kingdom of Heaven.” Yet “A Good Year's” attempts at comedy wind up being embarrassingly broad. It's not a few occasions. It's all throughout the movie. Max is given a tiny car when he arrives in France. He drives it around a parking lot, and later around a four-way stop in fast motion, while yelling at an argumentative GPS. He gets trapped in a pool, slips on mud, and is sprayed with water. There's an ancient groundskeeper who has to be kept from falling over with a rope. The movie's idea of a running gag is scorpions appearing in everyone's bedrooms over night. You really don't expect to see jokes of this subpar quality in a movie from a multiple Best Director nominee. 

In fact, “A Good Year” seems to have a very particular understanding of comedy in general. When Max first meets Christie, the woman claiming to be his uncle's long-lost daughter, he's attracted to her. She sticks her head out a window to talk to him while only wearing a towel. He comments on how physically appealing he finds her on multiple occasion. Yes, this movie attempt to builds comedy around the idea of its protagonist being sexually attracted to a relative. There's even a passing line about whether it's legal to “shag your cousin” in France. For a while, I even suspected the movie was going to create a love triangle between Max, Fanny, and Christie. Or that there would be a reveal about how Christie isn't actually his uncle's daughter, so that incest wouldn't be a plot point in this light-hearted rom-com. Instead, the movie just eventually moves on from the idea that Max was seriously considering having sex with his cousin.

Honestly, “A Good Year” makes me reflect on how few of Ridley Scott's previous movies had romantic subplots and how few of those actually worked. Does Ridley know what sex appeal is? All of the attempts to make “A Good Year” cute, sexy, or romantic are absolutely awkward. After almost hitting her with his car – how's that for a meet-cute? – Fanny shows Max the huge bruise on her ass in the middle of the café. Later, his buddy peeks on Christie as she lies nude under a towel, rubbing ice cubes on her sun-burned skin. It never comes off as flirtatious or cute but as kind of sleazy. “A Good Year” misunderstands romance so fundamentally that it makes me wonder if this isn't a problem with the filmmaker. Is this why the Deckard and Rachael's romance in “Blade Runner” was so terrible?

“A Good Year” may not resemble a Ridley Scott movie in its script but you can at least spot a few of the director's visual trademarks. When Max first arrives at the family vineyard, he descends down into the cellar. There's a sequence where he walks among the barrels, rays of light shinning through the windows and piercing the darkness. Yep, that's a Ridley Scott shot. The French countryside also allows some opportunities for clouds of fog, though we don't see too many of that. During a brief flashback to Max's childhood, when he imagines his uncle sitting by the pool, Scott even includes some of the jittery visuals that started cropping up in his movies around “Hannibal.” 

There is also some thematic similarities to the director's previous work that you can gleam in “A Good Year,” If you look hard enough, you can see the director's reoccurring interest between sons and their fathers here. We never learn anything about Max's actual parents. We only see his relationship with his uncle, who absolutely filled a father's role. Even as an adult, he still reflects back on the knowledge his uncle passed on to him. By returning to the vineyard he abandoned, Max is finding a posthumous way to gain the approval of the dad figure he disappointed. You can also see some of these same ideas in Christie's subplot to prove she's Uncle Frank's daughter. It's not exactly Roy Batty visiting vengeance upon his creator but at least it connects to the director's greater oeuvre in some way.

“A Good Year” wasn't just an attempt by its director to try something different. It was also a change of pace for its leading man. Russell Crowe, so typically seen playing gruff dudes and tough guys, stars in this light-hearted rom-com. (He made this in-between a boxing movie and a western, to give you an idea of how out-of-the-ordinary this role was for Crowe.) The former Maximus definitely seems a little miscast here. He's very believable as an asshole, who insults some French cyclists for no reason other than he's a jerk. But as a soft, romantic lead, he seems a bit uncomfortable. Moreover, Crowe is not very adapt at taking pratfalls. Part of why the physical comedy parts of “A Good Year” are so off-base is because the leading man is so clearly unsuited for them. His English accent also could've used some work.

To support Crowe and the flimsy plot, a grossly overqualified cast was assembled. Albert Finney, collaborating with Scott for the first time since “The Duellists,” is charming enough as Uncle Henry. Wise and funny are attributes Finney could play in his sleep, so he has no problem providing what the part needs. Marion Cotillard, one of the greatest actresses in Europe, is completed wasted as Fanny, a part that could've been played by absolutely any actress in Hollywood or France. She smiles and charms her way through a completely ephemeral role. At least Abbie Cornish, as Christie, gets to show a little energy in attitude. Even if the part is otherwise as thinly defined as anyone else in the movie.

By the way, if you're wondering the real reason this movie happened: Ridley Scott owns property in Provence. Most of the movie was shot at a location about eight minutes from his home. He's also friends with Peter Mayle, the guy who wrote both the novel and the script that the movie was based on. Critical reaction to “A Good Year” was largely negative, with most pointing at the cliched script and lack of charm in the production. (The box office wasn't much better, though the film at least made back its budget.) Even this reaction, in my opinion, is a little too favorable. “A Good Year” is bafflingly bad, a complete misstep from everyone involved that repeatedly suggest it has absolutely no reason for existing at all. [Grade: D]