Is Richard Ayoade an auteur?

7 FEATURES IN THE FILMS OF RICHARD AYOADE

Richard Ayoade has only made two films, but already has his own artistic style. BFJ
rewatched Submarine (2010) and The Double (2013) to notice what exactly the
young director uses at right place and time in his two book adaptations for the
screen.
Characters and actors
Ayoades protagonists are always nice but shy young men with strange characteristics, or being
more exact, strange strengths. It could be pupil Oliver who prefers loneliness and reading a
dictionary, or quiet hardworking employee and heartsick lover Simon. Anyway each of them meets
the challenges from outside: discord between parents, or a new and more successful employee
assigning the main character to work for him.
Another aspect is actors. A good few of the Submarine cast (the Tate family as well as protagonist
girlfriend Jordana) moved to The Double. Many directors bring back their favourite actors from film
to film, and Ayoade is no exception. The reason might lie in some kind of responsibility (for example,
Yasmin Paige new talent) but likely its a good relationship, and the result that we watch in the
screen loudly tells us that its a pleasure to work with him. Besides this fact, theres something heartstirring and touching in such recognition when familiar faces play new but no less charismatic
characters.

Setting
One of the endearing moments of Ayoade movies is lack of binding to a specific time period. If the
youths of Submarine looks like todays hipsters (with their duffle coats,love of vinyl, tapes and
Polaroid), then looking at adults in The Double, the contemporary feel flies away (the mothers maxi
skirts, Hannahs headscarf or general lack of cell phones).
Moreover, this tendency is continued by environment. For example, characters dont sit at the
computers but read (remember a wonderful moment when Oliver advises his girlfriend to read The
Catcher in the Rye and Nietzsche for spiritual bonding) or naughtily spend their time outside (the
secret of a happy childhood). Movies on television sets remind us trash the seventies and eighties
while cinemas offer good old films. Musical accompaniment also plays along the spirit of
timelessness: the romantic ballads of Alex Turner (probably the best youth movie soundtrack of last
years) and 1963 hit Kyu Sakamoto Sukiyaki.

In addition, what particularly captivating us is notes and their subsequent reading. Its hardly to
refute that message written by your own hand looks heartier, more involved and simply romantic,
which seems very important for Ayoade.

Great Britain
To a greater or lesser extent both films are British (that is a sufficient advantage itself). And if
inSubmarine lots of details loudly shout about this, from landscape to sense of humor, then in The
Double small details such as Cambridge Satchels remained unchanged. But we are glad of this at
least.

Love and death

What kind of young person am I? ask directors protagonists, being at a crossroads and wanting
to choose the right one. One of those incentives that drive them becomes love. Timidity, caring
attitude toward beloved ones (Jordana and Hannah) and some kind of admiration at a distance
thats the way of great feeling experience by Ayoades main characters. Love holds Simon and
Oliver in a surface and pushes them to actions adding the resolution.
The second theme of Ayoade movies is a topic of degeneration. Besides the fact that the death
forces us to grow, it also is an end of certain stage. As Yeats said, To be reborn you need to die
first and both protagonists use this idea. Oliver imagines his death, rebirth and subsequent moral
strength. Simon devises to kill himself for to get back his personality and life as well as overcoming
his bad side.

Books
Despite the fact that the popularity of books has been steadily declining in the modern world,
Ayoade focuses on them. First he filmed a youth novel in which the protagonist is not averse to
spend time reading dictionary and also familiar with the works of Shakespeare and Salinger, and
then he not only successfully but also originally worked on Dostoevskys novel, and puts into the
mouth of his character words about Pinocchio. This approach deserves only respect.

Color palette
The colour seems to be the separate element of directors works. Dramatic comedy or thriller,
Ayoade somehow manages to leave something unchanged: cold shades (for the London weather)
and blue color (idealism, fortitude and dreams). The Double skilfully uses Dostoevskys yellow (the
color of psychological destruction, instability); while in Submarine youthful rebellious spirit is
embodied by the Jordanas red coat and romance by the purple sunset.

Laconic shots and a bit of absurdity

Ayoades filming style is quite concise there is no place for disorder. He likes to shoot close-up
and employ the use of stills (hello to Wes Anderson); he toys with hyperbole and allegories while
remaining ironic.
In addition to semi-abandoned places, baths amidst wasteland, Simons meagre furniture or an
empty subway car, there is a place for some odd in the shot, whether its an old computer at work or
skeleton in the nursery. In addition, the characters themselves are a bit weird; their monologues a
wonderful example of the unordinary people, or passion for watching other people through all kinds
of telescopes and binoculars. But despite all this, Ayoades characters (and movies in general) are
much closer the spectator rather than one-sided heroes of most modern action films. But thats why
we love Richard, dont we?

A case of homage overload: The Double by

Richard Ayoade
Two films into his directing career, the former star of the IT Crowd has yet to exhibit an original
voice.
BY

RYAN GILBEY

PUBLISHED 3 APRIL, 2014 - 12:30

Man in the mirror: Jesse Eisenberg as Simon/James

Watching a lot of movies is not a prerequisite for being a good director. In unusual instances, it can
even be an impediment. Richard Ayoade is a case in point. As a comic performer, this actor-turned-

film-maker has a distinctive style: he mixed the naive and the knowing to sophisticated effect in The
IT Crowd, in which he played Moss, king of the nerds, stiff and straight as an ironing board, with a
lopsided wedge of haywire hair.
Two films into his directing career, he has yet to exhibit a comparably original voice. Both the
coming-of-age comedy Submarine (2010) and its superficially darker follow-up, a loose adaptation
of Dostoevskys novella The Double, suffer from a severe case of homage overload. While I am
overjoyed for Ayoade that he has seen such films as Brazil, Eraserhead, The Tenant and the
collected works of Aki Kaurismki, a 90-minute tour of his DVD collection is no substitute for a film.
Casting is one area where The Double is strong. As Simon, the office drone so ineffectual that
automatic doors fail to register his presence, Jesse Eisenberg is ideal. Hes so pale that a pint of milk
would look like Tizer alongside him, so jittery that he surely stammers even in his thoughts. Simon
is already a nervous wreck before witnessing a man in the opposite building jump to his death.
There is also his agony at lusting after a demure, icicle-like colleague (Mia Wasikowska) to little
noticeable effect and discovering that she may have played some part in the leapers demise. (It
turns out that she told him, Stop fucking following me! the day before his death. Do you think
theres some connection? she asks innocently.)
Then Simon is spooked to find that his exact double, James, has begun working in the office. Even
worse, James starts passing off Simons achievements as his own and currying favour with the boss
(Wallace Shawn). James is also played by Eisenberg, though a supreme gag here would have been to
cast the similarly pallid and angular Michael Cera; after all, both actors have remarked publicly that
they are forever being mistaken for one another. Ceras ongoing campaign to muss up his geeky
persona began a few years ago with Youth in Revolt (2009), in which he played both a nerd and his
suave alter ego: exactly what Eisenberg is called on to do here. Then again, Youth in Revolt was
breezy fun, whereas The Double has its sights set stubbornly on being art. If there is a faster route
for a director to end up with egg on his face, it has escaped me temporarily.
The movie is glazed with a feeble sense of dread, nowhere more so than in the area of production
design, which has a retro-futuristic aesthetic: sickly green lighting, exposed ducts and pipes,
technology with an antiquated spin (such as the photocopier equipped with clunky dials). Framed
pictures of the omniscient Colonel (James Fox) recall Big Brother from Nineteen Eighty-Fourbut
even in its homages the movie is derivative Terry Gilliams Orwellian fantasy Brazil went by the
working title of 1984. The problem, as with everything in The Double, is not that the influences
are transparent but that they are all the film has. Those of a forgiving spirit might take this for an injoke, as if Ayoade were making the movie itself into a double, a 24-frames-per-second facsimile.
Even generous viewers might wonder at the films preference for effect over feeling, affectation over
depth. Ayoade can shoot a garishly coloured room flickering under a broken strip-light as well as the
next David Lynch fan but where is the palpable menace required in any cinematic nightmare? We
never discover why it is such a bad deal for Simon to meet his doppelgnger; the film wouldnt be
noticeably different if the interloper were not James but, say, any hunk with designs on Simons girl.
Ayoade is not slow to pile on the zaniness (a suicide squad assesses Simon as a maybe and there
are visits to a nursing home where the residents carry weapons). He also recruits his comedy chums
(Chris Morris, Chris ODowd) for unremarkable cameos. Taking this story of the uncanny and
stripping it of any eeriness must count as his most striking achievement, as well as his most
perverse.

From a Channel 4 interview with Richard Ayoade:

People want to know which other directors to compare something to as well, even if it means stretching a point I
mean, Ive seen you compared to Wes Anderson, although I wouldnt say youre really that similar.
I think it's because there are certain directors who've become adjectival, and he is so distinctive that people feel
they can use his name as an adjective. But what is exceptional about him is indefinable, really. Like when you
see people do those YouTube parodies of Wes Anderson, you just go, "this is so much LESS funny than what it's
meant to be parodying." I think Wes Anderson is brilliant, an absolute one-off, and he's created, over a series of
films, this lovingly-detailed, complete world. And the world is so good, you almost want to live in that world, like
you do in Salinger's world. But I think some people really fixate on the details as being the only thing necessary
to create that world, to the extent that they might say "Oh, a symmetrical two shot, thats Wes Anderson...", or
this font is him, when its really not that distinctive to him alone. Mike Nichols with The Graduate did a
deadpan performing style, Martin Scorsese used those god's eye top shot inserts in Taxi Driver, Godard did those
big parallel tracks, you can go back and back and find certain techniques recurring. But it doesn't matter - what's
interesting about Wes Anderson is a certain overall way of looking at things in the story and in the attack of the
whole thing that's more than these individual components. But I suppose one of the things people want to know
about something is, what's it like? And then you have to just give an example of something. Violent Tarantinoesque. Magic hour and lots of voice over, Malick-esque, etc.

Music videos; television work etc.

Evidence for:

Evidence against: