The Holdovers (Alexander Payne, 2023)

[Cremildo]

Alexander Payne's next project is The Holdovers, a comedy/drama set in the 70s starring Paul Giamatti.

[yoloswegmaster]

Focus has bought the rights to Alexander Payne's 'The Holdovers' and will release it by Christmas next year.

[therewillbeblus]

Hmm the film’s writer, David Hemingson, wrote two strong Don’t Trust the B— in Apt 23 episodes so color me interested. Hopefully Payne’s last film was an outlier and not a sign of decline

[Matt]

Trailer for Alexander Payne’s The Holdovers. Really looks like something straight out of the mid-70s.

[domino harvey]

The studio must have insane confidence in it, considering how much they paid for it

[aox]

Trailer for Alexander Payne’s The Holdovers. Really looks like something straight out of the mid-70s.

This looks incredible and a return to Payne's earlier sense of humor. And, yes I get strong Harold and Maude (even Kes) vibes from the cinematography.

[yoloswegmaster]

Trailer for Alexander Payne’s The Holdovers. Really looks like something straight out of the mid-70s.

This looks incredible and a return to Payne's earlier sense of humor. And, yes I get strong Harold and Maude (even Kes) vibes from the cinematography.

I saw this at TIFF a couple of weeks ago and I can confirm that this is a great film. I don't think I've seen Paul Giamatti as good anywhere else as he is here, and I wouldn't be surprised if many will consider it to be a Christmas classic.

[therewillbeblus]

Trailer for Alexander Payne’s The Holdovers. Really looks like something straight out of the mid-70s.

This looks incredible and a return to Payne's earlier sense of humor. And, yes I get strong Harold and Maude (even Kes) vibes from the cinematography.

I saw this at TIFF a couple of weeks ago and I can confirm that this is a great film. I don't think I've seen Paul Giamatti as good anywhere else as he is here, and I wouldn't be surprised if many will consider it to be a Christmas classic.

The Holdovers is indeed very good, and relieving evidence that Downsizing was an outlier. This doesn't just look like a 70s film, but its attention to fleshing out its characters in a series of brief interpersonal exchanges, without oversimplifying their diagnostics, also feels cut from the cloth of strong 70s indie dramedies. Giamatti is excellent, but Da'Vine Joy Randolph is just as great as the heart of the film - carrying a trauma both white leads are humbling themselves in response to, while not dismissing their own woes in that process. This is the kind of movie where you broadly know what is going happen: Every character evolves for the better in response to engaging with the others; but it's the process that's subtly eccentric, at times erratic and others expected and fitting, and is admirably interested in restraining itself with respect to the complexity of character. It's cool to see a modern movie that feels trapped in a bygone era.

Alexander Payne was in attendance for a screening at the Somerville Theatre in MA last night (according to him, the first ever in 35mm) - a special setting since it's the location of where one of the scenes was shot (this is, in general, a great Boston movie of spot-on personalities and locations). Payne's wry, provocative temperament is pretty hilarious to see; an incarnation of his work. He made a few comments that came right to the edge of that "line" (and may have crossed it once by jokingly threatening to assault an aspiring filmmaker because he was enrolled in business school) but felt appropriate and in step with his ethos, especially when they simultaneously worked to playfully instigate and steer the conversation towards a more humanistic and generous direction of appreciating his crew and focusing on the themes of platonic intimacy.

[TMDaines]

Choosing not to release the The Holdovers in any form until the middle of January in the UK is certainly one possible release strategy. In perfect 1080p and 4K on all the backchannels already…

[hearthesilence]

I thought The Holdovers was all right, though it can feel like a retreat coming after Downsized. I didn't think that was a good film, but I did appreciate its ambition. For that reason alone it was a big step in the right direction, going far beyond his comfort zone and trying to tackle head-on a lot of things that studio films typically ignore or gloss over. The new one feels like very familiar territory, not just for Payne but for anyone with a taste for modest-sized '70s American films as well as noble teacher-type films where they unexpectedly bond with a student(s). There's a lot to the plot that's formulaic and predictable, so ultimately what's enjoyable about the film is really how it's all carried out. All the period detail in both the look and the tactile aspects of the film have been done very well - the long dissolves alone brought to mind films like Fat City - and it's wonderfully acted with a newcomer that was found in a high school drama program at Deerfield. (He apparently had NO film acting experience, and many times he looked like a dead-ringer for '60s-era Steve Winwood.) I hope this does well because he has other films he's been trying to do and theoretically have finished writing.

[hearthesilence]

A couple of things to add - I looked at Richard Brody's review, and he does make a good point about Vietnam. He thinks the end result is dishonest and "sanitized," but I'm not sure I agree. It may be 1970, but everything from the New England setting (I actually have family in every major location featured in the film) to the academic setting is familiar to me. There's a big difference between an elite boarding school like the one featured in the film and what one would encounter on a college campus - the latter really is a leap into the adult world, and protests and demonstrations would absolutely be a sight. But as the film already depicts, any teenager or pre-teen in school like the one they're in is kept under tight rules of conduct. And the hermetically sealed culture is indeed appropriate, not a flaw on the film, because at least my experience in high school was exactly that, even when you had classmates who were politically engaged - they didn't keep their outspokenness under wraps, but it wasn't something that made waves. I know the counter-culture is probably the most familiar element one might have of 1969 or 1970 when they're born well after that came to pass, but a while back when I was watching non-fiction films populated with people drawn from either a suburban or an academic environment circa 1968/1969, I was surprised how straight they all looked, in both hair and dress. It brings to mind the "silent majority" Nixon believed in, which was far from mythical. So I'm not sure I'd call the film sanitized because it does feel like an honest portrayal.

And finally Brody brought up McGowan's statutory rape accusation against Payne at the end of his review, and it comes off as pretty cheap, implying the ending is a self-serving reflection of what happened. He completely neglects to point out that every major and crucial detail of that accusation was completely refuted, not simply in "he said, she said" manner but by publicly available info that was impossible to ignore or dismiss. The reason the story failed to get any traction was because it came off as completely false under scrutiny. I'm sure Payne wasn't pleased one of his past relationships had to be exposed to public scrutiny in that manner, but I don't find it profoundly analogous to the secrets kept in the film - there was more to just maintaining one's privacy.

[erok910]

I don't want to say that Brody's argument in reference to Vietnam is in bad faith, as I couldn't truly understand where he's coming from, but it sounds more like it's on his mind more than mine- maybe even more than anyone elses. I don't think that Vietnam is used (in the film) as anything more than the space with which war resides in this time period.

I don't even want to get into the Vietnam war in this case, but I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding over context in the film aside from quality. I also understand how the content may relate to this, but I'd be hard pressed to even find a line in the film that makes Brody's comments validated. For example: why would the Kent state killings be involved in this movie? In what way does the indicate that as necessary to the point? What does he think the 'point' is, and what is it that he wants from that point? As said, don't wanna say his criticism is in bad faith- even if I thought about it once or twice- but I think his criticism is way out of context. And is definitely misguided, at the very least. Obviously just my opinion.

I thought it was a pretty sweet, cute middle-of-the-road Christmas movie. I'd even say it's great. There are moments and aspects of the structure that inspire me to argue lines and ideas in favor of that. But I think, like About Schmidt and Sideways for example, that it is just exactly what it is. As a sort of art film. I understand that might not resonate for many considering influence and the finality of the work and structure. But I don't think this guy is being disingenuous.

I won't be arguing about people not digging it, but to drag ideas and reasons, etc. for why one disagrees with this film- I think it's kind of weird. He's very tame, all things considered. Maudlin yet cheery, perhaps. Sympathetic or empathetic, sure. But it's not without sincerity, and I definitely do not think that anything in this move was made out of malice. As said, obviously just my opinion. And I can't start on stuff like accusations being included in art reviews. That's just- where do you even start with stuff like that? Whatever, at best.

[therewillbeblus]

The film is deliberately restrained in how it uses its devices. The Vietnam war does not need to be used as more than a looming presence that forecasts an unmanageable future in the eyes of the adults in the film, anxious for the kids (and either disengaging or engaging a bit too hard to 'prepare' them), and it's out of scope for many of the youth who are egocentric in a very developmentally-appropriate way. Being 1970, these characters are barely emerging from the mobilized, escalating evolution and culturally-boom of the 60s, and the paradoxical consequence of thinly-spread ideologies emerging at an overwhelming pace, creating a destruction of the comfort of ideological homogeny, thereby eroding a tangible sense of 'culture'. The time marks a haze of confusion, and the sheltered bubble these people live within fortifies this restraint. Conversely, in the unstructured time of 'hold-over' season, these containers become pliable and the harsh realities of one's self and personal history, the world at large, etc. seep in. Giamatti's urgent need for imposed structure hides a vulnerability he doesn't want to pause to risk exposing himself to, just as Sessa's desire to escape from containment marks his drive to gain freedom in a world that feels painfully suffocating and hopeless; his motivation is to face the discomfort though - and his persistence gives hope for the next generation.

So what on the surface might just indicate a peripheral injustice, of how these white privileged kids are "protected" while the lone black boy at the academy was drafted and killed (which, frankly, is enough of an honest commentary, but whatever), is actually a tactic of dressing to show a promising generational attitude of self-advocacy and individualism - not proud of participation in a war, speaking out against authority for the betterment of the individual and the larger group, etc. I dunno, I think Payne is engaging with the Vietnam war in a very profound and respectful manner, and it feels like the critic isn't interested in looking for the meaning in the elisions, but rather upset that the war would be elided at all (as if Da'Vine Joy Randolph's entire performance itself doesn't indicate a direct, thorough, honest engagement with the powerlessness around casualties of war...) It would feel "sanitized" to make a statement like it's a little red bow on 'Vietnam War In 1970' - but allowing it to exist in the background as one of many confusing and overwhelming life events affecting the characters all differently allows it to be timeless, a quality the film possesses and grants to its audience to engage with - and bring their own emotions, rather than have them spoonfed.

[TMDaines]

Incredibly it is set to be cut in the UK for a very minor bizarre reason, due to a retro certification symbol:

https://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/bw.htm#T ... overs_4257

[knives]

That is hilarious.

[hearthesilence]

Details on the ongoing plagiarism complaint regarding this film.

[domino harvey]

The actual excerpts are not convincing in the slightest. The article makes it seem much more clear cut than it actually is

[Monterey Jack]

Dropping this the NIGHT BEFORE THE OSCARS screams of the whole thing being a sham.

[beamish14]

I’m usually quick to dismiss lawsuits like this, but Stephenson has major credits under his belt. He’s not like that guy who crawled out of the woodwork and tried to claim that he created Kung Fu Panda. It might end up like Larry Cohen’s lawsuit against Fox regarding The League of Extraordinary Gentleman; i.e. a quiet settlement to drop further legal action

[therewillbeblus]

The outline of the film is fairly generic, and the way Payne described coming up with the idea is very simple and believable. It’s how it’s done with creative wit and respectful restraint that makes this a good movie.

[GaryC]

Incredibly it is set to be cut in the UK for a very minor bizarre reason, due to a retro certification symbol:

https://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/bw.htm#T ... overs_4257

Belated reply to this... the retro R rating at the start was replaced with a retro blue AA certificate, which The Holdovers would have had if it had been an actual film from 1971 (along with the 1971 copyright date in the opening credits). The certificate is authentic enough to include Lord Harlech and John Trevelyan's signatures.

(Scala!!! also has a retro BBFC certificate, during its opening credits - this time a red X certificate, with Lord Harlech and Stephen Murphy's signatures. I don't know if this is a trend or something.)

I'm told the streaming version of the film in the UK still has the AA certificate. I believe the Australian release has a M rating at the same point, but that's not confirmed.

[otis]

If anyone's going to complain of plagiarism, shouldn't it be the estate of Hal Ashby?

[hearthesilence]

Frisco's script is here, and the "line-by-line" claim regurgitated by Variety definitely feels like a stretch.