Review: ‘Florence Foster Jenkins’ may not have been able to sing, but Streep still soars

Posted on August 19, 2016

By MARK VIOLA

There’s a running joke in Hollywood that if Meryl Streep is on screen, she is likely to get nominated for an Academy Award. It’s only happened 19 times since 1979. That’s an average of a nomination every two years. She was last nominated for her work in the 2014 musical “Into the Woods,” so since we’re now in 2016, she is due.
Joking aside, Streep is an excellent actress and deserved her nominations, just like she would deserve one if she is indeed nominated for her work in “Florence Foster Jenkins,” her latest movie.

It’s not like she needs extra help, but director Stephen Frears’ previous works include “The Queen” and “Philomena,” which each earned its leading lady, Hellen Mirren and Judi Dench respectively, Oscar nominations with a win for Mirren.

“Florence Foster Jenkins” is another wonderful period film from Frears telling the strange true story of its title character, an heiress and patron of the arts who wants to take the stage and sing. The only problem? She can’t sing. And even worse, she’s the only one who doesn’t know it.

In addition to Streep, the film boasts a strong overall cast, which also includes Hugh Grant (“Cloud Atlas”), who gives a career performance as Florence’s husband, and Simon Helberg (“The Big Bang Theory”) as the pianist hired to accompany Florence on her musical journey.

The story is set in 1944 New York City, where Florence and her husband, St. Clair Bayfield, are hosting their latest musical revue. The event sparks a renewed interest in Florence, who is in declining health, to take the stage once more and sing for her adoring fans. As mentioned before, however, she can’t sing well at all, and Bayfield has spent years carefully selecting audiences and bribing critics to ensure she doesn’t learn of this.

They bring in a preeminent vocal coach and hire Cosmé McMoon (Helberg) to accompany her. When her aspirations grow too large for Bayfield to orchestrate, however, secrets may finally come to light, but not before Florence herself becomes a hit.

This is a wonderfully strange story, and one that you can honestly approach from several different angles. The one undeniable fact, however, is that Florence was a horrid singer. A somewhat cynical view of the story could look at the fact that she was only able to take the stage because she was rich and her husband well-connected within the art community. But she could also be the victim, coddled by her husband to the point that she was unaware that she was possibly becoming the butt of jokes rather than the highlight of the evening.

And the film does not try to dissuade you of these thoughts, comfortable to let its audience arrive at its own conclusions. What it does do, however, is show the passion Florence has for the arts and music, and why that passion was so important to her.

I enjoy films that make me think, and while the story itself is pretty simple, there are definitely questions to ponder and debates to be had. And the reason audience members can take away such widely differing perspectives is the wonderful cast.

We’ve come to expect greatness from Streep and she once again delivers, giving nuance to a character that, like her time on stage, could have been reduced to a joke.

For me, however, the true standout, if only because I wasn’t expecting it, is Grant’s performance in what may be the best work I’ve ever seen from the actor. Bayfield is not a perfect man, and definitely not a perfect husband, but there is an honesty to him even when he’s lying through his teeth. The film needs that complexity and Grant delivers it.

There are other strong performances as well, but I would be remiss if I didn’t mention Helberg. I’m use to his work on “The Big Bang Theory,” and his character here does provide much of the film’s comic relief, but there is a depth to her work that I haven’t seen before and quite enjoyed.

It should also be noted that Frears and his team do a wonderful job recreating the art scene of 1940s New York City. There is the obligatory sweeping shot showing the period skyscrapers and cars, but everything about the production, from the sets and costumes to the performances, helps bring the audience into a time and place that is as much a character as any of the actors.

“Florence Foster Jenkins” is not your typical summer wide release, but it is a solid film that is one of the first of the year that I feel confident will be remembered when award season rolls around.

The film is rated PG-13 for brief suggestive material.

(This is a abbreviated version of the full review available in our printed or e-edition papers.)

Subscribe to our e-Edition and read the rest of the story. Already a subscriber? Click here to sign in.