Finally, "No Time to Die"

Minor spoilers ahead.

This is the last Daniel Craig James Bond movie, and presumably the last of the serialized run of films that has more or less followed the same timeline since "Casino Royale" in 2006.  After many rounds of behind-the-scenes drama, months of delay due to the pandemic, and half of the rights to the Bond franchise being sold off to Amazon, we're finally getting the last chapter in this era of James Bond, and I'm happy to report that it was worth the wait.

Some may balk at the 163 minute running time, but there's a lot of ground to cover in this adventure, and Bond has accumulated quite the collection of supporting characters during Craig's tenure, and everyone's back in some capacity - Ralph Fiennes as M, Ben Whishaw as Q, Naomie Harris as Moneypenny, Jeffrey Wright as Felix Leiter, and of course Bond's love interest from "Spectre," Dr. Madeleine Swann, played by Lea Seydoux.  New characters include a CIA operative, Paloma, played by Ana de Armas, a new double-O agent, Nomi, played by Lashana Lynch, and the new villain, Safin, played by Rami Malek in sinister scenery chewing mode.  Oh, and keep an eye out for David Dencik, Billy Magnussen, Dali Benssalah, and Rory Kinnear in minor roles.

Cary Joji Fukunaga is the director who ultimately ended up at the helm of this film, and he happily puts his visual mark on the it, orchestrating all manner of fancy action, impressive cinematography, and breathless globetrotting.  It also breaks from form in some intriguing ways, with opening and ending sequences that focus on Madeleine rather than Bond.  At the same time, there are more little nods and concessions to the familiar Bond formula that the Craig films have often taken pains to avoid.  There's more humor in this installment, including at least one classic groaner of a post-kill pun.  The gadgetry is a little more gadgety.  James Bond is technically retired from MI6 at the beginning of the story, but his relationships with M, Q, and Moneypenny are comfortably familiar.  I love the playful touches in the editing and shot compositions, and an ambitious one-take sequence late in the third act.

     

What really sets the film apart, however, is that it's so committed to being a grand finale, in a way that "Spectre" didn't, which is probably a big reason why that film was such a disappointment.  "No Time to Die" is a film about Bond's personal relationships and his emotional journey to the extent that it makes everything else secondary.  I like that Craig's Bond really is a serial monogamist who is not only capable of falling in love, but who is deeply affected by his love and loss to the point that it makes him something of a tragic figure.  I'm sure that the ending is going to be controversial, but it's the right one for this film and for this character.  It's not afraid to break your heart.

Unfortunately, this means that Safrin and his maniacal plot ends up rather underdeveloped.  Rami Malek isn't bad in the role, but he's playing the kind of slightly ridiculous Roger Moore era villain that has his own island lair and some nutty fashion choices.  Tonally, they make it work, but Safrin just isn't the right villain for this conflict, and the mechanics of how he achieves his villainy are remarkably lazy and unlikely if you think too hard about them.  Fortunately, the film works perfectly fine from scene to scene, so this isn't too much of a handicap.

After watching so many action films during the pandemic that had reduced or heavily compromised productions, it's so good to see a full-throated action spectacular that has the resources to really go for broke.  Though it's a small part of "No Time to Die," there's a sequence in Cuba with Ana de Armas as Bond's temporary partner, Paloma, that is absolutely exquisite old school Bond, from the humor to the style to the particular energy of the action.  The film is silly on its face, as Bond always is to some degree, but it's just a joy to see play out.

And I am going to miss this Bond, despite all his ups and downs.  I can't think of this franchise without this set of characters anymore, and I wouldn't have minded a few more films with them.  But this sendoff is about the most fitting I could imagine, and I'm glad to finally see it.

---

The Youtube Essay Recs, 2021

I've found myself becoming a fan of more and more Youtube essayists over the past year or so, and many of their videos have gotten longer and longer over time to the point where I'm watching what are essentially feature length documentaries and thinkpieces.  I thought it was high time I devoted a post to these, which may become a continuing series.    While most of these videos relate directly to media analysis and media criticism, others are more tangential.  The last few months in particular have made it clear to me that I am now one of the Olds, and falling way behind when it comes to the state of online media - which I don't feel the need to truly participate in, but I do feel it's necessary for me to keep up to date with, just so I can understand and discuss media in any kind of socially relevant way.

Here are the videos that I've found the most helpful in parsing just what the hell has been going on in the last year:

Folding Ideas: In Search of a Flat Earth - The rise of the QAnon conspiracy over the past few years has been one of the more frightening aspects of recent American history.  Dan Olson addresses the topic of conspiracy theories, very gently at first, conducting his own experiment to find the curvature of the Earth, before moving on to grapple with the minds of Flat Earthers.  And then the QAnon adherents.  And the right wing insurrectionists.  And it's absolutely terrifying. 

Sarah Z: Fandom's Biggest Controversy - Proshippers vs Antis - Oh boy.  The media fandom ecosystem Sarah Z discusses used to be my old stomping grounds in the early 2000s.  I got off this train ages ago, but even then I could see the trouble on the horizon as some of these more traditionally transgressive subcultures were on a collision course with the emerging moral absolutists as media fandom became more visible.  Sarah Z presents a nice primer on the latest terminology and the latest round of clashes, plus discussion of a shiny new (ish) generational divide.  Fun!    

Brows Held High: Starship Troopers - Fair warning that this is a three part series that totals well over four hours altogether.  Grappling with a piece of problematic media that still has so much to say is very familiar territory for me, but the level of scrutiny that Kyle Kallgren achieves is wild.  He discusses both the film and the book "Starship Troopers," the work of director Paul Verhoeven, Dutch culture, Dutch language, and Kallgren's own experiences living as an expat in the Netherlands for several years.  It's deeply personal, often uncomfortable, and tremendously rewarding when Kallgren finally starts tying all the disparate threads together.  

CJ the X: Bo Burnham vs. Jeff Bezos - So, here's someone else who fell down the same Bo Burnham rabbit hole that I did over the summer.  He uses Burnham's work and interviews to look at transhumanism, runamok capitalism, meme culture, and the soul-sucking performative nature of social media that has been making everybody's lives miserable.  CJ's combative, funny, and unflinching exploration of these topics is as entertaining as it is alarming.   And I love that he finds a light at the end of the tunnel and takes the trouble to ask and answer the big question: Are you happy?  

Dave Chapelle Only Tells Half the Truth - There were a couple of F.D. Signifier videos I could have put here, but after the blowup over Dave Chapelle's latest Netflix special, this is the one that felt the most important. What I like about this video in particular is that it keeps the focus on the black trans women who are being treated badly by nearly all parties involved in this blow-up. And the dressing down he delivers to Chapelle is so thorough and so devastating, I consider this essay the last word on the subject.

Tracing the Roots of Pop Culture Transphobia - Yes, it's Lindsay Ellis. Annnd, I don't feel bad about avoiding "Ace Ventura: Pet Detective" for the last three decades anymore.

---

The "Demon Slayer" Movie is Baffling

"Demon Slayer: Infinity Train" is now the highest grossing Japanese film of all time.  It's also done well around the world, even topping the box office in the U.S. for a week in April.  I figured it was my duty as a movie nerd and former anime obsessive to see what all the fuss was about.  I'm not familiar with the popular "Demon Slayer" franchise, but I've seen plenty of anime and plenty from this genre in particular.  And frankly, this movie has me stumped.

"Demon Slayer" is a typical Shonen Jump franchise.  This means it's aimed at teenage boys, and built around a familiar formula of superpowered combatants, epic battles, and strictly delineated hierarchies that our heroes are meant to ascend as they get stronger and more experienced.  "Demon Slayer" began as a serialized manga, and is currently one season into what is sure to be a long-running anime adaptation.  "Infinity Train" takes place between the first two seasons, and feels like a short arc from the anime.  Aside from some CGI elements, the animation is roughly the quality I'd expect from a television show.  It's not remotely in the same class as the Ghibli films or Makoto Shinkai's films.  Overall, the film struck me as deeply, deeply mediocre.

Fans might complain that I'm not familiar with "Demon Slayer," so I'm not one to judge, but there's really not much to the story.  The premise involves an organization of demon slayers who are eternally at war with destructive demons.  A group of greenhorn fighters, including our young hero Tanjiro Kamado (Natsuki Hamae) and his demon-infected sister Nezuko (Akari Kito), are sent to hunt a dangerous demon that has been sighted on a train.  They're meant to assist a "Hashira," one of the most powerful Demon Slayers, named Rengoku (Satoshi Hino), whose powers are all about fire. About half the film is spent trying to rouse Kamado and his friends after the villain traps them in dreams that also serve as helpful flashbacks.  The other half is having the big showdown with the demons.  The story beats are laid out so that the chapter/episode breaks are clearly identifiable, so  I expect that this is going to be broken down to be broadcast as four episodes of the ongoing anime eventually.

Viewers who aren't familiar with manga or anime will probably have a tough time with this one, because it indulges in some of the most tiresome anime tropes - the "Dragonball Z" style screaming dialogue, the constant torrent of made-up terminology for fighting techniques and magical abilities, and so much time spent just posturing and comparing power levels.  And my god, the villain monologuing is so needlessly annoying.  The execution is pretty decent otherwise, and I like some of the character designs, but I have absolutely no idea what makes "Demon Slayer: Infinity Train" any more appealing than the many similar "Naruto" and "One Piece" movies, let alone the big guns like "Spirited Away."  "Demon Slayer" is a bloodier example of this kind of franchise than most, with some horror elements, but it's not especially dark.  From what I can tell, the most interesting character, Rengoku, really only plays a major part in this movie, and isn't prominent in the rest of the franchise.  

So how to account for the movie's runaway success?  Is this a "Pokemon: the First Movie" situation where a super popular property supercharged interest in a mediocre tie-in?  Did the pandemic removing all competition from western sources give the film extra legs?  Is the movie better than I'm giving it credit for?  Probably all three to some extent.  I haven't liked many of the popular anime series in a while, and I never had much success with the boys' action shows even when I was a really committed otaku.  Those curious newcomers who come into "Infinity Train" expecting something better than "Your Name" and the Ghibli movies are bound to be disappointed.  Still, the movie has made its many fans very happy, and I think it best to just let them have this.                 

---

"The Suicide Squad" Takes Another Stab

It doesn't say anything good about the current state of commercial filmmaking that we have yet another comic book film that is really a second try at adapting a popular franchise, after the first one failed to impress.  Five years after David Ayer's "Suicide Squad" was a cinematic trainwreck, but made a lot of money, we have the James Gunn helmed "The Suicide Squad."  It is a considerably better movie all around, but thanks to COVID and streaming, it's on track to somehow make less money.  Frankly, it just doesn't seem right.

With this in mind, I can happily recommend "The Suicide Squad" for all your R-rated comic book punch-em-up needs.  Gunn happily embraces the most ridiculous conceits of the DC universe, giving us characters who shoot deadly polka dots at people, throw deadly boomerangs, or are half-sharks, or are humanoid weasels.  A few characters are brought over from the 2016 "Suicide Squad," including headliner Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), evil administrator Amanda Waller (Viola Davis), and the upstanding Captain Rick Flagg (Joel Kinnaman).  Joining them on their latest mission to infiltrate and shut down an enemy weapons projects, are super assassin Bloodsport (Idris Elba), Ratcatcher 2 (Daniela Melchior) who can control rats, fanatical soldier Peacemaker (John Cena), and the aforementioned King Shark (Sylvester Stallone) and Polka Dot Man (David Dastmalchian).  

In addition to being better conceived, better written, better shot, better designed, and much better edited, "The Suicide Squad" is better than its predecessor because it actually understands the assignment.  This is not a gritty adult film in the trappings of a kiddy comic book.  This is fundamentally a kids' power fantasy with a rather heartwarming moral center that is told through a joyously profane and gory lens, full of sick humor and naughty subversions.  There's nothing thematically or aesthetically that really pings as grimly adult, the way something like "The Boys" does, and everyone is staunchly asexual throughout.  Lots and lots of characters get killed off in all sorts of goofy, splatterific ways, but Gunn does the work of getting us to care about a surprising number of them.  All the main players have little moments of character building that make the movie an eye-watering 132 minutes, but also results in making everyone truly memorable.  I never thought I'd empathize with a giant man-eating shark mutant, but there it is.

I also appreciate "The Suicide Squad" for being an unapologetic comic book movie that takes place in a full throated comic book universe.  There are some truly wild and wonderfully weird visuals here, from silly costumes to giant monsters to Harley having a fight scene where gushing blood is replaced by sprays of Sion Sono-esque animated pastel flowers.  While the base level reality is fairly bleak and washed out, in keeping with the Zack Snyder style, there are also wonderful blasts of color to contrast against this, especially in the various fight sequences.  A great little touch is the intertitles, which declare act breaks or new settings, being designed to pop up from the environment in eye catching ways.  A lot of the gags and jokes rely on carefully designed shots and composition.  The zip-pan to John Cena in tighty whiteys is a personal favorite.

You can tell that Gunn is a dyed-in-the-wool DC fanboy from the characters he chose to spotlight and the references he sneaks in.  Superman is the only superhero who gets a quick shout-out, while all kinds of minor baddies with obscure powers get roped into the fun.  I won't spoil all the cameos and callbacks that come up, but I will just say that "The Suicide Squad" gets extra points from me for putting one the most ostentatiously monstrous DC villains onscreen at last in all its Lovecraftian glory.  Also, the film includes what I think might be my favorite genre trope of recent years - the gaggle of lowly office workers who creep around the edges of the story in support roles, and eventually help save the day.        

I really hope James Gunn and company find some way to score a win out of this, because I want more DC films that are willing to be this nutty and this much fun.  I also want to see these characters again, but Harley aside, sadly that doesn't look likely.

---

"Stillwater" Raises the Right Questions

Amanda Knox is furious about "Stillwater," and I don't blame her.  Writer/director Tom McCarthy clearly used her story as a jumping off point for "Stillwater," which heavily involves an American student incarcerated in a European prison for the crime of murdering a fellow student.  Some of the details shared between the two stories are a little too close for comfort.  However, "Stillwater" notably is not about the Amanda Knox stand-in, Allison Baker (Abigail Breslin).  It's about her father, Bill (Matt Damon), a troubled blue collar worker from Stillwater, Oklahoma, who travels to Marseilles, France to try and do right by his daughter after a lifetime of bad choices and bad behavior.  It's also, more broadly, about the uneasy relationship that exists between America and the rest of the world in the aftermath of the Trump presidency.

McCarthy's been awfully hit-or-miss over the past few years, and "Stillwater" is no different.  The first two thirds of the film, where Bill tries to investigate Allison's claims of innocence, and manages to build a pleasant little life for himself with single mother Virginie (Camille Cottin) and her young daughter Maya (Lilou Siauvaud), are very low key and satisfying.  McCarthy does a great job of dramatizing the culture clash experienced by Bill, the resentments felt by many of the people he meets, and how characters are able to overcome this - to an extent.  The final third, however, veers into crime thriller territory and pushes the bounds of plausibility a little too far for my tastes.  However, the ending is a very good one, leaving the viewer with a lot of uncomfortable questions to chew over.    

I like the way that the narrative is a total inversion of the usual "stranger in a strange land" stories about American exceptionalism and genre stories featuring self-righteous investigators who stubbornly prevail against all odds.  Bill's efforts to clear his daughter's name have a serious cost, both for himself personally and for those close to him.  The film does not let him get away with avoiding the implications of his privilege or the consequences of playing by his own rules.  The fact that the film treats his stubborn faith in his own judgment as a defect instead of a strength is very interesting.  Virginie is also a character with a lot to unpack, an artsy liberal who never hesitates to call out Bill for his failings, but also has some of her own biases and faults on display.  

Matt Damon said some unfortunate things in the process of trying to promote this film.  They're inevitably going to overshadow his work here, which is very good, and a little out of the bounds of his usual screen persona.  In "Stillwater," he's playing a little older and a little sadder as a midwestern everyman, with scarcely any of his movie star charisma in the mix.  He frequently looks lost and subdued as he deals with the French legal system, and has to depend on the kindness and patience of anyone who speaks English.  It's almost a shock to see him in such a different context, when you remember that the first "Bourne Identity" film started off the coast of Marseilles.  On the other hand, this is the first time in a long while that I've felt he's credibly disappeared into any character. 

McCarthy's filmmaking is firmly grounded in realism throughout, slow-paced but always absorbing.  His films have always been at their best in more intimate settings, and "Stillwater" offers plenty of these - Virginie's apartment, a rundown hotel, and the bleak prison visiting room where Bill meets with Allison.  "Stillwater" feels closest to "The Visitor," which also features a man trying to navigate a labyrinthine bureaucracy, and who connects to some unlikely new friends.  However, "Stillwater" isn't nearly as simple and straightforward in its morality, and sometimes even comes across as a repudiation of the optimistic attitudes of the previous film.    

"Stillwater" has so much baggage that I don't know if I can recommend the film outright.  It certainly has some considerable flaws, and some approaches to the material that make me uncomfortable.  On the other hand, it is so heartening to see Tom McCarthy tackling this subject matter head-on, and making a difficult film that is unusually timely and unsettling.  It offers a different POV, one that I find valuable and worth consideration, especially as it urges its viewers to do some self-examination and soul searching.  

---

State of the Blog (and the Blogger), 2021

This one is going to be indulgent, but I have a lot of thoughts that I need to get down that I think will be helpful going forward. 

First, the post count has been creeping up because I've had more time to write, and I'll probably hit 180 posts this year.  However, going forward I'm not sure this is going to be sustainable.    

I've had to abandon many of my usual features because of the continuing pandemic.  I didn't have a "Most Anticipated" list in March, a "Summer Box Office" prediction post in May, and I don't expect there will be any kind of summer wrap-up feature either.   Pretty much all of my forward-looking posts have been in limbo because the release schedules have been so tenuous.  I might do some kind of broader box office post for the entire year, but not for a while. 

The plans I had for television and web series blogging are mostly working out, except that the planned post for trailers hasn't panned out.  While the television and web trailers themselves are pretty prolific and getting more high profile, they tend to be released way too close to the time of the release of what they're promoting for me to do much real speculation.  It doesn't help that Comic-Con, which is usually a goldmine for these promos, has been a wasteland in COVID times.

Speaking of television, as content continues to atomize over the myriad streaming and web services, my coverage of traditional network television has diminished to practically nil.  The big story out of the upfronts this year was that NBC, former home of "Must See TV," had no half-hour sitcoms on the fall schedule at all.  I watch late night online.  I watch the news online.  I've given up watching almost all live events because I find the format so irksome now.  The Olympics came and went, and I didn't bother with anything except Youtube clips.  I'm literally two award shows away from full cord cutting.    

My yearly "Top Ten" posts for classic cinema will be ending for now with 1950, the last year where I've watched enough films for the feature.  Though I'm currently watching 30s and 40s films, it's much slower going.  However, as a replacement, I'll be doing a series on Best Picture winners and nominees, though I'm not sure what form this will take.  I finally finished watching all the Best Picture winners last year, and I'm making good progress with the remaining nominees I haven't seen - though I'll never see all of them because at least one of the early silents is now considered a lost film.

"Great Directors" is going strong.  I think I got a little carried away with the week of posts in August, where I was literally posting every day.  I cleared out a lot of my backlog, but I still have an awful lot of directors left.  Sergio Leone is up next, because I've finally watched "Duck, You Sucker!"  I really want to do a documentarian next year, but I'm having trouble getting my hands on some directors' films - except for Frederick Wiseman, because all of his films are on Kanopy.  Unfortunately, Wiseman doesn't seem to want to make films under three hours anymore.  "At Berkeley" nearly did me in.  Stay tuned.   

Elsewhere on the movie front, I can feel my tastes changing, when it comes to newer films.  I'm a lot less inclined to watch mediocre sci-fi, action, and animated films than I used to be, and more inclined toward documentaries and dramas.  Maybe it's just the mood I've been in lately.  Maybe it's because last year's award season felt so sparse, and I'm dying to see a lot of these delayed films.  I'm honestly looking forward to things like "Titane" more than the new "Matrix" film, and it's weird.

Finally, I want to acknowledge that I've hit an interesting milestone, which is that for the first time in forever, there's really no major film in the works that I have serious hype for.  "Dune" was the last one.  There are plenty of projects that I'm looking forward to, but not the way I used to.  That's probably not a bad thing.

---

My Favorite Michael Curtiz Film

If you're at all a fan of early Hollywood films, you've almost certainly seen something that Michael Curtiz directed.  He's one of the most prolific directors of this era, and he did everything - horror, romance, action, comedies, musicals and more.  He'd racked up credits on over a hundred films in Europe before he got to Hollywood, where he proceeded to work for the next three and a half decades on a slew of familiar classics.  "Casablanca" is his most iconic film, and "Yankee Doodle Dandy" is one of my favorite musicals, but I feel he had the most influence with his action adventure films, especially the ones that he made with Errol Flynn and Olivia De Havilland.  They both became stars thanks to Curtiz's "Captain Blood," but the height of their popular success was undoubtedly "The Adventures of Robin Hood."

I rewatched "The Adventures of Robin Hood" specifically for this post, after many, many years, and was surprised at how gorgeous the film looks.  It's all sumptuous pageantry and swashbuckling spectacle, rendered in lush Technicolor, and an absolute pleasure to look at.  It was Warner Brothers' most expensive production at the time, and they spared no expense .  There's no attempt whatsoever to make the costumes look historically accurate.  Instead, Robin has metallic studs sewn into his clothing to add a little extra glitz, and the colors are all incredibly bright and saturated to show off the capabilities of the new color film stock.  Maid Marian's outfits are art deco masterpieces, sometimes covered in patterns and details that need a large screen to fully appreciate.  The storybook visuals are very reminiscent of "The Wizard of Oz," which was released a year later.

I don't believe "The Adventures of Robin Hood" was intended to be a children's film at the time of its' release, but it comes off as one now.   The story is never more complicated than simple good versus evil, courage over cowardice, and love conquering all.  There's an innocence to the characters and a straightforwardness to their morality that feels strange to me after decades of revisionist and modernized takes on the Robin Hood legend, many of them built on the tropes laid out in this film.  Even the animated Disney version from 1978 borrows an awful lot from Curtiz.  When many people picture the cinematic Robin Hood, this is still the version that remains the most obvious point of reference.  Robin is the intrepid young Erroll Flynn, full of fun and charm and energy.  Marion is the brave, lovely Olivia DeHavilland, who eventually takes matters into her own hands.  The scheming, dastardly villains are Claude Rains and Basil Rathbone, of course. 

The action sequences are still the main event - the archery tournament, the daring escape from the gallows, and the final showdown where Flynn and Rathbone have their thrilling sword duel.  The behind-the-scenes drama of the film's creation offers many contradictory stories, but one of the common explanations for Curtiz replacing the film's original director is that the producer wanted someone who could add more action and thrills.  Similarly, Flynn was a natural choice for Robin Hood after "Captain Blood," and was game to do many of his own stunts.  Much has been written and recounted about the efforts it took to get many of those arrow tricks and sword fighting scenes to look right, and it was worth the effort.  There's still a heady thrill to seeing some of those stunts being performed to this day.   

Curtiz was so versatile and so productive in his time in Hollywood, he's one of those directors, like Howard Hawks, who was often seen as being an extension of the studios.  There's been some debate over whether he really had his own style as a director, and whether he should be treated as an auteur.  However, there's no doubt that he was incredibly technically proficient, an excellent manager, and so deft at orchestrating all the talent involved in these huge productions that he was considered Warners' top director through most of the '40s.  He could make any kind of picture, and was instrumental in the creation of some of the most iconic ones ever made.  A noted workaholic, he kept making movies into his 70s, the last released in 1961.  

Auteur or not, he was a great director.  

What I've Seen - Michael Curtiz

Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933)

Captain Blood (1935)

Anthony Adverse (1936)

The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)

Angels With Dirty Faces (1938)

Four Daughters (1938)

Dodge City (1939)

The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex (1939)

The Sea Hawk (1940)

Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942)

Casablanca (1942)

This is the Army (1943)

Mildred Pierce (1945)

Life With Father (1947)

The Breaking Point (1950)

White Christmas (1954)

We're No Angels (1955)

---

Podcasts Ahoy! The 2021 Edition

Time to go back through my playlist and take stock of the entertainment-related podcasts that I've been listening to.  Below are a couple of new and new-to-me offerings that I've started following this year.

This Had Oscar Buzz - This is one that kept getting referenced by the other podcasts I was listening to, and I'm glad I checked it out.  The subject matter is narrow, but I feel like this podcast is targeted right at me.  I'm one of those people who loves following the Oscar race every year, and always winds up watching a bunch of mediocre films that may start out with a lot of buzz, but ultimately go nowhere.  Hosts Joe Reid and Chris Feil dissect what went wrong, the careers of the primary creators involved, and whether the unfortunate film in question deserves to be forgotten or not.  They're also very good at dissecting the drama going on during various campaigns that I wasn't aware existed. I've been having a ball being reminded of the existence of so many movies that have fallen by the wayside - "Pay it Forward," "Battle of the Sexes," "When a Man Loves a Woman" - many of them made by very talented people.  It's a nice break from so many shows that only focus on the best of the best.      

Still Watching - So, this is the closest thing I've found so far to a regular television discussion podcast.  Joanna Robinson, Richard Lawson, and Anthony Breznican host this Vanity Fair produced series, which serves as an unofficial after-show for currently airing programs like "WandaVision," "Mare of Easttown," and really whatever buzzy piece of expensive, serialized entertainment is getting a lot of attention at the moment.  Lately these have mostly been HBO or Disney Plus shows, but they've covered things like "American Crime Story" and "The Crown" in the past.  There's not much critical discussion for obvious reasons, but "Still Watching" offers a ton of behind-the-scenes information and conjecture about future developments for fans.  Because there's so much theorizing and dissection of minutiae, I've been saving episodes for after a series or season has finished, to avoid stumbling over spoilers.  Vanity Fair's clout means that they can land big guests with regularity - writers, directors, stars, and more.  My favorite episode so far was when Alan Sepinwall dropped by to discuss the ending of "Loki."  Er, more on Sepinwall in a minute.

Mousterpiece Cinema - This one ended a few years ago, racking up 435 episodes covering Disney movies - not just the movies that we commonly think of as Disney movies, but everything that the studio had a hand in over the years - PIXAR movies, Marvel movies, the Touchstone films, the Hollywood Pictures films, and even 20th Century Fox films after the acquisition.  It's "Mary Poppins" one week, and Jonathan Demme's "Beloved" the next. Hosts Josh Spiegel and Scott Renshaw are entertainment writers who clearly have long histories with Disney, as most of us have, and there's simply no end to the titles that they cover.  I'll be digging my way through their archives for a long time to come.

Conan O'Brien Needs a Friend - Yeah, everyone's already listening to this one, but I was late to the party.  I was under the misconception that the podcast was an extension of Conan's talk show.  Instead, the interviews are much more in-depth, more personal, and the guests so far have been fantastic.  Even if I'm not much of a fan of a particular interviewee, the discussions are always fascinating because these are so often people that Conan has some history with.  The Adam Sandler episode is a  particular favorite because it offers such a lovely glimpse into both his and O'Brien's lives when they're not performing.  I still don't enjoy Adam Sandler, but now I respect him quite a bit more.    

Finally, I want to add a brief rant about the loss of the "Firewall and Iceberg" podcast, which has totally disappeared from the internet.  I went looking for it after finishing my "Parks & Recreation" binge, only to find all the files had been purged when Hitflix went south.  All the links to the show are still there - episode descriptions, timestamps and all - but alas, no actual audio files.  

Now I'm resisting the urge to go and back up ten years of the /Filmcast since it's recently become The Filmcast.  I'm going to turn into one of those data hoarders, aren't I?

---

"Dune" is an Experience

I understand now why Denis Villeneuve was so adamant about "Dune" having a theatrical release, because the only way this film works is on the biggest screen possible.  It's designed to be a spectacle, an immersive feat of filmmaking that puts the bulk of its efforts into creating these vast, alien worlds.  Even though I've read Frank Hebert's "Dune" novel, and I've seen the earlier David Lynch adaptation, I found the story difficult to follow - very exposition heavy, and full of outlandish concepts that are absurd on their face.  However, the sensory pleasures of the worldbuilding and the absolute commitment to the material ultimately won me over.

The Atreides family is appointed to the stewardship of the planet Arrakis, known as Dune, and its spice mining operations.  Spice is one of the most important commodities in this universe, because it makes interstellar travel possible.  Duke Leto (Oscar Isaac), his concubine Lady Jessica (Rebecca Ferguson), and their son Paul (Timothee Chalamet) face an array of dangers on the dangerous desert planet, including the hostile local population of Fremen and the giant sandworms, the Shai Hulud.  Then there are Arrakis's former stewards, led by Baron Harkonnen (Stellan Skarsgaard), who are conspiring with larger forces to retake the planet.  Jason Momoa, Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin, Stephen McKinley, Chang Chen, Dave Bautista, Sharon Duncan-Brewster, and Zendaya appear in smaller roles.

"Dune" is a long, slow-paced movie with not as much action as you'd expect, and very little humor.  The mood is very grave and somber throughout, and our young hero has to grapple with prophetic dreams, constant threats on his life, and being at the center of a lot of complicated political intrigue.  People are constantly reminding Paul of his hereditary duties, often emphasizing that some of the conflicts he's being thrust into have been going on for hundreds or thousands of years.  His father is readying him for leadership of his house and political power games.  His mother, part of religious sisterhood called the Bene Gesserit, is training him to use his inherited powers from her bloodline, and suspects he may be a messiah foretold to lead a holy war.  The first half of the film is a steady buildup to violence that just keeps setting up all the pieces of this conflict, and it's very frustrating that the film ends where it does - and the second half of the story is so far off in the future.

There was a very real danger of that second half never being made, because this version of "Dune" isn't very audience friendly.  Long stretches of the film might as well be in a foreign language because it's so dense with science-fiction terminology.  Characters constantly mumble and whisper their dialogue, including the famous "litany against fear."  The actors are very good, and I wish some of them, like Josh Brolin and Jason Momoa, could have had more screen time, but the film is structured in such a way that nearly all of the fascinating minor characters only make brief appearances.  Zendaya has been all over the film's marketing and only shows up in Paul's visions and the last fifteen minutes of the movie.

It's clear Denis Villeneuve and his crew were less interested in a perfectly coherent narrative than they were with creating a more visceral kind of cinematic experience that would make the viewer feel like they were on Arrakis, bearing witness to the events that were unfolding.  So, the MVPs of "Dune" are cinematographer Greig Fraser, who shoots deserts that recall "Lawrence of Arabia" and the original "Star Wars" more successfully than any of the recent "Star Wars'' films, production designer Patrice Vermette for conjuring a palpable grandeur to all the different alien environments, and Hans Zimmer for the elaborate score.   The film achieves feats of filmmaking that are absolutely worth the price of admission.

However, I don't know if I can call "Dune" a successful film because it's currently only half of one.  And in spite of how wonderfully executed it all is, the "chosen one" story hasn't aged particularly well over the years, and left me wondering whether audiences would be able to connect with it.  I think the existing fans of "Dune" should be satisfied with it - more than they were with the David Lynch attempt anyway, but I think it's far less likely that the movie will be able to create many new "Dune" fans.   

---

My Top Ten Films of 1952

This is part of a series of top ten lists from the years before I started this blog.  Entries are listed below in no particular order.  Enjoy.

Angel Face - One of my favorite Otto Preminger films is this melodramatic film noir that casts a young Jean Simmons as a girl who might be capable of murder, and Robert Mitchum as the man who is drawn to her like a moth to a flame.  There's a refreshing realism to the film, from the presence of minorities to the detailed court proceedings to the multifaceted characters. Our villain is also very much a victim, and the ostensibly good characters do things that would be considered despicable in a less nuanced film.

The Bad and the Beautiful - A cynical Hollywood story that pairs nicely with "Citizen Kane" and "Sunset Boulevard," starring Kirk Douglas in one of his most despicable roles - an unethical studio mogul.  The unhappy characters are just close enough to real life industry players to be intriguing, and their ugly experiences in the moviemaking business are just honest enough to ring true.  The performances are good, with Douglas and Lana Turner as the seething standouts, playing out a love story that goes sour.

Beauties of the Night - One of the later films from French fantasist Rene Clair examines the dilemma of a man, played by Gerard Phillippe, who prefers his dreams to reality.  It's a playful, madcap, silly film that orchestrates raucous spectacle and action with great skill and energy.  Clair juggles multiple realities before sending them crashing into each other in a joyously wild final chase sequence that feels decades before its time - or maybe like a loving throwback to the earliest days of silent comedy.  

Forbidden Games - Two children witness wartime horrors and deal with it by being children - playing games, indulging in fantasies, and putting their own selfish desires above everything else.  And Rene Clement captures the terrible poignancy in this, following the pair as they bury dead animals and steal crosses to put on their graves.  They are happy together, in a situation where we would expect them to be miserable, and can we be surprised that they would take steps to preserve their happiness? 

High Noon - Gary Cooper never struck me as a particularly compelling leading man, but this is the role he was born to play in the film that is tailor made for his particular strengths.  Though celebrated as an action and suspense film, as well as a beloved western, I think of "High Noon" as a morality play.  A good man must do the right thing in spite of overwhelming odds and little incentive beyond his own code of ethics.  The slow build to the famous ending showdown is one of the best ever captured on film. 

Ikiru - Kurosawa may be best known for his samurai, but some of his greatest work was done telling contemporary stories.  "Ikiru" takes place in mundane settings, with very ordinary characters, but is one of the most profound and life-affirming films ever made.  Takashi Shimura, in a career defining performance, plays a low-level bureaucrat who grapples with his mortality, and then seizes his chance to make a real difference in the world.  It's subtle, funny, heartbreaking, and the very definition of a classic. 

The Importance of Being Earnest - One of the ultimate comedies of manners, that derives its humor from poking fun at the kabuki-like rituals of formality observed by polite British society.  The film, and the Oscar Wilde play it was based on, have only grown more effective over time as the Victorian mannerisms of the characters come off as increasingly absurd.  The cast is a joy, but it's Dame Edith Evans' delivery of the handbag line that surely must be counted as one of the greatest moments in cinematic history.    

The Life of Oharu - A noble woman is disgraced, and discovers that she has very far to fall in society, as chronicled in one of the best Kenji Mizoguchi films.  Through the unfortunate life of the title character, the film examines the pettiness and hypocrisies of both the highborn and the low, from the nobles to the nuns and everyone in between.  Oharu, played by Kinuyo Tanaka, is my favorite of Mizoguchi's tragic women because she yearns so stubbornly for what she desires, heedless of propriety, to the very end.

Singin' in the Rain - When I think of Gene Kelly, I immediately think of him singing and dancing in the iconic "Singin' in the Rain" number.  For me, it's not only representative of the best of the musical genre, but the best of Hollywood filmmaking, period.  "Singin' in the Rain" shouldn't have been a classic.  It was a jukebox musical based on preexisting songs, a product of the MGM assembly line, and had all sorts of chaos behind the scenes.  But I watch Gene Kelly dance, and I'm swept off my feet in an instant.  

Umberto D. - An elderly man has to grapple with the indignities of age and obsolescence in "Umberto D.," a socially conscious melodrama from Vittorio De Sica that urges us to feel some compassion for those living on the margins.  What makes Umberto so compelling is his stubborn pride - the shame of poverty nearly drives him to suicide, but his duty to look after his dog keeps him from the brink.  Set in post-war Italy, De Sica also gives us a critical look at the state of his country as it attempts to rebuild.    

---

Investor Calls, Fandomes, and Tudums

So, Comic-Con was stuck being a virtual event again because of the pandemic, and most of the bigger media players decided not to participate.  However, Hollywood has latched on to these big, splashy webcast announcements for their upcoming projects.  Everyone has been putting on their own events to premiere new bits of marketing and make announcements.  Many of these are being dubbed "fan events" of some kind, because the companies want fans to tune in and hopefully generate some hype.  The DC Fandome, Paramount's Star Trek Day, and Netflix's recent Tudum come to mind.  And then there's Disney, which saves many of their big announcements for investor events, but also does their own fan events like Disney+ Day, and special one-offs for some of their bigger franchises, like "Star Wars."  Even Apple, home of the Steve Job product launches that greatly influenced this style of event, had their "Unleashed" digital event in October.

I've seen a couple of these now, including parts of Netflix's Tudum, DC Fandome, and the wild 2020 Disney "Investor Day" that was largely devoted to detailing all the content that was coming to Disney+.  These are marketing exercises more than anything, meant to deliver sneak peeks, trailers, announcements, and updates on upcoming media.  I didn't watch the full events, and I doubt anyone can be expected to, because all of the disparate bits and pieces are meant to be split up and posted separately on Youtube or Twitter once the event is over.  Watching the presentations roll out, one after another during the actual events gets pretty tedious in a hurry and these things go on for hours.  Disney's investor event devoted time to highlighting every major brand in their content portfolio, including ESPN, National Geographic, FX, and Hulu. The content is usually pretty basic too.  You get a parade of different presenters talking up the various shows, movies, games, or apps, and then showing a clip or making an announcement.  

Tudum had around forty different segments for various Netflix media, averaging about ten minutes apiece.  The segment devoted to next year's "The Sandman" series offered brief appearances by creator Neil Gaiman, stars Tom Sturridge and Kirby Howell-Baptiste, and a "first look" teaser.  Sturridge presented the teaser, and all Howell-Baptiste got to do was to announce that the show's social media accounts were going live.  The Duffer Brothers, Gaten Matarazzo, and Joe Keery introduced new "Stranger Things" teasers, John Cho showed off the opening credits of "Cowboy Bebop," and Imelda Staunton made an appearance on behalf of "The Crown" to assure us the production was going well, and to offer a projected release date for the next season - November of 2022.  As far as I could tell there wasn't any real opportunity for fan interaction, or really any kind of content other than announcements and promos.  A Zoom call with Regina King, Noomi Rapace, Zazie Beetz, and Charlize Theron was billed as an "Action Panel," but was really more of a group interview.  It was so tightly edited and slickly overproduced that it had none of the energy of a real panel discussion. 

Frankly, I miss the Comic-Con crowds.  There's something about a hyped up audience reacting to seeing celebrities and oohing and aahing over new footage that is so much fun to see.  The virtual conventions that they've tried to put on haven't been too successful - essentially limited to prerecorded panels conducted over Zoom.  However, they're still much more interesting to watch than events like Tudum because they offer more content and don't just feel like people reciting marketing copy and bingeing trailers.  The DC Fandome event is easily the best of these webcast style events, because it's following the Comic-Con model.  It devotes much longer stretches of time to each piece of individual media, and includes a few interviews, discussions, and Q&As with the creators involved.  Fandome also manages to combine a few live appearances with prerecorded material and fancy graphics in a way that makes it feel a little more dynamic and exciting.   

 

I don't think Comic-Con is in any danger of being replaced, especially once in-person events start happening again, but the Tudums and the Disney+ Days are probably here to stay, with a few adjustments.  The fight for attention online is only intensifying, and with other avenues for advertising shrinking, creating events like this to attract media coverage and curious viewers seems irresistible.

                     

---

The Return of Jon Stewart

I waited to write this post until I'd seen three episodes of "The Problem With Jon Stewart," which tested my patience a bit because episodes are released once every two weeks by Apple+.  It's been six years since Stewart left "The Daily Show," and it's good to see him again.  His new show is more ambitious, taking elements from "The Daily Show," John Oliver's "Last Week Tonight," and other comedic current affairs programs, and combining them with more serious long-form investigative journalism and interviews.  It's not a very comfortable hybrid, though an admirable attempt by Stewart to strike a more serious tone with his work.

Each episode of "The Problem" centers around a big issue like "War" or "The Economy."  The first segment puts Jon behind a desk to deliver a fairly traditional comedic monologue on the topic of the day, filmed with a live studio audience.  Then there's a panel discussion with activists and experts, and sometimes a separate interview with a more high profile lawmaker or administrator that Stewart conducts outside of the studio.  Interspersed with these are pre-taped comedy bits about the theme of the day, similar to the ones used by most late night comedians.  There are also framing segments showing Stewart in his writers' room holding discussions and pitching ideas.  These segments are fun, and seem to be included in an effort to put more diverse voices onscreen.

Clearly there's a lot of talent involved in the show, and Stewart is fully invested in what he is doing.  The first episode, "War," is focused on veterans' health, an issue that Stewart has been keen to spotlight and advocate for in the past.  His interview with Secretary of Veterans Affairs Denis McDonough is appropriately tough and enlightening.  However, the format of the show occupies an uneasy space between comedic and more hard-hitting commentary, and it doesn't occupy it nearly as well as something like "Last Week Tonight" does.  While Stewart's work here is extremely informative, and does a great job of framing big issues in a way that is more easily digestible for the average viewer, none of it is particularly entertaining.  Instead, his occasional jokes just serve to punctuate the tension, or else they feel out of place and counterproductive, adding to a feeling of unease.  The tone of each show can swing wildly from irreverent to dead serious, and not in a good way.  It doesn't help that episodes of "The Problem" run nearly a full hour in length, and the energy just isn't sustainable for the duration.  

Jon Stewart is committed and passionate in his advocacy, but he doesn't strike me as any more incisive than the pundits and news presenters that he regularly skewered on "The Daily Show" when he's in this mode.  The fact that he clearly comes at these interviews and discussions with an agenda creates an odd sort of cognitive dissonance.  Jon Stewart never tries to pretend that he's anything other than a comedian, but "The Problem" is blurring the lines more, and Stewart's not afraid of getting more confrontational.  It's an uncomfortable reminder that his last few years on "The Daily Show" were plagued with similar tonal problems as he started using his platform to take positions on certain issues.

I want to make it clear that this is not necessarily a bad thing.  Many of Stewart's contemporaries and the presenters that he's helped mentor have been able to do this kind of commentary and advocacy far better.  With some adjustments, I think Stewart could have the kind of long-form examination of current events that he wants to do, while still putting on an entertaining program.  I like parts of "The Problem," and I think it has promise, but there are changes to the format that are necessary.  Simply splitting the show in half, and switching between different interview and discussion formats from week to week would help considerably.  Or de-emphasizing the monologues and just focusing on the interviews, Barbara Walters style.

I still count myself as a Stewart fan, and I'm rooting for the show's improvement, but it may be an uphill battle.  One of the reasons that his show isn't coming off so well is that he's got so much competition now, and his basic shtick hasn't changed with the times.  His time away from the spotlight was clearly needed, but it's also left him playing catch-up with the rest of the crowd.

 

---

Untangling "Lisey's Story"

Throughout the '90s, the Stephen King event miniseries was a mainstay of network television.  Since adaptations of King's work have recently seen a resurgence, I don't think it's any surprise that someone chose to make a miniseries of "Lisey's Story," one of King's more personal books.  It's a thinly veiled thought experiment, musing over what a famous horror writer's wife might have to deal with emotionally and psychically after the death of her husband.  Because this is an Apple+ project, the talent involved is all top shelf - Pablo Larrain directs, King himself wrote the screenplay, and the cast is downright amazing.  So,I'm not sure how the eight-episode miniseries wound up being so much more difficult to watch and to parse than it should have been.

The story is told achronologically.  For the most part it follows Lisey Landon (Julianne Moore) two years after the death of her husband Scott (Clive Owen), a famous author.  She's put off dealing with his legacy, despite being hounded by a professor, Roger Dashmiel (Ron Cephas Jones), to get access to Scott's files.  He recruits a disturbed superfan, Jim Dooley (Dane DeHaan) to help persuade her.  At the same time, Lisey's sister Amanda (Joan Allen) suffers a psychotic break that forces Lisey to confront her past and her relationships with Amanda and their other sister Darla (Jennifer Jason Leigh).  She's also sent on a "bool hunt," a treasure hunt set up by Scott, that leads her through the more disturbing parts of his life.  Scott and his older brother had a fantasy world they shared as children called Booya Moon - and he might be trying to lead Lisey there from beyond death.

There are several stories being told in "Lisey's Story" that overlap considerably, but don't quite all exist in the same space comfortably.  First, there's the fairly realistic story of Lisey and Scott's marriage, and Lisey going through the grieving process.  Then there's the fantasy tinged, violent memoir of Scott's miserable childhood with an abusive father (Michael Pitt) and troubled brother, Paul (Clark Furlong).  Then there's the escalating situation with the disturbed Jim Dooley, which plays out like a more melodramatic brand of crime drama.  Most of the episodes from the past happen in the context of Lisey's reminiscences, as she tries to puzzle through various mysteries.  There's a lot of slow meandering from scene to scene, and an infuriating amount of repetition as she connects the dots.  While the series looks absolutely gorgeous, with cinematography from Darius Khondji, parts of it are a real slog.  And because this is a series and not a film, it's multiple episodes of slog that wear out their welcome quickly.      

This is a shame, because "Lisey" does a lot of things right.  The cast is perfect, with Moore and Owen demonstrating that they still have plenty of chemistry together, and Michael Pitt is terrifying every time he appears, making the scenes of Scott's brutal childhood nailbitingly tense.  Fantasy elements are often difficult to integrate into a show that tackles such heavy subject matter like this, but Larrain and company pull it off.  Booya Moon is this spooky twilight world that exists in a metaphysical space between life and death, and manages to be exactly as creepy and magical as it should be.  I also generally enjoy Larrain's style, and there are noticeable echoes of "Jackie" in "Lisey," including this lovely, moody atmosphere of nostalgia and regret.     

But what leaves me unsatisfied in the end is that Lisey feels like such a flimsy character.  It might be "Lisey's Story," but it's really about Lisey only as far as how she relates to Scott, the obvious stand-in for Stephen King.  Her relationships with her sisters are shown to be very important to her, but don't get much development.  You can view the narrative as the result of Lisey fixating on her dead husband at the expense of her own personhood, but it's much too late in the series before we really get any sense of who Lisey was before Scott, and who she could  be after.  

Compared to the Stephen King miniseries of yore, I vastly prefer a prestige project like this instead of the campy old chillers like "The Tommyknockers" or "Rose Red."  However, "Lisey's Story" could have been something much more interesting that what it is - a flawed, difficult curiosity.       

---

"Annette" Sure is Something

I'm glad that I saw the recent Edgar Wright documentary about the history of the band the Sparks, comprised of musician brothers Russell and Ron Mael, because it gave me some idea of what I was in for with "Annette," the film musical that they co-wrote and created all of the music for.  Collaborating with French provocateur director Leos Carax, "Annette" is like no musical I've ever seen before.  The best thing I can say about it is that it's very committed to its particular style and aims. 

Henry (Adam Driver) and Ann (Marion Cotillard) are a comedian and an opera singer who fall in love, undergo a tumultuous marriage, and eventually have a child, Annette (Devyn McDowell).  From an early age Annette is able to sing with astonishing skill, resulting in a career as a child prodigy.  The story is mostly told from the point of view of Henry, who sees a tragic decline once his career hits the skids, and eventually becomes the driving force behind Annette's exploitation.  Another key character is the Accompanist (Simon Helberg), who helps to orchestrate Annette's career and is in love with Ann. 

"Annette" is billed as a musical, but is more accurately described as an opera.  It's almost totally sung all the way through, and exists in a very heightened, very artificial version of reality.  Annette appears onscreen as a living puppet, which allows the filmmakers to put her in situations that would be uncomfortable with a real child, and also to show Henry's detachment from her.  The other characters are also wild exaggerations that don't hold up to much scrutiny, and are best regarded as symbolic or allegorical creatures designed to serve the film's larger themes.  Henry, for instance, is supposed to be a shock comic, and has a wildly indulgent act where he rants at his audience, sings snatches of Tom Lehrer, and is generally incoherent.  

I was a little disappointed with the music.  After the upbeat opening number, "So May we Start," the rest of the songs are much more low key and unmemorable.  There's also a dearth of anything that could be called a production number.  This is in keeping with the career of Sparks, which produces very experimental, very off-kilter music that appeals to very specific sensibilities.  It's the kind of music that I can appreciate, but don't get much out of.  Likewise, Leos Carax has made a career of keeping one foot firmly planted in avant garde cinema, and it should be no surprise that "Annette" stays stubbornly in its own peculiar groove of "Holy Motors" style absurdism throughout.  

On the one hand, this is all wildly pretentious and obscure, and on the other hand it's sometimes brilliant.  There's a fabulous scene with Simon Helberg's Accompanist, where he delivers feverish exposition via a long solo, which is occasionally interrupted when he's obliged to conduct the orchestral music accompanying his performance.  It's all done in one shot, and it's magical.  The opening and ending song sequences, where the cast and key crew members all come together to address the audience directly, are lovely and invigorating.  However, an awful lot of the film consists of fairly straightforward domestic melodrama and mundanity, and becomes something of a slog.  

Driver and Cotillard sing about love and loss and doom, and make great efforts at convincing the audience that they're anguished and forlorn, to some success.  It's really Driver's movie, a chance for him to portray a charismatic monster who gets exactly what's coming to him.  His performance is a lot of fun - showy, physical, and weird, but the material is so hemmed in by the artifice, it also feels very compromised.  When the film is being wild and unorthodox, it's fascinating, but the bones of the thing are neglected, and the execution is lacking in some crucial ways.

I like the idea of "Annette," and the spirited attitude of its creators.  But though the film occasionally shows signs of greatness, this is pretty far from being the truly outre piece of work that I was expecting.  It's undeniably a spectacle, but one that confuses instead of wows, that provokes but doesn't get very deep or bother to entertain.  There's a good chance I may have missed the point completely, but I don't much care to look any deeper, as there's not much here that seems to need interpretation.  And for a movie with such big emotions, I left it strangely unmoved.

---