While I still have a Letterboxd Pro account, I decided to conduct a little experiment.
I've never been much of a collector of physical media, but always admired other people's fabulous collections. So I wondered, if money and space and availability weren't issues, which movies would I put down money to acquire? Which movies do I really consider essential enough to put in my own hypothetical permanent personal collection?
So I went through all my logged Letterboxd titles, year by year, from the silent era to the present day. And I ended up with 646 titles. And boy, are my biases and tastes clear.
At first, when I was working through the older titles, it felt like I was finally getting to put my own opinions across on the established film canon. Fewer Westerns! More musicals! In with "Stella Dallas" and "Hellzapoppin'" and out with all those boring old John Wayne movies and Jean-Luc Godard. I added a couple of titles like "Double Indemnity" and "Lawrence of Arabia" out of a sense obligation, because I knew they were references I wanted to have available, even if they weren't personal favorites, and a couple of guilty pleasures like the "Absent Minded Professor" movies, but there weren't many picks in either category.
Then I hit the '80s, and it all went to hell. Suddenly I was staring at all my childhood favorites, some of them absolutely terrible movies that I absolutely could not leave off the list. The power of nostalgia compelled me to include "Santa Claus: The Movie," "The Twilight Zone: The Movie," "The Golden Child," and all the Arnold Schwarzenegger "Conan" movies. I have no coherent excuse for why I have to own a copy of "The Chipmunk Adventure," but I have to own a copy of "The Chipmunk Adventure." Krzysztof Kieślowski's "Decalogue" I can leave off without any qualms, but not the Chipmunks and Chipettes having an around-the-world hot air balloon race.
And then I got to the most recent films, from the era when I was actively writing and analyzing movies to death, and making Top Ten lists and arguing about Oscar snubs, and all that. And in spite of my efforts to broaden my horizons and embrace the arthouse, my pics are overwhelmingly mainstream blockbuster fare. On the list are six MCU movies, three "X-men" movies, two "Hunger Games" movies, and the entire "Bourne" trilogy. I picked six films from 2019: "Little Women," "Us," "Parasite," "Marriage Story," "Avengers: Endgame," and "Doctor Sleep." So as much as I've gone to bat for "Jojo Rabbit," when it comes down to it, I'm going to watch The Avengers brawling with Thanos and enjoy it more. I feel like such a goddamn hypocrite.
In the end, the stats don't lie. About half of the list is comprised of films that were released after 1980, with the '90s and the '00s most heavily represented. The most heavily represented year is 2004 with twelve films. I picked ten Spielberg movies, eight from Hitchcock, eight from Kubrick, and nine from Miyazaki. Four star Eddie Murphy, five star Arnold Schwarzenegger, and six star Johnny Depp. My biggest surprise was not having a single "Harry Potter" film on the list, though I've seen them all. I guess that series just never really won me over.
And there are only seventeen silent films, mostly Chaplin and Keaton features. 122 foreign language films. 79 animated films. Eight westerns, including the "Man With No Name" trilogy. A grand total of four documentaries. Four. Aargh.
On the other hand, the criterion (ahem) here isn't solely quality. I've watched "Muppet Treasure Island" about fifty times, while I don't know if I'll ever be emotionally prepared to watch "Synecdoche, New York" again, and I own exactly the same number of copies of both movies. Over and over again, while going through all the titles, I kept rejecting movies that I admired and respected and found moving, but that I hadn't really enjoyed the experience of watching. If I'm being honest with myself, I'm never going to watch "The Nightingale" or "A Hidden Life" or "The Irishman" again. "Doctor Sleep," though it has its problems, is a stellar popcorn flick that I've already seen three times.
And it's good to be reminded of that, as I'm getting through the last few titles for 2019 and putting together my yearly list. Art's all well and good, but if you want my money, entertainment always wins out.
---
Wednesday, July 29, 2020
Monday, July 27, 2020
"The West Wing," Years One and Two
Minor spoilers ahead.
I'm forty-odd episodes into "The West Wing," and it's time I took a pause to evaluate where the series is and my own reactions to it so far.
First things first. Oh good grief, I listed Mandy in my original "West Wing" post as one of the show's better female characters, didn't I? Well, I still think that she had the potential to be a much better character than she was, but Aaron Sorkin clearly didn't have any idea of what to do with her, Ditto lawyer Ainsley Hayes (Emily Procter), who was brought in during the second season to be a Republican counterpoint to the Democratic West Wing regulars, and serve as a way for Sorkin to address some criticisms of the show. I really liked her, and I thought her character was handled beautifully. Alas, Sorkin couldn't figure out how to keep her in the picture. I mean, strategist Joey Lucas (Marlee Matlin) is fine as Josh's love interest, but she's not remotely as interesting as Ainsley. First Lady Abbey Bartlett (Stockard Channing), at least, has gotten more screen time as the series has gone on.
CJ remains my favorite character in the show, and I love it every time the press room erupts with the reporters shouting her name. Donna Moss (Janel Maloney) is kind of growing on me, but she's such a nonentity - really just there to be a Girl Friday sparring partner for Josh. And let's not kid ourselves here. 90% of the time, the focus of "The West Wing" is on the men - on Josh, Toby, Leo, Sam, and more and more on President Bartlett. The entire back half of the second season is about Bartlett grappling with the legal, political, and moral implications of hiding his health problems. Sorkin is very good at showing how the situation keeps snowballing, week after week. One of the most famous episodes of "The West Wing" is the second season finale, "Two Cathedrals," which features a showstopper of a monologue for Martin Sheen.
My favorite installments, however, are the more lighthearted ones. "Celestial Navigation" is a standout for being one of the most purely comedic, with Sam and Toby getting lost in Connecticut, CJ's dental mishap, and Josh accidentally creating the President's secret plan to fight inflation. Or there are the Christmas episodes, where the White House decor gets all tinseled up, and the regulars get a little mushy. The big stunt ending of the first season was fun, but also a good reminder that "The West Wing" was a '90s network television series, and very beholden to all of the usual conventions and limitations that came with the territory. The seasons always had to end with some big, sensational cliffhanger, and what could be more sensational than an assassination attempt? And it was fun to see the show become a political thriller for two episodes, but I was very relieved when everyone quickly got back to business as usual.
And business as usual is one of the chief joys of "The West Wing." It's the banter and the sentimentality that the show falls back on again and again, and the willingness of the core cast of characters to fight for one another and be a little cheesy about it. The show may be glum and dispiriting at times, but it avoids being cynical about politics. Sure, the pendulum sometimes swings too far in the other direction, making our heroes seem naively optimistic, but that kind of optimism is nice to see again, post 2016. Even though the focus of the series has quietly shifted toward political fights as the show's re-election storyline has ramped up, everyone still behaves, and nobody is infallible.
Some of the show's charms still elude me. I have no idea why the curmudgeonly Toby is so beloved, or what's going on in the minds of the shippers who want to pair up Josh and Donna. Mrs. Landingham's departure was very traumatic for some fans, and is one of few plot points I recall from when the show was originally airing. The event left me unmoved. However, I think it's safe to call myself a fan at this point. "The West Wing" isn't a show that I'm going out of my way to watch, now that I've gotten through the most famous seasons, but I still find myself putting on an episode when I have a little time. It's proven consistently strong and dependably entertaining in a way that few shows of its kind are.
---
I'm forty-odd episodes into "The West Wing," and it's time I took a pause to evaluate where the series is and my own reactions to it so far.
First things first. Oh good grief, I listed Mandy in my original "West Wing" post as one of the show's better female characters, didn't I? Well, I still think that she had the potential to be a much better character than she was, but Aaron Sorkin clearly didn't have any idea of what to do with her, Ditto lawyer Ainsley Hayes (Emily Procter), who was brought in during the second season to be a Republican counterpoint to the Democratic West Wing regulars, and serve as a way for Sorkin to address some criticisms of the show. I really liked her, and I thought her character was handled beautifully. Alas, Sorkin couldn't figure out how to keep her in the picture. I mean, strategist Joey Lucas (Marlee Matlin) is fine as Josh's love interest, but she's not remotely as interesting as Ainsley. First Lady Abbey Bartlett (Stockard Channing), at least, has gotten more screen time as the series has gone on.
CJ remains my favorite character in the show, and I love it every time the press room erupts with the reporters shouting her name. Donna Moss (Janel Maloney) is kind of growing on me, but she's such a nonentity - really just there to be a Girl Friday sparring partner for Josh. And let's not kid ourselves here. 90% of the time, the focus of "The West Wing" is on the men - on Josh, Toby, Leo, Sam, and more and more on President Bartlett. The entire back half of the second season is about Bartlett grappling with the legal, political, and moral implications of hiding his health problems. Sorkin is very good at showing how the situation keeps snowballing, week after week. One of the most famous episodes of "The West Wing" is the second season finale, "Two Cathedrals," which features a showstopper of a monologue for Martin Sheen.
My favorite installments, however, are the more lighthearted ones. "Celestial Navigation" is a standout for being one of the most purely comedic, with Sam and Toby getting lost in Connecticut, CJ's dental mishap, and Josh accidentally creating the President's secret plan to fight inflation. Or there are the Christmas episodes, where the White House decor gets all tinseled up, and the regulars get a little mushy. The big stunt ending of the first season was fun, but also a good reminder that "The West Wing" was a '90s network television series, and very beholden to all of the usual conventions and limitations that came with the territory. The seasons always had to end with some big, sensational cliffhanger, and what could be more sensational than an assassination attempt? And it was fun to see the show become a political thriller for two episodes, but I was very relieved when everyone quickly got back to business as usual.
And business as usual is one of the chief joys of "The West Wing." It's the banter and the sentimentality that the show falls back on again and again, and the willingness of the core cast of characters to fight for one another and be a little cheesy about it. The show may be glum and dispiriting at times, but it avoids being cynical about politics. Sure, the pendulum sometimes swings too far in the other direction, making our heroes seem naively optimistic, but that kind of optimism is nice to see again, post 2016. Even though the focus of the series has quietly shifted toward political fights as the show's re-election storyline has ramped up, everyone still behaves, and nobody is infallible.
Some of the show's charms still elude me. I have no idea why the curmudgeonly Toby is so beloved, or what's going on in the minds of the shippers who want to pair up Josh and Donna. Mrs. Landingham's departure was very traumatic for some fans, and is one of few plot points I recall from when the show was originally airing. The event left me unmoved. However, I think it's safe to call myself a fan at this point. "The West Wing" isn't a show that I'm going out of my way to watch, now that I've gotten through the most famous seasons, but I still find myself putting on an episode when I have a little time. It's proven consistently strong and dependably entertaining in a way that few shows of its kind are.
---
Saturday, July 25, 2020
"Westworld," Year Three
Minor spoilers ahead.
"Westworld" is one of the most frustrating series that is currently airing. Despite plenty of resources at their disposal - a great cast, spectacular production values, and talented writers and directors - they just can't quite seem to pull it together. The third season was their chance to revitalize the show, changing the setting from the Westworld amusement park to the outside world that we've only glimpsed so far. The show's creators do a great job of setting up the human world of the future, a sleekly gorgeous dystopia where individuals are guided by a supercomputer called Rehoboam, that preserves the social order and keeps larger dangers at bay.
We have a few new human characters, chief among them Caleb (Aaron Paul), an ex-soldier who gets caught up in Dolores's plans, and the mysterious Serac (Vincent Cassel), who controls Rehoboam, and by proxy the world. However, the major conflict is between the escaped hosts, namely Dolores and Maeve. Dolores and her allies - including Caleb and Hale - want to disrupt the human world and take down Rehoboam. Maeve is being incentivized to stop them. Bernard and another host, Stubbs (Luke Hemsworth), have teamed up to try and keep the situation from blowing up. Oh, and the Man in Black is still in play, and has his own ideas about how to go about saving the world.
The human world looks absolutely fantastic. The actors, especially Evan Rachel Woods as Dolores, do a great job of introducing all these new concepts and hyping up the impending clashes to come. However, "Westworld" runs into some of the same problems that it's had since the beginning. On the one hand, it tackles all these big, fascinating ideas, and does a good job of setting up a compelling set of problems. I love the human world having all these parallels to the Westworld park, including the way Serac has justified setting individual human beings on predetermined courses of action, with grave consequences if they deviate. On the other hand, "Westworld" is still obligated to be an action show first and foremost, and nearly every episode involves some kind of big fight or chase sequence. The series largely abandons the mystery format and never gets quite as cerebral or philosophical as it has in the past. The show dispensed with its "final five Cylons" cliffhanger mystery in one, tidy swoop.
This shift is not necessarily a bad thing. It's much easier to follow this year's streamlined narrative and to stay invested in the various characters. The twists tend to come off better, and there's not the sense that the show's creators are rewriting the rules every time they need an escape hatch. There's also less filler and vastly improved material for some of the characters. Tessa Thompson is finally getting meatier scenes as Charlotte Hale. Some of Ed Harris's best moments are in this season, including a therapy scene involving several different versions of his character. Vincent Cassel and Aaron Paul are excellent additions to the cast, and none of the returning regulars feel shortchanged or sidelined this year.
However, the show seems to have gotten a little too wrapped up in spectacle for its own sake. Some of the big action moments are great, but others are duds, including nearly all the physical fights between Dolores and Maeve. The story often moves too quickly with the reduced episode count, and there are still several instances where reversals and changes of heart seem to come at the drop of a hat. In trying to be more cinematic, weekly developments are often less impactful, and the storytelling less thoughtful. It's fine if "Westworld" wants to be more of an action thriller from this point on, but I feel like the creators haven't quite figured how to balance those elements with the more ambitious sci-fi ideas they're trying to explore.
I also can't help drawing comparisons to Jonathan Nolan's last series, "Person of Interest," which shares a lot of the same themes and concepts with this season of "Westworld." I think "Person of Interest" sidestepped a lot of the thornier story issues, because it had a much simpler, straightforward premise and characters. "Westworld," by comparison, is juggling at least four different characters with major identity crises, who have a terrible habit of switching bodies and allegiances whenever it suits them. And, of course, nobody ever stays dead.
Still, "Westworld" remains very watchable, and I'm keen to give this season a pass because it feels like it's going to end up serving as an important connector piece to whatever is coming next. And, unlike the previous seasons, this year's finale was actually very satisfying.
---
"Westworld" is one of the most frustrating series that is currently airing. Despite plenty of resources at their disposal - a great cast, spectacular production values, and talented writers and directors - they just can't quite seem to pull it together. The third season was their chance to revitalize the show, changing the setting from the Westworld amusement park to the outside world that we've only glimpsed so far. The show's creators do a great job of setting up the human world of the future, a sleekly gorgeous dystopia where individuals are guided by a supercomputer called Rehoboam, that preserves the social order and keeps larger dangers at bay.
We have a few new human characters, chief among them Caleb (Aaron Paul), an ex-soldier who gets caught up in Dolores's plans, and the mysterious Serac (Vincent Cassel), who controls Rehoboam, and by proxy the world. However, the major conflict is between the escaped hosts, namely Dolores and Maeve. Dolores and her allies - including Caleb and Hale - want to disrupt the human world and take down Rehoboam. Maeve is being incentivized to stop them. Bernard and another host, Stubbs (Luke Hemsworth), have teamed up to try and keep the situation from blowing up. Oh, and the Man in Black is still in play, and has his own ideas about how to go about saving the world.
The human world looks absolutely fantastic. The actors, especially Evan Rachel Woods as Dolores, do a great job of introducing all these new concepts and hyping up the impending clashes to come. However, "Westworld" runs into some of the same problems that it's had since the beginning. On the one hand, it tackles all these big, fascinating ideas, and does a good job of setting up a compelling set of problems. I love the human world having all these parallels to the Westworld park, including the way Serac has justified setting individual human beings on predetermined courses of action, with grave consequences if they deviate. On the other hand, "Westworld" is still obligated to be an action show first and foremost, and nearly every episode involves some kind of big fight or chase sequence. The series largely abandons the mystery format and never gets quite as cerebral or philosophical as it has in the past. The show dispensed with its "final five Cylons" cliffhanger mystery in one, tidy swoop.
This shift is not necessarily a bad thing. It's much easier to follow this year's streamlined narrative and to stay invested in the various characters. The twists tend to come off better, and there's not the sense that the show's creators are rewriting the rules every time they need an escape hatch. There's also less filler and vastly improved material for some of the characters. Tessa Thompson is finally getting meatier scenes as Charlotte Hale. Some of Ed Harris's best moments are in this season, including a therapy scene involving several different versions of his character. Vincent Cassel and Aaron Paul are excellent additions to the cast, and none of the returning regulars feel shortchanged or sidelined this year.
However, the show seems to have gotten a little too wrapped up in spectacle for its own sake. Some of the big action moments are great, but others are duds, including nearly all the physical fights between Dolores and Maeve. The story often moves too quickly with the reduced episode count, and there are still several instances where reversals and changes of heart seem to come at the drop of a hat. In trying to be more cinematic, weekly developments are often less impactful, and the storytelling less thoughtful. It's fine if "Westworld" wants to be more of an action thriller from this point on, but I feel like the creators haven't quite figured how to balance those elements with the more ambitious sci-fi ideas they're trying to explore.
I also can't help drawing comparisons to Jonathan Nolan's last series, "Person of Interest," which shares a lot of the same themes and concepts with this season of "Westworld." I think "Person of Interest" sidestepped a lot of the thornier story issues, because it had a much simpler, straightforward premise and characters. "Westworld," by comparison, is juggling at least four different characters with major identity crises, who have a terrible habit of switching bodies and allegiances whenever it suits them. And, of course, nobody ever stays dead.
Still, "Westworld" remains very watchable, and I'm keen to give this season a pass because it feels like it's going to end up serving as an important connector piece to whatever is coming next. And, unlike the previous seasons, this year's finale was actually very satisfying.
---
Thursday, July 23, 2020
A Day At Comic-Con 2020 Online
I had some free time today, so I thought I'd take advantage of San Diego Comic-Con holding all their panels online this year. I watched five panels, all pre-recorded, roughly following the posted schedule but not exactly. These were the panels for "Star Trek," Amazon's remake of "Utopia," the "Marvel's 616" documentary series, "The New Mutants," and the 80th anniversary of Bugs Bunny. I wanted to put down a few thoughts on the experience.
First, there's no way that an online panel conducted via conferencing software is going to be able to match up to the live experience of Comic-Con. I've been watching recordings of past Comic-con panels that have ended up online for ages, and the crowd reactions have always been an integral part of the fun. Here, nobody makes any attempt to replicate them. Instead, you get a collection of celebs talking up their latest projects, usually with a couple of promo clips. A few trailers premiered, and a few exclusive clips were trotted out, but noticeably fewer than in recent years. There weren't any huge announcements that I could see, aside from the "Star Trek" panel confirming the new "Star Trek: Prodigy" Nickelodeon show.
There are clear benefits to having the panels online. I could attend multiple panels taking place at the same time. There were no lines, no space issues, and no getting your view blocked by other attendees. Because all the appearances were filmed in advance, there were no technical glitches to deal with and less time wasted on drawn-out introductions. However, this also meant no spontaneity whatsoever. There was never the possibility of people crashing each other's panels, no live Q&A mishaps, no unexpected fan interactions, and frankly far less energy and verve. Everyone's gotten used to the online panel format enough that there's no novelty there anymore. Some of the panels did try to incorporate some fan involvement, taking pre-submitted questions, and encouraging social media use. I thought it was very sweet that "New Mutants" spent a few minutes showing off some fanart.
All the panels were scheduled for an hour, but they varied wildly in actual length. The "Star Trek" panel, which actually covered presentations for three different shows, ran nearly 90 minutes and included a partial table read of the "Star Trek: Discovery" season finale. The "New Mutants" panel was just shy of 30 minutes, about the right length. The panel for Amazon's "Utopia" tried to fill a full 60 minutes, which was a bad idea because they ran very short of material. Based on the British "Utopia" mystery show, the cast had to keep answers evasive to avoid spoilers, which meant there wasn't really a lot for them to talk about. A couple of the participants were also relative newbies who clearly weren't used to doing press. The "Star Trek: Lower Decks" folks, by contrast, just let everybody loose and bleeped all the spoilers out for comic effect.
I did have something like the experience of wandering into random panels without really understanding what I was getting into. I got "Marvel's 616" mixed up with the "What If…" series, but the guests included Gillian Jacobs and Paul Scheer, who were super entertaining, and they totally sold me on the potential fun of an anthology series about the history of Marvel comics. I'm not really a Bugs Bunny fan, but I do enjoy Billy West, Leonard Maltin, and Jerry Beck. Their panel turned out to be a thinly veiled promotion of Warners putting out a new Bugs Bunny shorts collection, but it was still great to listen to a bunch of actors and animation geeks sharing their love of Bugs for an hour.
Since I'm not planning to attend another Comic-Con any time soon, I'd appreciate something like this being available in the future. It's not remotely close to anything like being there, but most of the panels were pretty fun to leave on all day, and I'm looking forward to a few other things on the lineup.
The best thing I saw today was definitely Marina Sirtis roasting Patrick Stewart during the "Star Trek: Picard" panel. I think she may be turning into our new Carrie Fisher.
---
First, there's no way that an online panel conducted via conferencing software is going to be able to match up to the live experience of Comic-Con. I've been watching recordings of past Comic-con panels that have ended up online for ages, and the crowd reactions have always been an integral part of the fun. Here, nobody makes any attempt to replicate them. Instead, you get a collection of celebs talking up their latest projects, usually with a couple of promo clips. A few trailers premiered, and a few exclusive clips were trotted out, but noticeably fewer than in recent years. There weren't any huge announcements that I could see, aside from the "Star Trek" panel confirming the new "Star Trek: Prodigy" Nickelodeon show.
There are clear benefits to having the panels online. I could attend multiple panels taking place at the same time. There were no lines, no space issues, and no getting your view blocked by other attendees. Because all the appearances were filmed in advance, there were no technical glitches to deal with and less time wasted on drawn-out introductions. However, this also meant no spontaneity whatsoever. There was never the possibility of people crashing each other's panels, no live Q&A mishaps, no unexpected fan interactions, and frankly far less energy and verve. Everyone's gotten used to the online panel format enough that there's no novelty there anymore. Some of the panels did try to incorporate some fan involvement, taking pre-submitted questions, and encouraging social media use. I thought it was very sweet that "New Mutants" spent a few minutes showing off some fanart.
All the panels were scheduled for an hour, but they varied wildly in actual length. The "Star Trek" panel, which actually covered presentations for three different shows, ran nearly 90 minutes and included a partial table read of the "Star Trek: Discovery" season finale. The "New Mutants" panel was just shy of 30 minutes, about the right length. The panel for Amazon's "Utopia" tried to fill a full 60 minutes, which was a bad idea because they ran very short of material. Based on the British "Utopia" mystery show, the cast had to keep answers evasive to avoid spoilers, which meant there wasn't really a lot for them to talk about. A couple of the participants were also relative newbies who clearly weren't used to doing press. The "Star Trek: Lower Decks" folks, by contrast, just let everybody loose and bleeped all the spoilers out for comic effect.
I did have something like the experience of wandering into random panels without really understanding what I was getting into. I got "Marvel's 616" mixed up with the "What If…" series, but the guests included Gillian Jacobs and Paul Scheer, who were super entertaining, and they totally sold me on the potential fun of an anthology series about the history of Marvel comics. I'm not really a Bugs Bunny fan, but I do enjoy Billy West, Leonard Maltin, and Jerry Beck. Their panel turned out to be a thinly veiled promotion of Warners putting out a new Bugs Bunny shorts collection, but it was still great to listen to a bunch of actors and animation geeks sharing their love of Bugs for an hour.
Since I'm not planning to attend another Comic-Con any time soon, I'd appreciate something like this being available in the future. It's not remotely close to anything like being there, but most of the panels were pretty fun to leave on all day, and I'm looking forward to a few other things on the lineup.
The best thing I saw today was definitely Marina Sirtis roasting Patrick Stewart during the "Star Trek: Picard" panel. I think she may be turning into our new Carrie Fisher.
---
Tuesday, July 21, 2020
"Wendy" Soars
I had a rough time getting myself situated into the world of Benh Zeitlin's debut feature, "Beasts of the Southern Wild," but once I finally did, I found the film a richly rewarding experience. Now, seven long years later, Zeitlin has finally made his follow-up film, "Wendy," an adaptation of J. M. Barrie's "Peter Pan." It's not nearly as strong as "Beasts," but I had no trouble connecting to this one.
Wendy (Devin France) and her brothers James (Gavin Naquin) and Douglas (Gage Naquin) are the children of a poor diner waitress, Angela Darling (Shay Walker). Growing up only seems to promise poverty and toil, so Wendy is easily convinced to jump aboard a mysterious passing train one night and run away from home, at the urging of a wild little boy named Peter (Yashua Mack). He brings Wendy and her brothers to a fantastic island where children stay young forever, unless they lose faith and begin to doubt. It's a paradise until, of course, it isn't.
The same earthy, chaotic, magical realist style Zeitlin used in "Beasts" has now been applied to "Wendy," along with the cultural context of the impoverished American South. So, instead of polite British children dressed in proper sleepwear, here the Darlings are a passel of scruffy rural Southern brats who make do with what little they have. The Lost Boys are no longer all boys, and feature a mix of races, with a dreadlocked African-American Peter in the lead. The more fundamental Peter Pan mythos has also been reworked heavily by Zeitlin and his sister Eliza. Neverland is now watched over by a supernatural creature called "The Mother," who manifests as a glowing sea creature, and is the source of the children's eternal youth. The adults on the island are all revealed to be former foundlings brought there by Peter, who fell from grace and grew old.
It's the style of the production that really sets it apart. Everything's been stripped down to bare essentials, and often props, costumes, and sets look like they've been repurposed from whatever the filmmakers had available. Neverland is full of wonders, including spouting geysers, underwater caves, and inviting wilderness, but it's a more grounded, natural place that has little in common with the CGI-heavy fantasy landscapes of studio-produced children's fare. The child actors, mostly nonprofessionals, are raw and energetic. Their acting is totally unpolished, but their genuine emotion and vividness are striking. The children's wild revels are all lovingly filmed by cinematographer Sturla Brandth Grøvlen, in a way that highlights all the tactile rough edges, but also leaves room for giddy moments of impossible cinema magic, like the kids playing with the geysers, or jumping to and from the moving trains.
The result is a grand piece of poetic cinema, with sweeping, dreamlike passages of lyrical childhood wonder, that do a fine job of selling us on this version of Peter Pan and Neverland. When the film tries to get into more typical narrative conflicts, however, it runs into some trouble. Everything is relayed in very grand, very earnest terms, and either you buy into the make-believe wholeheartedly, or you don't. And you either find the Terrence Malick style narration and stream-of-consciousness editing effective or you don't. "Wendy" should be lauded for tackling all the darker, pricklier parts of the Peter Pan story in a way that never feels compromised or reductive, but occasionally the film gets too bogged down by its ambitions, and too beholden to its source material. The ending in particular comes off as a little tone-deaf in its aggressive positivity.
And yet, I couldn't help falling a little in love with "Wendy," with it's overwhelming immature emotions, it's child-eye view of the great big world, and its sheer untamed vision. We've seen the Peter Pan story told so many times onscreen over the years, often through these elaborate productions that end up being counterproductive. And we've seen very talented artists update and explore the story in various ways, trying to expand on its fascinating themes and ideas to varying levels of success. "Wendy" is the first in a long time that really feels like something different. It doesn't achieve everything that it wants to, but it gets pretty close to being something great.
---
Wendy (Devin France) and her brothers James (Gavin Naquin) and Douglas (Gage Naquin) are the children of a poor diner waitress, Angela Darling (Shay Walker). Growing up only seems to promise poverty and toil, so Wendy is easily convinced to jump aboard a mysterious passing train one night and run away from home, at the urging of a wild little boy named Peter (Yashua Mack). He brings Wendy and her brothers to a fantastic island where children stay young forever, unless they lose faith and begin to doubt. It's a paradise until, of course, it isn't.
The same earthy, chaotic, magical realist style Zeitlin used in "Beasts" has now been applied to "Wendy," along with the cultural context of the impoverished American South. So, instead of polite British children dressed in proper sleepwear, here the Darlings are a passel of scruffy rural Southern brats who make do with what little they have. The Lost Boys are no longer all boys, and feature a mix of races, with a dreadlocked African-American Peter in the lead. The more fundamental Peter Pan mythos has also been reworked heavily by Zeitlin and his sister Eliza. Neverland is now watched over by a supernatural creature called "The Mother," who manifests as a glowing sea creature, and is the source of the children's eternal youth. The adults on the island are all revealed to be former foundlings brought there by Peter, who fell from grace and grew old.
It's the style of the production that really sets it apart. Everything's been stripped down to bare essentials, and often props, costumes, and sets look like they've been repurposed from whatever the filmmakers had available. Neverland is full of wonders, including spouting geysers, underwater caves, and inviting wilderness, but it's a more grounded, natural place that has little in common with the CGI-heavy fantasy landscapes of studio-produced children's fare. The child actors, mostly nonprofessionals, are raw and energetic. Their acting is totally unpolished, but their genuine emotion and vividness are striking. The children's wild revels are all lovingly filmed by cinematographer Sturla Brandth Grøvlen, in a way that highlights all the tactile rough edges, but also leaves room for giddy moments of impossible cinema magic, like the kids playing with the geysers, or jumping to and from the moving trains.
The result is a grand piece of poetic cinema, with sweeping, dreamlike passages of lyrical childhood wonder, that do a fine job of selling us on this version of Peter Pan and Neverland. When the film tries to get into more typical narrative conflicts, however, it runs into some trouble. Everything is relayed in very grand, very earnest terms, and either you buy into the make-believe wholeheartedly, or you don't. And you either find the Terrence Malick style narration and stream-of-consciousness editing effective or you don't. "Wendy" should be lauded for tackling all the darker, pricklier parts of the Peter Pan story in a way that never feels compromised or reductive, but occasionally the film gets too bogged down by its ambitions, and too beholden to its source material. The ending in particular comes off as a little tone-deaf in its aggressive positivity.
And yet, I couldn't help falling a little in love with "Wendy," with it's overwhelming immature emotions, it's child-eye view of the great big world, and its sheer untamed vision. We've seen the Peter Pan story told so many times onscreen over the years, often through these elaborate productions that end up being counterproductive. And we've seen very talented artists update and explore the story in various ways, trying to expand on its fascinating themes and ideas to varying levels of success. "Wendy" is the first in a long time that really feels like something different. It doesn't achieve everything that it wants to, but it gets pretty close to being something great.
---
Sunday, July 19, 2020
I Don't Understand "Devs"
I was looking forward to this miniseries, Alex Garland's first foray into television for FX and Hulu. I liked his two recent features, "Ex Machina" and "Annihilation," for their unusually heady takes on science-fiction horror stories. "Devs" initially fits right in line with those films. It stars Sonoya Mizuno as Lily Chan, an employee of the Googlesque tech giant Amaya. Her co-worker and boyfriend Sergei (Karl Glusman) is one day recruited for the company's secret "Devs" division by company founder Forest (Nick Offerman) and Devs chief Katie (Alison Pill). Sergei soon ends up dead, leaving Lily with a mystery to unravel. Other characters include Amaya's head of security Kenton (Zach Grenier), Lily's ex-boyfriend Jamie (Jin Ha), and Devs employees Lyndon (Cailee Spaemy) and Stewart (Stephen McKinley Henderson).
However, "Devs" turned out to be much less straightforward and more cerebral than anything I've seen from Garland. The story is slow paced and works best as a moody techno-thriller, but only up to a point. There are some fascinating characters, and some sequences of great suspense and horror, but at the same time it's difficult to follow what the characters' motivations and desires are. I'm not smart enough to understand what's going on in "Devs" all the time, because the story relies heavily on concepts taken from theoretical and experimental physics that I can't always follow. A major theme is the idea of determinism - that all our actions conform to a predetermined script - and how certain characters seek to undermine, enforce, or work around it. However, the corresponding human drama is too often similarly impenetrable - I'm still not entirely sure what was driving the show's major villain.
"Devs" is a better show to enjoy for its aesthetics and particular brooding mood. There are so many strange and interesting things to look at, from the giant statue of a toddler in the woods, to the pulsing golden interiors of the Devs building, to the episode where we see multiple versions of characters in various scenes, representing how various timelines could have played out. The soundtrack is mesmeric and intriguing. The show takes the common elements we associate with Silicon Valley tech companies like Facebook and Google, and gives them a sinister twist - the guru-like CEO with a cult of personality, the Bay Area environs, the security paranoia, and the unsettling corporate culture. Even television static can be made to be fascinating and difficult to look away from. Unfortunately, the atmospherics are often obtuse to the point of absurdity. Everyone talks slowly and deliberately, often saying sinister things without much substance - or too much substance. We eventually find out exactly what Devs is doing, but the implications often feel weirdly unconnected to the actual mystery that's driving Lily.
And speaking of Lily, she's a hard character to root for. It's strange, because Sonoya Mizuno gave some perfectly fine performances in other genre media recently, but gets nowhere with trying to make Lily sympathetic and heroic. There's something very introverted and interior about Lily that makes her difficult to connect with. She reminds me a lot of Rami Malek's Elliot Alderson from "Mr. Robot," except without the narration that really grounded that character and made him so relatable. Lily, stuck with a lot of long silences and seemingly impetuous choices, is often more of a mystery than the tangle of corporate espionage that she's trying to penetrate. What's more, other characters are constantly telling her she's special, but Lily never manages to demonstrate why to my satisfaction.
So, "Devs" looks spectacular and has sky high ambitions in delivering hard science-fiction. For the first few episodes, a strong supporting cast and the excellent production values manage to keep it humming along. However, it doesn't keep the momentum up in the second half, as the series gets deeper and deeper into mind games, and the characters reveal themselves to be much flimsier than they originally appeared. Allison Pill and Nick Offerman really deserve some kind of award for exuding so much calm creepiness that, sadly, doesn't amount to very much. I feel the ending of "Devs" was properly botched, not because it was difficult to understand (which it was), but because it was so keen to answer questions that the series did a terrible job of getting us invested in to begin with.
I'm all for Alex Garland getting more opportunities to blow our minds, but this was a project that should have stayed on the drawing board.
---
However, "Devs" turned out to be much less straightforward and more cerebral than anything I've seen from Garland. The story is slow paced and works best as a moody techno-thriller, but only up to a point. There are some fascinating characters, and some sequences of great suspense and horror, but at the same time it's difficult to follow what the characters' motivations and desires are. I'm not smart enough to understand what's going on in "Devs" all the time, because the story relies heavily on concepts taken from theoretical and experimental physics that I can't always follow. A major theme is the idea of determinism - that all our actions conform to a predetermined script - and how certain characters seek to undermine, enforce, or work around it. However, the corresponding human drama is too often similarly impenetrable - I'm still not entirely sure what was driving the show's major villain.
"Devs" is a better show to enjoy for its aesthetics and particular brooding mood. There are so many strange and interesting things to look at, from the giant statue of a toddler in the woods, to the pulsing golden interiors of the Devs building, to the episode where we see multiple versions of characters in various scenes, representing how various timelines could have played out. The soundtrack is mesmeric and intriguing. The show takes the common elements we associate with Silicon Valley tech companies like Facebook and Google, and gives them a sinister twist - the guru-like CEO with a cult of personality, the Bay Area environs, the security paranoia, and the unsettling corporate culture. Even television static can be made to be fascinating and difficult to look away from. Unfortunately, the atmospherics are often obtuse to the point of absurdity. Everyone talks slowly and deliberately, often saying sinister things without much substance - or too much substance. We eventually find out exactly what Devs is doing, but the implications often feel weirdly unconnected to the actual mystery that's driving Lily.
And speaking of Lily, she's a hard character to root for. It's strange, because Sonoya Mizuno gave some perfectly fine performances in other genre media recently, but gets nowhere with trying to make Lily sympathetic and heroic. There's something very introverted and interior about Lily that makes her difficult to connect with. She reminds me a lot of Rami Malek's Elliot Alderson from "Mr. Robot," except without the narration that really grounded that character and made him so relatable. Lily, stuck with a lot of long silences and seemingly impetuous choices, is often more of a mystery than the tangle of corporate espionage that she's trying to penetrate. What's more, other characters are constantly telling her she's special, but Lily never manages to demonstrate why to my satisfaction.
So, "Devs" looks spectacular and has sky high ambitions in delivering hard science-fiction. For the first few episodes, a strong supporting cast and the excellent production values manage to keep it humming along. However, it doesn't keep the momentum up in the second half, as the series gets deeper and deeper into mind games, and the characters reveal themselves to be much flimsier than they originally appeared. Allison Pill and Nick Offerman really deserve some kind of award for exuding so much calm creepiness that, sadly, doesn't amount to very much. I feel the ending of "Devs" was properly botched, not because it was difficult to understand (which it was), but because it was so keen to answer questions that the series did a terrible job of getting us invested in to begin with.
I'm all for Alex Garland getting more opportunities to blow our minds, but this was a project that should have stayed on the drawing board.
---
Friday, July 17, 2020
The 2019 Movies I Didn't See
I write these posts every year to sort out my feelings toward some of the more prominent movies I've made a conscious decision to skip watching. I'm working through the last handful of 2019 films on my "To Watch" list, mostly foreign films with later domestic release dates. However, as my Top Ten list has been set for a while, and the queue of 2020 films is only getting longer, it's time to make some hard decisions.
Below are seven movies that didn't make the cut this year. I reserve the right to revisit and reverse my viewing choices in the future. However, I still haven't watched anything from last year's list.
"Gloria Bell" and "The Upside" - Both of these films are remakes of foreign films that I've already seen, the original Brazilian "Gloria Bell" from 2013 and the French "Intouchables" from 2011. I'm more interested in "Gloria Bell," because it kept the same director, Sebastián Lelio, got much better critical notices, and stars Julianne Moore. However, neither of the original films impressed me in the first place, and I have no interest in seeing American takes. "Intouchables" in particular strikes me as the kind of sappy, tropey racial harmony parable that I've had more than enough of.
"Tolkien" - I think the marketing campaign borrowing so much from Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" films is what really turned me off from this. It's another literary biopic that draws parallels between the life of the profiled author and the books they would go on to write. There was an earlier project announced a few years ago that would have dramatized the friendship between Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, but that one didn't go forward, to my disappointment. This one reportedly sticks to Tolkien's early years, and seems to have been roundly ignored by everyone as a bore.
"Dragged Across Concrete" - I've watched only one of S. Craig Zahler's previous films, "Brawl in Cell Block 99," and I'm not ready for another one. Zahler makes very violent, very gory films that push boundaries and delight in making viewers uncomfortable. "Dragged Across Concrete" has gotten decent reviews, and I'm usually a fan of crime and heist films, but I am extremely wary of this one. The content is way out of my comfort zone, the pace is reportedly slow, and the running time is over two and a half hours. Good luck to Mel with the comeback, but I'm not subjecting myself to this.
"Good Boys" - I'm sure this is a good film, however, it's one of those coming-of age comedies full of R-rated content that I just find tedious. Writer/Directors Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky's credits include "The Office" and "Hello, Ladies," and I've liked lead actor Jacob Tremblay in everything I've seen him in. However, the prospect of watching a trio of profane sixth grade boys getting into escapades just fills me with utter disinterest. I'm happy that it made a lot of money and made a case for more original comedies, but I am not the audience for this film and I'm perfectly okay with that.
"Midway" - I do like a good Roland Emmerich disaster film, and this one didn't get horrible reviews. They were bad, but not horrible. The movie was a crowd pleaser and did well. However, I've watched an awful lot of epic war films from the '60s and '70s recently, and I can't muster up any enthusiasm for this one. I haven't seen the original "Midway" from 1976, which wasn't a particularly well received film to begin with, and notoriously reused footage from other films. The big draw of that film was an all-star cast, and the best "Midway" can come up with is Patrick Wilson and a Jonas brother.
"The Aeronauts" - Director Tom Harper made another film last year that I really enjoyed, "Wild Rose." However, "The Aeronauts" stars Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones, two actors I haven't had the best luck with in recent years. A movie with the two of them alone in a balloon for ninety minutes, even if it was an action adventure flick, sounded rough. A major red flag is that the film was designed for IMAX and positioned as a prestige film, but critical interest has been absolutely nil. This sounds an awful lot like a repeat of "The Walk," the underwhelming Philippe Petit film.
---
Below are seven movies that didn't make the cut this year. I reserve the right to revisit and reverse my viewing choices in the future. However, I still haven't watched anything from last year's list.
"Gloria Bell" and "The Upside" - Both of these films are remakes of foreign films that I've already seen, the original Brazilian "Gloria Bell" from 2013 and the French "Intouchables" from 2011. I'm more interested in "Gloria Bell," because it kept the same director, Sebastián Lelio, got much better critical notices, and stars Julianne Moore. However, neither of the original films impressed me in the first place, and I have no interest in seeing American takes. "Intouchables" in particular strikes me as the kind of sappy, tropey racial harmony parable that I've had more than enough of.
"Tolkien" - I think the marketing campaign borrowing so much from Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" films is what really turned me off from this. It's another literary biopic that draws parallels between the life of the profiled author and the books they would go on to write. There was an earlier project announced a few years ago that would have dramatized the friendship between Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, but that one didn't go forward, to my disappointment. This one reportedly sticks to Tolkien's early years, and seems to have been roundly ignored by everyone as a bore.
"Dragged Across Concrete" - I've watched only one of S. Craig Zahler's previous films, "Brawl in Cell Block 99," and I'm not ready for another one. Zahler makes very violent, very gory films that push boundaries and delight in making viewers uncomfortable. "Dragged Across Concrete" has gotten decent reviews, and I'm usually a fan of crime and heist films, but I am extremely wary of this one. The content is way out of my comfort zone, the pace is reportedly slow, and the running time is over two and a half hours. Good luck to Mel with the comeback, but I'm not subjecting myself to this.
"Good Boys" - I'm sure this is a good film, however, it's one of those coming-of age comedies full of R-rated content that I just find tedious. Writer/Directors Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky's credits include "The Office" and "Hello, Ladies," and I've liked lead actor Jacob Tremblay in everything I've seen him in. However, the prospect of watching a trio of profane sixth grade boys getting into escapades just fills me with utter disinterest. I'm happy that it made a lot of money and made a case for more original comedies, but I am not the audience for this film and I'm perfectly okay with that.
"Midway" - I do like a good Roland Emmerich disaster film, and this one didn't get horrible reviews. They were bad, but not horrible. The movie was a crowd pleaser and did well. However, I've watched an awful lot of epic war films from the '60s and '70s recently, and I can't muster up any enthusiasm for this one. I haven't seen the original "Midway" from 1976, which wasn't a particularly well received film to begin with, and notoriously reused footage from other films. The big draw of that film was an all-star cast, and the best "Midway" can come up with is Patrick Wilson and a Jonas brother.
"The Aeronauts" - Director Tom Harper made another film last year that I really enjoyed, "Wild Rose." However, "The Aeronauts" stars Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones, two actors I haven't had the best luck with in recent years. A movie with the two of them alone in a balloon for ninety minutes, even if it was an action adventure flick, sounded rough. A major red flag is that the film was designed for IMAX and positioned as a prestige film, but critical interest has been absolutely nil. This sounds an awful lot like a repeat of "The Walk," the underwhelming Philippe Petit film.
---
Wednesday, July 15, 2020
My Top Ten Films of 1965
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.
The Agony and the Ecstasy - Like most costume dramas of the era, "The Agony and the Ecstasy" was designed to be a spectacle. However, this one had more high-minded ambitions with its documentary elements and art history framing device. It also, unexpectedly, featured an unlikely comic duo in the form of Charlton Heston's Michelangelo and Rex Harrison's impatient Pope Julius II. Critics of the time complained about its relatively slow pace, but the film certainly got across the grand scope of Michelangelo's passionate ambitions and the enduring beauty of his creative accomplishments.
Bunny Lake Is Missing - Otto Preminger was an eclectic director, but his real forte was a good psychological thriller. "Bunny Lake" is one of his best in this vein, hiding the psychopath in plain sight and wringing chills out of very simple situations and environments. Preminger's London, shot in black and white, is a cold and alienating place. He's able to make familiar playground equipment look sinister, and children's rhymes sound absolutely monstrous. And even so many decades later, his cat-and-mouse games are perfectly played, and still able to generate plenty of visceral tension and terror.
The Collector - An absorbing thriller that achieves maximum emotional effectiveness by letting its horror premise play out very slowly. A madman kidnapping a girl and holding her in captivity is a familiar plot, but seeing how the characters' relationship develops over days and weeks proves absolutely enthralling. It's impossible not to pity Terrence Stamp's deeply disturbed criminal, even as we're also rooting for Susan Eggar to escape from his clutches. I especially admire the film's restraint in using fairly limited violence and treating the subject matter seriously. The tragedy hits so much harder as a result.
For a Few Dollars More - The second film of Sergio Leone's influential "Dollars" trilogy is my favorite for its simmering revenge story and particular mix of performances. I like Lee Van Cleef better as a shady good guy, and partnered up with Clint Eastwood's nameless bounty hunter. Klaus Kinski has a memorable supporting turn as the hunchback, and Gian Maria Volonte is a perfectly despicable villain. I confess that spaghetti westerns aren't generally to my taste, but this one has strong characters, and a satisfying story with a good emotional throughline. Also, I love the Ennio Morricone score.
Le Bonheur - Agnes Varda presents a portrait of lovely domestic bliss, full of warmth and color and brightness. Then she digs into the relationship of the main protagonists, showing how the couple's happiness is predicated on totally different assumptions - and a completely unequal power dynamic that renders one of them easily expendable. The verdant aesthetic choicess paired up with a troubling narrative generate some stirring proto-feminist vibes. Of all of Varda's films, this is easily her most effective example of style conveying message, and most cinematically exuberant and beautiful.
The Knack ...and How to Get It - A Richard Lester romp that functions as an experimental film, a sex comedy, a satire on gender relations, and a snapshot of the British sexual revolution. Coming on the heels of "A Hard Day's Night," "The Knack" makes use of sketch humor, absurdity, farce, and a good amount of camera trickery. Following the exploits of two would-be lotharios, the film is still remarkably relevant for its biting depiction of the male id and the eternal search for easy gratification. Full of energy and youthful verve, it always moves quickly and never seems to run short on ideas or irreverence.
Red Beard - Akira Kurosawa made a medical drama starring Toshiro Mifune, their last great collaboration before they famously fell out. It's humanist drama of the highest order, instilling lessons about medical ethics and social responsibility to our protagonist, an arrogant younger doctor with lofty ambitions. Episodic in structure, and sprawling in construction, the film unfolds like a great novel, telling smaller human stories that all illustrate a common theme. And Mifune's Akahige is one of cinema's great medical curmudgeons. He's as effective here as he is in any of his samurai and warrior roles.
Repulsion - My favorite Roman Polanski film is an unusually intense psychological thriller about a girl in isolation who becomes mentally unhinged. Catherine Deneuve delivers a great performance that turned her into an international star, but the real fireworks came from Polanski's depiction of her character's deteriorating psyche through physical manifestations - the corridor of hands, the cracks in the walls, and of course the sinister strangers at the door. The mixture of horror and fantasy imagery, the art direction, and the soundscapes were groundbreaking at the time of release, and still raise chills today.
The Saragossa Manuscript - This Polish fantasy film has a gimmick that has almost never been repeated - nesting multiple stories within one another in a Russian doll structure. The stories themselves are simple and unspectacular - mostly based on medieval folk tales - but there's something uniquely gratifying about seeing them told in this manner. The finale where we reach a long string of payoffs, one after another, delivers its own special kind of thrill. Director Wojciech Has was known for his Surrealist ideas and use of dream logic, which is reflected by this beautifully executed experiment in cinema.
The Sound of Music - Finally, one of the great movie musicals ever made is "Sound of Music," with Julie Andrews at the height of her musical powers, and a Rodgers and Hammerstein soundtrack that remains iconic. It's the prime example of a stage musical that was vastly improved by its adaptation to the big screen. Shooting much of the film in Salzburg and the Alps breathed so much life into the production. The beautifully staged musical numbers, the greatly expanded score, and several darker interludes all serve to make "Sound of Music" a far more resonant and joyously vital film experience.
---
The Agony and the Ecstasy - Like most costume dramas of the era, "The Agony and the Ecstasy" was designed to be a spectacle. However, this one had more high-minded ambitions with its documentary elements and art history framing device. It also, unexpectedly, featured an unlikely comic duo in the form of Charlton Heston's Michelangelo and Rex Harrison's impatient Pope Julius II. Critics of the time complained about its relatively slow pace, but the film certainly got across the grand scope of Michelangelo's passionate ambitions and the enduring beauty of his creative accomplishments.
Bunny Lake Is Missing - Otto Preminger was an eclectic director, but his real forte was a good psychological thriller. "Bunny Lake" is one of his best in this vein, hiding the psychopath in plain sight and wringing chills out of very simple situations and environments. Preminger's London, shot in black and white, is a cold and alienating place. He's able to make familiar playground equipment look sinister, and children's rhymes sound absolutely monstrous. And even so many decades later, his cat-and-mouse games are perfectly played, and still able to generate plenty of visceral tension and terror.
The Collector - An absorbing thriller that achieves maximum emotional effectiveness by letting its horror premise play out very slowly. A madman kidnapping a girl and holding her in captivity is a familiar plot, but seeing how the characters' relationship develops over days and weeks proves absolutely enthralling. It's impossible not to pity Terrence Stamp's deeply disturbed criminal, even as we're also rooting for Susan Eggar to escape from his clutches. I especially admire the film's restraint in using fairly limited violence and treating the subject matter seriously. The tragedy hits so much harder as a result.
For a Few Dollars More - The second film of Sergio Leone's influential "Dollars" trilogy is my favorite for its simmering revenge story and particular mix of performances. I like Lee Van Cleef better as a shady good guy, and partnered up with Clint Eastwood's nameless bounty hunter. Klaus Kinski has a memorable supporting turn as the hunchback, and Gian Maria Volonte is a perfectly despicable villain. I confess that spaghetti westerns aren't generally to my taste, but this one has strong characters, and a satisfying story with a good emotional throughline. Also, I love the Ennio Morricone score.
Le Bonheur - Agnes Varda presents a portrait of lovely domestic bliss, full of warmth and color and brightness. Then she digs into the relationship of the main protagonists, showing how the couple's happiness is predicated on totally different assumptions - and a completely unequal power dynamic that renders one of them easily expendable. The verdant aesthetic choicess paired up with a troubling narrative generate some stirring proto-feminist vibes. Of all of Varda's films, this is easily her most effective example of style conveying message, and most cinematically exuberant and beautiful.
The Knack ...and How to Get It - A Richard Lester romp that functions as an experimental film, a sex comedy, a satire on gender relations, and a snapshot of the British sexual revolution. Coming on the heels of "A Hard Day's Night," "The Knack" makes use of sketch humor, absurdity, farce, and a good amount of camera trickery. Following the exploits of two would-be lotharios, the film is still remarkably relevant for its biting depiction of the male id and the eternal search for easy gratification. Full of energy and youthful verve, it always moves quickly and never seems to run short on ideas or irreverence.
Red Beard - Akira Kurosawa made a medical drama starring Toshiro Mifune, their last great collaboration before they famously fell out. It's humanist drama of the highest order, instilling lessons about medical ethics and social responsibility to our protagonist, an arrogant younger doctor with lofty ambitions. Episodic in structure, and sprawling in construction, the film unfolds like a great novel, telling smaller human stories that all illustrate a common theme. And Mifune's Akahige is one of cinema's great medical curmudgeons. He's as effective here as he is in any of his samurai and warrior roles.
Repulsion - My favorite Roman Polanski film is an unusually intense psychological thriller about a girl in isolation who becomes mentally unhinged. Catherine Deneuve delivers a great performance that turned her into an international star, but the real fireworks came from Polanski's depiction of her character's deteriorating psyche through physical manifestations - the corridor of hands, the cracks in the walls, and of course the sinister strangers at the door. The mixture of horror and fantasy imagery, the art direction, and the soundscapes were groundbreaking at the time of release, and still raise chills today.
The Saragossa Manuscript - This Polish fantasy film has a gimmick that has almost never been repeated - nesting multiple stories within one another in a Russian doll structure. The stories themselves are simple and unspectacular - mostly based on medieval folk tales - but there's something uniquely gratifying about seeing them told in this manner. The finale where we reach a long string of payoffs, one after another, delivers its own special kind of thrill. Director Wojciech Has was known for his Surrealist ideas and use of dream logic, which is reflected by this beautifully executed experiment in cinema.
The Sound of Music - Finally, one of the great movie musicals ever made is "Sound of Music," with Julie Andrews at the height of her musical powers, and a Rodgers and Hammerstein soundtrack that remains iconic. It's the prime example of a stage musical that was vastly improved by its adaptation to the big screen. Shooting much of the film in Salzburg and the Alps breathed so much life into the production. The beautifully staged musical numbers, the greatly expanded score, and several darker interludes all serve to make "Sound of Music" a far more resonant and joyously vital film experience.
---
Monday, July 13, 2020
The Atypical "Tales From the Loop"
Trying to describe "Tales From the Loop," the new science-fiction series from Amazon Prime, it's easy to draw comparisons to other genre media. The core concepts are familiar - mysterious devices allow people to travel through time, body-swap, create artificial life forms, etc. However, we rarely see these stories told quite like this. Instead of action spectacle or queasy horror, "Tale From the Loop" uses its concepts for meditative humanist melodrama. It's slow paced and introspective to the point where many viewers will find it tedious - "The Twilight Zone" by way of "The Leftovers." However, it captures a certain mood of melancholy and wonder that is very rare to see in current sci-fi. I found myself drawing connections to the more contemplative episodes of "Neon Genesis Evangelion" and Ray Bradbury's "Dandelion Wine."
Created and written by Nathaniel Halpern, and based on the books and paintings of Simon Stålenhag, "Tales From the Loop" takes place in the town of Mercer, Ohio, some time in the early '80s. It's an alternate universe, where we see robots and massive, ominous infrastructure all over the landscape, often standing in stark contrast to the scenes of nostalgic, small town American life. The show is set up in an anthology format of interconnected stories. Many of them center around the Willard family. Paterfamilias Russ (Jonathan Pryce) is the creator of the Loop, an underground facility responsible for all the technical wonders we see throughout the show. His son George (Paul Schneider) and George's wife Loretta (Rebecca Hall) are both employed there, and it's expected their teenage son Jakob (Daniel Zohlgadri) and younger son Cole (Duncan Joiner) will follow in their footsteps. We also spend some time with Jakob's friend Danny Jansson (Tyler Barnhardt) and his family - father Ed (Dan Bakkedahl), mother Kate (Lauren Weedman), and younger sister Beth (Alessandra de Sa Pereira). Other key characters include a security guard, Gaddis (Ato Essandoh), and a girl named May (Nicole Law) who is good with machines.
What initially got me interested in the show was it's roster of accomplished directors - including Mark Romanek, Jodie Foster, Andrew Stanton, Ti West, Charlie McDowell, and So Yong Kim. It also features a delicate, moody score from Philip Glass and Paul Leonard-Morgan, helping to sustain the show's very particular, quiet atmosphere. "Tales From the Loop" is not always quiet, with some of its stories involving wilderness survival, robot battles, and misadventures in home security. However, the pacing here is much slower than the average genre show, and much more intensely focused in the characters' emotional lives. The purpose and function of the Loop isn't the point of the show - in fact, nobody ever really talks about what goes on there. Most of the stories involve characters accidentally coming across pieces of tech detritus or abandoned projects that somehow still retain certain reality-bending properties. The origins are never explained. It's what the characters decide to do with these phenomena, or how they are affected by them, that the show's creators are interested in.
So, encountering a canister that freezes time helps illuminate the faults of a girl who embarks on a bittersweet romance. And the episode where a grieving technician buys a towering mecha is really about the man's paranoia and feelings of loss of control. The metaphors and allegories aren't subtle, and sometimes the style is laid on awfully thick, but I like the show's commitment to telling these very human, very existential stories. And while the show wants viewers to think and engage with the material, it mostly wants them to feel and empathize with the protagonists - their loneliness, guilt, regret, and yearning. I found the most affecting stories are the ones where the fantastical elements simply create a profound change, and then the characters are left to grapple with consequences as best they can.
"Tales From the Loop" is a gorgeous series, and often feels like it's pushing back against the visual status quo of years of cyberpunk and dystopian futures. The community is very Small Town, surrounded by woods and nature and plenty of open spaces. All the tech we see, even the impossible stuff, tends to look very clunky, industrial, and retro-futurist. I was struck by '80s anime influences in the design more than once. It's a beautiful show, with high production values and a lot of thoughtful cinematography. The performances are mostly good, though there are some weaker actors among the kids. The writing, however, is consistently impressive. The worldbuilding is slow, but methodical, and does a good job of knowing how much information to relay, and what viewers can puzzle out by themselves.
This is not a show for everyone, but I appreciate its novelty and its ambitions. It's a show about reflection rather than action, and for those who connect with it, it'll be a difficult one to forget.
---
Created and written by Nathaniel Halpern, and based on the books and paintings of Simon Stålenhag, "Tales From the Loop" takes place in the town of Mercer, Ohio, some time in the early '80s. It's an alternate universe, where we see robots and massive, ominous infrastructure all over the landscape, often standing in stark contrast to the scenes of nostalgic, small town American life. The show is set up in an anthology format of interconnected stories. Many of them center around the Willard family. Paterfamilias Russ (Jonathan Pryce) is the creator of the Loop, an underground facility responsible for all the technical wonders we see throughout the show. His son George (Paul Schneider) and George's wife Loretta (Rebecca Hall) are both employed there, and it's expected their teenage son Jakob (Daniel Zohlgadri) and younger son Cole (Duncan Joiner) will follow in their footsteps. We also spend some time with Jakob's friend Danny Jansson (Tyler Barnhardt) and his family - father Ed (Dan Bakkedahl), mother Kate (Lauren Weedman), and younger sister Beth (Alessandra de Sa Pereira). Other key characters include a security guard, Gaddis (Ato Essandoh), and a girl named May (Nicole Law) who is good with machines.
What initially got me interested in the show was it's roster of accomplished directors - including Mark Romanek, Jodie Foster, Andrew Stanton, Ti West, Charlie McDowell, and So Yong Kim. It also features a delicate, moody score from Philip Glass and Paul Leonard-Morgan, helping to sustain the show's very particular, quiet atmosphere. "Tales From the Loop" is not always quiet, with some of its stories involving wilderness survival, robot battles, and misadventures in home security. However, the pacing here is much slower than the average genre show, and much more intensely focused in the characters' emotional lives. The purpose and function of the Loop isn't the point of the show - in fact, nobody ever really talks about what goes on there. Most of the stories involve characters accidentally coming across pieces of tech detritus or abandoned projects that somehow still retain certain reality-bending properties. The origins are never explained. It's what the characters decide to do with these phenomena, or how they are affected by them, that the show's creators are interested in.
So, encountering a canister that freezes time helps illuminate the faults of a girl who embarks on a bittersweet romance. And the episode where a grieving technician buys a towering mecha is really about the man's paranoia and feelings of loss of control. The metaphors and allegories aren't subtle, and sometimes the style is laid on awfully thick, but I like the show's commitment to telling these very human, very existential stories. And while the show wants viewers to think and engage with the material, it mostly wants them to feel and empathize with the protagonists - their loneliness, guilt, regret, and yearning. I found the most affecting stories are the ones where the fantastical elements simply create a profound change, and then the characters are left to grapple with consequences as best they can.
"Tales From the Loop" is a gorgeous series, and often feels like it's pushing back against the visual status quo of years of cyberpunk and dystopian futures. The community is very Small Town, surrounded by woods and nature and plenty of open spaces. All the tech we see, even the impossible stuff, tends to look very clunky, industrial, and retro-futurist. I was struck by '80s anime influences in the design more than once. It's a beautiful show, with high production values and a lot of thoughtful cinematography. The performances are mostly good, though there are some weaker actors among the kids. The writing, however, is consistently impressive. The worldbuilding is slow, but methodical, and does a good job of knowing how much information to relay, and what viewers can puzzle out by themselves.
This is not a show for everyone, but I appreciate its novelty and its ambitions. It's a show about reflection rather than action, and for those who connect with it, it'll be a difficult one to forget.
---
Saturday, July 11, 2020
Why Did I Watch "Tiger King?"
I don't know if I've ever seen a piece of pop culture so immediately, and unexpectedly embraced by the mainstream media as Netflix's true crime documentary "Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem, and Madness." It feels like right about when everything got locked down because of Covid-19, I started seeing references to Joe Exotic and jokes about Carole Baskin's missing husband everywhere.
So, I went and watched the full seven hour miniseries, about Joe Exotic and the other eccentrics who maintain menageries of exotic pets, notably those obsessed with big cats like lions and tigers. Joe is, frankly, a charismatic scumbag, running a sketchy private zoo in Oklahoma that he's recruited a gang of misfits to help maintain. Throughout the series, he exploits and mistreats everyone around him, including his beloved cats. He's also a massive narcissist and attention-seeker, which makes him very entertaining to watch. Joe cultivates a wild persona - redneck, gay, polygamist, gun-toting showman. We watch him constantly filming himself, hoping to become a country music singer, a reality star or a politician. He also proves to be dangerously unstable, keeping up a feud with conservationist Carole Baskin for years, before finally hiring someone to kill her.
Carole, of course, is no angel. The show's third episode is devoted to the suspicious disappearance of her millionaire husband. And there are plenty of other reprobates on the show. Doc Antle, another big cat collector and Joe's mentor, essentially runs a sex cult. Jeff Lowe, a swinger and businessman, is a shady felon and probable swindler. Joe's crew of drug addicts, amputees, and weirdos are alternately alarming and endearing. However, none of these people, and none of their animals, are as fascinating as Joe Exotic - real name Joe Schreibvogel. Episode after episode, it's one outrageous thing after another. He gets hitched to two men at the same time. He runs for president, then governor, with a Wal-Mart manager running his campaigns. He devotes episodes of his internet show to all the ways he'd like to kill Carole Baskin. Predictably, his zookeeping career, personal life, and legal troubles all blow up by the final episode.
Netflix has distributed a lot of these true crime documentary series, in the wake of "Making a Murderer." "Tiger KIng" follows roughly the same format, except there's so much more concentrated crazy. I don't think it's put together all that well - the episode actually detailing what Joe did to land himself in prison feels rushed and the sequence of events is difficult to follow. There's a lot of selective editing going on, and plenty of convenient omissions. The subject matter, however, is irresistible. This nutty subculture of big cat enthusiasts, and all of these colorful, larger-than-life personalities, are impossible to oversell. Everything from the depiction of heinous animal trafficking to little details like Joe's husband's tattoos are prime stranger-than-fiction material. It doesn't remotely surprise me that there are already feature film adaptations in the works.
"Tiger King" falls squarely into the category of trashy reality television like "Honey Boo Boo" and "Jersey Shore." This time around, however, there's no pretending that everyone involved isn't a walking disaster. The documentary format and true crime framing might give it a few more respectable bona fides, but the creators are well aware that anyone watching is there to gawk at Joe Exotic, who was already a minor celebrity in Oklahoma because of his political aspirations. There are a few nods toward supporting conservation efforts and doing better by the big cats featured in the show, but this takes a backseat to the constant drama being played up by the series - often with the full support of its subjects.
And watching the American public embrace "Tiger King" has left me with very mixed feelings. Joe Exotic is getting his fifteen minutes of fame. Carole Baskin is getting vilified, largely because she makes for an easy antagonist and scapegoat. If the series were edited to be seen from her point of view, it would be very different and probably not so successful. "Tiger King" perfectly reflects certain uncomfortable parts of the American psyche that love a good freak show, and while I don't regret watching it, it's left me wondering exactly why I jumped on the bandwagon too.
---
Thursday, July 9, 2020
The 2020 Blackface Post
In the wake of the recent protests and the gains made by the Black Lives Matter movement, there's been a major reexamination of media content standards related to depictions of race. It started with the retirement of Aunt Jemima, and quickly swept through other parts of the cultural landscape. Several prominent pieces of media have been affected. The most high profile one may have been the temporary removal of "Gone With the Wind" from various online platforms so that a notice about historically insensitive portrayals of black people could be tacked on to the beginning. However, more under the radar has been the quiet removal of several television episodes with instances of blackface.
Examples include episodes of "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia," "30 Rock," "The Office," "Scrubs," "Community," and even an episode of "The Golden Girls," where the ill-timed application of a facial treatment causes an embarrassing misunderstanding. The Brits have taken down episodes of "The League of Gentlemen," "Little Britain," and "Come Fly With Me," while Australian comic Chris Lilley has seen several of his specials pulled by Netflix. From what I've been able to tell, none of the instances of blackface jokes in the American shows contain the traditional usage of blackface - generally understood to be using blackface to disparage and present a caricatured image of African Americans. It looks like blackface, even if it's not punching down, and even if it's not technically blackface at all, is now totally verboten.
And, frankly, this is a little worrying. The older, problematic forms of blackface mostly disappeared in the US by the end of the forties (a few unfortunate Shakespeare adaptations notwithstanding), but it was still considered okay in a satirical context as long as it followed certain rules. First, the butt of the joke couldn't be African-Americans. Usually, the target was either the deluded/desperate white person wearing the blackface, or ignorant white people who were somehow fooled by the ridiculous application of blackface. The best example of the former is Robert Downey Jr.'s character in "Tropic Thunder," a pompous Australian method actor. Examples of the latter include "Silver Streak," "Trading Places," and "Krippendorf's Tribe." Second, just to be safe, you always want an African American actor in close proximity to emphasize that the blackface was absolutely not okay, and to drop lines like "What do *you* mean, 'you people'?"
The television episodes currently being benched mostly follow those rules. The "Community" joke, for instance, involves a Chinese character who paints himself completely black to play a Dark Elf in a Dungeons and Dragons game. Both an African American character, Shirley, and an old white guy character, Pierce, mistakenly think he's in blackface, and their reactions drive home the point that blackface in any situation is not okay. The appearance of blackface in "The Office" was meant to criticize the continued use of the blackface Zwarte Piet character in the Netherlands. "Always Sunny" toes it closest to the line, having several episodes that feature outrageous ethnic stereotypes, and the blackface is used for their spoofs of the "Lethal Weapon" franchise. The joke is that all the characters are horrible reprobates, and would be the type to argue in favor of blackface.
And yet, while you can make plenty of defenses and excuses for the use of blackface in these shows, in the end I'm not convinced that it outweighs the potential harms. There are always going to be those ignoramuses out there who don't understand the nuances or misinterpret the joke entirely. From the reactions and discussions involving some of the talent that created these shows, clearly not everyone was comfortable with using blackface to begin with. Most of these shows use blackface for shock value more than anything, and aren't great at addressing the race issues that they stir up. Spike Lee's "Bamboozled" and a very unsubtle episode of "Gimme a Break" are the only pieces of media that I can remember that have taken the trouble to show the actual harm that blackface does. And yes, in 2020 the harm is still very real.
I love "Community," and I'm not going to be bothered much if we lose the blackface joke. A couple of edits should take care of most of the affected shows. However, there are episodes of "Always Sunny" and "30 Rock" where the blackface is more central to the plots, and their loss will be harder on their fans - though you can still buy the episodes individually through the usual channels. Maybe this will be temporary, and maybe it won't. Maybe there will be more disclaimers. I find it interesting that only sitcoms seem to be affected so far. The "Mad Men" episode featuring Roger Sterling in blackface is still in circulation. The deeply troubling '80s blackface comedy "Soul Man" is still available to rent on Amazon Prime.
Clearly, though, this isn't the end of it. We're already seeing backlash and push back, and I don't think the media reevaluations are anywhere near done yet. Stay tuned.
---
Tuesday, July 7, 2020
Reenergizing "Emma."
Autumn de Wilde has long been a beloved name in music videos, design, and photography. So it's no wonder that her feature film debut looks drop dead gorgeous. It's the latest version of Jane Austen's "Emma," and Austen has never looked quite this lovely, with an emphasis on colorful fashion, ornate set design, and eye-catching architecture. Austen's language remains unchanged, and period details are kept largely intact, but there's no denying that there's a modern attitude to the new "Emma.," which comes on the heels of Greta Gerwig's similarly vibrant "Little Women."
Our heroine Emma Woodhouse (Anya Taylor-Joy) is a Regency era, unmarried young woman who has a terrible habit of meddling with other people's lives. She befriends a girl named Harriet (Mia Goth) of unknown parentage, and hopes to match her up with the vicar, Mr. Elton (Josh O'Connor). Emma is herself interested in the mysterious Frank Weston (Callum Turner), who seems more interested in Emma's rival Jane Fairfax (Amber Anderson). Emma's father (Bill Nighy) lets her do as she likes, but family friend George Knigtley (Johnny Flynn) strongly disapproves of Emma's irresponsible ways.
Of the previous film adaptations of "Emma," I've seen both the Gwyneth Paltrow version and, of course, Amy Heckerling's "Clueless." This one is my favorite, for this particular set of performances and for de Wilde's aesthetic choices. Anya Taylor-Joy's Emma isn't as likeable as her predecessors, her faults more evident and her prejudices put in sharper relief. However, this makes her a better comic figure, and her eventual redemption feels more substantial. I like that in spite of all their splendid trappings, the characters are all portrayed as a little silly and risible. Emma's father is a hypochondriac and neurotic who spends a lot of time combating drafts. Neighbor Miss Bates (Miranda Hart) isn't just a bore, but an emphatic oversharer of tedious gossip. Emma herself is no exception, often the perfect portrait of oblivious privilege.
At the same time, Emma remains an irresistible heroine, a girl with the best of intentions who wants to use her position for the benefit of her friends. She bungles her way through romantic misunderstandings with all the horrified awkwardness of any teenage girl, and there's something so endearing about how she manages to magnify every emotional response - she's genuinely crushed when she realizes that she's hurt other people's feelings. Anya Taylor-Joy channels so much sincerity in her performance that she keeps Emma sympathetic even when she's at her most petty, and her rehabilitation is very satisfying to see play out. A lot of credit should also go to Mia Goth and Johnny Flynn as her most frequent scene partners - Goth in particular is a great comic foil, and it's nice to see her in such a significant role.
But while the actors are fun, the bonnets are to die for. The wardrobe and hair folks achieve some feats of costuming and coiffure that are just magnificent. It's total eye candy for anyone who enjoys a little pastel period spectacle. And these elements are all leaned on heavily for characterization too - witness the unbearable Mrs. Elton (Tanya Reynolds) in her brusque orange dress, or Miss Bates in all those giant lace neck ruffs. You can actually get a good bead on where Emma is emotionally throughout the film by looking at the state of her angelic blonde ringlets.
The architecture and the landscapes are also mighty impressive, and I have to say that it's nice to have a film where it makes sense why everyone keeps talking about each other's houses and estates. These people have portrait galleries! Cloister halls! Lawns for miles! I couldn't keep my eyes off the furniture and the statuary. Even the church looks colorful and glamorous. So if one has no interest in the story of "Emma," I suspect that the style is enough to keep the attention of any viewer all by itself.
In short, I can't believe this is Autumn de Wilde's first go as a feature director. She absolutely must come back and give us her versions of everything else in the Austen canon, and then whatever the hell else she wants. Because, good grief, she's too good at this not to keep directing more films.
---
Our heroine Emma Woodhouse (Anya Taylor-Joy) is a Regency era, unmarried young woman who has a terrible habit of meddling with other people's lives. She befriends a girl named Harriet (Mia Goth) of unknown parentage, and hopes to match her up with the vicar, Mr. Elton (Josh O'Connor). Emma is herself interested in the mysterious Frank Weston (Callum Turner), who seems more interested in Emma's rival Jane Fairfax (Amber Anderson). Emma's father (Bill Nighy) lets her do as she likes, but family friend George Knigtley (Johnny Flynn) strongly disapproves of Emma's irresponsible ways.
Of the previous film adaptations of "Emma," I've seen both the Gwyneth Paltrow version and, of course, Amy Heckerling's "Clueless." This one is my favorite, for this particular set of performances and for de Wilde's aesthetic choices. Anya Taylor-Joy's Emma isn't as likeable as her predecessors, her faults more evident and her prejudices put in sharper relief. However, this makes her a better comic figure, and her eventual redemption feels more substantial. I like that in spite of all their splendid trappings, the characters are all portrayed as a little silly and risible. Emma's father is a hypochondriac and neurotic who spends a lot of time combating drafts. Neighbor Miss Bates (Miranda Hart) isn't just a bore, but an emphatic oversharer of tedious gossip. Emma herself is no exception, often the perfect portrait of oblivious privilege.
At the same time, Emma remains an irresistible heroine, a girl with the best of intentions who wants to use her position for the benefit of her friends. She bungles her way through romantic misunderstandings with all the horrified awkwardness of any teenage girl, and there's something so endearing about how she manages to magnify every emotional response - she's genuinely crushed when she realizes that she's hurt other people's feelings. Anya Taylor-Joy channels so much sincerity in her performance that she keeps Emma sympathetic even when she's at her most petty, and her rehabilitation is very satisfying to see play out. A lot of credit should also go to Mia Goth and Johnny Flynn as her most frequent scene partners - Goth in particular is a great comic foil, and it's nice to see her in such a significant role.
But while the actors are fun, the bonnets are to die for. The wardrobe and hair folks achieve some feats of costuming and coiffure that are just magnificent. It's total eye candy for anyone who enjoys a little pastel period spectacle. And these elements are all leaned on heavily for characterization too - witness the unbearable Mrs. Elton (Tanya Reynolds) in her brusque orange dress, or Miss Bates in all those giant lace neck ruffs. You can actually get a good bead on where Emma is emotionally throughout the film by looking at the state of her angelic blonde ringlets.
The architecture and the landscapes are also mighty impressive, and I have to say that it's nice to have a film where it makes sense why everyone keeps talking about each other's houses and estates. These people have portrait galleries! Cloister halls! Lawns for miles! I couldn't keep my eyes off the furniture and the statuary. Even the church looks colorful and glamorous. So if one has no interest in the story of "Emma," I suspect that the style is enough to keep the attention of any viewer all by itself.
In short, I can't believe this is Autumn de Wilde's first go as a feature director. She absolutely must come back and give us her versions of everything else in the Austen canon, and then whatever the hell else she wants. Because, good grief, she's too good at this not to keep directing more films.
---
Sunday, July 5, 2020
My Top Ten Episodes of "Legion"
I talked myself out of writing a Top Ten list back when "Legion" ended, because there are less than thirty episodes. However, the more I look back on the show, the more I feel that was a mistake. So here's my belated list of favorite episodes from the wildest piece of superhero media we've seen yet.
Chapter 1 - The premiere is a wonderful introduction into the fractured mind of David Haller. We get the first glimpses of his past, but most of the episode is spent on David's relationship with Syd at the Clockworks psychiatric hospital. I love the reveal that David and Syd are actually both mutants in the "X-men" universe, and what their powers are. And that Bollywood style dance sequence is just the right amount of beautifully bizarre.
Chapter 5 - I love the illusory moments of happiness where David and Syd get to interact normally in the little haven that he creates for them. Alas, it comes at a price, including David singing a creepy rendition of "Rainbow Connection," with creepy banjo accompaniment, naturally. We also see more bits and pieces about David's past and abilities being revealed as the villains close in, finally culminating in a fun cliffhanger at the end of the hour.
Chapter 7 - A lot of reveals happen in this episode, notably the chalkboard animations that show us some of David's family history with the Shadow King. There's also the black and white noir sequence, the slow motion Ravel's "Bolero" sequence, more fun in the ice cube on the astral plane, and the Eye finally gets himself squished. Hiro Murai, better known for "Atlanta" and his work with Childish Gambino, directed this episode.
Chapter 9 - The second season opener introduces a whole new slew of weird concepts, from a virus causing paralysis and chattering teeth, to the bizarre Amiral Fukyama and his Vermilion, to a future version of Syd delivering warnings to David. There's also a dance battle, because why wouldn't there be? However, my favorite of this year's new bits is the Narrator, voiced by Jon Hamm, who hosts disturbing educational interludes.
Chapter 12 - We finally get some backstory about Sydney, as David is forced to experience her memories over and older again, including some pretty disturbing episodes. It's also a nice reevaluation of their relationship so far, especially in light of where this season ultimately takes both of them. David may be deeply screwed up, but so is Syd, and in a completely different way. Some of the content is a little disturbing, but it's necessary stuff.
Chapter 13 - One of the things I love about this show is that it's able to pull off some really good twists. My favorite, and one of the most traumatizing in the series, is when it explains how Lenny managed to get a hold of a physical body. This depends entirely on the viewers having forgotten about a major character from the first season, which isn't too difficult because David has totally forgotten about that person too by this point.
Chapter 15 - This is the most action-oriented episode of the show in a while, with David hunting down the ghastly "delusions" that have been set loose on Division 3 by Farouk. It also has some of the biggest pieces of foreshadowing as to how the season is going to play out, with David's power increasing and his attitude toward Syd and other characters. It's David at his most heroic, and ironically also David at his most arrogant and troubling.
Chapter 19 - The second season finale sees the great confrontation between David and the Amahl Farouk finally happen, which is also an amazing musical sequence with animated flourishes. However, it's what happens after the clash that really pays off what everything else in this season has been building up to. David being an unreliable narrator who has been manipulating things in his favor is just the tip of the astral iceberg.
Chapter 20 - The third season opens with a new status quo - David and his hippie-like cultists hiding out, being pursued by Syd and Division 3. Into the mix comes a new character, Switch, who is as metaphysically offbeat as anyone else in the show, but a much snazzier dresser. And then there's the time travel, previously an interesting little conundrum hanging over David's head, and now set to be a much bigger part of this season.
Chapter 23 - The Daniel Kwan directed mixed media phantasmagoria displays the effects of David and Switch meddling with the timeline. Various characters experience time looping, time disappearing, speeding up, or standing still. The freaky time demons are amazing to see in action, and there's a superb fake-out involving "The Shield." This is my pick for the best episode of the series, a great example of the show's creators pushing boundaries.
---
Chapter 1 - The premiere is a wonderful introduction into the fractured mind of David Haller. We get the first glimpses of his past, but most of the episode is spent on David's relationship with Syd at the Clockworks psychiatric hospital. I love the reveal that David and Syd are actually both mutants in the "X-men" universe, and what their powers are. And that Bollywood style dance sequence is just the right amount of beautifully bizarre.
Chapter 5 - I love the illusory moments of happiness where David and Syd get to interact normally in the little haven that he creates for them. Alas, it comes at a price, including David singing a creepy rendition of "Rainbow Connection," with creepy banjo accompaniment, naturally. We also see more bits and pieces about David's past and abilities being revealed as the villains close in, finally culminating in a fun cliffhanger at the end of the hour.
Chapter 7 - A lot of reveals happen in this episode, notably the chalkboard animations that show us some of David's family history with the Shadow King. There's also the black and white noir sequence, the slow motion Ravel's "Bolero" sequence, more fun in the ice cube on the astral plane, and the Eye finally gets himself squished. Hiro Murai, better known for "Atlanta" and his work with Childish Gambino, directed this episode.
Chapter 9 - The second season opener introduces a whole new slew of weird concepts, from a virus causing paralysis and chattering teeth, to the bizarre Amiral Fukyama and his Vermilion, to a future version of Syd delivering warnings to David. There's also a dance battle, because why wouldn't there be? However, my favorite of this year's new bits is the Narrator, voiced by Jon Hamm, who hosts disturbing educational interludes.
Chapter 12 - We finally get some backstory about Sydney, as David is forced to experience her memories over and older again, including some pretty disturbing episodes. It's also a nice reevaluation of their relationship so far, especially in light of where this season ultimately takes both of them. David may be deeply screwed up, but so is Syd, and in a completely different way. Some of the content is a little disturbing, but it's necessary stuff.
Chapter 13 - One of the things I love about this show is that it's able to pull off some really good twists. My favorite, and one of the most traumatizing in the series, is when it explains how Lenny managed to get a hold of a physical body. This depends entirely on the viewers having forgotten about a major character from the first season, which isn't too difficult because David has totally forgotten about that person too by this point.
Chapter 15 - This is the most action-oriented episode of the show in a while, with David hunting down the ghastly "delusions" that have been set loose on Division 3 by Farouk. It also has some of the biggest pieces of foreshadowing as to how the season is going to play out, with David's power increasing and his attitude toward Syd and other characters. It's David at his most heroic, and ironically also David at his most arrogant and troubling.
Chapter 19 - The second season finale sees the great confrontation between David and the Amahl Farouk finally happen, which is also an amazing musical sequence with animated flourishes. However, it's what happens after the clash that really pays off what everything else in this season has been building up to. David being an unreliable narrator who has been manipulating things in his favor is just the tip of the astral iceberg.
Chapter 20 - The third season opens with a new status quo - David and his hippie-like cultists hiding out, being pursued by Syd and Division 3. Into the mix comes a new character, Switch, who is as metaphysically offbeat as anyone else in the show, but a much snazzier dresser. And then there's the time travel, previously an interesting little conundrum hanging over David's head, and now set to be a much bigger part of this season.
Chapter 23 - The Daniel Kwan directed mixed media phantasmagoria displays the effects of David and Switch meddling with the timeline. Various characters experience time looping, time disappearing, speeding up, or standing still. The freaky time demons are amazing to see in action, and there's a superb fake-out involving "The Shield." This is my pick for the best episode of the series, a great example of the show's creators pushing boundaries.
---
Friday, July 3, 2020
"Steven Universe Future" Says Goodbye
After the "Steven Universe" movie aired last year, I thought that there would be a long break before we would see any kind of follow-up. I didn't realize that a sequel series, "Steven Universe Future," was already airing until the final episodes hit Cartoon Network in March. Comprised of twenty ten-minute episodes, "Future" follows the further adventures of Steven Universe, now a sixteen year-old with a driver's license. There's a new theme song, updated graphics, and a boost in animation quality. How is Steven coping with his new powers and life in the wake of saving the universe? Spoiler: he's kinda not.
Everything starts out just peachy with Steven helping to run a school at Little Homeworld, dedicated to restoring shattered Gems and getting them situated with life on Earth. However, the lives of everyone around him are changing rapidly and Steven now has to face a lot of emotional issues that he's been trying to ignore or suppress for too long. Gradually, the stress and anxiety build until Steven is a nervous wreck - a nervous wreck with a lot of power that he's not great at controlling. This comes on very gradually with Steven spending several episodes catching up with his friends first - individual adventures are devoted to Pearl, Garnet, Lapis, Peridot, Jasper, and others. However, once the heavy emotional episodes hit, like Steven discovering several of his friends have made big life changes, or realizing some hard truths about his parents, those hits tend to compound.
Because of its limited scope and the way it's been set up to deliver payoff after payoff to so many of the franchise's story arcs, "Future" really is a must for any fan of "Steven Universe." There's very little filler to speak of, a terrific ongoing set of dilemmas, and plenty of new monsters, fusions, and songs to enjoy. There are a few new characters, and a stealth cameo by Jemaine Clement too. I'm glad that I wrote up my Top Ten list of favorite episodes for "Steven Universe" before watching "Future," because I could have made an entire Top Ten list for "Future" by itself. There's another fabulously traumatic Pearl episode, and a very insightful Greg episode, and one with several members of the Beach City crowd that's awfully bittersweet.
What I've always appreciated most about "Steven Universe" is that it's willing to tackle feelings and emotions so directly, and does a great job of finding fantasy metaphors for difficult situations and growing pains. "Future" finally addresses a lot of the big issues related to Steven's mental and emotional health that have been stewing since the very beginning. He's got a lot of trauma and baggage to work through, and his self-sacrificing nature can actually be harmful - especially when he's run out of enemies to fight and problems to fix. The Big Bad of "Future" is Steven, or rather the unhealthy habits that he's fallen into trying to cope with his extraordinary life as a superpowered half-gem, half-human revolutionary.
Even more importantly, "Future" doesn't solve all of Steven's problems after the big climax and final episode. There's a very distinct end point and resolution, but it's clearly just a first step in Steven's journey to wherever he's going next. The same is true for all of the characters, and if I have any bone to pick with the show, it's that we didn't get more time with my favorites, like Peridot. (Still no fusion, after all this?) And that's perfectly okay because "Future" isn't about redeeming another gem or fighting another outside threat. We get visits and updates on what all the show's regulars are doing, but in the end "Steven Universe Future" is all about Steven.
I'm really going to miss the show. It broke a lot of boundaries and achieved a lot of firsts, but what I love about "Steven Universe" is that it made a case for empathy and understanding over cynicism and aggression whenever it could. There's still a lot of places where the characters could go, but I'm happy with the show ending here. Honestly, it's twenty episodes more than I expected we were going to get, and I'm grateful that everybody got a chance to say goodbye.
---
Everything starts out just peachy with Steven helping to run a school at Little Homeworld, dedicated to restoring shattered Gems and getting them situated with life on Earth. However, the lives of everyone around him are changing rapidly and Steven now has to face a lot of emotional issues that he's been trying to ignore or suppress for too long. Gradually, the stress and anxiety build until Steven is a nervous wreck - a nervous wreck with a lot of power that he's not great at controlling. This comes on very gradually with Steven spending several episodes catching up with his friends first - individual adventures are devoted to Pearl, Garnet, Lapis, Peridot, Jasper, and others. However, once the heavy emotional episodes hit, like Steven discovering several of his friends have made big life changes, or realizing some hard truths about his parents, those hits tend to compound.
Because of its limited scope and the way it's been set up to deliver payoff after payoff to so many of the franchise's story arcs, "Future" really is a must for any fan of "Steven Universe." There's very little filler to speak of, a terrific ongoing set of dilemmas, and plenty of new monsters, fusions, and songs to enjoy. There are a few new characters, and a stealth cameo by Jemaine Clement too. I'm glad that I wrote up my Top Ten list of favorite episodes for "Steven Universe" before watching "Future," because I could have made an entire Top Ten list for "Future" by itself. There's another fabulously traumatic Pearl episode, and a very insightful Greg episode, and one with several members of the Beach City crowd that's awfully bittersweet.
What I've always appreciated most about "Steven Universe" is that it's willing to tackle feelings and emotions so directly, and does a great job of finding fantasy metaphors for difficult situations and growing pains. "Future" finally addresses a lot of the big issues related to Steven's mental and emotional health that have been stewing since the very beginning. He's got a lot of trauma and baggage to work through, and his self-sacrificing nature can actually be harmful - especially when he's run out of enemies to fight and problems to fix. The Big Bad of "Future" is Steven, or rather the unhealthy habits that he's fallen into trying to cope with his extraordinary life as a superpowered half-gem, half-human revolutionary.
Even more importantly, "Future" doesn't solve all of Steven's problems after the big climax and final episode. There's a very distinct end point and resolution, but it's clearly just a first step in Steven's journey to wherever he's going next. The same is true for all of the characters, and if I have any bone to pick with the show, it's that we didn't get more time with my favorites, like Peridot. (Still no fusion, after all this?) And that's perfectly okay because "Future" isn't about redeeming another gem or fighting another outside threat. We get visits and updates on what all the show's regulars are doing, but in the end "Steven Universe Future" is all about Steven.
I'm really going to miss the show. It broke a lot of boundaries and achieved a lot of firsts, but what I love about "Steven Universe" is that it made a case for empathy and understanding over cynicism and aggression whenever it could. There's still a lot of places where the characters could go, but I'm happy with the show ending here. Honestly, it's twenty episodes more than I expected we were going to get, and I'm grateful that everybody got a chance to say goodbye.
---
Wednesday, July 1, 2020
"Star Trek: Picard," Year One
The general rule for "Star Trek" series is that the first season is always something of a mess, trying to work out all the character dynamics and fix inevitable issues with a new format. This is true of "Star Trek: Picard," which is the first "Star Trek" series built around a specific character rather than a place or vessel. It's also very emphatically a sequel to "Star Trek: the Next Generation," bringing back many familiar characters who have been absent from our screens since the '90s. It takes a while, but retired Admiral Jean-Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart) eventually ends up as the leader of a starship crew again, on an unlikely mission to help an old friend.
Largely written by Michael Chabon and Akiva Goldsmith, "Picard" starts out with our hero stewing in retirement at his family vineyard, when he's contacted by a young woman named Dahj (Isa Briones) with a mysterious past and origins. This leads Picard to becoming involved in the search and rescue of Dahj's sister Soji (also Briones), who is being targeted by the Romulan Tal Shiar for reasons unknown. Picard recruits Dr. Jurati (Alison Pill), former Starfleet officer Raffi Musiker (Michelle Hurd), a black market pilot, Chris Rios (Santiago Cabrera), and an old Romulan ally, Elnor (Evan Evagor), to aid in his cause. Opposing them are Narek (Harry Treadaway) and Narissa (Peyton List), Romulan spies who are pretending to work with Starfleet on a secret reclamation project.
The writing, frankly, is all over the place. The individual characters are pretty decent, but they're run through a very contrived series of events that jump from planet to planet, and crisis to crisis to untangle the kind of classic "Trek" conflict that could have been handled in a single episode, and without resorting to a whiz-bang, shoot-em-up ending. However, "Picard" isn't really interested in plot as much as it is with exploring how the familiar "Trek" universe has changed since we last saw it in 2002's "Star Trek: Nemesis," and what some of our old friends have been up to. It's also much less elegant in tone and approach. Like "Discovery," there's a moderate amount of cursing, the Federation is often engaging in morally compromised actions, and there are a lot more sketchy corners of the universe on display. Picard is operating outside of the Federation for most of this adventure, so he's working with a cast of more colorful fringe characters - wayward Raffi, charming ruffian Rios, and refugee Elnor.
And this is all very entertaining. Stewart is noticeably older and more frail, but his Picard is still wonderfully charismatic and easy to root for. The new characters are a motley bunch and don't initially come across very well, but once you get to spend time with them and get to know them, they emerge as a noble and good-hearted bunch. They're ultimately all familiar types, but very "Star Trek" - an eager doctor, a noble alien warrior, a scruffy pilot, and a lost android searching for identity. And some of the performances are excellent, notably Allison Pill as the complicated Jurati, and Santiago Cabrera as Rios - and multiple hologram versions of Rios, each with his own different accent and persona. If "Picard" had been a typical starship-based show, it likely would have avoided a lot of its messy narrative issues. Most of the trouble seems to come from trying to sustain a serialized story over ten installments. There's also a significant amount of screentime given over to Soji, whose story runs parallel to Picard's for several episodes. She gets better as the series rolls along, but the first few shows with her and the Romulans are pretty rough.
"Picard" strikes me as a good premise with wildly uneven execution, and a lot of potential for better down the road. Significant time and resources were spent making the world of "Picard" look impressive, which would have been better spent tightening up the scripting. There's an awful lot of reliance on spectacle over thoughtful problem solving, making "Picard" feel more like a "Trek" film than a series. I think it's absolutely worth a watch if you're a '90s "Trek" fan like I am, because all the callbacks and nostalgic bits are handled very nicely. The writers lay on the sentiment a little thick, but it feels earned and appropriate. And while the show has its share of dodgy dialogue, subpar performances, terrible cheats, and plot holes, it also delivers some memorable high points and a measure of emotional closure that "Nemesis" never gave us.
Oh, and minor spoiler, but "Voyager" fans should also definitely take a look.
---
Largely written by Michael Chabon and Akiva Goldsmith, "Picard" starts out with our hero stewing in retirement at his family vineyard, when he's contacted by a young woman named Dahj (Isa Briones) with a mysterious past and origins. This leads Picard to becoming involved in the search and rescue of Dahj's sister Soji (also Briones), who is being targeted by the Romulan Tal Shiar for reasons unknown. Picard recruits Dr. Jurati (Alison Pill), former Starfleet officer Raffi Musiker (Michelle Hurd), a black market pilot, Chris Rios (Santiago Cabrera), and an old Romulan ally, Elnor (Evan Evagor), to aid in his cause. Opposing them are Narek (Harry Treadaway) and Narissa (Peyton List), Romulan spies who are pretending to work with Starfleet on a secret reclamation project.
The writing, frankly, is all over the place. The individual characters are pretty decent, but they're run through a very contrived series of events that jump from planet to planet, and crisis to crisis to untangle the kind of classic "Trek" conflict that could have been handled in a single episode, and without resorting to a whiz-bang, shoot-em-up ending. However, "Picard" isn't really interested in plot as much as it is with exploring how the familiar "Trek" universe has changed since we last saw it in 2002's "Star Trek: Nemesis," and what some of our old friends have been up to. It's also much less elegant in tone and approach. Like "Discovery," there's a moderate amount of cursing, the Federation is often engaging in morally compromised actions, and there are a lot more sketchy corners of the universe on display. Picard is operating outside of the Federation for most of this adventure, so he's working with a cast of more colorful fringe characters - wayward Raffi, charming ruffian Rios, and refugee Elnor.
And this is all very entertaining. Stewart is noticeably older and more frail, but his Picard is still wonderfully charismatic and easy to root for. The new characters are a motley bunch and don't initially come across very well, but once you get to spend time with them and get to know them, they emerge as a noble and good-hearted bunch. They're ultimately all familiar types, but very "Star Trek" - an eager doctor, a noble alien warrior, a scruffy pilot, and a lost android searching for identity. And some of the performances are excellent, notably Allison Pill as the complicated Jurati, and Santiago Cabrera as Rios - and multiple hologram versions of Rios, each with his own different accent and persona. If "Picard" had been a typical starship-based show, it likely would have avoided a lot of its messy narrative issues. Most of the trouble seems to come from trying to sustain a serialized story over ten installments. There's also a significant amount of screentime given over to Soji, whose story runs parallel to Picard's for several episodes. She gets better as the series rolls along, but the first few shows with her and the Romulans are pretty rough.
"Picard" strikes me as a good premise with wildly uneven execution, and a lot of potential for better down the road. Significant time and resources were spent making the world of "Picard" look impressive, which would have been better spent tightening up the scripting. There's an awful lot of reliance on spectacle over thoughtful problem solving, making "Picard" feel more like a "Trek" film than a series. I think it's absolutely worth a watch if you're a '90s "Trek" fan like I am, because all the callbacks and nostalgic bits are handled very nicely. The writers lay on the sentiment a little thick, but it feels earned and appropriate. And while the show has its share of dodgy dialogue, subpar performances, terrible cheats, and plot holes, it also delivers some memorable high points and a measure of emotional closure that "Nemesis" never gave us.
Oh, and minor spoiler, but "Voyager" fans should also definitely take a look.
---
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
