Richard Linklater is known for one-shot scenes, meditations on the passage of time and penetrating dialogue. In “Blue Moon,” his most recent film, he combines all three components as expected alongside mediations on self-destruction, love and the human condition. However, while the movie has some stunning moments, the opening third is a slog with none of the restraint of Linklater’s “Before” trilogy or experimentation of his film “Boyhood.” Fortunately, standout performances by Ethan Hawke and the supporting actors mostly make up for this weakness.
While it is not necessary, “Blue Moon” is most accessible to those with a baseline knowledge of musical theater and Broadway history. A biographical comedy-drama set in 1943, the film follows the lyricist Lorenz Hart (Hawke) who, alongside the composer Richard Rodgers (Andrew Scott), formed one-half of the arguably second most successful duo in musical theatre history — “Rodgers and Hart” — known for musicals such as “Babes in Arms." The first most successful duo, of course, was “Rodgers and Hammerstein” of “Oklahoma!” fame. This collaboration emerged from the carnage of Rodgers and Hart’s falling out. The movie takes place over the course of one evening at the New York institution Sardi’s bar where Hart nurses his wounds, sinking into alcoholism and depression as “Oklahoma!” opens to rave reviews.
The film is named after a Rodgers and Hart song of the same title that goes, “You saw me standin’ alone / Without a dream in my heart / Without a love of my own.” These lyrics encapsulate the essence of the film. “Blue Moon” is a story about a man who doesn’t love himself enough and overcompensates in every regard. Yet while “Blue Moon” explores themes of self-hatred and destruction, it also emphasizes the importance of love and beauty in times of war and despair.
Even while he cruelly lambasts “Oklahoma!,” “Blue Moon” rouses sympathy for Hart through his unrequited love for Elizabeth Weiland, the “effervescent” college student (Margaret Qualley). When Rogers wonders aloud why Elizabeth sticks by such an openly obsessed man more than twice her age, the writer E.B. White (Patrick Kennedy) responds, “I think [Weiland] recognizes that she’s being adored by one of the great admirers of beauty.” For better or for worse, Hart loves deeply.
In terms of the script, however, the film falls short. The first third of the film in particular, which focuses on Hart at the bar as the film’s only protagonist, is dull and oversaturated with dense dialogue, exposition about “Oklahoma!” and his tales of woe. For roughly 30 minutes, the audience drowns in Hart’s lamentations. Fortunately, things start to improve when Rodgers and Weiland show up. Hawke is spectacular, but these two revitalize the film with their charm and challenge Hart’s sense of self-pity.
Regardless of these flaws in the script, Hawke gives a nuanced performance that makes him a strong Oscar contender. With multiple monologues, he manages to be equally frustrating and tragic. He makes Hart truly pitiable as a witty and talented guy who constantly says the wrong thing — insulting “Oklahoma!” to Roger’s face, stealing his flowers — and drives everyone away with his overcompensating self-destruction driven by ego and insecurity. With old-fashioned movie magic — no use of CGI or prosthetics — Hawke embodies his physical transformation. Ludicrously oversized suits, massive sets and co-stars secretly standing on apple crates make him appear about five feet tall, and his contortive expressions and stammering delivery render Ethan Hawke almost unrecognizable. While Hawke is phenomenal, Scott and Qualley are equally strong. Scott’s portrayal of Rodgers is simultaneously pained, awkward and proud. Qualley is exuberant and magnetic, yet sorrowful when needed as Weiland.
Linklater has always been a pretentious filmmaker, and I say that lovingly. The “Before” trilogy solidified him as one of Hollywood’s great commentators on the human condition, “Dazed and Confused” was an instant classic and “The School of Rock” was a captivating ode to the power of performance. This is one of his most meta works yet. Throughout the film, Hart castigates “Oklahoma!” for its humor and whimsy. As World War II rages, Hart argues, people crave satire and harsh realism over nostalgia and comfort. Hart resents everything about “Oklahoma!” — from the energetic punctuation to the fact that it will become the most famous musical of all time. “Love stories are too easy,” he hisses at Rogers. Yet Linklater has always been concerned with the minutia of humanity and love, trite as it may be — and “Blue Moon” mainly succeeds for those very reasons.
