Just saw Max for the second time (in about five years). Certainly a deep and rewarding picture, and especially for anyone interested in art. The two main characters, played by John Cusack and Noah Taylor, are both tormented by their yearnings to make art that matters, in Munich during the aftermath of World War I.
If you haven't heard about the film, Cusack plays Max Rothman, a German Jewish veteran who's lost an arm and thereby his ability to paint. Thus, he's come back to establish himself as an art dealer in 1918. He comes from money and lives well with a wife (Molly Parker) and children, dearly enjoys his German mistress (Leelee Sobieski) on the side, and seems well-connected and regarded, though his own artistic values may be ahead of their time and jeopardize his fledgling business.
The film revolves around his relationship with another veteran, a less-accomplished and diametrically opposed artist, as Max attempts to mentor him toward realizing his own artistic potential. Unlike Max, the Austrian has come back nearly to poverty, living only in the barracks and folding shirts for the army. And unlike Max, the Austrian is nearly unhinged with anger, frustration, and vitriolic contempt for any values other than his own. Though Max finds those values repellent (and says so), he's guessing that the passion itself might be a wellspring for profound artistic accomplishment, and encourages the painter to "put those feelings on the canvas."
Thus, the film revolves around two struggles. One is simply Max's attempts to nurture the artist within an extremely unlikable person, who seems to forget or disregard Max's generosities on any moment's notice. And the other is that the Austrian himself is constantly pulled between two different means of self-expression: painting, per Max's encouragement, or politics, per Captain Mayr (Ulrich Thomsen), who sees a different purpose for the young man's passion.
And from that latter conflict comes the deep sinking feeling of watching the whole film, in which Max the Jew has set himself up as artistic mentor to Adolph Hitler in his formative year.
It's quite a fine film, never sinking to any petty sensationalism (other than Hitler's own near the end). Cusack's performance is laced with sardonic wit as a contrast to Noah Taylor's humorless portrayal of Hitler, so there are many dry laughs. And the sets and scenes are stunning - movies like this arouse me as a photographer. The fictional account is, of course, tragic in the end, but fascinating as an exercise in "what if?" It's clear that artistic recognition might have led Hitler down a different path. It's also bitterly ironic that a Jew did his best to help.
On the other hand, it's not perfect. Both Parker and Sobiesky are fine actresses, but given very little to work with, and thus seem regrettably more ornamental than either deserve to be. But we can't fault them for making the most of their small parts in such a daring picture.
I seem to recall that Max was rather controversial when it came out, but I think entirely incorrectly. For one thing, it's not like Hitler is portrayed sympathetically. Rather, we see how many of his limitations are self-imposed by rigidity, ideology, and a prevalent tunnel-vision. And for another, it's entirely useful to humanize one of the most horrific devils ever to walk the earth, and understand how the human condition could produce him.
And, of course, the film offers both bracing and nuanced critiques of anti-semitism, nationalism, and the allures of propaganda. So it's entirely engaging on a host of levels. Highly recommended. And like I said, especially for anyone interested in art. It's more central to the film than I'd recalled after my first viewing years ago.
...
Comments