MR. TURNER: Easy To Admire, Hard To Like

Biopics are difficult to get right, especially if you’re covering the life story of somebody whose life story is already well known. How do you make it entertaining to an audience familiar with the backstory, yet still entertaining to a new audience who aren’t? Mike Leigh’s latest directorial effort Mr. Turner paints a picture (pun definitely intended) of the later years of J.M.W Turner, the 19^th century artist who revolutionised and popularised landscape painting.

It’s commendable that the movie shies away from conventional biopic structure; instead moving from one sequence to the next without any regard of informing you how much time has passed (a synopsis of the narrative is practically impossible). However, this unconventional approach to the biopic structure means that idiots like me, ignorant of the backstory of one of Britain’s most beloved artists, were left feeling cold.

Timothy Spall’s performance is divisive to say the least

Here, Turner is played by Timothy Spall; a curious casting choice due to the fact the real life Turner didn’t look anything like him. Although many have declared his performance one of the year’s best, I have to confess I found his performance somewhat jarring (and I say this as somebody who has enjoyed him in everything else I’ve seen him in). Although I am pleasantly surprised there are no “give me an Oscar now!” showboating speeches that are usually given to lead actors in biopics, the fact that the character felt so lived-in, with no need to pander to the audience’s demand for backstory or context, eventually proved annoying.

Half of Turner’s dialogue in the film consists of awkward grunting, which means we never truly get under the skin of the character. Spall manages to make the character seem like a real, fleshed-out character – but in doing so, it proves that he is a boring individual with no discerning qualities that would merit a biopic. For a director widely regarded as one of the few “actor’s directors” working today (a director who can always be relied on to get the best performances from his actors), it is remarkable how forgettable every other performance on-screen is. Characters disappear for long stretches without any prior warning, as they are all minor players in Turner’s life, whom all are equally uninteresting.

This isn’t to say there aren’t many delights to be had. Leigh’s screenplay is wonderfully Dickensian, showing that he has a great ear for making old-fashioned dialogue easily understandable and still consistently funny to a modern audience. When I saw this at the cinema back in November I was the only person below the age of 60 in the audience; I felt that my loud fits of laughter would make them uncomfortable so had to suppress myself and stay silent. There’s a winning combination of accessibility and depth to the language that ensures that even a cynic like me is highly likely to enjoy the film better on the second viewing. Plus, the cinematography by long-term Mike Leigh collaborator Dick Pope is wonderful; the opening tracking shot of Turner painting a windmill is worth admission price alone (although the cinema I work at decided to show it on one of their smaller screens, meaning the movie lost something in the process).

But does it make me want to learn more about the subject?

Now to the question every biopic should raise – does it make me interested in the subject? And does it make me want to go out and find out more about Turner? The answer to both is a resounding no. I was never good when I had to study art back in high school, yet I still frequently visit the art gallery in my hometown of Leeds. I am ignorant of the backstories of all the paintings hung up in the central gallery, but find myself get immersed in them when I visit nonetheless. When viewed outside of the film, Turner’s paintings are immersive pieces of work that you could stare at for hours; if seeing this film was your only point of reference, it would be easy to see why you wouldn’t be interested to research any further.

The other big painting biopic currently in cinemas, Tim Burton’s Big Eyes, is clearly a worse film, yet the fact it’s so conventional in terms of narrative leaves you wanting to research the original story to see how it actually played out. Turner’s story is presented in a way that is only interesting if you know about it already – the nuances in both character and screenplay are destined to go over the heads of large swathes of the audience, who will be left uninterested to look further by the time the credits roll (the film was a surprise box office hit in the UK, peaking at number 2 at the box office, behind Interstellar).

To call Mr. Turner one of the year’s most overrated films seems unfair, as it’s worth watching for beautiful cinematography and a plethora of gentle laughs. Yet for such a high calibre collaboration between one of Britain’s most beloved actors and directors, calling it overrated seems perfectly justified- you can’t help but feeling the movie was a missed opportunity.

Mr. Turner was released in the UK back in October, with a DVD release date set for the new year. It’s currently on limited release in the US, with all international release dates to be found here.

What do you expect of biopics? Do you want your interest to be piqued at all, to research more, or do you think the biopic should tell you most of what there is to know?