I went into Jennifer Kent's "The Nightingale" fully warned for what I was getting myself into. This is a brutal movie, full of murder, rape, destruction, and trauma, and it's a movie that ensures the viewer appreciates the full horror of each hideous instance of violence. As a narrative it fits the general pattern of a revenge movie, but it's a revenge that is never meant to be enjoyed.
In 19th century Tasmania, Clare (Aisling Franciosi) is an Irish convict, working for British army Lieutenant Hawkins (Sam Claflin) as a servant. Clare has been allowed to marry Aidan (Michael Sheasby), who she's had a baby girl with, but Hawkins denies her the freedom she's due. The situation escalates into rape and murder, and Clare is set on a path to hunt down Hawkins as he journeys through the wilderness, along with his men, Sergeant Ruse (Damon Herriman) and Private Jago (Harry Greenwood). Clare only has Billy (Baykali Ganambarr), a Tasmanian Aborigine, as a guide, who she slowly becomes friends with.
I admire the way that "The Nightingale" handles violence, rarely lingering on it, often keeping the worst moments offscreen entirely, and yet capturing the full, awful impact of it in a way that few films manage. The focus is on the pain, on the victims and their emotional states. Women screaming and children crying recur over and over again, creating links between different crimes and characters. The film starts out as the story of Clare, but quickly expands to include other victims of Hawkins and his ilk. Chief among these are the "blacks," the various tribes of Aborigines who the British are engaged in bloody warfare with.
It's easy to read the film as symbolic of larger conflicts, with Hawkins standing in for the British colonialists, Billy for the subjugated Aborigines, and Clare for the forgotten women and children who suffered on all sides. However, I found the film so compelling because the characters are so alive and so specific. The performances are strong, with Franciosi distinguishing herself in particular. Clare's rage and righteousness put her on the path to violent revenge, but she's ill suited for it. She constantly looks exhausted and unwell, and in the wilderness she's entirely dependent on Billy's help. Clare puts on a brave, tough front, but that only gets her so far. Her arc is all about realizing her limitations, and shifting her priorities from mindless hatred to survival and justice.
The one hopeful, truly touching element of the film, that made it worth sitting through all the darkness and degradation, is Clare and Billy's friendship. Clare starts out in the role of hostile boss and oppressor, mimicking the soldiers, but circumstances force her to keep reevaluating the relationship. As for Billy, Ganambarr is a great presence, charismatic and appealing. His behavior is never remotely subservient and he's barely even deferential to Clare in their interactions, calling her out for her failings and constantly professing his hatred of the British. It's very satisfying to watch the pair connect and have certain realizations about each other.
On the other side of the coin, Sam Claflin, is an absolute monster as Hawkins. I like that he's playing against type, his leading man looks and charm just making his actions all the more heinous. There's a fascinating subplot where he plays his men against each other and ropes a convict boy named Eddie (Charlie Shotwell) into his power games. It's such a cruel display of his manipulative and exploitative nature, and crushing to see the situation play out. Each of the men embody different vices - cowardice, greed, and resentment, but the one uniting them is lack of empathy. The worst of their actions are born not out of any particular malevolence, but either thoughtless lashing out or careless dehumanization of those around them.
And in the end, for all its horrors, "The Nightingale" is a beautiful film. Kent has the story play out over great expanses of Tasmania's forests, mountains, and beaches. We glimpse its wildlife, and the culture and customs of its native inhabitants. Early moments with Clare's family are tranquil and lovely. The loss and destruction wouldn't have nearly the impact that it does if it weren't made abundantly clear what was being destroyed by the actions of the British. I can't speak to the historical accuracy or sensitivity of the portrayals of any of the groups depicted here, but Kent clearly has great consideration for her subjects. I look forward to whatever she does next.
---
Thursday, January 30, 2020
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
Appreciating "The Art of Self Defense"
For the first twenty or so minutes of the new Riley Stearns film, "The Art of Self Defense," I thought I had the movie's number. Jesse Eisenberg plays Casey, the film's hero, the kind of milquetoast nebbish I'd seen him play in "The Double" and "Zombieland," and so many other films. Casey works an office job and seems fine just staying under the radar and cohabitating with his dachshund. Then Casey is brutally mugged one night, destroying his sense of security and turning his life upside down. He tries to buy a gun for protection, but is delayed. Then he walks into the karate dojo of a man named Sensei (Alessandro Nivola) and things get a lot more interesting.
"The Art of Self Defense," like Stearns' last movie, "Faults," is about cult dynamics and people vying for power over each other. This time around the cult is the karate school controlled by Sensei, who espouses an inviting philosophy of self-betterment that Casey latches on to immediately. Gradually, it's revealed through Casey's interactions with the dojo's lone female student, Anna (Imogen Poots), and his new friend Henry (David Zellner), that Sensei is a power-tripping egomaniac, and his entire schtick is built on toxic masculinity, greed, and lies. "The Art of Self Defense" also reveals itself to be a black comedy, very dry, very deadpan, and with just the right amount of absurdity.
This kind of highly stylized comedy doesn't always work for me. There's often a tendency to overdo the violence or turn the characters into too-obvious caricatures. "Quirky" is a common descriptor. In this film, though everyone speaks a little too formally, and the production design makes the world a touch too drab, there's a realism to the behaviors and relationships of everyone involved that keeps things grounded. I can buy that Anna sticks around in spite of poor treatment, because she's bought into the idea that if she works hard enough that she'll ultimately prevail. And while Sensei seems to wield an inordinate amount of power and influence over his students, the movie also take time to drop those little hints about his ineffectiveness as a business owner, and the depths of his own insecurities.
Moreover, I like the way that the film portrays Casey's journey into the darkness of aggressive hypermasculinity, and his eventual redemption. There's a great sequence where he tries out a new attitude of alpha male dominance, which gets him what he wants, but also makes him look totally ridiculous. Without much overt exposition, the story lets Casey work out the dangers and iniquities of Sensei's worldview on his own, and then empowers him to do something about it, resulting in a very emotionally satisfying narrative. Yes, this is a very familiar type of character for Jesse Eisenberg to be playing, but it's also a good reminder that he's really good in these roles.
Alessandro Nivola, however, stole the movie for me as Sensei. He's so sincere about the nonsense coming out of his mouth, and seems to care so much for Casey's wellbeing at first that you can understand why Casey likes him. His growing hostility initially manifests as extreme pettiness and passive aggressiveness. The film's dialogue is full of people reciting factoids and statistics, occasionally made up, in order to bolster their authority and assert their worldview on others. Sensei does this very often, to the point where he's honed it into an intimidation tactic. When violence enters the equation, it's brutal and deglamorized, and the focus is usually on Sensei's hypocrisy in using it.
There are a lot of films like "The Art of Self Defense" out there, but few that I've been on the same wavelength with to this extent. It's not so much that these characters are familiar to me, but the way they think and the way they express themselves rings so true. I also connected with its humor in a way I typically don't with similar dark comedies, maybe because it takes aim at and employs many of the tactics of popular faux-intellectualism. And it does it so well, I may never be able to keep a straight face during a marketing pitch for martial arts classes again.
---
"The Art of Self Defense," like Stearns' last movie, "Faults," is about cult dynamics and people vying for power over each other. This time around the cult is the karate school controlled by Sensei, who espouses an inviting philosophy of self-betterment that Casey latches on to immediately. Gradually, it's revealed through Casey's interactions with the dojo's lone female student, Anna (Imogen Poots), and his new friend Henry (David Zellner), that Sensei is a power-tripping egomaniac, and his entire schtick is built on toxic masculinity, greed, and lies. "The Art of Self Defense" also reveals itself to be a black comedy, very dry, very deadpan, and with just the right amount of absurdity.
This kind of highly stylized comedy doesn't always work for me. There's often a tendency to overdo the violence or turn the characters into too-obvious caricatures. "Quirky" is a common descriptor. In this film, though everyone speaks a little too formally, and the production design makes the world a touch too drab, there's a realism to the behaviors and relationships of everyone involved that keeps things grounded. I can buy that Anna sticks around in spite of poor treatment, because she's bought into the idea that if she works hard enough that she'll ultimately prevail. And while Sensei seems to wield an inordinate amount of power and influence over his students, the movie also take time to drop those little hints about his ineffectiveness as a business owner, and the depths of his own insecurities.
Moreover, I like the way that the film portrays Casey's journey into the darkness of aggressive hypermasculinity, and his eventual redemption. There's a great sequence where he tries out a new attitude of alpha male dominance, which gets him what he wants, but also makes him look totally ridiculous. Without much overt exposition, the story lets Casey work out the dangers and iniquities of Sensei's worldview on his own, and then empowers him to do something about it, resulting in a very emotionally satisfying narrative. Yes, this is a very familiar type of character for Jesse Eisenberg to be playing, but it's also a good reminder that he's really good in these roles.
Alessandro Nivola, however, stole the movie for me as Sensei. He's so sincere about the nonsense coming out of his mouth, and seems to care so much for Casey's wellbeing at first that you can understand why Casey likes him. His growing hostility initially manifests as extreme pettiness and passive aggressiveness. The film's dialogue is full of people reciting factoids and statistics, occasionally made up, in order to bolster their authority and assert their worldview on others. Sensei does this very often, to the point where he's honed it into an intimidation tactic. When violence enters the equation, it's brutal and deglamorized, and the focus is usually on Sensei's hypocrisy in using it.
There are a lot of films like "The Art of Self Defense" out there, but few that I've been on the same wavelength with to this extent. It's not so much that these characters are familiar to me, but the way they think and the way they express themselves rings so true. I also connected with its humor in a way I typically don't with similar dark comedies, maybe because it takes aim at and employs many of the tactics of popular faux-intellectualism. And it does it so well, I may never be able to keep a straight face during a marketing pitch for martial arts classes again.
---
Sunday, January 26, 2020
My Favorite Vittorio De Sica Film
I fully intended to write this installment about "Bicycle Thieves," one of those absolutely perfect, heartbreaking pieces of cinema that stands as a great argument for the existence of the entire medium. It is an indisputable classic, a landmark of the Neorealist movement, and the reason I tackled Vittorio De Sica's filmography in the first place. And yet, I don't get a tenth of the pleasure watching it as I do watching Marcello Mastroianni and Sophia Loren do battle in "Marriage, Italian Style," one of De Sica's comedies from the 1960s.
For a long time I only associated De Sica with his dramatic Neorealist films. However, he was as adept at comedy as he was at drama, and became one of the major contributors to Commedia all'Italiana, a genre that rose to prominence in the late '50s. Commedia all'Italiana films are farcical, but also frequently melancholic, incorporating elements of irony and satire. And there's plenty of that in "Marriage, Italian Style," where both of the leads are playing terrible people trying to gain the upper hand in a troubled relationship. Like many other De Sica films there are elements of tragedy and highlighting social ills, but there's also a cynical attitude that's very distinct.
One reason that the film had such an impact on me is because it was my first Sophia Loren film. This wasn't the first time I'd seen her in the movie, but it was the first time I saw her in a leading role, commanding the screen as only she could. Here, she plays Filumena, an aging prostitute, who has been taken advantage of by her unfaithful lover for years, and now faces the prospect of him marrying someone else. The big twist is that she's spent all those years taking advantage of him as well, and when the time comes, she's perfectly willing to play dirty to get what she wants. Many of her actions are awful, but feel perfectly justified in context because she's up against Marcello Mastroianni's unscrupulous Domenico, who seduced her as a teenager and has been stringing her along ever since. The two end up together, more or less happily, but it takes a lot of backstabbing and arm-twisting to get there.
Loren and Mastroianni are fantastic together onscreen, both when they're in love and at odds with each other. They were frequently paired in other films, and Loren worked often with De Sica, but this was a rare occasion when all three were on the same picture. Mastroianni had also starred in Pietro Germi's "Divorce Italian Style" three years earlier, which "Marriage Italian Style" was trying to capitalize on the success of. "Divorce" was also about skewering the moral hypocrisies of the Italians, though from a different angle, and Mastroianni played a sad sack trying to escape a loveless marriage. The character of Domenico takes quite a bit from the protagonist of "Divorce" - there's the same cowardice and cravenness, despite a handsome, admirable exterior. In "Mariage," however, he's not nearly as sympathetic, essentially the villain of the piece whose despicable acts drive our heroine to desperate behavior. Domenico is shown to be redeemable, but only after extreme measures are deployed by the far more loveable Filumena.
And there's no question that this is Loren's movie. She plays Filumena at several different ages and stages of her life, from naive innocent, to traffic-stopping bombshell, to devoted, loving mother. She displays absolutely no shame about engaging in co-habitation or prostitution to get by, still considered taboo subjects by polite society at the time. Despite barely knowing how to write her own name, she survives and prevails due to her own wits and daring. And her screen presence is so charismatic and so vivacious that it's impossible not to root for her. De Sica's camera is certainly on her side, making her look sexy, virtuous, self-sacrificing, and heroic by turns.
You can see the influence of De Sica's personal experiences on the film's attitudes toward love and marriage. Like Filumena, he grew up a poor Neapolitan, who wasn't above bending the rules to get by. LIke Domenico, he had competing loyalties to different women. He essentially had two different families, after falling in love with Spanish actress Maria Mercader, but maintained the illusion of monogamy for years for the sake of his children. When he finally divorced, a difficult process for an Italian and a Roman Catholic, it was to legitimize his sons with Mercader.
"Marriage, Italian Style," unlike most of the Commedia all'Italiana films, ends happily, so it's often not counted as part of the genre. However, I don't think you could really categorize it as anything else, considering the status of its characters, their circumstances and their obsessions. And I appreciate that De Sica decided to be kind to them, letting us laugh at their foibles, but letting everyone win in the end.
What I've Seen - Vittorio De Sica
The Children Are Watching Us (1943)
Shoeshine (1946)
Bicycle Thieves (1948)
Miracle in Milan (1951)
Umberto D. (1952)
Terminal Station (1953)
Two Women (1960)
Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow (1963)
Marriage Italian Style (1964)
Sunflower (1970)
The Garden of the Finzi-Continis (1970)
---
For a long time I only associated De Sica with his dramatic Neorealist films. However, he was as adept at comedy as he was at drama, and became one of the major contributors to Commedia all'Italiana, a genre that rose to prominence in the late '50s. Commedia all'Italiana films are farcical, but also frequently melancholic, incorporating elements of irony and satire. And there's plenty of that in "Marriage, Italian Style," where both of the leads are playing terrible people trying to gain the upper hand in a troubled relationship. Like many other De Sica films there are elements of tragedy and highlighting social ills, but there's also a cynical attitude that's very distinct.
One reason that the film had such an impact on me is because it was my first Sophia Loren film. This wasn't the first time I'd seen her in the movie, but it was the first time I saw her in a leading role, commanding the screen as only she could. Here, she plays Filumena, an aging prostitute, who has been taken advantage of by her unfaithful lover for years, and now faces the prospect of him marrying someone else. The big twist is that she's spent all those years taking advantage of him as well, and when the time comes, she's perfectly willing to play dirty to get what she wants. Many of her actions are awful, but feel perfectly justified in context because she's up against Marcello Mastroianni's unscrupulous Domenico, who seduced her as a teenager and has been stringing her along ever since. The two end up together, more or less happily, but it takes a lot of backstabbing and arm-twisting to get there.
Loren and Mastroianni are fantastic together onscreen, both when they're in love and at odds with each other. They were frequently paired in other films, and Loren worked often with De Sica, but this was a rare occasion when all three were on the same picture. Mastroianni had also starred in Pietro Germi's "Divorce Italian Style" three years earlier, which "Marriage Italian Style" was trying to capitalize on the success of. "Divorce" was also about skewering the moral hypocrisies of the Italians, though from a different angle, and Mastroianni played a sad sack trying to escape a loveless marriage. The character of Domenico takes quite a bit from the protagonist of "Divorce" - there's the same cowardice and cravenness, despite a handsome, admirable exterior. In "Mariage," however, he's not nearly as sympathetic, essentially the villain of the piece whose despicable acts drive our heroine to desperate behavior. Domenico is shown to be redeemable, but only after extreme measures are deployed by the far more loveable Filumena.
And there's no question that this is Loren's movie. She plays Filumena at several different ages and stages of her life, from naive innocent, to traffic-stopping bombshell, to devoted, loving mother. She displays absolutely no shame about engaging in co-habitation or prostitution to get by, still considered taboo subjects by polite society at the time. Despite barely knowing how to write her own name, she survives and prevails due to her own wits and daring. And her screen presence is so charismatic and so vivacious that it's impossible not to root for her. De Sica's camera is certainly on her side, making her look sexy, virtuous, self-sacrificing, and heroic by turns.
You can see the influence of De Sica's personal experiences on the film's attitudes toward love and marriage. Like Filumena, he grew up a poor Neapolitan, who wasn't above bending the rules to get by. LIke Domenico, he had competing loyalties to different women. He essentially had two different families, after falling in love with Spanish actress Maria Mercader, but maintained the illusion of monogamy for years for the sake of his children. When he finally divorced, a difficult process for an Italian and a Roman Catholic, it was to legitimize his sons with Mercader.
"Marriage, Italian Style," unlike most of the Commedia all'Italiana films, ends happily, so it's often not counted as part of the genre. However, I don't think you could really categorize it as anything else, considering the status of its characters, their circumstances and their obsessions. And I appreciate that De Sica decided to be kind to them, letting us laugh at their foibles, but letting everyone win in the end.
What I've Seen - Vittorio De Sica
The Children Are Watching Us (1943)
Shoeshine (1946)
Bicycle Thieves (1948)
Miracle in Milan (1951)
Umberto D. (1952)
Terminal Station (1953)
Two Women (1960)
Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow (1963)
Marriage Italian Style (1964)
Sunflower (1970)
The Garden of the Finzi-Continis (1970)
---
Friday, January 24, 2020
Missmediajunkie v. The Arrowverse
I haven't actually watched any of the CW's DC Universe shows since I skipped out on "Green Arrow" after two episodes, deciding it was way too teen-oriented for me. But when all the hype and excitement for the "Crisis on Infinite Earths" super-crossover of every piece of DC media you could name blew up a few months ago, I thought it would be fun to take a look. I mean, I've always been a DC fangirl at heart, and I'm pretty up-to-speed on my comic book lore. I thought it would be fun to see if I could catch all the cameos and references, and maybe see if these shows had gotten to a place where I might be more interested in jumping in.
The answer is no. 100%, absolutely, not. The Arrowverse and I are totally incompatible. Spoilers for "Crisis" ahead.
I watched all five episodes of "Crisis on Infinite Earths" just to make sure I was giving this a fair shot, technically one episode each of "Supergirl," "Batwoman," "Arrow," "The Flash," and "Legends of Tomorrow." Let's get the basics out of the way first. If you are new to these series and these characters, this is not a good place to start.
If you're watching just for the crossovers to other DC media, I'm afraid there's not much to see. Almost all the crossovers are tiny cameos, often limited to only a few seconds. The big exceptions are as follows: the "Smallville" actors and Kevin Conroy in the second episode, Lucifer and John Constantine in the third, and the Ezra Miller Flash in the fourth. Anyone else with a significant role has already been established in-universe, like the new Superman and Lois, Black Lightning, and Jonah Hex. Yes, there are nods to "Titans," "Legion of Doom," "Swamp Thing," "Birds of Prey," the original 1966 "Batman," and many more, but there's no real interaction with any of the characters or concepts.
So what's the actual plot of this thing? DC Comics fans will remember the "Crisis" storyline brought together heroes from multiple realities to fight against a reality-destroying villain called the Anti-Monitor. It was a way to reboot the whole DC continuity and kill off a lot of characters. The Arrowverse version mostly follows the same plot points, though the major heroes involved are different. Original comics writer Marv Wolfman even has a writing credit on the fourth episode, and a cameo in the fifth. And frankly, the whole tone of the miniseries is very comic book. Heroes are larger than life, quippy but unironically forthright and true. Characters talk about being specially chosen "Paragons" tasked with fighting the Anti-Monitor with a straight face. The Dawn of Time is apparently a place, one that looks an awful lot like a random hillside run through a green filter.
I remembered "Arrow" being a little on the goofy side, but I wasn't prepared for how goofy "Crisis on Infinite Earths" would be. The productions values are half a step above later season of "Power Rangers," with cheesy special effects, wacky fight sequences, and everyone decked out in aggressively stylized, colorful, impractical costumes. Batwoman is sporting cherry ICEE colored hair. John Cryer is playing Lex Luthor in a bald cap and looks hysterical. The writing is on the exact same level as animated DC content like "Justice League" and "Young Justice," except with more emphasis on the romantic relationships. Yet, the performances by the live-action actors are somehow even more cartoonish. I found it very hard to suspend my disbelief long enough to enjoy any of it.
And it dawned on me, the Arrowverse is made for kids. Moreover, It's perfectly fine and appropriate that it's made for kids. I probably would have loved these shows in my junior high years and I'm very glad that the franchise is doing so well that there are all these connected shows running for multiple years on the CW with more on the way. However, they definitely aren't to my taste. The dialogue is too stilted, the emotions too earnest, and the melodrama too silly for my nearly forty-something year-old noggin to take. I can't even enjoy it for the campiness, like I can with the '66 "Batman." Yes, it was nice to see Brandon Routh back in the Superman suit, and I liked the little coda we got for "Smallville," but I plan to keep my distance from here on out.
It was a good reality check to be confronted with the fact that a big chunk of superhero media is still operating on this level - the equivalent of the cheesy B-movies made on shoestring budgets from when I was a kid. I've been so caught up in "Watchmen" and "The Boys" and other superhero media aimed at genre-savvy grown-ups, I forgot that the old school, kid-centric part of the superhero ecosystem is still alive and well.
"Crisis on Infinite Earths" is no "Infinity Wars," but in context, it's exactly what it should be.
---
The answer is no. 100%, absolutely, not. The Arrowverse and I are totally incompatible. Spoilers for "Crisis" ahead.
I watched all five episodes of "Crisis on Infinite Earths" just to make sure I was giving this a fair shot, technically one episode each of "Supergirl," "Batwoman," "Arrow," "The Flash," and "Legends of Tomorrow." Let's get the basics out of the way first. If you are new to these series and these characters, this is not a good place to start.
If you're watching just for the crossovers to other DC media, I'm afraid there's not much to see. Almost all the crossovers are tiny cameos, often limited to only a few seconds. The big exceptions are as follows: the "Smallville" actors and Kevin Conroy in the second episode, Lucifer and John Constantine in the third, and the Ezra Miller Flash in the fourth. Anyone else with a significant role has already been established in-universe, like the new Superman and Lois, Black Lightning, and Jonah Hex. Yes, there are nods to "Titans," "Legion of Doom," "Swamp Thing," "Birds of Prey," the original 1966 "Batman," and many more, but there's no real interaction with any of the characters or concepts.
So what's the actual plot of this thing? DC Comics fans will remember the "Crisis" storyline brought together heroes from multiple realities to fight against a reality-destroying villain called the Anti-Monitor. It was a way to reboot the whole DC continuity and kill off a lot of characters. The Arrowverse version mostly follows the same plot points, though the major heroes involved are different. Original comics writer Marv Wolfman even has a writing credit on the fourth episode, and a cameo in the fifth. And frankly, the whole tone of the miniseries is very comic book. Heroes are larger than life, quippy but unironically forthright and true. Characters talk about being specially chosen "Paragons" tasked with fighting the Anti-Monitor with a straight face. The Dawn of Time is apparently a place, one that looks an awful lot like a random hillside run through a green filter.
I remembered "Arrow" being a little on the goofy side, but I wasn't prepared for how goofy "Crisis on Infinite Earths" would be. The productions values are half a step above later season of "Power Rangers," with cheesy special effects, wacky fight sequences, and everyone decked out in aggressively stylized, colorful, impractical costumes. Batwoman is sporting cherry ICEE colored hair. John Cryer is playing Lex Luthor in a bald cap and looks hysterical. The writing is on the exact same level as animated DC content like "Justice League" and "Young Justice," except with more emphasis on the romantic relationships. Yet, the performances by the live-action actors are somehow even more cartoonish. I found it very hard to suspend my disbelief long enough to enjoy any of it.
And it dawned on me, the Arrowverse is made for kids. Moreover, It's perfectly fine and appropriate that it's made for kids. I probably would have loved these shows in my junior high years and I'm very glad that the franchise is doing so well that there are all these connected shows running for multiple years on the CW with more on the way. However, they definitely aren't to my taste. The dialogue is too stilted, the emotions too earnest, and the melodrama too silly for my nearly forty-something year-old noggin to take. I can't even enjoy it for the campiness, like I can with the '66 "Batman." Yes, it was nice to see Brandon Routh back in the Superman suit, and I liked the little coda we got for "Smallville," but I plan to keep my distance from here on out.
It was a good reality check to be confronted with the fact that a big chunk of superhero media is still operating on this level - the equivalent of the cheesy B-movies made on shoestring budgets from when I was a kid. I've been so caught up in "Watchmen" and "The Boys" and other superhero media aimed at genre-savvy grown-ups, I forgot that the old school, kid-centric part of the superhero ecosystem is still alive and well.
"Crisis on Infinite Earths" is no "Infinity Wars," but in context, it's exactly what it should be.
---
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
"Aladdin" and "The Lion King"… Again
I'm not sure what kind of morbid curiosity keeps making me watch these movies. A very few have turned out to be decent, but mostly the live-action Disney remakes have been middling to awful. Despite tons of expensive CGI, they never look anywhere near as good as the hand-drawn originals. Despite the famous names involved, precious little charm or originality comes through. The filmmakers outright lift full scenes and sequences, shot for shot, with little to distinguish them except for a new coat of digital paint. There's no artistic justification for these movies to exist, but plenty of economic justification, of course.
"The Lion King" is the worst offender to date, with no new characters, a single new song, and only a few minor adjustments to the existing script and characters to accommodate a new voice cast. Photorealistic CGI animals on beautiful live action backgrounds fill in for the cartoon critters, and it's a very odd experience to see the opening "Circle of Life" sequence recreated in this way. The visuals are certainly impressive, aping recent high profile nature documentaries, but anyone who's seen the 1994 version will probably find it impossible to stop making negative comparisons. The more realistic animals are necessarily less expressive. Even with Beyonce and Donald Glover playing the adult Nala and Simba, the songs are more lackluster. The remake is also considerably longer, with unnecessarily expanded scenes and performances.
I appreciate the effort that went into making all of these CGI animals look their best, and many of the resulting images are breathtaking. Some of the performances, especially for minor characters like Pumbaa (Seth Rogen), Zazu (John Oliver), and Shenzi (Florence Kasumba), have enough deviation from the original to be enjoyable in their own right. Jeff Nathanson's script beefs up some of the themes and downplays the sillier aspects of the original. Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) benefits the most from this, less of a caricature and more of a despicable schemer. However, every single time I heard James Earl Jones as Mufasa, largely repeating the same lines we all remember, I found myself cringing. It was reverse uncanny valley on so many different levels.
I have no idea why anyone who enjoys the 1994 "Lion King" would watch the 2019 version. However, I think you could make a case for the 2019 "Aladdin" having some appeal. It's not an especially strong feature, but at least it's different from the animated version in some important ways. The biggest change is that Will Smith is playing the Genie and making no attempt to do a Robin Williams impression. And he's perfectly fine just being Will Smith in "Hitch" mode, wearing ridiculous costumes, and gamely trying to sing along to all the old songs. There's also some significant reworking of the story and characters, putting Princess Jasmine (Naomi Scott) in a more prominent role, and giving her a funny handmaiden named Dalia (Nasim Pedrad) for the Genie to romance.
One of the big selling points of the new version is the almost entirely non-white cast, lead by Smith and Mena Massoud as Aladdin. There's some fudging of cultural details, and Agrabah seems to now be the Middle East by way of Bollywood, but it's still a nice thing to see after too many years of "Prince of Persia" style casting. Massoud is a little rough, and Marwen Kenzari's more grounded take on Jafar is pretty bland, but they function decently enough. There are recreations of sequences from the 1992 "Aladdin" constantly, but also notable new scenes and some narrative space carved out so that the new versions of the characters ring true as different personalities. I enjoyed the new bits where Aladdin clumsily attempts to play a prince and court Jasmine.
Guy Ritchie is almost totally invisible here as director, aside from some aggressively over-edited chase sequences toward the beginning. Instead, he's mostly just orchestrating the pageantry and obnoxious amounts of CGI. To be fair, some of the recreations like the "Friend Like Me" number are well adapted, energetic, and pretty fun to watch. Then you have the awful "A Whole New World" sequence, where everything is too dark, and the flying carpet is obviously not a carpet.
Still, considering the track record of the live-action adaptations so far, I'm inclined to give "Aladdin" a mild pass. It's very derivative and rough around the edges, but at least it's not the slavish copy that "The Lion King" too frequently is.
---
"The Lion King" is the worst offender to date, with no new characters, a single new song, and only a few minor adjustments to the existing script and characters to accommodate a new voice cast. Photorealistic CGI animals on beautiful live action backgrounds fill in for the cartoon critters, and it's a very odd experience to see the opening "Circle of Life" sequence recreated in this way. The visuals are certainly impressive, aping recent high profile nature documentaries, but anyone who's seen the 1994 version will probably find it impossible to stop making negative comparisons. The more realistic animals are necessarily less expressive. Even with Beyonce and Donald Glover playing the adult Nala and Simba, the songs are more lackluster. The remake is also considerably longer, with unnecessarily expanded scenes and performances.
I appreciate the effort that went into making all of these CGI animals look their best, and many of the resulting images are breathtaking. Some of the performances, especially for minor characters like Pumbaa (Seth Rogen), Zazu (John Oliver), and Shenzi (Florence Kasumba), have enough deviation from the original to be enjoyable in their own right. Jeff Nathanson's script beefs up some of the themes and downplays the sillier aspects of the original. Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) benefits the most from this, less of a caricature and more of a despicable schemer. However, every single time I heard James Earl Jones as Mufasa, largely repeating the same lines we all remember, I found myself cringing. It was reverse uncanny valley on so many different levels.
I have no idea why anyone who enjoys the 1994 "Lion King" would watch the 2019 version. However, I think you could make a case for the 2019 "Aladdin" having some appeal. It's not an especially strong feature, but at least it's different from the animated version in some important ways. The biggest change is that Will Smith is playing the Genie and making no attempt to do a Robin Williams impression. And he's perfectly fine just being Will Smith in "Hitch" mode, wearing ridiculous costumes, and gamely trying to sing along to all the old songs. There's also some significant reworking of the story and characters, putting Princess Jasmine (Naomi Scott) in a more prominent role, and giving her a funny handmaiden named Dalia (Nasim Pedrad) for the Genie to romance.
One of the big selling points of the new version is the almost entirely non-white cast, lead by Smith and Mena Massoud as Aladdin. There's some fudging of cultural details, and Agrabah seems to now be the Middle East by way of Bollywood, but it's still a nice thing to see after too many years of "Prince of Persia" style casting. Massoud is a little rough, and Marwen Kenzari's more grounded take on Jafar is pretty bland, but they function decently enough. There are recreations of sequences from the 1992 "Aladdin" constantly, but also notable new scenes and some narrative space carved out so that the new versions of the characters ring true as different personalities. I enjoyed the new bits where Aladdin clumsily attempts to play a prince and court Jasmine.
Guy Ritchie is almost totally invisible here as director, aside from some aggressively over-edited chase sequences toward the beginning. Instead, he's mostly just orchestrating the pageantry and obnoxious amounts of CGI. To be fair, some of the recreations like the "Friend Like Me" number are well adapted, energetic, and pretty fun to watch. Then you have the awful "A Whole New World" sequence, where everything is too dark, and the flying carpet is obviously not a carpet.
Still, considering the track record of the live-action adaptations so far, I'm inclined to give "Aladdin" a mild pass. It's very derivative and rough around the edges, but at least it's not the slavish copy that "The Lion King" too frequently is.
---
Sunday, January 19, 2020
My Top Ten Films of 1971
This is part of my continuing series looking back on films from the years before I began this blog.
The ten films below are unranked and listed in no particular order. Enjoy.
A Clockwork Orange - I'm less and less thrilled with the content of the film as years go by, but the style continues to impress. The production design, the electronica soundtrack, the iconic performance of Malcolm McDowell, and the fearless use of sex and violence - it's all so bold and disturbing and impossible to look away from. "Clockwork Orange" was one of the films that marked Kubrick as a dangerous filmmaker when I was young, but it was a title that I sought out as soon as I could, because what little I saw of the film from clips and stills was irresistible. There's still nothing else quite like it.
Fiddler on the Roof - A childhood favorite, and one I feel has held up beautifully over the years. Norman Jewison mounts a wonderful adaptation of "Fiddler" for the screen, with Topol reprising his stage success as Tevye. There's so much care and fidelity in the adaptation, from the carefully orchestrated score, to the fully realized little town of Anatevka. The cast was comprised mainly of character actors who would never get roles this good again, and certainly made the most of it. What could have been a caricature of the Orthodox Jewish culture instead feels celebratory and uncommonly affectionate.
The Emigrants - Jan Troell sends 19th century characters played by Sweden's most beloved actors, Liv Ullman and Max von Sydow, on a long and harrowing journey from a poor Swedish village to the unknown American frontier. It's a deeply affecting experience, and the way Troell presents it, an unusually immersive one. The naturalistic acting, the cinematography, and the novel point of view all help to make this a unique American narrative. Even the sequel, "The New Land," never quite manages to capture the same sense of a familiar story told from a surprising, different perspective.
Walkabout - A career defining work from Nicholas Roeg, who managed to capture not only the physical expanse and desolation of the Australian outback, but much of the psychological nature of it as well. I admire the way that it portrays an contrasts the natural and manmade environments, using various visual and aural elements. Especially important is the lack of exposition, allowing the film to simply speak for itself. This invites the viewer to explore the alien landscape along with the young wanderers.
Harold and Maude - A strange, perfect love story between a pair of oddballs who happen to be decades apart in age. It's a rambling Bay Area movie, a minimalist Cat Stevens musical, a very black comedy, and probably the best thing that Hal Ashby ever made. Bud Cort gets plenty of laughs, but it's character actress Ruth Gordon as the greatest manic pixie dream grandma who ever lived, who steals the picture through and through. At the time of release, nobody understood its peculiar charms except for its fellow oddballs, and all these years later, it's still the oddballs that have kept its cult status going.
Carnal Knowledge - This Mike Nichols picture kicked up all kinds of legal and social fuss due to its adult content and frank depiction of it. However, it's that straightforward, cynical attitude toward sex and intimacy that have kept the film remarkably current. It's arguably more relevant now than ever, with its portrayal of toxic masculinity the terrible long term effects. Despite the relative obscurity, this has one of Jack Nicholson's best performances, and probably his darkest. However, my favorite moment is the monologue delivered by Art Garfunkle, a withering takedown of monogamy and married life.
Duel - Technically this is a television movie, though it had a theatrical run overseas. Still, who could deny the power of Steven Spielberg's beloved thriller about a lone motorist versus a relentless trucker? The film is so simple, but generates terrific tension. The menace of the unseen trucker plays on our primal fears, and Spielberg wisely never gives the viewer more information than absolutely necessary. This can be seen as a test run of sorts for "Jaws," but I actually prefer "Duel" for its simplicity and its plausibility. Man-eating sharks were an invention of the filmmakers, but lunatic drivers are all too common.
The French Connection - This was the first film where I found the experience significantly improved with rewatches. Gene Hackman as Popeye Doyle is awful, yet magnetic as the uptight police detective who gets the job done. Fernando Rey, cast by lucky accident, is an excellent mastermind figure. And then there's the sheer gutsiness of those action sequences, especially the chase scene with the elevated train and several near misses with real New York City traffic. The degree of realism is exceptional, achieved by involving many of the real officers involved with the original smuggling case in the making of the film.
The Boy Friend - Ken Russell's satirical pastiche of Golden Age Hollywood musicals and small town vaudeville is too much of everything. However, this is one of those times where too much of everything works, especially when it comes to indulgent fantasy sequences, elaborate production numbers, and plenty of comedic mishaps. Underneath all the glitz and garishness, there's a genuine affection for all the old tricks and bygone showmanship. The winsome debutante, Twiggy, seems like she was born to play this part, and it's a mystery why she hardly ever appeared in any other films.
A New Leaf - I never understood why Walter Matthau was cast in so many romantic comedies in this era until I came across "A New Leaf," where he plays an unscrupulous playboy who gets involved with the wrong woman. He's perfectly suited to playing the jerk, the con-man, the exasperated caretaker, and finally the reluctantly reformed hero. And then there's Elaine May, who not only acted the part of the hapless Henrietta to perfection, but wrote and directed the film as well. The comedy is dark and cynical, but in a funny way it feels like it earned its begrudging moments of sentiment in the end.
Honorable mention
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
---
The ten films below are unranked and listed in no particular order. Enjoy.
A Clockwork Orange - I'm less and less thrilled with the content of the film as years go by, but the style continues to impress. The production design, the electronica soundtrack, the iconic performance of Malcolm McDowell, and the fearless use of sex and violence - it's all so bold and disturbing and impossible to look away from. "Clockwork Orange" was one of the films that marked Kubrick as a dangerous filmmaker when I was young, but it was a title that I sought out as soon as I could, because what little I saw of the film from clips and stills was irresistible. There's still nothing else quite like it.
Fiddler on the Roof - A childhood favorite, and one I feel has held up beautifully over the years. Norman Jewison mounts a wonderful adaptation of "Fiddler" for the screen, with Topol reprising his stage success as Tevye. There's so much care and fidelity in the adaptation, from the carefully orchestrated score, to the fully realized little town of Anatevka. The cast was comprised mainly of character actors who would never get roles this good again, and certainly made the most of it. What could have been a caricature of the Orthodox Jewish culture instead feels celebratory and uncommonly affectionate.
The Emigrants - Jan Troell sends 19th century characters played by Sweden's most beloved actors, Liv Ullman and Max von Sydow, on a long and harrowing journey from a poor Swedish village to the unknown American frontier. It's a deeply affecting experience, and the way Troell presents it, an unusually immersive one. The naturalistic acting, the cinematography, and the novel point of view all help to make this a unique American narrative. Even the sequel, "The New Land," never quite manages to capture the same sense of a familiar story told from a surprising, different perspective.
Walkabout - A career defining work from Nicholas Roeg, who managed to capture not only the physical expanse and desolation of the Australian outback, but much of the psychological nature of it as well. I admire the way that it portrays an contrasts the natural and manmade environments, using various visual and aural elements. Especially important is the lack of exposition, allowing the film to simply speak for itself. This invites the viewer to explore the alien landscape along with the young wanderers.
Harold and Maude - A strange, perfect love story between a pair of oddballs who happen to be decades apart in age. It's a rambling Bay Area movie, a minimalist Cat Stevens musical, a very black comedy, and probably the best thing that Hal Ashby ever made. Bud Cort gets plenty of laughs, but it's character actress Ruth Gordon as the greatest manic pixie dream grandma who ever lived, who steals the picture through and through. At the time of release, nobody understood its peculiar charms except for its fellow oddballs, and all these years later, it's still the oddballs that have kept its cult status going.
Carnal Knowledge - This Mike Nichols picture kicked up all kinds of legal and social fuss due to its adult content and frank depiction of it. However, it's that straightforward, cynical attitude toward sex and intimacy that have kept the film remarkably current. It's arguably more relevant now than ever, with its portrayal of toxic masculinity the terrible long term effects. Despite the relative obscurity, this has one of Jack Nicholson's best performances, and probably his darkest. However, my favorite moment is the monologue delivered by Art Garfunkle, a withering takedown of monogamy and married life.
Duel - Technically this is a television movie, though it had a theatrical run overseas. Still, who could deny the power of Steven Spielberg's beloved thriller about a lone motorist versus a relentless trucker? The film is so simple, but generates terrific tension. The menace of the unseen trucker plays on our primal fears, and Spielberg wisely never gives the viewer more information than absolutely necessary. This can be seen as a test run of sorts for "Jaws," but I actually prefer "Duel" for its simplicity and its plausibility. Man-eating sharks were an invention of the filmmakers, but lunatic drivers are all too common.
The French Connection - This was the first film where I found the experience significantly improved with rewatches. Gene Hackman as Popeye Doyle is awful, yet magnetic as the uptight police detective who gets the job done. Fernando Rey, cast by lucky accident, is an excellent mastermind figure. And then there's the sheer gutsiness of those action sequences, especially the chase scene with the elevated train and several near misses with real New York City traffic. The degree of realism is exceptional, achieved by involving many of the real officers involved with the original smuggling case in the making of the film.
The Boy Friend - Ken Russell's satirical pastiche of Golden Age Hollywood musicals and small town vaudeville is too much of everything. However, this is one of those times where too much of everything works, especially when it comes to indulgent fantasy sequences, elaborate production numbers, and plenty of comedic mishaps. Underneath all the glitz and garishness, there's a genuine affection for all the old tricks and bygone showmanship. The winsome debutante, Twiggy, seems like she was born to play this part, and it's a mystery why she hardly ever appeared in any other films.
A New Leaf - I never understood why Walter Matthau was cast in so many romantic comedies in this era until I came across "A New Leaf," where he plays an unscrupulous playboy who gets involved with the wrong woman. He's perfectly suited to playing the jerk, the con-man, the exasperated caretaker, and finally the reluctantly reformed hero. And then there's Elaine May, who not only acted the part of the hapless Henrietta to perfection, but wrote and directed the film as well. The comedy is dark and cynical, but in a funny way it feels like it earned its begrudging moments of sentiment in the end.
Honorable mention
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
---
Friday, January 17, 2020
About that Evil Killer Clown Movie, Chapter 2
The first Andy Muchietti "IT" film had a couple of good things going for it - the excellent cast of youngsters, the potent '80s nostalgia, some inventive scare sequences, and that terrifying Bill Skarsgaard performance. Most of those things are in the second "IT" film, but not nearly to the same extent, and don't work nearly as well. Certain changes couldn't be avoided - the action is moved twenty-seven years later, in the present day, so all of the characters are now adults. However, I take issue with some of the basic adaptation choices Muschietti and company made here, mostly tied to the film's structure and emphasis on certain characters.
The grown up Losers, including Bill (James McAvoy), Beverly (Jessica Chastain), Ben (Jay Ryan), Eddie (James Ransome), Stan (Andy Bean), and Richie (Bill Hader), are called back to their hometown of Derry, Maine, by Mike (Isaiah Mustafa), who never left it. Pennywise has returned, and Mike believes he has found a way to stop him. This requires all the Losers to revisit their pasts, remember other events from the summer they fought Pennywise, and finally put some old ghosts to rest. Pennywise isn't going to make it easy for them, however, enlisting their old bully Henry Bowers (Teach Grant) and a few other familiar faces to help torment them.
Clearly, there wasn't enough time to fully flesh out all the stories of seven main characters in one film, so I'm not surprised that Bill's wife and Bev's husband have mostly been left on the cutting room floor. However, I do find it strange that the emphasis has shifted significantly, clearly favoring Richie over Bill, who was the lead in the first film. Now, Bill Hader's performance is easily the standout one here, so it's to the movie's benefit, but that also means it feels less of a piece with the previous "IT." Gary Dauberman's screenplay also introduces some different bits of backstory and tries to tie up loose ends in a way that I found less than successful. There's a whole lot of emphasis on remembering the past, and not enough on overcoming it.
Most of the problem really comes down to the way the film is structured. It runs nearly three hours in length, and a huge portion of it is taken up by the individual Losers going off on their own to revisit their own traumas, and have personal scare sequences with Pennywise, before coming back together for the big showdown. Flashback sequences are generously interspersed throughout, which sometimes works, and sometimes just serves to drag things out and remind the viewer of how much better the first film was. Most of the scares here aren't as scary as in the first film, possibly because the main characters are now more thinly characterized adults, or possibly because of the way the scares are deployed. I found it very telling that a big, elaborate scare sequence involving CGI monsters coming out of fortune cookies is far less effective than the same scene in the old 1990 miniseries version of "IT," achieved with puppets.
There's an abundance of CGI here, which certainly helps make the monsters and the subterranean lairs and spooks houses look more impressive, but not more scary. This approach isn't all bad, though. The movie becomes more enjoyable as a supernatural action thriller in the last act, and I appreciate being able to see some concepts from the novel realized in a way that only a big blockbuster budget could afford. Despite all of my misgivings, the movie is a lot of fun once it gets past all the drawn-out nostalgia trips. There are a few good scares to be found, the most upsetting one involving Pennywise luring another unsuspecting kid to their doom. Callbacks and cameos provide pleasant distractions, including a whole sequence lifted from John Carpenter's "The Thing." Once you accept that "Chapter 2" isn't going to be able to live up to "Chapter 1," it goes down a lot easier.
I feel bad that most of the excellent adult cast wasn't given that much to do. McAvoy is fantastic, and I wonder if the movie would have been significantly improved if it had just centered everything around Bill the way it was originally written. James Ransome and Jessica Chastain are also fun to root for, and uncanny matches for their younger counterparts. Bill Hader, however, just takes over the movie and I guess I can't blame the filmmakers for letting him. He plays the adult Richie as a deeply screwed up comedian, who hides behind one-liners and asshole humor. His story easily could have been a smaller part of the film, but it also generates some unexpected heart and pathos. It's the one big thing this adaptation does that really distinguishes this version, and it works.
I just wish as much care could have been shown to the other characters' stories. Pennywise included.
---
The grown up Losers, including Bill (James McAvoy), Beverly (Jessica Chastain), Ben (Jay Ryan), Eddie (James Ransome), Stan (Andy Bean), and Richie (Bill Hader), are called back to their hometown of Derry, Maine, by Mike (Isaiah Mustafa), who never left it. Pennywise has returned, and Mike believes he has found a way to stop him. This requires all the Losers to revisit their pasts, remember other events from the summer they fought Pennywise, and finally put some old ghosts to rest. Pennywise isn't going to make it easy for them, however, enlisting their old bully Henry Bowers (Teach Grant) and a few other familiar faces to help torment them.
Clearly, there wasn't enough time to fully flesh out all the stories of seven main characters in one film, so I'm not surprised that Bill's wife and Bev's husband have mostly been left on the cutting room floor. However, I do find it strange that the emphasis has shifted significantly, clearly favoring Richie over Bill, who was the lead in the first film. Now, Bill Hader's performance is easily the standout one here, so it's to the movie's benefit, but that also means it feels less of a piece with the previous "IT." Gary Dauberman's screenplay also introduces some different bits of backstory and tries to tie up loose ends in a way that I found less than successful. There's a whole lot of emphasis on remembering the past, and not enough on overcoming it.
Most of the problem really comes down to the way the film is structured. It runs nearly three hours in length, and a huge portion of it is taken up by the individual Losers going off on their own to revisit their own traumas, and have personal scare sequences with Pennywise, before coming back together for the big showdown. Flashback sequences are generously interspersed throughout, which sometimes works, and sometimes just serves to drag things out and remind the viewer of how much better the first film was. Most of the scares here aren't as scary as in the first film, possibly because the main characters are now more thinly characterized adults, or possibly because of the way the scares are deployed. I found it very telling that a big, elaborate scare sequence involving CGI monsters coming out of fortune cookies is far less effective than the same scene in the old 1990 miniseries version of "IT," achieved with puppets.
There's an abundance of CGI here, which certainly helps make the monsters and the subterranean lairs and spooks houses look more impressive, but not more scary. This approach isn't all bad, though. The movie becomes more enjoyable as a supernatural action thriller in the last act, and I appreciate being able to see some concepts from the novel realized in a way that only a big blockbuster budget could afford. Despite all of my misgivings, the movie is a lot of fun once it gets past all the drawn-out nostalgia trips. There are a few good scares to be found, the most upsetting one involving Pennywise luring another unsuspecting kid to their doom. Callbacks and cameos provide pleasant distractions, including a whole sequence lifted from John Carpenter's "The Thing." Once you accept that "Chapter 2" isn't going to be able to live up to "Chapter 1," it goes down a lot easier.
I feel bad that most of the excellent adult cast wasn't given that much to do. McAvoy is fantastic, and I wonder if the movie would have been significantly improved if it had just centered everything around Bill the way it was originally written. James Ransome and Jessica Chastain are also fun to root for, and uncanny matches for their younger counterparts. Bill Hader, however, just takes over the movie and I guess I can't blame the filmmakers for letting him. He plays the adult Richie as a deeply screwed up comedian, who hides behind one-liners and asshole humor. His story easily could have been a smaller part of the film, but it also generates some unexpected heart and pathos. It's the one big thing this adaptation does that really distinguishes this version, and it works.
I just wish as much care could have been shown to the other characters' stories. Pennywise included.
---
Tuesday, January 14, 2020
Confessions of a Variable Playback Speed Enthusiast
Recently, Netflix has been getting some flack for announcing that they're testing the ability to use variable playback speeds with their service. This would allow the user to play shows and movies slower or faster. Services like Youtube and most media players have had this function for ages. However, variable playback speed is also closely associated with the unfortunate practice of some media outlets speeding up content to make room for more commercials, often with hilarious or annoying results. I sympathize with creators like Judd Apatow who don't want Netflix and others messing with the presentation of their output. However, I've been a happy abuser of variable playback speeds for years.
It started with silent films. During my early days of watching all the important old foundational cinema I could get my hands on, I found silent films were a real challenge to stay engaged with. They were often very slow paced melodramas, and only notable for certain technical advances or historical value. The acting was crude and often involved a lot of dithering around onscreen between the intertitles. I started watching silents on my computer and slowly started experimenting with the playback speed. To be clear, I had a DVD player at the time that had a variable playback speed function, and I used it, but it was when I started using a purely digital media player with certain keyboard shortcuts that I really started taking full advantage of the feature.
I found that most silent films playing at 2x normal speeds are still quite watchable. I got up to 4x speeds on some titles, usually the experimental ones. I didn't watch every silent film like this, but I always liked having it as an option, especially when faced with having to suffer through something like D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation." Frankly, I'm never going to feel bad about fast-forwarding through racist blackface antics. Slowly, I started experimenting with playing sound features in variable speeds. There's a lot less wiggle room here before dialogue becomes unintelligible and performances are impacted, but I found that 1.25x and sometimes 1.5x speeds work fine for me. Often, the change isn't even all that noticeable. Voices are higher pitched and movements become jerkier, but sometimes I forget I even made the adjustment. For a while, once I found my comfort zone, I was watching practically everything at 1.25x speed just as a time saver, but this phase didn't last long. After all, why would I want to speed through I movie that I'm enjoying?
These days I really only speed up a film as a last resort, often to enable my own completionist tendencies. Occasionally I'll come across a movie or show that I watch and dislike. I'm ready to give up on it, but I've sunk too much time into it already, and I don't want to abandon it. But there's still an hour or two hours left to go. That's when I'll start toggling to higher speeds, sometimes to get through a slow patch, or sometimes to just hustle through to the end. As I've been watching a lot of super-sized epics from the '60s lately, this situation has been coming up more often. Also, I admit I've resorted to this with certain television shows that have gone off the rails in their final seasons.
Ironically, I've been consuming other media at either sped up or slowed down rates completely by accident. I listen to most of my podcasts with an older model Ipod, and like to plug it into my car's sound system to listen when I'm driving. However, the podcasts often get sped up or slowed down due to screwy interface issues, and I don't know how to fix it. This has lead to me listening to many episodes of Filmspotting and Blank Check as performed by Alvin and the Chipmunks, or where everyone has a chest cold.
Honestly, it's not bad.
---
It started with silent films. During my early days of watching all the important old foundational cinema I could get my hands on, I found silent films were a real challenge to stay engaged with. They were often very slow paced melodramas, and only notable for certain technical advances or historical value. The acting was crude and often involved a lot of dithering around onscreen between the intertitles. I started watching silents on my computer and slowly started experimenting with the playback speed. To be clear, I had a DVD player at the time that had a variable playback speed function, and I used it, but it was when I started using a purely digital media player with certain keyboard shortcuts that I really started taking full advantage of the feature.
I found that most silent films playing at 2x normal speeds are still quite watchable. I got up to 4x speeds on some titles, usually the experimental ones. I didn't watch every silent film like this, but I always liked having it as an option, especially when faced with having to suffer through something like D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation." Frankly, I'm never going to feel bad about fast-forwarding through racist blackface antics. Slowly, I started experimenting with playing sound features in variable speeds. There's a lot less wiggle room here before dialogue becomes unintelligible and performances are impacted, but I found that 1.25x and sometimes 1.5x speeds work fine for me. Often, the change isn't even all that noticeable. Voices are higher pitched and movements become jerkier, but sometimes I forget I even made the adjustment. For a while, once I found my comfort zone, I was watching practically everything at 1.25x speed just as a time saver, but this phase didn't last long. After all, why would I want to speed through I movie that I'm enjoying?
These days I really only speed up a film as a last resort, often to enable my own completionist tendencies. Occasionally I'll come across a movie or show that I watch and dislike. I'm ready to give up on it, but I've sunk too much time into it already, and I don't want to abandon it. But there's still an hour or two hours left to go. That's when I'll start toggling to higher speeds, sometimes to get through a slow patch, or sometimes to just hustle through to the end. As I've been watching a lot of super-sized epics from the '60s lately, this situation has been coming up more often. Also, I admit I've resorted to this with certain television shows that have gone off the rails in their final seasons.
Ironically, I've been consuming other media at either sped up or slowed down rates completely by accident. I listen to most of my podcasts with an older model Ipod, and like to plug it into my car's sound system to listen when I'm driving. However, the podcasts often get sped up or slowed down due to screwy interface issues, and I don't know how to fix it. This has lead to me listening to many episodes of Filmspotting and Blank Check as performed by Alvin and the Chipmunks, or where everyone has a chest cold.
Honestly, it's not bad.
---
Monday, January 13, 2020
Your 2020 Oscar Nominees
It's that time again. I'm looking forward to this Oscar season, because the batch of nominees are stronger than they have been in the past few years, and I've already seen more of them than usual, thanks to Netflix. In fact, there are so many strong contenders that there are snubs everywhere you look. But, let's get to the movies that actually did get nominated first.
The Best Picture nominees number nine this year: "1917," "Jojo Rabbit," "Joker," "Little Women," "Marriage Story," "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood…," "Parasite," "The Irishman," and a surprising "Ford v. Ferrari." That's a war movie, a mob movie, a sports move, a contemporary dramedy, a classical literary adaptation, Quentin Tarantino doing revisionist history, and three movies that are hard to categorize, but I guess are all some brand of anti-establishment satire (yes, the Nazis count as establishment these days). "Joker" and "Hollywood…" are not to my taste, but they feature a lot of good pieces, and I understand why they're on the list. "Ford v. Ferrari" strikes me as the only thing that's obviously pandering to Oscar voters, but executed well enough that I can give it a pass. I'm very happy to see "Parasite" here and hope that it wins, but I'm pretty sure it won't.
Movies that had a shot, but ultimately didn't make the cut include "Knives Out," "The Farewell," "The Two Popes," "Uncut Gems," and "A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood." It's a shame that "Uncut Gems" and "The Farewell" got shut out completely, but I'm honestly not all that bothered. Coming from someone with a Chinese-American background, I'm thrilled "The Farewell" got so much attention, but it struck me as more popular for its novelty than its actual quality. "Uncut Gems" featured a banger of an Adam Sandler performance, but it was deeply uncomfortable to watch. Like "The Lighthouse," and "Dolemite is My Name," "Uncut Gems" just wasn't a movie that the Oscar crowd was going to connect with. There seemed to be a lot of support for "Knives Out," but it receded quickly, similar to the buzz around "Rocketman." "The Two Popes" and "Beautiful Day" were really only in the conversation for their performances, which brings us to the acting categories.
As has been widely discussed, this was a very competitive year in the acting categories. Best Actor couldn't find room for Eddie Murphy, Taron Edgerton, or Robert DeNiro, but I'm glad that Antonio Banderas snuck in for "Pain and Glory." Cynthia Erivo deserves to be in Best Actress, but I wish Lupita Nyong'o for "Us" was in there with her, maybe replacing Charlize Theron. Best Supporting Actor is totally stacked, but I really wanted to see Willem Dafoe for "The Lighthouse" and Song Kang Ho for "Parasite" in the mix. The one big shocker is the lack of JLo in Best Supporting Actress. The acting nominees are awfully white this time around, but there are just enough minorities that the Academy should escape any real controversy. Oh, and I prefer Laura Dern in "Little Women" to "Marriage Story," and I'm glad Scarlett Johansson got the double nomination. She deserved it this year.
The only inclusion I'm really upset about is Todd Philips getting the nod for "Joker" over so many better options. It should be Greta Gerwig in that slot. Or Noah Baumbach or Taika Waititi. "Joker" wound up with a whopping eleven nominations, the most of any film. However, the backlash has been going for months, and I certainly wouldn't treat "Joker" as a frontrunner in any category besides Best Actor. On the flip side, "Parasite" came out with a very respectable six nominations, including in Screenplay, Editing, and Production Design. I'll be rooting for it to be the first foreign language Best Picture winner, though chances are probably slim. The real race is between "The Irishman" and "1917."
Among the smaller races, a few notes. I'm as gobsmacked as anyone as to how "Glasgow" got snubbed for Best Song. It's great to see "Honeyland," a documentary, in the already controversial Best International Feature Film category. There were also some raised eyebrows at "Frozen II" being left out of Best Animated Film, though "Into the Unknown" is competing for Best Song. I'm thrilled that "I Lost My Body" and "Klaus" got nods instead. Also, John William for that last "Star Wars" film is clearly sentiment over sense - but it's John Williams. Who can deny John Williams?
As usual, there's no way that I'm going to be able to post reviews of all the major contenders by Oscar night, but I should at least be able to get a ranking of the Best Picture Nominees up.
And happy watching.
---
The Best Picture nominees number nine this year: "1917," "Jojo Rabbit," "Joker," "Little Women," "Marriage Story," "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood…," "Parasite," "The Irishman," and a surprising "Ford v. Ferrari." That's a war movie, a mob movie, a sports move, a contemporary dramedy, a classical literary adaptation, Quentin Tarantino doing revisionist history, and three movies that are hard to categorize, but I guess are all some brand of anti-establishment satire (yes, the Nazis count as establishment these days). "Joker" and "Hollywood…" are not to my taste, but they feature a lot of good pieces, and I understand why they're on the list. "Ford v. Ferrari" strikes me as the only thing that's obviously pandering to Oscar voters, but executed well enough that I can give it a pass. I'm very happy to see "Parasite" here and hope that it wins, but I'm pretty sure it won't.
Movies that had a shot, but ultimately didn't make the cut include "Knives Out," "The Farewell," "The Two Popes," "Uncut Gems," and "A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood." It's a shame that "Uncut Gems" and "The Farewell" got shut out completely, but I'm honestly not all that bothered. Coming from someone with a Chinese-American background, I'm thrilled "The Farewell" got so much attention, but it struck me as more popular for its novelty than its actual quality. "Uncut Gems" featured a banger of an Adam Sandler performance, but it was deeply uncomfortable to watch. Like "The Lighthouse," and "Dolemite is My Name," "Uncut Gems" just wasn't a movie that the Oscar crowd was going to connect with. There seemed to be a lot of support for "Knives Out," but it receded quickly, similar to the buzz around "Rocketman." "The Two Popes" and "Beautiful Day" were really only in the conversation for their performances, which brings us to the acting categories.
As has been widely discussed, this was a very competitive year in the acting categories. Best Actor couldn't find room for Eddie Murphy, Taron Edgerton, or Robert DeNiro, but I'm glad that Antonio Banderas snuck in for "Pain and Glory." Cynthia Erivo deserves to be in Best Actress, but I wish Lupita Nyong'o for "Us" was in there with her, maybe replacing Charlize Theron. Best Supporting Actor is totally stacked, but I really wanted to see Willem Dafoe for "The Lighthouse" and Song Kang Ho for "Parasite" in the mix. The one big shocker is the lack of JLo in Best Supporting Actress. The acting nominees are awfully white this time around, but there are just enough minorities that the Academy should escape any real controversy. Oh, and I prefer Laura Dern in "Little Women" to "Marriage Story," and I'm glad Scarlett Johansson got the double nomination. She deserved it this year.
The only inclusion I'm really upset about is Todd Philips getting the nod for "Joker" over so many better options. It should be Greta Gerwig in that slot. Or Noah Baumbach or Taika Waititi. "Joker" wound up with a whopping eleven nominations, the most of any film. However, the backlash has been going for months, and I certainly wouldn't treat "Joker" as a frontrunner in any category besides Best Actor. On the flip side, "Parasite" came out with a very respectable six nominations, including in Screenplay, Editing, and Production Design. I'll be rooting for it to be the first foreign language Best Picture winner, though chances are probably slim. The real race is between "The Irishman" and "1917."
Among the smaller races, a few notes. I'm as gobsmacked as anyone as to how "Glasgow" got snubbed for Best Song. It's great to see "Honeyland," a documentary, in the already controversial Best International Feature Film category. There were also some raised eyebrows at "Frozen II" being left out of Best Animated Film, though "Into the Unknown" is competing for Best Song. I'm thrilled that "I Lost My Body" and "Klaus" got nods instead. Also, John William for that last "Star Wars" film is clearly sentiment over sense - but it's John Williams. Who can deny John Williams?
As usual, there's no way that I'm going to be able to post reviews of all the major contenders by Oscar night, but I should at least be able to get a ranking of the Best Picture Nominees up.
And happy watching.
---
Saturday, January 11, 2020
"In Fabric" and "Paradise Hills"
Let's get weird.
"In Fabric" is the latest movie from Peter Strickland. This one is an out-and-out horror film, featuring some throwback elements to the Italian giallo flicks and softcore European erotic thrillers of the '60s and '70s. The story is about a killer dress, and of course very campy, but here the campiness is elevated to such delirious heights that it enters the realm of voluptuous surrealism.
It's sales season in the UK, and divorced bank teller Sheila Woodchapel (Marianne Jean-Baptiste) is looking for love after her adult son Vince (Jaygann Ayeh) takes up with a disagreeable new girlfriend (Gwendoline Christie). She visits a strange department store where one of the clerks, Miss Luckmoore (Fatma Mohamed), sells her a fabulous, one-of-a-kind red evening dress. Luckmoore fails to mention that the dress has a tragic history and destruction follows in its wake.
The killer dress isn't even the strangest element in the film. There's the department store and its clerks, who speak in flowery aphorisms, perform erotic rituals with the mannequins after hours, and create hypnotic television advertisements. There's Sheila's bosses, Stash (Julian Barratt) and Clive (Steve Oram), who talk in circles and ask uncomfortably personal questions. There's the electronics repairman, Reg (Leo Bill), whose descriptions of appliances send people into trances. As with all of Strickland's films, the sensory impressions and atmosphere are everything. Rich soundscapes, luxuriant visuals, and lingering shots of favored objects are given far more attention than the particulars of the plot.
I don't think that "In Fabric" really works as a horror film, though there are some interesting depictions of death and mayhem. At its heart, it's a trippy art house mood piece with darkly sinister vibes and a production design to literally die for. As far as style goes, it's impeccable. As an exercise in bloody cinematic aesthetics, it's fun - assuming you know what you're getting yourself into. However, I don't think it's as effective as either of Strickland previous features, probably because there are so many different elements in play and a mix of different tones. Marianne Jean-Baptiste is excellent, but it also felt like she was in a different film half the time - something much more grounded and sincere than the wacky fashion fetish phantasmagoria that "In Fabric" is only able to pretend that it isn't for so long.
A far more clumsy, but still admirable style-over-substance fantasy film is "Paradise Hills," the directing debut of Spanish director Alice Waddington. The narrative is pretty straightforward, but the film's eye-popping art direction, costuming, and production design are where it really stands out. Set at an outrageously posh reform school for rich girls, some time in the indeterminate future, Una (Emma Roberts), Chloe (Danielle Macdonald), Yu (Awkwafina), and Amarna (Eiza González) are trapped under the care of the Duchess (Milla Jovovich) and her minions. Una has been sent there for rejecting the marriage proposal of the evil Son (Arnaud Valois), Chloe is overweight, Yu is introverted and has panic attacks, and Amarna's singing career has been jeopardized by her behavior. Naturally, the goal is escape.
The fairy tale narrative and the paper thin characters really only serve as a framework for the filmmakers to indulge in the visuals. Though the film is set in the future, the costuming is full of throwbacks to the past. Paradise Hill's clothing options put the girls in spotless white neck ruffs and medieval bodices, while their guards' uniforms recall suits of armor. The main dormitory looks like a dollhouse dreamed up by Giorgio de Chirico, possibly with Fascist connotations. The Duchess, constantly surrounded by flowers, and often bedecked in flowers, certainly can't be trusted. The film is full of confectionary pastel colors and floral motifs, playing with traditional feminine imagery and aesthetics. Uma is forced to get a makeover early on that includes getting her hair dyed bright pink.
Sadly the storytelling's not strong enough to make the best use of all these gorgeous elements. They're never quite over-the-top enough to push the movie into the realm of something like "Beyond the Black Rainbow" or "The Neon Demon" where the style really takes over the narrative, or "The Love Witch" or "In Fabric," where style fills in the thematic blanks. When push comes to shove in the last act, "Paradise Hills" falls back on the very typical visual language of your standard action adventure film, with a few artsy flourishes. Take away the glitz and the roses, and there's not much to write home about. The actresses are fine, but the material is awfully slight, and the finale is terribly rushed.
An aside - if Alice Waddington and company ever want to try doing a live action "Revolutionary Girl Utena," I'd be all for it.
---
Thursday, January 9, 2020
Still Preoccupied With 1965
To quickly recap, I've been working toward the goal of watching at least fifty titles from each calendar year as far back in time as I can go. 1965 has been my biggest challenge to date. Not only did 1965 have the most films that I needed to watch - twenty-eight - out of the entire 1960s (and most of the '50s), but I was also missing three out of the five Best Picture nominees for that year, and a whopping six out of the top ten box office earners. I came across notable title after title that I knew absolutely nothing about, and that was actually kind of fun as a movie nerd who is usually on top of everything.
My general film knowledge isn't very comprehensive before 1967, the much ballyhooed era when New Hollywood came in and the old studio system started coming apart. I've seen plenty of the older classics, but not with nearly the same amount of context. I've seen the films that were groundbreakers, but fewer of the films that were considered part of the establishment, the typical studio product. So I think this time around, the most valuable watches were titles like the Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton romance, "The Sandpiper," or the cameo stuffed bible epic, "The Greatest Story Ever Told," because they gave me a better sense of what the film landscape of the time looked like, what the major genres and themes of the day were. Also, because I will never, ever get over John Wayne as a drawling Roman Centurion. Good grief.
I have an armchair theory that the 1960s are the perfect convergence point for multiple generations of Hollywood artists. You still had a few of the silent stars around, like Elsa Lanchester ("That Darn Cat!") and Buster Keaton ("Beach Blanket Bingo"), and Jimmy Stewart was still a leading man, though noticeably graying in pictures like "Shenandoah" and "The Flight of the Phoenix." There were also a handful of faces that you still see today, like Jane Fonda ("Cat Ballou") and Terrence Stamp ("The Collecter"). I remarked in my last post about wading into '60s films that the only major star still hanging on in the same capacity, with the same kind of clout, was Clint Eastwood ("For a Few Dollars More.") I think I'd add Michael Caine ("The Ipcress File") to that list. And I had very mixed feelings seeing the "And introducing Woody Allen" credit at the beginning of "What's New Pussycat?"
Changed social mores mean that a film like "Pussycat" won't be made again in a hurry. However, I was happy to see films like "Darling" and "The Knack" tackling the gender divide in a way that still feels relevant today. Ditto "Patch of Blue," starring Sydney Poitier and Elizabeth Hartman as a complicated interracial couple where the heroine is blind. LGBT issues, alas, were barely even on the radar. Robert Redford had an early role as a gay man in "Inside Daisy Clover," and went around insisting in interviews that the character was really bisexual. And it was considered a positive portrayal simply because he wasn't killed off in the end or otherwise punished for being gay.
As with all eras in film, 1965 had its own weird little microtrends. There were the comedic race films, "The Great Race" and "Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines." There was a trio of rare independent animated films, "The Man from Button Willow," "Pinocchio in Outer Space," and "Willy McBean and His Magic Machine." There were three Elvis musicals, three comedic westerns, and a whopping five AIP beach party movies - and there's a great bit in "That Darn Cat!" throwing shade at them. Sean Connery ("Thunderball" and "The Hill") was voted the most bankable star of the year by exhibitors, with Julie Andrews ("The Sound of Music") in second place.
Directors I've been happy to be getting to know better include Richard Lester ("The Knack"), Norman Jewison ("The Cincinnati Kid") and Otto Preminger ("Bunny Lake is Missing"). All of these directors made multiple films in a single year, a feat that really only Steven Soderbergh manages nowadays.
The Top Ten project will continue, but I'll be taking a break for a while for the upcoming awards season. Happy watching!
---
Tuesday, January 7, 2020
Prepare For "Parasite"
Bong Joon-ho films have always been hit-or-miss with me. Even in the films of his that I've liked, including "Mother" and "Memories of Murder," there's an emphasis on grotesquerie that's never sat quite right with me. He's got a certain sensibility and sense of humor that I've never been entirely on the same wavelength with. In "Parasite," however, it felt like everything finally clicked.
The Kim family is comprised of father Ki-taek (Song Kang-ho), mother Choong Sook (Jang Hye-jin), son Ki-woo (Choi Woo-shik) and daughter Ki-jeong (Park So-Dam). They live in a dank basement apartment and scrape by on menial jobs. The parents can't seem to find steady work, and their young adult offspring haven't been able to get into the schools they want, despite being smart and talented. In every way, they're disadvantaged and unlucky. Then one day, Ki-woo's friend Min-Hyuk (Park Seo-joon) sets him up with a tutoring job for the wealthy Park family. Mrs. Park (Jo Yeo-jeong) is gullible and anxious, and Ki-woo is able to lie his way into the household, becoming an English tutor for teenage daughter Da-hye (Hyun Seung-min). Mr. Park (Lee Sun-kyun) and young son Da-song (Jung Hyun-joon) are similarly oblivious, as Ki-woo uses his position to help the rest of his family.
"Parasite" is a fable about the haves and the have-nots, and how they interact - or fail to. I think we can classify this as a genre film, because of certain wildly implausible developments, but it's a social allegory in the same realm as recent movies like "mother!" and "Us." "Parasite" is more grounded, though, with characters that are more well-rounded and morally ambiguous. We're clearly meant to sympathize with everyone, despite their faults. The Parks seem insensitive and cold, but they never really do anything wrong, and it's not their fault that they're oblivious of their privilege. What the Kims are doing is clearly terrible, but at the same time the rules of the system are so heavily weighted against them, conning their way to success feels excusable. In the first half of the film, it's easy to root for the Kims as they maneuver their way into better circumstances. And then Bong Joon-ho pulls the rug out from under us, and forces the audience to confront the awful consequences.
I want to avoid spoilers, but the twists and turns of the plotting here are excellent. There's some violence and some very nasty dark secrets that come out, but it's the well-timed farce that really makes the picture. Bong Joon-ho's black humor and penchant for the morbid are out in full force, and it works here because it fits so well with what Bong is doing thematically. A good deal of the film's power comes from just the simple contrast of the Parks' picture perfect family life with the Kims' increasingly dire straits, and the worse and worse measures they have to take to keep up appearances. There's a fantastic use of physical space, with most of the action taking place in the Parks' palatial house, which eventually becomes a giant metaphor for the absurdity and ugliness of the socioeconomic divide.
The performances are great all around. Song Kang-ho is a perfect paternal sad-sack, kindly but nursing deeper hurts. Jo Yeo-jeong does most of the heavy lifting where the satire is concerned, turning Mrs. Park into a perfect caricature of nervous naivete and helicopter parenting. She's insufferable and pitiful by turns, and so much of the movie is dependant on her epic tunnel vision. Choi Woo-shik gives the film its heart as Ki-woo, who really does just want to help his family, and Park So-Dam is coolly admirable as his unflappable sister. I also want to point out Lee Jung-eun as the Parks' grandmotherly housekeeper, who is more than meets the eye. To say more, alas, is spoiler territory.
The last few Bong Joon-ho social allegories, namely the fantastical "Snowpiercer" and "Okja," didn't sit so well with me because the worldbuilding felt slapdash, and the human element was lacking. Here, "Parasite" has similar aims, but with the stronger characters, smaller scale metaphors, and more touching central relationships, it works so much better. There's a specificity to the Kims' woes that hits harder, and a recognizable context to their resentments that really helps them get under the skin. If Bong continues to make films in this vein, I hope he sticks with modern Korean settings and issues. That seems to be where he does his best work.
---
Sunday, January 5, 2020
My Most Anticipated Television and Web Series of 2020
Last year's inaugural list went really, really, well so I'm making this a permanent yearly feature. And there's plenty to write about this time around, with a slew of new streaming services offering all sorts of ambitious content. As always, it's difficult to predict exactly when some of these projects are going to premiere, since the gap between announcements and actual availability is way shorter for series than it is for theatrical films. I've actually started keeping my own calendar of premiere dates for upcoming shows to avoid anything slipping through the cracks. All the series listed below are new, but returning shows I'm looking forward to include "Westworld" and "Venture Bros."
To keep things interesting this year, I'm picking one show per network. Notable omissions are notable.
"Star Trek: Picard" - It took me a while to warm up to the idea of a series built around an aged Captain Picard, but after the Comic Con trailer, and all the announcements about returning "Next Generation" cast members, I'm ready to give it a go. I've missed this set of characters since the film series ended inauspiciously with "Nemesis." I'm secretly hoping that an evil Wesley Crusher might be in the mix somewhere down the line. I'm also happily awaiting the return of "Star Trek: Discovery" and keeping an open mind about the "Star Trek: Lower Decks" animated series.
"Brave New World" - I'm interested in this one mostly for its cast. Alden Ehrenreich is set to star as John the Savage, with Harry Lloyd and Jessica Brown Findley in supporting roles, and Demi Moore recurring. I expect this to be more action-oriented genre fare than thoughtful dystopian drama, considering the recent credits of the producers, but it could still be fun. The development history of the project is pretty interesting, with the original plans being for it to be a series for Syfy. Then it was going to be on the USA Network. Now it seems poised to be one of the first originals on NBC Universal's new Peacock streaming service.
"Devs" - Alex Garland's latest sci-fi project is a miniseries for FX starring Sonoya Mizuno and a sinister Nick Offerman. It's being billed as a techno thriller with some sci-fi elements, in the same vein as Garland's "Ex Machina." Garland has discussed determinism and AI being major themes. My hope is that this will be something similar to "The Circle," but with a brain and maybe some nice action sequences. This was supposed to be a 2019 title, but it was pushed back to 2020, apparently to give the production more time. My guess is that they were also looking to avoid competition from a very crowded winter season.
"The Undoing" - A couple of interesting projects are percolating over at HBO, but the one that I think has the best prospects is a miniseries based on the novel "You Should Have Known," starring Nicole Kidman and Hugh Grant. The plot involves a psychiatrist who learns her husband may be a murderer. Susanne Bier is directing and David E. Kelley is scripting, putting this right in line with HBO's recent spate of female-led prestige melodramas, like "Big Little Lies" and "Sharp Objects." Frankly, all of Kidman and Grant's best roles lately have been in television projects, so I'm sure they'll both knock it out of the park again in this one.
"Cowboy Bebop" - The closer and closer this one comes to actually getting made, the more intrigued I am by it. I like the idea of John Cho leading a multi-racial cast playing space bounty hunters. I like that the Netflix show is probably not going to resemble the anime much. I love "Cowboy Bebop" to pieces, but there's no way we're ever getting a continuation, and there's no reason why a live action riff on the material shouldn't be made. "Bebop" is all about jazz, after all, and jazz is all about putting your own spin on what came before. And I respect Netflix for actually getting the project made, after years of a Hollywood version being bounced around other studios.
"The Wheel of Time" - I write this entry for my old friend K, who spent most of our high school years with his nose buried on one of these books. Honestly, I'd written off Amazon Prime for a while, but they're coming off a very strong year, and have several very ambitious projects in the works. This is one of them, based on a fourteen-book epic fantasy series with a very dedicated fanbase. The Sony produced adaptation will star Rosamund Pike and began production a few months ago. There's a good chance that we won't see this before the end of the year, but we'll definitely see it before that "Lord of the Rings" series.
"Penny Dreadful: City of Angels" - Again, I was wary of this one, especially after the original "Penny Dreadful" ended with that exasperating third season. Still, hope springs eternal, I suppose. It helps that this series is an entirely different animal, with a totally different location, time period, cast, and premise. Instead of Victorian monsters, City of Angels will be set in 1938 and use Mexican-American folklore for its supernatural elements. So far there's only one returning actor, Rory Kinnear, who will be in a different role.
Happy watching!
---
To keep things interesting this year, I'm picking one show per network. Notable omissions are notable.
"Star Trek: Picard" - It took me a while to warm up to the idea of a series built around an aged Captain Picard, but after the Comic Con trailer, and all the announcements about returning "Next Generation" cast members, I'm ready to give it a go. I've missed this set of characters since the film series ended inauspiciously with "Nemesis." I'm secretly hoping that an evil Wesley Crusher might be in the mix somewhere down the line. I'm also happily awaiting the return of "Star Trek: Discovery" and keeping an open mind about the "Star Trek: Lower Decks" animated series.
"Brave New World" - I'm interested in this one mostly for its cast. Alden Ehrenreich is set to star as John the Savage, with Harry Lloyd and Jessica Brown Findley in supporting roles, and Demi Moore recurring. I expect this to be more action-oriented genre fare than thoughtful dystopian drama, considering the recent credits of the producers, but it could still be fun. The development history of the project is pretty interesting, with the original plans being for it to be a series for Syfy. Then it was going to be on the USA Network. Now it seems poised to be one of the first originals on NBC Universal's new Peacock streaming service.
"Devs" - Alex Garland's latest sci-fi project is a miniseries for FX starring Sonoya Mizuno and a sinister Nick Offerman. It's being billed as a techno thriller with some sci-fi elements, in the same vein as Garland's "Ex Machina." Garland has discussed determinism and AI being major themes. My hope is that this will be something similar to "The Circle," but with a brain and maybe some nice action sequences. This was supposed to be a 2019 title, but it was pushed back to 2020, apparently to give the production more time. My guess is that they were also looking to avoid competition from a very crowded winter season.
"The Undoing" - A couple of interesting projects are percolating over at HBO, but the one that I think has the best prospects is a miniseries based on the novel "You Should Have Known," starring Nicole Kidman and Hugh Grant. The plot involves a psychiatrist who learns her husband may be a murderer. Susanne Bier is directing and David E. Kelley is scripting, putting this right in line with HBO's recent spate of female-led prestige melodramas, like "Big Little Lies" and "Sharp Objects." Frankly, all of Kidman and Grant's best roles lately have been in television projects, so I'm sure they'll both knock it out of the park again in this one.
"Cowboy Bebop" - The closer and closer this one comes to actually getting made, the more intrigued I am by it. I like the idea of John Cho leading a multi-racial cast playing space bounty hunters. I like that the Netflix show is probably not going to resemble the anime much. I love "Cowboy Bebop" to pieces, but there's no way we're ever getting a continuation, and there's no reason why a live action riff on the material shouldn't be made. "Bebop" is all about jazz, after all, and jazz is all about putting your own spin on what came before. And I respect Netflix for actually getting the project made, after years of a Hollywood version being bounced around other studios.
"The Wheel of Time" - I write this entry for my old friend K, who spent most of our high school years with his nose buried on one of these books. Honestly, I'd written off Amazon Prime for a while, but they're coming off a very strong year, and have several very ambitious projects in the works. This is one of them, based on a fourteen-book epic fantasy series with a very dedicated fanbase. The Sony produced adaptation will star Rosamund Pike and began production a few months ago. There's a good chance that we won't see this before the end of the year, but we'll definitely see it before that "Lord of the Rings" series.
"Penny Dreadful: City of Angels" - Again, I was wary of this one, especially after the original "Penny Dreadful" ended with that exasperating third season. Still, hope springs eternal, I suppose. It helps that this series is an entirely different animal, with a totally different location, time period, cast, and premise. Instead of Victorian monsters, City of Angels will be set in 1938 and use Mexican-American folklore for its supernatural elements. So far there's only one returning actor, Rory Kinnear, who will be in a different role.
Happy watching!
---
Friday, January 3, 2020
"The Crown" Year Three
The third season of Netflix's "The Crown" brings many changes. Nearly the entire cast has been replaced as the series barrels forward in time several years from the end of season two. These latest ten episodes cover roughly 1964 to 1976, the period of British history when Harold Wilson (Jason Watkins) served as Prime Minister. A more mature Queen Elizabeth II is now played by Olivia Colman, Prince Philip by Tobias Menzies, and Princess Margaret by Helena Bonham Carter. Also making their debuts as they become prominent in public life are Princess Anne (Erin Doherty) and Prince Charles (Josh O'Connor). Series creator Peter Morgan, however, still has writing credits on every single episode.
So, when you get past the cast list, it's business as usual at "The Crown." Moments from history are used as entry points into the heads of the royal family. Each new crisis and occasion becomes an opportunity for further character study, whether it's the moon landing giving Prince Philip an existential crisis or Charles' investiture as Prince of Wales sparking a confrontation with his mother. The interpersonal drama is almost wholly invented fiction, but still contains well-observed grains of truth that are fascinating to examine. There's ample material for Morgan to work with here, including the romance of Charles and the future Duchess Camilla (Emerald Fennell), Margaret's highly publicized tour of America, and conspiracy theories about a governmental coup lead by Lord Mountbatten (Charles Dance). At times the speculative nature of the plotting feels like it's crossing a few too many lines, but at other times it manages to present some fresh insights and points of view. Phillip's deeply uncomfortable encounter with the Apollo 11 astronauts is just a delight.
The high point of the season, however, is the dramatization of the Aberfan disaster, where a mining waste tip collapsed and buried a school, killing dozens of children. Similar to the recent "Chernobyl" miniseries, it is a clear-eyed view of a horrific national tragedy. However, it also provides the opportunity for us to see characters like Margaret and Philip in a new context, and ends with Elizabeth musing over whether her role as queen may be eroding her humanity. It's one of several recent examples of television drama being used to bring attention to a largely forgotten corner of history. However, it's also emblematic of the season being a fairly glum and harrowing one. Everyone is unhappy, the country seems to be perpetually in a state of crisis, and the Royals rarely score any wins, either public or personal. One of the lighter episodes is spent chronicling the production of a notoriously tone-deaf documentary about the Royal family.
And yet, I found it difficult to stop watching. And that shouldn't be a surprise, with all these world class actors playing all these larger than life characters. Colman is very different than Claire Foy, and operates in a more subdued register, but she can summon the ice and fire when she needs them. I prefer Menzies to Matt Smith as Philip, partially because the character seem to have mellowed with age. His frustrations manifest differently, and his relationship with Elizabeth has changed. Some of the best surprises are the smaller performances, like Clancy Brown as a boisterous Lyndon B. Johnson and Lane Lapotaire as Princess Alice, Philip's estranged mother. Doherty and O'Conner are both fantastic as Anne and Charles, and I look forward to their further appearances in the next season.
"The Crown" retains its high production values and prestige treatment, but I still found it very accessible and entertaining television. I'm going to miss the previous cast, but it was the right decision to recast and regroup. My only worry is that the weaker episodes have been centered around rocky romantic relationships, notably Charles and Margaret's, and there's a lot more material in this vein inevitably coming our way. Oddly, the show has backed off from Elizabeth and Philip's marital troubles, which were so central to the past seasons. And that's a shame, because I was looking forward to seeing Colman and Menzies really clash.
On the other hand, there's plenty to look forward to. I can't wait to see Gillian Anderson next year as Margaret Thatcher.
---
So, when you get past the cast list, it's business as usual at "The Crown." Moments from history are used as entry points into the heads of the royal family. Each new crisis and occasion becomes an opportunity for further character study, whether it's the moon landing giving Prince Philip an existential crisis or Charles' investiture as Prince of Wales sparking a confrontation with his mother. The interpersonal drama is almost wholly invented fiction, but still contains well-observed grains of truth that are fascinating to examine. There's ample material for Morgan to work with here, including the romance of Charles and the future Duchess Camilla (Emerald Fennell), Margaret's highly publicized tour of America, and conspiracy theories about a governmental coup lead by Lord Mountbatten (Charles Dance). At times the speculative nature of the plotting feels like it's crossing a few too many lines, but at other times it manages to present some fresh insights and points of view. Phillip's deeply uncomfortable encounter with the Apollo 11 astronauts is just a delight.
The high point of the season, however, is the dramatization of the Aberfan disaster, where a mining waste tip collapsed and buried a school, killing dozens of children. Similar to the recent "Chernobyl" miniseries, it is a clear-eyed view of a horrific national tragedy. However, it also provides the opportunity for us to see characters like Margaret and Philip in a new context, and ends with Elizabeth musing over whether her role as queen may be eroding her humanity. It's one of several recent examples of television drama being used to bring attention to a largely forgotten corner of history. However, it's also emblematic of the season being a fairly glum and harrowing one. Everyone is unhappy, the country seems to be perpetually in a state of crisis, and the Royals rarely score any wins, either public or personal. One of the lighter episodes is spent chronicling the production of a notoriously tone-deaf documentary about the Royal family.
And yet, I found it difficult to stop watching. And that shouldn't be a surprise, with all these world class actors playing all these larger than life characters. Colman is very different than Claire Foy, and operates in a more subdued register, but she can summon the ice and fire when she needs them. I prefer Menzies to Matt Smith as Philip, partially because the character seem to have mellowed with age. His frustrations manifest differently, and his relationship with Elizabeth has changed. Some of the best surprises are the smaller performances, like Clancy Brown as a boisterous Lyndon B. Johnson and Lane Lapotaire as Princess Alice, Philip's estranged mother. Doherty and O'Conner are both fantastic as Anne and Charles, and I look forward to their further appearances in the next season.
"The Crown" retains its high production values and prestige treatment, but I still found it very accessible and entertaining television. I'm going to miss the previous cast, but it was the right decision to recast and regroup. My only worry is that the weaker episodes have been centered around rocky romantic relationships, notably Charles and Margaret's, and there's a lot more material in this vein inevitably coming our way. Oddly, the show has backed off from Elizabeth and Philip's marital troubles, which were so central to the past seasons. And that's a shame, because I was looking forward to seeing Colman and Menzies really clash.
On the other hand, there's plenty to look forward to. I can't wait to see Gillian Anderson next year as Margaret Thatcher.
---
Wednesday, January 1, 2020
My Least Anticipated Films of 2020
There's no doubt that these posts are getting harder and harder to write. It's not because there are fewer terrible movies getting released each year, but because the studios have been getting better at hiding them. Many awful titles that might have gotten a theatrical release a few years ago are now being dumped on VOD or streaming. There's often not much advance information provided about stinkers, or they show up as late additions to the slates, with little marketing or fanfare. Netflix has gotten especially good at ambushing us with the surprise existence of a new Wayans' or Adam Sandler comedy every few months. After some consideration, I'm leaving streaming premieres out of the larger post below - except to point out the existence of Sandler's "Hubie Halloween," which wrapped up shooting a few months ago.
I also considered having a section for least anticipated television and streaming series this year, in the name of greater movie/TV parity on this blog. Ultimately, I decided against this due to logistical reasons and because it's really a little too easy to find bad television these days.
So, let the cinema shade-throwing commence. And if past years are any indication, it's likely this will be the last time you see discussion of any of these titles on this blog.
Let's start with horror. First up, there a "The Grudge" remake with Andrea Riseborough. It's being made by Nicholas Pesce, an arthouse director, but the early January release date points to the studio not having any faith in it. A new "Saw" film called "The Organ Donor" is due in May, starring Chris Rock and Samuel L. Jackson. Try as I might, I cannot conceive of the result being anything good. Finally, a fifth "Purge" movie is coming in July. There are quite a few other iffy horror titles on the schedule, but also some interesting experiments like the "Fear Street" movies and the reboot of "Fantasy Island." It's actually looking like a pretty strong lineup for horror fans this year.
The kids, alas, have more dire minefields to clear. While I respect the filmmakers of "Sonic the Hedgehog," for deciding to delay the film to make their animated Sonic less cringe-inducing, everything about this movie screams early 2000s live-action/CGI hybrid kids' movie in the vein of the "Scooby Doo," "Garfield," and "Alvin and the Chipmunks" movies. No thank you. I think that the "Despicable Me" franchise has thoroughly worn out its welcome, so I'll be avoiding the prequel "Minions: The Rise of Gru." Unless there are major tonal changes, I'm also writing off "Peter Rabbit 2." I also want to point out the oddness of "The Croods 2" coming seven years after the original, which was a fairly minor hit for Dreamworks in the first place.
Bad comedies often follow particular stars. I picked on Melissa McCarthy last year, and this year I'm afraid it's Tiffany Haddish's turn. Her track record has been pretty awful ever since "Girls Trip," and she's in two films this year that don't look any more promising. The first is female ensemble comedy "Like a Boss," which Paramount is dumping in January. Then in February comes "Bad Trip," described as a hidden camera prankster film, with a couple of Adult Swim alumns behind it. There's a small chance we'll also see her in the Billy Crystal dramedy "Here Today," which sounds a bit like "The Intouchables" with comedy writers. I respect Crystal, but he hasn't directed a feature since 2001.
Other comedies I'm avoiding are "Bad Boys For Life," where Martin Lawrence is now a walking punchline, and somehow I'm being made to miss Michael Bay's involvement, and "The Jesus Rolls," the long awaited "Big Lebowski" spinoff about Jesus Quintana. Apparently the latter is now a remake of Bertrand Blier's 1974 French comedy "Les Valseuses," as directed by John Turturro. I've actually seen "Les Valseuses" pretty recently. I don't think this is going to work.
Finally, it feels a little too easy to pick on the latest Paul W. S. Anderson action film, "Monster Hunter," and the latest faith-based weepie, "I Still Believe." I have a sneaking suspicion that some of the more troubled blockbusters I'm holding out some hope for, like "Godzilla v. Kong" and "New Mutants" are going to turn out to be pretty awful. But we'll see.
I'll have my most anticipated film lists up around March, after Sundance, once release schedules have filled in a little more.
---
I also considered having a section for least anticipated television and streaming series this year, in the name of greater movie/TV parity on this blog. Ultimately, I decided against this due to logistical reasons and because it's really a little too easy to find bad television these days.
So, let the cinema shade-throwing commence. And if past years are any indication, it's likely this will be the last time you see discussion of any of these titles on this blog.
Let's start with horror. First up, there a "The Grudge" remake with Andrea Riseborough. It's being made by Nicholas Pesce, an arthouse director, but the early January release date points to the studio not having any faith in it. A new "Saw" film called "The Organ Donor" is due in May, starring Chris Rock and Samuel L. Jackson. Try as I might, I cannot conceive of the result being anything good. Finally, a fifth "Purge" movie is coming in July. There are quite a few other iffy horror titles on the schedule, but also some interesting experiments like the "Fear Street" movies and the reboot of "Fantasy Island." It's actually looking like a pretty strong lineup for horror fans this year.
The kids, alas, have more dire minefields to clear. While I respect the filmmakers of "Sonic the Hedgehog," for deciding to delay the film to make their animated Sonic less cringe-inducing, everything about this movie screams early 2000s live-action/CGI hybrid kids' movie in the vein of the "Scooby Doo," "Garfield," and "Alvin and the Chipmunks" movies. No thank you. I think that the "Despicable Me" franchise has thoroughly worn out its welcome, so I'll be avoiding the prequel "Minions: The Rise of Gru." Unless there are major tonal changes, I'm also writing off "Peter Rabbit 2." I also want to point out the oddness of "The Croods 2" coming seven years after the original, which was a fairly minor hit for Dreamworks in the first place.
Bad comedies often follow particular stars. I picked on Melissa McCarthy last year, and this year I'm afraid it's Tiffany Haddish's turn. Her track record has been pretty awful ever since "Girls Trip," and she's in two films this year that don't look any more promising. The first is female ensemble comedy "Like a Boss," which Paramount is dumping in January. Then in February comes "Bad Trip," described as a hidden camera prankster film, with a couple of Adult Swim alumns behind it. There's a small chance we'll also see her in the Billy Crystal dramedy "Here Today," which sounds a bit like "The Intouchables" with comedy writers. I respect Crystal, but he hasn't directed a feature since 2001.
Other comedies I'm avoiding are "Bad Boys For Life," where Martin Lawrence is now a walking punchline, and somehow I'm being made to miss Michael Bay's involvement, and "The Jesus Rolls," the long awaited "Big Lebowski" spinoff about Jesus Quintana. Apparently the latter is now a remake of Bertrand Blier's 1974 French comedy "Les Valseuses," as directed by John Turturro. I've actually seen "Les Valseuses" pretty recently. I don't think this is going to work.
Finally, it feels a little too easy to pick on the latest Paul W. S. Anderson action film, "Monster Hunter," and the latest faith-based weepie, "I Still Believe." I have a sneaking suspicion that some of the more troubled blockbusters I'm holding out some hope for, like "Godzilla v. Kong" and "New Mutants" are going to turn out to be pretty awful. But we'll see.
I'll have my most anticipated film lists up around March, after Sundance, once release schedules have filled in a little more.
---
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
