Movie Review: The Laundromat

The Laundromat is messy—undoubtedly so. Sure, the film attempts to broach its rather intricate subject matter through narratives and intentional disjunction. Nevertheless, the product is just plain confusing.Directed by Steven Soderbergh (Ocean’s Eleven, Magic Mike, Erin Brockovich), the film unpacks the work of former law firm Mossack Fonseca. The firm’s shell companies and clients were exposed by the Panama Papers several years ago, resulting in political and economic ramifications. The Laundromat delves into the legal loopholes that Mossack Fonseca exploited, using characters both real and created. The characters parody the realities of those who used Mossack Fonseca’s services, demonstrating the often callous and self-absorbed mindset of the elite and the helplessness of those they exploit. Yet, some of the most ridiculous moments are lifted directly from reality. For example, the film depicts how Chinese power player Gu Kailai (Rosalind Cho) asked Matthias Schoenaerts’ Maywood (based on the real Neil Heywood) to divorce his wife as a sign of loyalty. These characters’ stories intertwine through monologues by Jürgen Mossack (Gary Oldman) and Ramón Fonseca (Antonio Banderas). The fictional Ellen Martin (Meryl Streep) also serves as a connective thread. After the death of her husband, her plight leads her into an investigation of Mossack Fonseca. By and large, though, these three anchors are not enough to bring together this garbled film.This is not to say that the performances do not shine. The cast itself is sublime. Meryl Streep brings her signature combination of levity and realism to her character. She takes us into the world of Mossack Fonseca through a relatable ordinary lens. There is not one moment when this feels strained or artificial—Streep’s confusion and frustration seem genuine. Her emotional moments, particularly those less related to the central exploration of Mossack Fonseca, are some of the highlights of this film. Streep also does double duty as Elena, a Mossack Fonseca employee. While they may seem wholly separate, Streep’s roles are united by the fact that they represent the meek in a world full of the mighty. The two are drawn into the world of Mossack Fonseca by fate, sucked into corporate conspiracy they do not fully comprehend. And, to borrow Elena’s words, they are left to “clean up” the messes others leave behind—they pay for others’ greed.When the film reaches its climax—the Panama Papers data dump—, Mossack and Fonseca are forced to reconcile with the fact that someone exposed their operation. They also concede that they are not the only ones in their line of work. Here, many questions are answered. Yet, there is one question even they cannot answer: who was behind the data dump? In comes Elena, then Ellen, then Streep herself, borrowing the words of the original leaker, John Doe. In the end, it doesn’t matter who was behind the data dump because John Doe was the everyman and everywoman. This scene, her only monologue, is where Streep truly shines.Alas, supporting characters are sorely underused, perhaps a testament to the star-power in this film. Jeffrey Wright’s Malchus Irvin Boncamper, Sharon Stone’s Hannah and David Schwimmer’s Matthew Quirk barely receive any screen time. Stone, an Oscar nominee, has just three lines of dialogue. What’s more, Melissa Rauch’s considerable comedic chops aren’t exercised at all. Instead, she is reduced to extended eye contact with the camera.The cinematography, however, is excellent. The creativity with which Steven Soderbergh frames his scenes is stunning. Characters move between realities, sharing spaces that seem neither physical or metaphorical. Moreover, each vignette has a distinctive camera style—a tint in one story, a foggy gloss over another. These are the clever ways in which Soderbergh amplifies how the stories are both disparate and interconnected.Similarly, the sets are mighty impressive. Each one embodies the location in which the scene is set—from Miami to Las Vegas to Nevis to Chongqing. Evidently, a lot of money was spent on this film. The one complaint I have, however, is that plots sometimes get lost in the jet-setting and constant movement between geographical locations.Taken as a whole, the film is hugely flawed in its execution. Yet, it manages to provide biting commentary on the way that the world works. In revealing the open secrets of the ultra-wealthy, the film paints a cynical picture of how we are cogs in the monetary machine that swirls around us. It shows us the mindset of those who have more control, displaying the portrait of human greed and desire. Most importantly, however, the film offers its take on fundamental questions of society: What is the system we live in? Who is this system designed for? Who does it benefit? What is the role of the common man (or woman) in this system? And if we define winners in this system, who, then, must be the losers? Still, the film doesn’t answer one critical question: What in the world does a laundromat have to do with it all?