Enjoying an actual individual on display in a approach that does not really feel like a shallow imitation is hard. (Talking of which: Better of luck to the “Beatles — A Four Film Cinematic Event” cast at dodging these inevitable comparisons to the caricature variations of the Fab 4 in “Stroll Laborious: The Dewey Cox Story.”) However portraying an actual one that’s consistently placing on a efficiency of their very own is more durable nonetheless. It is to his credit score, then, that Ethan Hawke does this with out breaking a sweat in “Blue Moon,” the actor’s newest team-up with director Richard Linklater and a deservedly applauded 2025 true story drama that may hopefully acquire extra eyes now that it is streaming on Netflix. (The movie’s 91% critics’ rating on Rotten Tomatoes ought to solely assist its trigger.)
Written by Robert Kaplow (who, together with Hawke, has gotten an Oscar nod for his efforts on the image), “Blue Moon” facilities on Lorenz Hart (Hawke), the legendary U.S. lyricist whose many nice works embody the titular tune (a tune I am going to personally all the time affiliate with the warbling mice from the movie “Babe” — sorry, Mr. Hart, however none of us get to really select our legacy). Like many Linklater options, his and Hawke’s “Before” movie trilogy included, the story right here takes place in a restricted window of time and largely consists of individuals chatting. Their major subject of dialogue? The spiffy new stage musical that was written by Hart’s former inventive accomplice of 20 years, Richard Rodgers (Andrew Scott), and has solely simply opened the identical evening that many of the film is ready in 1943 … a present by the identify of “Oklahoma!”
Sure, as you have little question put collectively, we’re speaking about the identical Rodgers of Rodgers & Hammerstein fame. Is it any marvel Hart’s a multitude?
Blue Moon is a melancholy showcase for Ethan Hawke and his co-stars
Lorenz Hart may’ve been an actual individual, however as depicted by Ethan Hawke in “Blue Moon,” he is your typical Richard Linklater protagonist (and that is a praise). Living proof: Within the uncommon moments that Hart is not babbling poetically about artwork, life, and intercourse, you possibly can see the anguish and craving that he is desperately failing to carry again bubble up behind his eyes. He is a queer, brief, repressed particular person who can not help however challenge queer, brief, repressed particular person power (regardless of how a lot he insists that is not him), and even when the film did not reveal his tragic destiny in its opening minutes, one might readily (and sadly) discern it from the best way Hart handles himself on the bar the place a lot of the motion unfolds.
As Rodgers, Andrew Scott does lots with little or no; he is a cocktail of smiling reverence and barely hidden resentment when he speaks to his sensible, infuriating ex. In the meantime, Margaret Qualley is equally very good as Elizabeth Weiland (the winsome, liberated younger girl and aspiring inventive that Hart has grown near), and Linklater is content material to let his actors maintain the highlight as nicely, as his route is generally invisible. The movie does have some minor technical issues because it employs pressured perspective and different sensible methods to make Hawke look as brief as the true Hart (which results in some mildly ungainly camerawork), but it surely’s a small quibble for what’s in any other case a considerate, melancholy film a couple of troubled artist left behind by historical past.
On a lighter notice: Maintain your eyes peeled for a random “Stuart Little” (?) Easter egg right here, then learn up on the precise e-book later. You may by no means take a look at the M. Night Shyamalan-penned adaptation of this story the identical approach.
