It's that time again. I'm looking forward to this Oscar season, because the batch of nominees are stronger than they have been in the past few years, and I've already seen more of them than usual, thanks to Netflix. In fact, there are so many strong contenders that there are snubs everywhere you look. But, let's get to the movies that actually did get nominated first.
The Best Picture nominees number nine this year: "1917," "Jojo Rabbit," "Joker," "Little Women," "Marriage Story," "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood…," "Parasite," "The Irishman," and a surprising "Ford v. Ferrari." That's a war movie, a mob movie, a sports move, a contemporary dramedy, a classical literary adaptation, Quentin Tarantino doing revisionist history, and three movies that are hard to categorize, but I guess are all some brand of anti-establishment satire (yes, the Nazis count as establishment these days). "Joker" and "Hollywood…" are not to my taste, but they feature a lot of good pieces, and I understand why they're on the list. "Ford v. Ferrari" strikes me as the only thing that's obviously pandering to Oscar voters, but executed well enough that I can give it a pass. I'm very happy to see "Parasite" here and hope that it wins, but I'm pretty sure it won't.
Movies that had a shot, but ultimately didn't make the cut include "Knives Out," "The Farewell," "The Two Popes," "Uncut Gems," and "A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood." It's a shame that "Uncut Gems" and "The Farewell" got shut out completely, but I'm honestly not all that bothered. Coming from someone with a Chinese-American background, I'm thrilled "The Farewell" got so much attention, but it struck me as more popular for its novelty than its actual quality. "Uncut Gems" featured a banger of an Adam Sandler performance, but it was deeply uncomfortable to watch. Like "The Lighthouse," and "Dolemite is My Name," "Uncut Gems" just wasn't a movie that the Oscar crowd was going to connect with. There seemed to be a lot of support for "Knives Out," but it receded quickly, similar to the buzz around "Rocketman." "The Two Popes" and "Beautiful Day" were really only in the conversation for their performances, which brings us to the acting categories.
As has been widely discussed, this was a very competitive year in the acting categories. Best Actor couldn't find room for Eddie Murphy, Taron Edgerton, or Robert DeNiro, but I'm glad that Antonio Banderas snuck in for "Pain and Glory." Cynthia Erivo deserves to be in Best Actress, but I wish Lupita Nyong'o for "Us" was in there with her, maybe replacing Charlize Theron. Best Supporting Actor is totally stacked, but I really wanted to see Willem Dafoe for "The Lighthouse" and Song Kang Ho for "Parasite" in the mix. The one big shocker is the lack of JLo in Best Supporting Actress. The acting nominees are awfully white this time around, but there are just enough minorities that the Academy should escape any real controversy. Oh, and I prefer Laura Dern in "Little Women" to "Marriage Story," and I'm glad Scarlett Johansson got the double nomination. She deserved it this year.
The only inclusion I'm really upset about is Todd Philips getting the nod for "Joker" over so many better options. It should be Greta Gerwig in that slot. Or Noah Baumbach or Taika Waititi. "Joker" wound up with a whopping eleven nominations, the most of any film. However, the backlash has been going for months, and I certainly wouldn't treat "Joker" as a frontrunner in any category besides Best Actor. On the flip side, "Parasite" came out with a very respectable six nominations, including in Screenplay, Editing, and Production Design. I'll be rooting for it to be the first foreign language Best Picture winner, though chances are probably slim. The real race is between "The Irishman" and "1917."
Among the smaller races, a few notes. I'm as gobsmacked as anyone as to how "Glasgow" got snubbed for Best Song. It's great to see "Honeyland," a documentary, in the already controversial Best International Feature Film category. There were also some raised eyebrows at "Frozen II" being left out of Best Animated Film, though "Into the Unknown" is competing for Best Song. I'm thrilled that "I Lost My Body" and "Klaus" got nods instead. Also, John William for that last "Star Wars" film is clearly sentiment over sense - but it's John Williams. Who can deny John Williams?
As usual, there's no way that I'm going to be able to post reviews of all the major contenders by Oscar night, but I should at least be able to get a ranking of the Best Picture Nominees up.
And happy watching.
---
Monday, January 13, 2020
Saturday, January 11, 2020
"In Fabric" and "Paradise Hills"
Let's get weird.
"In Fabric" is the latest movie from Peter Strickland. This one is an out-and-out horror film, featuring some throwback elements to the Italian giallo flicks and softcore European erotic thrillers of the '60s and '70s. The story is about a killer dress, and of course very campy, but here the campiness is elevated to such delirious heights that it enters the realm of voluptuous surrealism.
It's sales season in the UK, and divorced bank teller Sheila Woodchapel (Marianne Jean-Baptiste) is looking for love after her adult son Vince (Jaygann Ayeh) takes up with a disagreeable new girlfriend (Gwendoline Christie). She visits a strange department store where one of the clerks, Miss Luckmoore (Fatma Mohamed), sells her a fabulous, one-of-a-kind red evening dress. Luckmoore fails to mention that the dress has a tragic history and destruction follows in its wake.
The killer dress isn't even the strangest element in the film. There's the department store and its clerks, who speak in flowery aphorisms, perform erotic rituals with the mannequins after hours, and create hypnotic television advertisements. There's Sheila's bosses, Stash (Julian Barratt) and Clive (Steve Oram), who talk in circles and ask uncomfortably personal questions. There's the electronics repairman, Reg (Leo Bill), whose descriptions of appliances send people into trances. As with all of Strickland's films, the sensory impressions and atmosphere are everything. Rich soundscapes, luxuriant visuals, and lingering shots of favored objects are given far more attention than the particulars of the plot.
I don't think that "In Fabric" really works as a horror film, though there are some interesting depictions of death and mayhem. At its heart, it's a trippy art house mood piece with darkly sinister vibes and a production design to literally die for. As far as style goes, it's impeccable. As an exercise in bloody cinematic aesthetics, it's fun - assuming you know what you're getting yourself into. However, I don't think it's as effective as either of Strickland previous features, probably because there are so many different elements in play and a mix of different tones. Marianne Jean-Baptiste is excellent, but it also felt like she was in a different film half the time - something much more grounded and sincere than the wacky fashion fetish phantasmagoria that "In Fabric" is only able to pretend that it isn't for so long.
A far more clumsy, but still admirable style-over-substance fantasy film is "Paradise Hills," the directing debut of Spanish director Alice Waddington. The narrative is pretty straightforward, but the film's eye-popping art direction, costuming, and production design are where it really stands out. Set at an outrageously posh reform school for rich girls, some time in the indeterminate future, Una (Emma Roberts), Chloe (Danielle Macdonald), Yu (Awkwafina), and Amarna (Eiza González) are trapped under the care of the Duchess (Milla Jovovich) and her minions. Una has been sent there for rejecting the marriage proposal of the evil Son (Arnaud Valois), Chloe is overweight, Yu is introverted and has panic attacks, and Amarna's singing career has been jeopardized by her behavior. Naturally, the goal is escape.
The fairy tale narrative and the paper thin characters really only serve as a framework for the filmmakers to indulge in the visuals. Though the film is set in the future, the costuming is full of throwbacks to the past. Paradise Hill's clothing options put the girls in spotless white neck ruffs and medieval bodices, while their guards' uniforms recall suits of armor. The main dormitory looks like a dollhouse dreamed up by Giorgio de Chirico, possibly with Fascist connotations. The Duchess, constantly surrounded by flowers, and often bedecked in flowers, certainly can't be trusted. The film is full of confectionary pastel colors and floral motifs, playing with traditional feminine imagery and aesthetics. Uma is forced to get a makeover early on that includes getting her hair dyed bright pink.
Sadly the storytelling's not strong enough to make the best use of all these gorgeous elements. They're never quite over-the-top enough to push the movie into the realm of something like "Beyond the Black Rainbow" or "The Neon Demon" where the style really takes over the narrative, or "The Love Witch" or "In Fabric," where style fills in the thematic blanks. When push comes to shove in the last act, "Paradise Hills" falls back on the very typical visual language of your standard action adventure film, with a few artsy flourishes. Take away the glitz and the roses, and there's not much to write home about. The actresses are fine, but the material is awfully slight, and the finale is terribly rushed.
An aside - if Alice Waddington and company ever want to try doing a live action "Revolutionary Girl Utena," I'd be all for it.
---
Thursday, January 9, 2020
Still Preoccupied With 1965
To quickly recap, I've been working toward the goal of watching at least fifty titles from each calendar year as far back in time as I can go. 1965 has been my biggest challenge to date. Not only did 1965 have the most films that I needed to watch - twenty-eight - out of the entire 1960s (and most of the '50s), but I was also missing three out of the five Best Picture nominees for that year, and a whopping six out of the top ten box office earners. I came across notable title after title that I knew absolutely nothing about, and that was actually kind of fun as a movie nerd who is usually on top of everything.
My general film knowledge isn't very comprehensive before 1967, the much ballyhooed era when New Hollywood came in and the old studio system started coming apart. I've seen plenty of the older classics, but not with nearly the same amount of context. I've seen the films that were groundbreakers, but fewer of the films that were considered part of the establishment, the typical studio product. So I think this time around, the most valuable watches were titles like the Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton romance, "The Sandpiper," or the cameo stuffed bible epic, "The Greatest Story Ever Told," because they gave me a better sense of what the film landscape of the time looked like, what the major genres and themes of the day were. Also, because I will never, ever get over John Wayne as a drawling Roman Centurion. Good grief.
I have an armchair theory that the 1960s are the perfect convergence point for multiple generations of Hollywood artists. You still had a few of the silent stars around, like Elsa Lanchester ("That Darn Cat!") and Buster Keaton ("Beach Blanket Bingo"), and Jimmy Stewart was still a leading man, though noticeably graying in pictures like "Shenandoah" and "The Flight of the Phoenix." There were also a handful of faces that you still see today, like Jane Fonda ("Cat Ballou") and Terrence Stamp ("The Collecter"). I remarked in my last post about wading into '60s films that the only major star still hanging on in the same capacity, with the same kind of clout, was Clint Eastwood ("For a Few Dollars More.") I think I'd add Michael Caine ("The Ipcress File") to that list. And I had very mixed feelings seeing the "And introducing Woody Allen" credit at the beginning of "What's New Pussycat?"
Changed social mores mean that a film like "Pussycat" won't be made again in a hurry. However, I was happy to see films like "Darling" and "The Knack" tackling the gender divide in a way that still feels relevant today. Ditto "Patch of Blue," starring Sydney Poitier and Elizabeth Hartman as a complicated interracial couple where the heroine is blind. LGBT issues, alas, were barely even on the radar. Robert Redford had an early role as a gay man in "Inside Daisy Clover," and went around insisting in interviews that the character was really bisexual. And it was considered a positive portrayal simply because he wasn't killed off in the end or otherwise punished for being gay.
As with all eras in film, 1965 had its own weird little microtrends. There were the comedic race films, "The Great Race" and "Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines." There was a trio of rare independent animated films, "The Man from Button Willow," "Pinocchio in Outer Space," and "Willy McBean and His Magic Machine." There were three Elvis musicals, three comedic westerns, and a whopping five AIP beach party movies - and there's a great bit in "That Darn Cat!" throwing shade at them. Sean Connery ("Thunderball" and "The Hill") was voted the most bankable star of the year by exhibitors, with Julie Andrews ("The Sound of Music") in second place.
Directors I've been happy to be getting to know better include Richard Lester ("The Knack"), Norman Jewison ("The Cincinnati Kid") and Otto Preminger ("Bunny Lake is Missing"). All of these directors made multiple films in a single year, a feat that really only Steven Soderbergh manages nowadays.
The Top Ten project will continue, but I'll be taking a break for a while for the upcoming awards season. Happy watching!
---
Tuesday, January 7, 2020
Prepare For "Parasite"
Bong Joon-ho films have always been hit-or-miss with me. Even in the films of his that I've liked, including "Mother" and "Memories of Murder," there's an emphasis on grotesquerie that's never sat quite right with me. He's got a certain sensibility and sense of humor that I've never been entirely on the same wavelength with. In "Parasite," however, it felt like everything finally clicked.
The Kim family is comprised of father Ki-taek (Song Kang-ho), mother Choong Sook (Jang Hye-jin), son Ki-woo (Choi Woo-shik) and daughter Ki-jeong (Park So-Dam). They live in a dank basement apartment and scrape by on menial jobs. The parents can't seem to find steady work, and their young adult offspring haven't been able to get into the schools they want, despite being smart and talented. In every way, they're disadvantaged and unlucky. Then one day, Ki-woo's friend Min-Hyuk (Park Seo-joon) sets him up with a tutoring job for the wealthy Park family. Mrs. Park (Jo Yeo-jeong) is gullible and anxious, and Ki-woo is able to lie his way into the household, becoming an English tutor for teenage daughter Da-hye (Hyun Seung-min). Mr. Park (Lee Sun-kyun) and young son Da-song (Jung Hyun-joon) are similarly oblivious, as Ki-woo uses his position to help the rest of his family.
"Parasite" is a fable about the haves and the have-nots, and how they interact - or fail to. I think we can classify this as a genre film, because of certain wildly implausible developments, but it's a social allegory in the same realm as recent movies like "mother!" and "Us." "Parasite" is more grounded, though, with characters that are more well-rounded and morally ambiguous. We're clearly meant to sympathize with everyone, despite their faults. The Parks seem insensitive and cold, but they never really do anything wrong, and it's not their fault that they're oblivious of their privilege. What the Kims are doing is clearly terrible, but at the same time the rules of the system are so heavily weighted against them, conning their way to success feels excusable. In the first half of the film, it's easy to root for the Kims as they maneuver their way into better circumstances. And then Bong Joon-ho pulls the rug out from under us, and forces the audience to confront the awful consequences.
I want to avoid spoilers, but the twists and turns of the plotting here are excellent. There's some violence and some very nasty dark secrets that come out, but it's the well-timed farce that really makes the picture. Bong Joon-ho's black humor and penchant for the morbid are out in full force, and it works here because it fits so well with what Bong is doing thematically. A good deal of the film's power comes from just the simple contrast of the Parks' picture perfect family life with the Kims' increasingly dire straits, and the worse and worse measures they have to take to keep up appearances. There's a fantastic use of physical space, with most of the action taking place in the Parks' palatial house, which eventually becomes a giant metaphor for the absurdity and ugliness of the socioeconomic divide.
The performances are great all around. Song Kang-ho is a perfect paternal sad-sack, kindly but nursing deeper hurts. Jo Yeo-jeong does most of the heavy lifting where the satire is concerned, turning Mrs. Park into a perfect caricature of nervous naivete and helicopter parenting. She's insufferable and pitiful by turns, and so much of the movie is dependant on her epic tunnel vision. Choi Woo-shik gives the film its heart as Ki-woo, who really does just want to help his family, and Park So-Dam is coolly admirable as his unflappable sister. I also want to point out Lee Jung-eun as the Parks' grandmotherly housekeeper, who is more than meets the eye. To say more, alas, is spoiler territory.
The last few Bong Joon-ho social allegories, namely the fantastical "Snowpiercer" and "Okja," didn't sit so well with me because the worldbuilding felt slapdash, and the human element was lacking. Here, "Parasite" has similar aims, but with the stronger characters, smaller scale metaphors, and more touching central relationships, it works so much better. There's a specificity to the Kims' woes that hits harder, and a recognizable context to their resentments that really helps them get under the skin. If Bong continues to make films in this vein, I hope he sticks with modern Korean settings and issues. That seems to be where he does his best work.
---
Sunday, January 5, 2020
My Most Anticipated Television and Web Series of 2020
Last year's inaugural list went really, really, well so I'm making this a permanent yearly feature. And there's plenty to write about this time around, with a slew of new streaming services offering all sorts of ambitious content. As always, it's difficult to predict exactly when some of these projects are going to premiere, since the gap between announcements and actual availability is way shorter for series than it is for theatrical films. I've actually started keeping my own calendar of premiere dates for upcoming shows to avoid anything slipping through the cracks. All the series listed below are new, but returning shows I'm looking forward to include "Westworld" and "Venture Bros."
To keep things interesting this year, I'm picking one show per network. Notable omissions are notable.
"Star Trek: Picard" - It took me a while to warm up to the idea of a series built around an aged Captain Picard, but after the Comic Con trailer, and all the announcements about returning "Next Generation" cast members, I'm ready to give it a go. I've missed this set of characters since the film series ended inauspiciously with "Nemesis." I'm secretly hoping that an evil Wesley Crusher might be in the mix somewhere down the line. I'm also happily awaiting the return of "Star Trek: Discovery" and keeping an open mind about the "Star Trek: Lower Decks" animated series.
"Brave New World" - I'm interested in this one mostly for its cast. Alden Ehrenreich is set to star as John the Savage, with Harry Lloyd and Jessica Brown Findley in supporting roles, and Demi Moore recurring. I expect this to be more action-oriented genre fare than thoughtful dystopian drama, considering the recent credits of the producers, but it could still be fun. The development history of the project is pretty interesting, with the original plans being for it to be a series for Syfy. Then it was going to be on the USA Network. Now it seems poised to be one of the first originals on NBC Universal's new Peacock streaming service.
"Devs" - Alex Garland's latest sci-fi project is a miniseries for FX starring Sonoya Mizuno and a sinister Nick Offerman. It's being billed as a techno thriller with some sci-fi elements, in the same vein as Garland's "Ex Machina." Garland has discussed determinism and AI being major themes. My hope is that this will be something similar to "The Circle," but with a brain and maybe some nice action sequences. This was supposed to be a 2019 title, but it was pushed back to 2020, apparently to give the production more time. My guess is that they were also looking to avoid competition from a very crowded winter season.
"The Undoing" - A couple of interesting projects are percolating over at HBO, but the one that I think has the best prospects is a miniseries based on the novel "You Should Have Known," starring Nicole Kidman and Hugh Grant. The plot involves a psychiatrist who learns her husband may be a murderer. Susanne Bier is directing and David E. Kelley is scripting, putting this right in line with HBO's recent spate of female-led prestige melodramas, like "Big Little Lies" and "Sharp Objects." Frankly, all of Kidman and Grant's best roles lately have been in television projects, so I'm sure they'll both knock it out of the park again in this one.
"Cowboy Bebop" - The closer and closer this one comes to actually getting made, the more intrigued I am by it. I like the idea of John Cho leading a multi-racial cast playing space bounty hunters. I like that the Netflix show is probably not going to resemble the anime much. I love "Cowboy Bebop" to pieces, but there's no way we're ever getting a continuation, and there's no reason why a live action riff on the material shouldn't be made. "Bebop" is all about jazz, after all, and jazz is all about putting your own spin on what came before. And I respect Netflix for actually getting the project made, after years of a Hollywood version being bounced around other studios.
"The Wheel of Time" - I write this entry for my old friend K, who spent most of our high school years with his nose buried on one of these books. Honestly, I'd written off Amazon Prime for a while, but they're coming off a very strong year, and have several very ambitious projects in the works. This is one of them, based on a fourteen-book epic fantasy series with a very dedicated fanbase. The Sony produced adaptation will star Rosamund Pike and began production a few months ago. There's a good chance that we won't see this before the end of the year, but we'll definitely see it before that "Lord of the Rings" series.
"Penny Dreadful: City of Angels" - Again, I was wary of this one, especially after the original "Penny Dreadful" ended with that exasperating third season. Still, hope springs eternal, I suppose. It helps that this series is an entirely different animal, with a totally different location, time period, cast, and premise. Instead of Victorian monsters, City of Angels will be set in 1938 and use Mexican-American folklore for its supernatural elements. So far there's only one returning actor, Rory Kinnear, who will be in a different role.
Happy watching!
---
To keep things interesting this year, I'm picking one show per network. Notable omissions are notable.
"Star Trek: Picard" - It took me a while to warm up to the idea of a series built around an aged Captain Picard, but after the Comic Con trailer, and all the announcements about returning "Next Generation" cast members, I'm ready to give it a go. I've missed this set of characters since the film series ended inauspiciously with "Nemesis." I'm secretly hoping that an evil Wesley Crusher might be in the mix somewhere down the line. I'm also happily awaiting the return of "Star Trek: Discovery" and keeping an open mind about the "Star Trek: Lower Decks" animated series.
"Brave New World" - I'm interested in this one mostly for its cast. Alden Ehrenreich is set to star as John the Savage, with Harry Lloyd and Jessica Brown Findley in supporting roles, and Demi Moore recurring. I expect this to be more action-oriented genre fare than thoughtful dystopian drama, considering the recent credits of the producers, but it could still be fun. The development history of the project is pretty interesting, with the original plans being for it to be a series for Syfy. Then it was going to be on the USA Network. Now it seems poised to be one of the first originals on NBC Universal's new Peacock streaming service.
"Devs" - Alex Garland's latest sci-fi project is a miniseries for FX starring Sonoya Mizuno and a sinister Nick Offerman. It's being billed as a techno thriller with some sci-fi elements, in the same vein as Garland's "Ex Machina." Garland has discussed determinism and AI being major themes. My hope is that this will be something similar to "The Circle," but with a brain and maybe some nice action sequences. This was supposed to be a 2019 title, but it was pushed back to 2020, apparently to give the production more time. My guess is that they were also looking to avoid competition from a very crowded winter season.
"The Undoing" - A couple of interesting projects are percolating over at HBO, but the one that I think has the best prospects is a miniseries based on the novel "You Should Have Known," starring Nicole Kidman and Hugh Grant. The plot involves a psychiatrist who learns her husband may be a murderer. Susanne Bier is directing and David E. Kelley is scripting, putting this right in line with HBO's recent spate of female-led prestige melodramas, like "Big Little Lies" and "Sharp Objects." Frankly, all of Kidman and Grant's best roles lately have been in television projects, so I'm sure they'll both knock it out of the park again in this one.
"Cowboy Bebop" - The closer and closer this one comes to actually getting made, the more intrigued I am by it. I like the idea of John Cho leading a multi-racial cast playing space bounty hunters. I like that the Netflix show is probably not going to resemble the anime much. I love "Cowboy Bebop" to pieces, but there's no way we're ever getting a continuation, and there's no reason why a live action riff on the material shouldn't be made. "Bebop" is all about jazz, after all, and jazz is all about putting your own spin on what came before. And I respect Netflix for actually getting the project made, after years of a Hollywood version being bounced around other studios.
"The Wheel of Time" - I write this entry for my old friend K, who spent most of our high school years with his nose buried on one of these books. Honestly, I'd written off Amazon Prime for a while, but they're coming off a very strong year, and have several very ambitious projects in the works. This is one of them, based on a fourteen-book epic fantasy series with a very dedicated fanbase. The Sony produced adaptation will star Rosamund Pike and began production a few months ago. There's a good chance that we won't see this before the end of the year, but we'll definitely see it before that "Lord of the Rings" series.
"Penny Dreadful: City of Angels" - Again, I was wary of this one, especially after the original "Penny Dreadful" ended with that exasperating third season. Still, hope springs eternal, I suppose. It helps that this series is an entirely different animal, with a totally different location, time period, cast, and premise. Instead of Victorian monsters, City of Angels will be set in 1938 and use Mexican-American folklore for its supernatural elements. So far there's only one returning actor, Rory Kinnear, who will be in a different role.
Happy watching!
---
Friday, January 3, 2020
"The Crown" Year Three
The third season of Netflix's "The Crown" brings many changes. Nearly the entire cast has been replaced as the series barrels forward in time several years from the end of season two. These latest ten episodes cover roughly 1964 to 1976, the period of British history when Harold Wilson (Jason Watkins) served as Prime Minister. A more mature Queen Elizabeth II is now played by Olivia Colman, Prince Philip by Tobias Menzies, and Princess Margaret by Helena Bonham Carter. Also making their debuts as they become prominent in public life are Princess Anne (Erin Doherty) and Prince Charles (Josh O'Connor). Series creator Peter Morgan, however, still has writing credits on every single episode.
So, when you get past the cast list, it's business as usual at "The Crown." Moments from history are used as entry points into the heads of the royal family. Each new crisis and occasion becomes an opportunity for further character study, whether it's the moon landing giving Prince Philip an existential crisis or Charles' investiture as Prince of Wales sparking a confrontation with his mother. The interpersonal drama is almost wholly invented fiction, but still contains well-observed grains of truth that are fascinating to examine. There's ample material for Morgan to work with here, including the romance of Charles and the future Duchess Camilla (Emerald Fennell), Margaret's highly publicized tour of America, and conspiracy theories about a governmental coup lead by Lord Mountbatten (Charles Dance). At times the speculative nature of the plotting feels like it's crossing a few too many lines, but at other times it manages to present some fresh insights and points of view. Phillip's deeply uncomfortable encounter with the Apollo 11 astronauts is just a delight.
The high point of the season, however, is the dramatization of the Aberfan disaster, where a mining waste tip collapsed and buried a school, killing dozens of children. Similar to the recent "Chernobyl" miniseries, it is a clear-eyed view of a horrific national tragedy. However, it also provides the opportunity for us to see characters like Margaret and Philip in a new context, and ends with Elizabeth musing over whether her role as queen may be eroding her humanity. It's one of several recent examples of television drama being used to bring attention to a largely forgotten corner of history. However, it's also emblematic of the season being a fairly glum and harrowing one. Everyone is unhappy, the country seems to be perpetually in a state of crisis, and the Royals rarely score any wins, either public or personal. One of the lighter episodes is spent chronicling the production of a notoriously tone-deaf documentary about the Royal family.
And yet, I found it difficult to stop watching. And that shouldn't be a surprise, with all these world class actors playing all these larger than life characters. Colman is very different than Claire Foy, and operates in a more subdued register, but she can summon the ice and fire when she needs them. I prefer Menzies to Matt Smith as Philip, partially because the character seem to have mellowed with age. His frustrations manifest differently, and his relationship with Elizabeth has changed. Some of the best surprises are the smaller performances, like Clancy Brown as a boisterous Lyndon B. Johnson and Lane Lapotaire as Princess Alice, Philip's estranged mother. Doherty and O'Conner are both fantastic as Anne and Charles, and I look forward to their further appearances in the next season.
"The Crown" retains its high production values and prestige treatment, but I still found it very accessible and entertaining television. I'm going to miss the previous cast, but it was the right decision to recast and regroup. My only worry is that the weaker episodes have been centered around rocky romantic relationships, notably Charles and Margaret's, and there's a lot more material in this vein inevitably coming our way. Oddly, the show has backed off from Elizabeth and Philip's marital troubles, which were so central to the past seasons. And that's a shame, because I was looking forward to seeing Colman and Menzies really clash.
On the other hand, there's plenty to look forward to. I can't wait to see Gillian Anderson next year as Margaret Thatcher.
---
So, when you get past the cast list, it's business as usual at "The Crown." Moments from history are used as entry points into the heads of the royal family. Each new crisis and occasion becomes an opportunity for further character study, whether it's the moon landing giving Prince Philip an existential crisis or Charles' investiture as Prince of Wales sparking a confrontation with his mother. The interpersonal drama is almost wholly invented fiction, but still contains well-observed grains of truth that are fascinating to examine. There's ample material for Morgan to work with here, including the romance of Charles and the future Duchess Camilla (Emerald Fennell), Margaret's highly publicized tour of America, and conspiracy theories about a governmental coup lead by Lord Mountbatten (Charles Dance). At times the speculative nature of the plotting feels like it's crossing a few too many lines, but at other times it manages to present some fresh insights and points of view. Phillip's deeply uncomfortable encounter with the Apollo 11 astronauts is just a delight.
The high point of the season, however, is the dramatization of the Aberfan disaster, where a mining waste tip collapsed and buried a school, killing dozens of children. Similar to the recent "Chernobyl" miniseries, it is a clear-eyed view of a horrific national tragedy. However, it also provides the opportunity for us to see characters like Margaret and Philip in a new context, and ends with Elizabeth musing over whether her role as queen may be eroding her humanity. It's one of several recent examples of television drama being used to bring attention to a largely forgotten corner of history. However, it's also emblematic of the season being a fairly glum and harrowing one. Everyone is unhappy, the country seems to be perpetually in a state of crisis, and the Royals rarely score any wins, either public or personal. One of the lighter episodes is spent chronicling the production of a notoriously tone-deaf documentary about the Royal family.
And yet, I found it difficult to stop watching. And that shouldn't be a surprise, with all these world class actors playing all these larger than life characters. Colman is very different than Claire Foy, and operates in a more subdued register, but she can summon the ice and fire when she needs them. I prefer Menzies to Matt Smith as Philip, partially because the character seem to have mellowed with age. His frustrations manifest differently, and his relationship with Elizabeth has changed. Some of the best surprises are the smaller performances, like Clancy Brown as a boisterous Lyndon B. Johnson and Lane Lapotaire as Princess Alice, Philip's estranged mother. Doherty and O'Conner are both fantastic as Anne and Charles, and I look forward to their further appearances in the next season.
"The Crown" retains its high production values and prestige treatment, but I still found it very accessible and entertaining television. I'm going to miss the previous cast, but it was the right decision to recast and regroup. My only worry is that the weaker episodes have been centered around rocky romantic relationships, notably Charles and Margaret's, and there's a lot more material in this vein inevitably coming our way. Oddly, the show has backed off from Elizabeth and Philip's marital troubles, which were so central to the past seasons. And that's a shame, because I was looking forward to seeing Colman and Menzies really clash.
On the other hand, there's plenty to look forward to. I can't wait to see Gillian Anderson next year as Margaret Thatcher.
---
Wednesday, January 1, 2020
My Least Anticipated Films of 2020
There's no doubt that these posts are getting harder and harder to write. It's not because there are fewer terrible movies getting released each year, but because the studios have been getting better at hiding them. Many awful titles that might have gotten a theatrical release a few years ago are now being dumped on VOD or streaming. There's often not much advance information provided about stinkers, or they show up as late additions to the slates, with little marketing or fanfare. Netflix has gotten especially good at ambushing us with the surprise existence of a new Wayans' or Adam Sandler comedy every few months. After some consideration, I'm leaving streaming premieres out of the larger post below - except to point out the existence of Sandler's "Hubie Halloween," which wrapped up shooting a few months ago.
I also considered having a section for least anticipated television and streaming series this year, in the name of greater movie/TV parity on this blog. Ultimately, I decided against this due to logistical reasons and because it's really a little too easy to find bad television these days.
So, let the cinema shade-throwing commence. And if past years are any indication, it's likely this will be the last time you see discussion of any of these titles on this blog.
Let's start with horror. First up, there a "The Grudge" remake with Andrea Riseborough. It's being made by Nicholas Pesce, an arthouse director, but the early January release date points to the studio not having any faith in it. A new "Saw" film called "The Organ Donor" is due in May, starring Chris Rock and Samuel L. Jackson. Try as I might, I cannot conceive of the result being anything good. Finally, a fifth "Purge" movie is coming in July. There are quite a few other iffy horror titles on the schedule, but also some interesting experiments like the "Fear Street" movies and the reboot of "Fantasy Island." It's actually looking like a pretty strong lineup for horror fans this year.
The kids, alas, have more dire minefields to clear. While I respect the filmmakers of "Sonic the Hedgehog," for deciding to delay the film to make their animated Sonic less cringe-inducing, everything about this movie screams early 2000s live-action/CGI hybrid kids' movie in the vein of the "Scooby Doo," "Garfield," and "Alvin and the Chipmunks" movies. No thank you. I think that the "Despicable Me" franchise has thoroughly worn out its welcome, so I'll be avoiding the prequel "Minions: The Rise of Gru." Unless there are major tonal changes, I'm also writing off "Peter Rabbit 2." I also want to point out the oddness of "The Croods 2" coming seven years after the original, which was a fairly minor hit for Dreamworks in the first place.
Bad comedies often follow particular stars. I picked on Melissa McCarthy last year, and this year I'm afraid it's Tiffany Haddish's turn. Her track record has been pretty awful ever since "Girls Trip," and she's in two films this year that don't look any more promising. The first is female ensemble comedy "Like a Boss," which Paramount is dumping in January. Then in February comes "Bad Trip," described as a hidden camera prankster film, with a couple of Adult Swim alumns behind it. There's a small chance we'll also see her in the Billy Crystal dramedy "Here Today," which sounds a bit like "The Intouchables" with comedy writers. I respect Crystal, but he hasn't directed a feature since 2001.
Other comedies I'm avoiding are "Bad Boys For Life," where Martin Lawrence is now a walking punchline, and somehow I'm being made to miss Michael Bay's involvement, and "The Jesus Rolls," the long awaited "Big Lebowski" spinoff about Jesus Quintana. Apparently the latter is now a remake of Bertrand Blier's 1974 French comedy "Les Valseuses," as directed by John Turturro. I've actually seen "Les Valseuses" pretty recently. I don't think this is going to work.
Finally, it feels a little too easy to pick on the latest Paul W. S. Anderson action film, "Monster Hunter," and the latest faith-based weepie, "I Still Believe." I have a sneaking suspicion that some of the more troubled blockbusters I'm holding out some hope for, like "Godzilla v. Kong" and "New Mutants" are going to turn out to be pretty awful. But we'll see.
I'll have my most anticipated film lists up around March, after Sundance, once release schedules have filled in a little more.
---
I also considered having a section for least anticipated television and streaming series this year, in the name of greater movie/TV parity on this blog. Ultimately, I decided against this due to logistical reasons and because it's really a little too easy to find bad television these days.
So, let the cinema shade-throwing commence. And if past years are any indication, it's likely this will be the last time you see discussion of any of these titles on this blog.
Let's start with horror. First up, there a "The Grudge" remake with Andrea Riseborough. It's being made by Nicholas Pesce, an arthouse director, but the early January release date points to the studio not having any faith in it. A new "Saw" film called "The Organ Donor" is due in May, starring Chris Rock and Samuel L. Jackson. Try as I might, I cannot conceive of the result being anything good. Finally, a fifth "Purge" movie is coming in July. There are quite a few other iffy horror titles on the schedule, but also some interesting experiments like the "Fear Street" movies and the reboot of "Fantasy Island." It's actually looking like a pretty strong lineup for horror fans this year.
The kids, alas, have more dire minefields to clear. While I respect the filmmakers of "Sonic the Hedgehog," for deciding to delay the film to make their animated Sonic less cringe-inducing, everything about this movie screams early 2000s live-action/CGI hybrid kids' movie in the vein of the "Scooby Doo," "Garfield," and "Alvin and the Chipmunks" movies. No thank you. I think that the "Despicable Me" franchise has thoroughly worn out its welcome, so I'll be avoiding the prequel "Minions: The Rise of Gru." Unless there are major tonal changes, I'm also writing off "Peter Rabbit 2." I also want to point out the oddness of "The Croods 2" coming seven years after the original, which was a fairly minor hit for Dreamworks in the first place.
Bad comedies often follow particular stars. I picked on Melissa McCarthy last year, and this year I'm afraid it's Tiffany Haddish's turn. Her track record has been pretty awful ever since "Girls Trip," and she's in two films this year that don't look any more promising. The first is female ensemble comedy "Like a Boss," which Paramount is dumping in January. Then in February comes "Bad Trip," described as a hidden camera prankster film, with a couple of Adult Swim alumns behind it. There's a small chance we'll also see her in the Billy Crystal dramedy "Here Today," which sounds a bit like "The Intouchables" with comedy writers. I respect Crystal, but he hasn't directed a feature since 2001.
Other comedies I'm avoiding are "Bad Boys For Life," where Martin Lawrence is now a walking punchline, and somehow I'm being made to miss Michael Bay's involvement, and "The Jesus Rolls," the long awaited "Big Lebowski" spinoff about Jesus Quintana. Apparently the latter is now a remake of Bertrand Blier's 1974 French comedy "Les Valseuses," as directed by John Turturro. I've actually seen "Les Valseuses" pretty recently. I don't think this is going to work.
Finally, it feels a little too easy to pick on the latest Paul W. S. Anderson action film, "Monster Hunter," and the latest faith-based weepie, "I Still Believe." I have a sneaking suspicion that some of the more troubled blockbusters I'm holding out some hope for, like "Godzilla v. Kong" and "New Mutants" are going to turn out to be pretty awful. But we'll see.
I'll have my most anticipated film lists up around March, after Sundance, once release schedules have filled in a little more.
---
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
