Waiting for Bojangles * * ½

Waiting for Bojangles is a beautiful mess.  Ironically, it's about a woman who is a beautiful mess. But somehow, I don't think the intention was to make a film which reflected her state of mind. It might have worked better if that is what they strived for. 

Nevertheless it's gorgeous to look at, with no expense spared on location, authenticity of period (late 50's to early 60's), costumes, cars the whole shebang. The opening scene is almost like a film from the fifties with the music, and even the titles from that era, but all too soon that vision is lost.

As it progresses, disjointed narrative and situations are all over the place.  It's like the screenplay adapted many scenes from the novel with the hope that it will all come together. And for those that have read it, it might, but for those of us who have no idea what the original story was and just want to see a good film narrative, it's frustrating.

Crazy Lady?  I can do that!

We begin with two crazies who turn up separately to the same party.  Gorgeous as they are to look at, you wouldn't want them at your party. They're nuts!  Drinking too much, mouthing off, smashing your glasses, insulting your guests. 

After realizing they are of like mind, the crazy Camille and Georges drive off  in Georges sports car to perform their own marriage ceremony and immediately consecrate it on the altar of an empty rural church.   After that she disappears. He unashamedly stalks her.  She loves him for it. 

Next thing you know they are setting up house together.  They are both  madly in love - and as mad as hatters. Soon they have a child who is as divorced from the real world as his parents.  "To hell with reality.  Let us live the life we want" is their motto.

They party like animals.  All good fun, and I'm up for it, but it frequently comes across as contrived kookiness, with their pyramid of unpaid bills in the corner of their prestige apartment, their pet bird, their eccentric friends, and impulsive actions.  For instance, "Let's get naked and walk down the street" is not what you'd call original, inspired or creative spontaneity. 

Camille might be the life of the party but soon we see her mental health degenerating to the point where she has to be interned.  As is so often the case with film, the "asylum" scenes are sadistic and degrading.  (Incidentally, has there ever been a film where the love, care and dedication of mental health workers is shown?)

Predictably, she is rescued by Georges and son and the next think you know she is living the dream again - literally -  until her behavior makes Georges wonder if it was such a good idea to rescue her at all! 

Like I said, for those that have read the novel it might work well, but for those of us that haven't it's a bit like playing catch up, especially in regard to the character, "Rotten".  I couldn't quite figure out what he was other than a wealthy friend and a benefactor of some sort. He comes across as a convenient prop, with one or two quirks, despite the unconvincing expository explanations of his unlikely friendship with them. I later thought, it might have worked better if the story had been told from his perspective. The film is Third Person but apparently the original novel was written as a fictional memoir of the child.

I have to give it to the actors Romain Duris and Virginia Efira (yes, her again, playing crazy again (I don't mind)), they put in a hell of an effort; but lack of credibility in the story or a sketchily drawn character can only be glossed over so much, and even the finest performance will comes across as unconvincing.

Here is something else that bugs me: The film starts in the late 1950's. The song "Mr. Bojangles", which is featured in the early scenes, and throughout the film, was written by Jerry Jeff Walker in the late 1960's   Going on the timeline in this film, the story of Camille and Georges would have been over well before then!

I saw it at the French Film Festival 22.