Lucky_Eddie

Many reviewers are using words like "lovely" and "beautiful" to describe this film. I agree, and I want to add: "peaceful and calm". If you're in the mood for action, excitement and thrills, choose something else. Your blood pressure won't rise while watching this movie; it will fall.

Normally I don't like a slow, deliberate pace, but Joan Plowright had me in the first few minutes and never let go. The perfect actress for the part and the perfect part for the actress. And then there were all those long-careered British character actors being totally believable. Whenever we watch a recorded movie, my wife makes me stop it several times to go pee or get a snack. Not here. We watched it all the way through without interruption.

The only problem is that when things go at a measured pace, the little goofs that are made in any movie become blatantly obvious. But that's a very minor quibble. Start this one and be prepared to be charmed.

Unfortunately, the definition of "documentary" seems to be changing. These days it is what we used to call propaganda. (See: any Michael Moore movie.) No attempt at balance, just a totally one-sided, biased point of view passing as fact. Heckler is the latest example. Actually, it starts out as a whine about hecklers, quickly turning into the same complaint about critics. It does teach a serious lesson: celebrities (especially comics) are gods and deserve to be worshipped at all times and anyone who doesn't like them should be deprived of their right to an opinion, or at least the right to make it public.

There are some good points made: you get drunks and a-holes disrupting performances for no apparent reason other than to call attention to themselves. As someone who paid to watch the performer, I really don't appreciate that in principle, but I have to admit that some of the funniest moments I've ever experienced at comedy clubs were when the performer responded to the heckler. Sometimes I wonder if they purposely plant hecklers just so they can lay into them. And some (maybe most) critics are way over the top in their reviews, but that's one way these days to make your opinions stand out from the ever-growing crowd.

Occasionally I can sympathize with a heckler. If you've paid good money for a performance that was not as advertised and you can't get your money back (let alone your time), you can get pretty frustrated. That's what happened at the Barbra Streisand concert where she swore at a heckler. What the movie purposely failed to tell you provoked the heckler was that, instead of singing, she had gone into a political rant - probably not what the audience had paid big bucks to see. It also happened to me at a no-refunds Willie Nelson show where he was clearly drunk and/or stoned.

It's true that no one ever put up a statue to a critic, but they do have their place. You just need to find one whose opinions and tastes are similar to your own and thus s/he will provide you with valuable guidance. As for the others, ignore them. As should the performers, rather than trying to suppress them.

This argument that the heckler/critic couldn't do as good a job really shows you how shallow the movie's thought process is. If a dentist, driveway paver, plumber, tax preparer, etc. does a bad job, are they justified in telling you not to complain because they're still better than you? While there were plenty of celebrities, where were the ordinary people? You know, those who buy the tickets, enabling these celebrities to make a living. Why not ask some of them after a comedy show what they thought of the hecklers? Do they think people buying tickets should be told clearly that hecklers are not welcome and will be thrown out without a refund? Do they think people should be able, within a reasonable time, to ask for and get a refund if they don't like the performance? Do they pay any attention to critics and change their choices as a result? That's what a real documentary would do.

Some years ago, Norman Jewison was presented with a special Oscar for lifetime achievement. The audience spontaneously gave him a standing ovation when he said that, if you want to make good movies, tell good stories. Well, this is an extraordinary story told extraordinarily badly.

I have a theory: the movie was complete and everyone went out to celebrate, leaving behind a child with a babysitter. The babysitter wasn't paying attention and the child took a pair of scissors and cut up the film into pieces. When the horrified babysitter found out, she spliced the film back together, picking up pieces randomly, including some that had been cut but missing others. When the filmmakers eventually saw the result, they couldn't admit the error and instead chose to call it art.

Okay, that's really far fetched. But it would explain a lot. I've never seen a movie jump around so much. At least six phases of Piaf's life are shown, perhaps a few more, depending on what you count. Sometimes you're told what time period you're in, sometimes not. Perhaps most confusing is when the time changes back and forth within the same scene! Flashbacks are one thing but here there is no coherent line whatever. What idiot thought this would be a good idea? And to leave out her life completely during WW II? Probably the same one who decided to simply have new characters appear, without introduction or explanation of any kind, as if you mysteriously somehow know who everyone is, all the time.

This movie runs a very long 140 minutes. After about 45 we felt we'd gotten the idea and were ready for some kind of wrap-up. I'd say that an hour could have been cut and, with maybe 15 minutes of her WW II activities added, this would have been a truly great film. So is it a stinker? No. The Oscars for best actress and makeup were definitely well-deserved. And it is truly a remarkable and captivating story, the kind Jewison would say really belongs on film. Too bad he wasn't the one to make it.