REVIEW: A MAN CALLED OTTO...or Just Tom?

Let's face it. American remakes of very successful, critically acclaimed foreign films almost never equal, let alone surpass, the original. For every film like The Departed (Martin Scorsese's 2006 remake of a the 2002 Hong Kong thriller, Infernal Affairs), there are a dozen of really bad do-over's, like 1983's Breathless, a cringe-worthy remake of the 1960 French-made, Jean-Luc Godard classic of the same name starring a very earnest (and still, to me, very goofy-sexy) Richard Gere.

Remember City of Angels, the 1998 philosophical drama-turned clunky rom-com starring Meg Ryan (playing a heart surgeon) and Nicolas Cage (as an angel), based on Wim Wenders' classic 1987 treatise on life, Wings of Desire? Figured not.

Perhaps, the remake most Americans love with a certain nostaligic whimsy is 1996's The Birdcage, an audience favorite starring a swishy Robin Williams and diva-esque Nathan Lane as a gay couple posing as man and wife - this was the 90s, remember - based on the very clever 1978 French farce, La Cage Aux Folles (and preceding an endless line of remakes, musicals and other assorted nonsense that all used Jean Poiret's 1973 play as inspiration).

Back in the mid-1990s, I was teaching a course called "Social Issues and Film" and using 1989's Longtime Companion (d. Norman Rene) as an example of a movie expressing authenticity and humanity in its depiction of the gay community during the early years of the AIDS epidemic. The week before Longtime Companion was scheduled to be viewed/discussed on my syllabus, some of my students, whose notion of gay life was either non-existent or relegated to sophomoric stereotypes, went to see The Birdcage and returned to class triumphant, convinced they were "woke" to gay culture and happy they laughed along with all the jokes and humor. I said nothing, then showed scenes from La Cage and LC. The class was silent, confused by how different The Birdcage was from the original and shocked by the stark realism of Rene's depiction of contemporary gay life.

Remakes, even those that don't transition from another country, are always a challenge. Films like Body Heat (1981), a modernization of Billy Wilder's 1944 classic, Double Indemnity, require careful attention to subject, theme, and how well each translates to another time. In the case of Body Heat, writer/director Lawrence Kasdan, nailed all the nuances and erotic desire, while updating the steamy plot and sexy performances for 1980's audiences. It was no small task - and brilliantly achieved - which is not the case of many remakes that serve to capitalize on a formula or a plot that seems ripe for a bountiful box office.

Which brings us to Marc Forster's A Man Called Otto, based on Hannes Holm's 2015 Swedish dramedy, A Man Called Ove (nominated for an Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film) which, in turn, was based on Fredrik Backman's 2012 novel of the same name. Back in October, when first I saw the trailer for Tom Hanks' newest cinematic vehicle, my husband nudged me and asked, "We don't need to see this one, do we?"

The fact that I'm posting this blog should give you this answer, even if it may seem like an unenthusiastic choice (given American movies' track record with remakes) or an afterthought. It is neither. For othe most part, A Man Called Otto retains the general plot/narrative of the book and original film. Where it deviates most is in German-Swiss director Marc Forster's (his filmography's diversity ranges from Monster's Ball, Finding Neverland, Quantum of Solace, World War Z) choices about how we learn about Otto and his particular situation. And those choices make the difference in what this film ultimately is: a somtimes frustrating clash between a character study in grief and a feel-good dramedy about loss and redemption.

The initially curmudgeonly, but eventually cuddly Otto Anderson (Tom Hanks) is first introduced as a dour (everyone he encounters seems to be an "idiot"), widower out of touch with the world and content to live in isolation. When he buys rope at a local hardware store, proceeds to disconnect his phone and electric service, we know something is up.

We learn Otto's wife Sonya died six months earlier (details as yet unrevealed), and Otto seems determined to join her. After several unsuccessful attempts at suicide (including hanging, asphyxiation, self-inflicted gunshot and, in one case, an incident involving a plan to throw himself in front of an oncoming train, after which he becomes an unwitting hero for saving another life), Otto realizes life is indeed worth living and he has "work to do."

Before Otto's expected realization that his life has value, his biggest cheerleader for life is his new neighbor, a young Latina named Marisol (a luminous, vibrant Mariana Trevino) who, with "nitwit" husband Tommy (Manuel Garcia-Rulfo) and two movie-precocious daughters, moves across the street from Otto. Her cheerful persistence to befriend Otto is as strong as (ultimately, stronger than) his determination to end his life. Their encounters are meant for comic relief, but also provide the vehicle he needs to begin processing Sonya's death.

If all of this sounds a bit formulaic and contrived, it unfortunately is. The flashback scenes (regularly inserted as Otto is on the verge of another suicide attempt), begin early in the film and continue at an almost predictable rate. As a film goer, I am a soft-touch for tears. My mom used to say that how much I liked a movie depended on how many Kleenex I needed. A three-tissue film was thus fairly common for me.

However, I'd like to think that I come by my tears honestly,so I really don't appreciate the feeling of being manipulated to cry. That sense of being encouraged to sob, of oversentimentalizing Otto's situation (particularly, his love for Sonya and their life together), left me weepy but also unsatisfied. Forster's choices about what to reveal about Otto and Sonya's life together is left without much depth, relying on circumstances rather than character development, to understand why he is so angry when first we meet him. Though anger is a natural part of grief, Otto's sudden and extreme outbursts often seem at odds with the curmudgeonly negativism we witness consistently and repeatedly. If this is supposed to be gallows humor, it doesn't quite fit the somber subject matter and feels more jarring than funny or revealing.

Another problem stems from Otto's flashbacks which feature Truman Hanks (Tom's son) as a young Otto. Hanks has recently taken some flack on social media for being a Hollywood "nepo," employing his children in role that might have gone to other actors. The Hollywood nepotism charge is probably the topic for another blog but, in this case, I would add that having Truman fill in as a younger Tom was not the best idea for this reason: Truman doesn't really possess the physical or facial resemblance necessary to convince audiences he is a youthful Otto. There is no Michael-Kirk Douglas or Peter-Henry Fonda likeness here. Though Hanks (who also, along with his wife Rita Wilson, co-executive produced Otto), has defended his approval of casting son Truman to reinforce the film's authenticity, it seems to do just the opposite. I'm guessing there are any number of young actors who bear more of a physical similarity to Tom than Truman.

That said, Forster's jutaxposing of flashbacks w/Otto's suicide attempts carries less of an emotional wallop because Truman Hanks doesn't convey in appearance or emotion what we see Tom Hanks expressing as the older, grumpier Otto. His visits to Sonya's grave are too few, too short, and too infrequent to shed additional light on his emotional struggle. It's too bad as there may have been some opportunities lost based on casting decisions made. In addition, there are some sloppy editorial/storyline issues that I won't reveal here, but that don't quite add up in terms of the sequence of events before and after the movie takes place.

About Hanks as Otto/Ove. In some ways, I kept thinking that Hanks was portraying Otto as a kind of flip side of Forrest Gump. There were even a few shots of Otto/Hanks that made me think of an aging Forrest: his shrinking size and slumped frame, this time heavy with the weight of life and loss, manifested in direct contrast to Gump's straight-arrow posture and unflailing optimism, even in the face of wisdom won by tragedy and alienation.

To be honest, I've never considered Tom Hanks a great actor. Though typically genial and truly a solid journeyman at his craft, Hanks has not demonstrated the range of contemporaries like Daniel Day-Lewis, Denzel Washington, Colin Firth, the late Robin Williams, or even (shhh) Kevin Spacey. His best early work is, arguably, Big (1988) and Philadelphia (1993), but his recent turns as Walt Disney (2013's Saving Mr. Banks) and Fred Rogers (2019's It's a Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood) demonstrate a maturity through his darkly nuanced performances that bring unexpected layers and depth to two unabashedly beloved progenitors of children's culture.

Here, though, Hanks is left w/writer David Magee's Americanization of Ove: replacing Scandinavia's signature stark, bleak, desolate literature with American optimism and forced cheerfulness. It's not always a smooth transition, as we're left wondering if Otto is an exploration of grief and loneliness, a treatise on death, a message about suicide, or a reaffirmation of the importance of "family," whatever that definition and composition means in the 21st century.

A message about suicide prevention atypically (for movies) appears immediately after the cast credits, leaving one wondering if the film intended to raise deeper issues about aging, grief and suicide in the face of America's treatment of the elderly, or just a reminder about mental health in general. If so, there is nothing about suicide suggested in the movie's trailers. Even the full-page ad in the New York Times focuses on "laughs and smiles," saying it reminds us of the "good within us."

Would I recommend seeing A Man Called Otto? Yes and no. If you've read the novel and/or seen the original 2015 film, be prepared for script/directorial changes that affect the impact of the movie's dark themes about end-of-life issues. If you've not read or seen the original Swedish incarnation of Otto/Ove, then you may enjoy this not-all-together, but mostly, light-hearted vehicle for Tom Hanks & Co. as purveyors of the importance of embracing life and those who enrich it.

And then, of course, there's the cat....