Stephen Kunken | Through the Shattered Lens

Last night’s Lifetime movie premiere, Custody, didn’t really feel like a Lifetime film.

This was largely because it really wasn’t. Custody was written and directed by the acclaimed theatrical director, James Lapine. The cast features not only Emmy winner Tony Shalhoub and Oscar nominee Catalina Sandino Moreno but also two Oscar winners, Viola Davis and Ellen Burstyn. Unlike most Lifetime films, Custody was not filmed in Canada. There were no Toronto landmarks in the background. (You never realize how much you miss Canada until it’s gone.) Custody played at Tribeca last year. Much like Stockholm, Pennsylvania, Custody was made for a theatrical release but it ended up premiering on television instead. As a result, Custody did not follow the usual Lifetime 8 act pattern. The commercial breaks felt awkward. With a 150 minutes running time, this film tested my four-minute attention span.

The other thing that set Custody apart from most other Lifetime films was that it wasn’t much fun to watch. The great thing about Lifetime movies is that they are almost always fun. It doesn’t matter what serious subject is being examined. It doesn’t matter how dramatic things may get. Lifetime movies are always fun. To use one of my favorite terms, Lifetime movies embrace the melodrama. Lifetime films push the limits. Lifetime films say, “You think we won’t introduce a crazy twin halfway through the movie? JUST WATCH US! You think we won’t toss in a sudden case of amnesia or a cheating husband or a psychotic au pair in lingerie? YOU DON’T KNOW LIFETIME!”

Custody, on the other hand, was a very serious movie about a very serious topic and therefore, it wasn’t much fun to watch. In fact, Custody was a bit of a well-intentioned mess. It followed one case as it worked its way through the family court system. Sara Diaz (Moreno) has been wrongly accused of being an unfit mother. Her attorney is Ally Fisher (Hayden Panettiere), who has just graduated from law school and who comes from a rich family. Ally’s grandmother is played by Ellen Burstyn, largely because everyone’s rich grandmother is played by Ellen Burstyn. Representing the state is Keith (Dan Fogler), who has absolutely horrid taste in ties. The judge is played by Viola Davis and she’s going through a messy divorce from Tony Shalhoub.

I could see what Lapine was going for. Custody juggles several plotlines, showing how everyone involved in the case has their own individual biases and problems to deal with. Will the judge’s dissolving marriage make her more or less sympathetic to Sara? Will the white and privileged Ally ever be able to truly understand Sara’s situation? Will Keith ever learn how to properly select a tie? These issues may seem petty when taken on their own but, when crammed together, they form one big human drama.

Or, at least, that seems to have been the plan. Lapine gets some good performances from his cast but Custody never quite comes together. This is one of those heavy-handed films where characterization is more likely to be advanced by a lengthy monologue than by action. Add to that, Custody is ultimately far too enamored of the family court system. Everyone means only the best and the bureaucracy is your friend.

I will say this. Based on my own experience working as an administrative assistant in a law office, Custody does get one thing very right. Male lawyers are always the worst dressed people at any courthouse. On this count, Dan Fogler played one of the most realistic attorneys ever seen on TV.

I saw Bridge of Spies last weekend and I’m a little bit surprised that I haven’t gotten around to writing a review until now. After all, this is not only the latest film from Steven Spielberg but it also stars the universally beloved Tom Hanks and it’s currently being touted as a possible best picture nominee. (Mark Rylance, who plays an imprisoned spy in this film, is also emerging as a front runner for best supporting actor.) The screenplay was written by the Coen Brothers. (Oddly enough, films scripted by the Coens — like Unbroken, for instance — tend to be far more conventional and far less snarky than films actually directed by the Coens.) Even beyond its impressive pedigree, Bridge of Spies is a historical drama and by now, everyone should know how much I love historical dramas.

And the thing is, I enjoyed Bridge of Spies. I thought it was a well-made film. I thought that Tom Hanks was well-cast as an idealistic lawyer who stands up for truth, justice, and the Constitution. I agreed with the pundits who thought Mark Rylance was award-worthy. It’s become a bit of a cliché for Amy Ryan to show up as an understanding wife but it’s a role she plays well and she made the most of her scenes with Tom Hanks. Steven Spielberg knows how to put a good film together. This really should have been a film about which I rushed home to rave.

And yet, at the same time, I just could not work up that much enthusiasm for Bridge of Spies. It’s a good film but there’s nothing unexpected about it. There’s nothing surprising about the film. Steven Spielberg is one of the most commercially successful directors in history and the American film establishment pretty much orbits around him. He’s good at what he does and he deserves his success. Unfortunately, he doesn’t have a subversive bone in his body. Bridge of Spies is a lot like his previous Oscar contender, Lincoln. It’s very well-made. It’s the epitome of competence. But there’s not a truly surprising or unexpected moment to be found in the film.

And I have to admit that, even as I enjoyed Bridge of Spies, I still found myself frustrated by just how risk-adverse a film it truly was. After all, we’re living in the age of Ex Machina, Upstream Color, and Sicario. Bridge of Spies is a good movie and, in many ways, it provides a very valuable history lesson. (The film’s best moments were the one that contrasted the U.S. with the cold desolation of communist-controlled East Germany.) But, overall, it just didn’t make a huge impression on me. It was just a a little bit too safe in its approach.