Mr. Malcolm’s List

Mr. Malcolm’s List is an interesting concept for a movie. It, like the book on which it was based, is a sort of modern attempt to capture the magic of Jane Austen and the regency romance. So there are complicated social and family pressures, accomplished ladies being courted by men of means, and, of course, people who probably belong together but for one reason or another can’t seem to get out of their own way long enough to make it happen. There are two primary twists to this set up that separate it quite noticeably from whatever your favorite Austen adaptations might be. First is in the plot. The second is in the production itself.

The plot is much more based around scheming than your typical Austen story. It is true that the meddling mom of Pride and Prejudice sends her daughter out in the rain with the express hope that she will catch a cold and be forced to spend more time at a suitor’s house, or that the titular protagonist of Emma attempts to play subtle matchmaker with her acquaintances. In Mr. Malcolm’s List the scenario is more involved, more petty, and more central to the engine of the plot. This isn’t entirely out of keeping with the kind of historical novel that Mr. Malcolm’s List is emulating, as it isn’t a direct nouveau-Austen per se, but it definitely feels more like a restoration era comedy than a regency era romance. There is just too much conniving and mean-spirited revenge than is appropriate for the era of storytelling the movie is obviously using as its inspiration. It might not seem like much, but there is about 100 years between those two eras and for the discerning viewer the discrepancy will be unmissable.

Even for the less discerning viewer, if they have watched any of the famous Austen adaptations, something will likely still feel tonally wrong. The thought I had was that the story reminded me of a high school romance movie from my teen years. There is an irony here, of course. Several of the movies of that time, mostly romantic comedies, took tried and true classics and updated them to a contemporary high school setting. Clueless (Emma), She’s All That (Pygmalion), 10 Things I Hate About You (Taming of the Shrew), Cruel Intentions (Dangerous Liaisons), and so on. Those original works vary wildly in date of origin, but the unifying element is an application of modern sensibilities and the more intimate setting of the mid-sized high school, where everyone pretty much knows everyone and the social circles have more of a tendency to overlap. Mr. Malcolm’s List, despite its efforts to feel like a regency romance, is written in the modern age, so perhaps can’t escape some of the same modern sensibilities that shift its tone. Elaborate schemes eventually giving way to love is a very different animal than awkwardly bumbling through a sincere and genuine desire to be well matched. Add in the themes of jealousy, comeuppance, and spurned exes and perhaps it isn’t a surprise that the whole thing begins to feel more like Get Over It than Sense and Sensibility.

The production itself also provides a bit of a twist, namely in its use of Bridgerton-esque colorblind casting. There isn’t honestly much to say about this. As someone who loves the theater, the idea of casting people, especially in a period piece, with little regard to the verisimilitude of their race didn’t bother me. For those that are used to the strictly cinema verite style, this may break their comfortable expectation that films attempt to accurately reflect some version of reality. However, anyone that has ever dipped their toes into the bizarre artifice of Lars Von Trier films, like Dogville, or the approachable surrealism of Charlie Kaufman, like Synecdoche, New York, will not find the break from convention all that interesting.

The only place the casting seemed noteworthy to me was in the accent work of a county vicar, which was pretty terrible. In an effort, I would imagine, to have his speech patterns match both his station in life and the actress who plays his wife, he ends up speaking in this uncomfortable and unnatural hybrid between Welsh and a midlands accent with a hint of Irish lilt thrown in. The actor who plays the vicar appears of Indian descent. The incongruity of the look of the man and the accent being spoken helps, unfortunately, draw attention to its weaknesses but this was wholly a problem with pre-production: casting someone who couldn’t do the accent, not leaving enough time to coach the accent, and/or not directing him to just give up on the accent and speaking plainly when it was clear it wasn’t working; rather than a problem with the fact that the actor in question was anachronistically from the Indian subcontinent.

On a related note, I found the direction quite simplistic. This probably shouldn’t come as a terrible shock, given that the movie is the director’s first feature film, but the obvious comparisons to Austen’s other adaptations, of which there have been several that are stellar, can’t help but highlight some of the director’s shortcomings. She is no Joe Wright or Ang Lee, at least not yet. The camera is incredibly stationary and the blocking does little to compensate. It often feels like it was taken straight out the early pages of my textbooks on filmic staging. Everything is locked down, usually medium close ups, for lots of seated dialogue or standing dialogue with little movement. Over-the-shoulder or single subject, shot reverse shot style coverage. Within the static frames, little attempt is made, a la Barry Lyndon, to position characters, props, and set pieces in a way that evokes the feeling of a regency era painting come to life. Occasionally people walk. Even then, they often walk towards or away from a locked camera, only even more occasionally relying on a dollied camera for a Sorkin-esque walk-and-talk. The editing is as inspired as the footage they were presumably given. Some first time directors can get away with this, off the back of unique concepts or blisteringly funny scripts (Slackers and Clerks come to mind) but a sumptuous period piece such as this makes it hard to hide the lack of flair or creativity.

If you are absolutely dying for more regency romances and you have exhausted all the good Austen adaptations, and some of the only mediocre ones, this will do the trick. It doesn’t quite live up to the genre its imitating, it gets some of the finer points of its inspirations incorrect, and its direction can be a bit plain, but there is still enough of an interesting movie here to find a few hours of joyful distraction, given that you are the kind of person interested in what it is offering.

Would Recommend: If you love Austen movies and are tired of watching Sense and Sensibility for the hundredth time.

Would Not Recommend: If dialogue driven period romance seems dreadfully dull.