Shopgirl
In a just world, this movie would be romantic bliss on celluloid. In this world, it’s flaws- two big, none small- keep it from classic status. To get them out of the way, they are the obtrusive-romantic score by Barrington Pheloung, and the overly dry first part of the movie, which is difficult to become engaged in, primarily because of Jason (“Rushmore”) Schwartzman’s characatured performance as Jeremy, a young man smitten with Mirabelle Buttersfield, the shopgirl of the title (played by Claire Danes), but too inexperienced to show his affection properly. I know what they were going for, but did they have to portray Jeremy as a walking and talking cliche for it? (His performance is more focused and resonant later on.) Apparently this film was shot in 2003; the prolonged delay is unknown beyond the director (Anand Tucker, otherwise known for the indie “Hilary and Jackie”) just taking his time shaping the material. I don’t want to spoil it, but maybe he should have taken a little longer with these two elements.
Still, “Shopgirl” finds its’ voice when one gets past these two miscalculations, and gets into the story at the heart of the film, based on Steve Martin’s acclaimed novella. Martin also wrote the screenplay (one of the year’s smartest and most thoughtful) and costars as Ray Porter, an older gentlemen who frequents the uptown department store Mirabelle works at- Saks Fifth Avenue (in the glove department)- in Los Angeles, and who one day- after she’s already been out with Jeremy (an artist working at an amp store going under)- comes to buy a pair of gloves, which he’ll turn around and mail to Mirabelle with the note, “Would you have dinner with me?” attached to it. She accepts, and they soon enter a courtship based on sex and companionship that both seem happy with. But do they both feel the same way about where its’ headed. Ray believes he’s made his feelings clear to Mirabelle; guess whether Mirabelle feels the same way.
“Shopgirl” is about such conflicting attitudes regarding love and relationships- that’s why you go with its’ dry wit and old-fashioned romantic longing. Claire Danes’ performance as Mirabelle is another reason. Ten years ago, Danes seemed primed to become the next Jodie Foster. She became known for her performance on the much-loved- but little-seen series “My So-Called Life,” which lead to an increasingly high-profile string of performances in movies as varied in quality as they were in subject- “Little Women,” “To Gillian on Her 37th Birthday,” Baz Luhrmann’s “William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet,” Francis Ford Coppola’s “The Rainmaker,” Oliver Stone’s “U-Turn,” “Les Miserables,” “The Mod Squad,” “Brokedown Palace” (still unseen by me), and the American overdub of Miyazaki’s masterpiece “Princess Mononoke” (she had also auditioned successfully for “Schindler’s List,” but declined when they wouldn’t provide her an on-set tutor). After the bottom dropped out in the 1999 flop “The Mod Squad” (the worst movie she’s been a part of), she headed off to Yale and virtually disappeared from movies. Smart move. Since then she has returned to Hollywood from the bottom up, taking on both smart supporting roles in movies like “The Hours” (which I felt wasted her talents, among its’ many problems) and “Igby Goes Down” (a must-see for fans) while also taking on more prominent roles in movies like “Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines” (where she proved adept at holding her own with epic action) and last year’s “Stage Beauty” (as yet unseen by me). “Shopgirl” is her finest work yet, and she has one more performance- in this Winter’s promising family comedy “The Family Stone”- for fans to savor. Danes rises to the challenge of carrying “Shopgirl” as this young woman who came to L.A. with hopes of a glamorous life only to be forced to watch as glamorous people come in and out of her life as simply customers at the glove department she works at. If she seems aloof and detatched from life, that’ll happen when your life is full of the monotony and disappointment Mirabelle’s seems to have. That seems ultimately why she embraces the relationship with Ray, and rejects Jeremy. While Jeremy has nothing much to offer her beyond the life she lives, Ray has the promise of elegance and a life she merely watched from her counter. That makes Mirabelle sound like a goldigger, a young woman exchanging sex for glamour and gifts, but it’s simply the fact that Ray is the type of gentleman Mirabelle is looking for, even if he is twice her age. If that’s superficial, you haven’t seen Schwartzman’s Jeremy; at the start of the film, he is most definitely not her guy. Danes’ work as this young woman with a seemingly old soul is a wonderfully nuanced reminder of why many people- myself included- fell in love with her in the first place.
Martin’s work as Ray is Danes’ equal, and some of his best. Best loved for his work in the ’80s and ’90s as a smart goofball in films like “The Three Amigos!,” “All of Me,” “Bowfinger,” and “L.A. Story” (he scripted the last two), Martin brings unexpected depth to that persona as a character who can be as sarcastic and shallow as those earlier roles, but capable of perceptive tenderness and warmth when he’s around Mirabelle. The problem is when it becomes clear to the audience that Ray’s desires from their relationship are different from Mirabelle’s. The moment when that becomes clear to Mirabelle is beautifully acted by both performers- the subtlety in Danes’ revelation and Martin’s reaction is palpable. How they are capable of remaining friends afterwards is one of the great joys of Martin’s smart screenplay and his and Danes’ performances, which deserves to tell you itself. This is the riskiest performance I’ve seen from Martin, and proof that this wild and crazy guy is capable of being one of our slyest, classical romantics. The movie he’s given us as a writer and actor is all of those things- sly, classic (in its’ story and approach to the material), and romantic- even if it isn’t always the best of those things.
