Green Book (4/5 Stars)

There alot of interracial buddy movies out there. The genre was essentially born with In the Heat of the Night in 1968, the first interracial buddy cop movie, which seemed to spawn a different iteration every couple of years (a few examples 48 Hours, Lethal Weapon, Rush Hour). Green Book belongs with the best of them and in a way is more than that. Other interracial buddy movies focus only on the race aspect of the buddy relationship. Green Book does more than that. The characters here are also separated by class and just as importantly, if not more so, their ideas about individualism.

The plot is disarmingly simple. It is based on a true story that took place within the space of a few months in the early 1960s. The Dr. Don Shirley, the celebrated concern pianist, is embarking on a cross-country tour, including the deep south, and has hired Tony "Lip" Vallalonga as his driver/bodyguard. Dr. Don Shirley is black and Tony "Lip" is white. But as I said, there's more. Dr. Don Shirley is upper class. Tony "Lip" is working class. And most importantly Dr. Shirley is an individual. He has eclectic tastes, has no family or close friends, and is not simply a good piano player but one of the best. Tony "Lip" on the other hand, is Italian. He's from the Bronx.

They mostly get along. Tony "Lip" may harbor basic 1960s prejudice against black people, but does not seem to apply them to Dr. Shirley, who has obvious class and money and will pay him a good wage for his work. Dr. Shirley appreciates the usefulness of Tony's skills and personality attributes even though he clearly does not want them for himself. They travel through the segregated south, but the hardships that prevail upon them there are never more interesting than how these two interact with each other. Most of it pretty funny in an odd couple kind of way, Tony "Lip" being the sloppy easy-going guy and Dr. Shirley being the neat uptight man. Tony "Lip" introduces Dr. Shirley to Kentucky Fried Chicken. Dr. Shirley helps Tony "Lip" with the letters he writes to his wife. By the time the movie was ending and Tony "Lip" was hurrying back to make Christmas dinner with his family, I was happily being reminded of Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. This is an enjoyable movie. Is it one of the best of the year? (It has been nominated for Best Picture). I don't think so. I think it lacks the sort of ambition a Best Picture nominee should have. But I'm not unhappy with its presence.

What is a racial stereotype? It is a belief about the typical attributes of a type of people. If you would agree that there is such a thing as a type of people, than it follows that there exist racial stereotypes about them that are true. At one point in this movie, Tony "Lip" offers some fried chicken to Dr. Shirley. Dr. Shirley refuses it. What's the problem, says Tony, you people are suppposed to like fried chicken. Dr. Shirely takes offense. What's the problem, says Tony, if someone told me all guineas like spaghetti and meatballs, I wouldn't get offended. Now, we all know why Dr. Shirley would get offended. Perhaps a better question then is why Tony "Lip" wouldn't get offended. The answer is not a question of race, it is a question of individualism. Let's put it this way: The racial stereotype that black people like fried chicken is not offensive to Dr. Shirley because he believes a liking of fried chicken is inherently bad. It isn't. Nobody thinks that. Dr. Shirley is offended because he is being automatically placed into a group based on his race, when he, as an individual, does not share those characteristics. Tony "Lipp" on the other hand does not identify as an individual, or not nearly as much. He is an Italian. He grew up and lived his entire life in one neighborhood in the Bronx. He is not offended by the idea of a person telling him Italians like spaghetti and meatballs because he does not have a problem with being grouped with Italians and having others assume Italian characterisitics about him. When told a group of stuck rich guys won't like his last name, he says, if they don't like it, they can shove it, I'll wait outside. It's only a problem to Dr. Shirley to not be accepted or allowed to be something different from Black. Tony "Lip" is content with being Italian and does not want to be anything else.

America has a long history of promoting individuals and individualism like that of Dr. Shirley. Our culture say far less about the merits of being part of a group. The pitfalls of being part of a group are well known: less room for vanity, less chance of fame, and you have to suppress certain aspects of yourself that the majority believe are not beneficial or simply don't like. But what about the benefits? Everyone in Tony "Lip" neighborhood knows and respects him. His Christmas dinners are attended by a large amount of family and friends. Whether or not he needs it, his relatives show up to provide support. Contrast this with the situation of Dr. Shirley. He receives lots of applause for being an outstanding pianist, but he has no close family, he lives alone, his best friend might be his butler. This is not a result of his race. He has chosen to put himself on a pedestal apart from other people. His concerns about racial stereotypes are not always a blow against racial prejudice, sometimes they are an exercise in vanity. He wants other people to believe he is exceptional. To the extent that he is exceptional, he deserves that consideration. But this is unrelated to whether it is okay to assume a black person likes fried chicken. If most black people like fried chicken, and liking fried chicken is not a bad thing, it isn't offensive to say or assume so. It is at least not racially offensive. Individuals may be offended for being lumped in with a group and a lot of what seems to pass as racism nowadays can fit squarely within the latter category. Not being able to vote or sit in a restaurant. That's racism. Microagressions, I'm afraid not.

This movie was directed Peter Farrelly without his brother Bobby Farrelly. There is probably a story there. The Farrelly brothers were responsible for some of the best comedies of the 1990s (Dumb and Dumber, Kingpin, There's Something About Mary), but have not been doing that great since. This is a good change of pace. 

Can You Ever Forgive Me? (4/5 Stars)

Sometimes a comedian's persona parlays perfectly into a dramatic role adding depth and pathos into what was before a rather two dimensional act. A great example of this is Adam Sandler's turn in Paul Thomas Anderson's Punch Drunk Love. It was ostensibly the same rage-prone Adam Sandler character that he got famous for in a bunch of pure comedic movies like Happy Gilmore and The Waterboy, but Punch-Drunk Love got inside it and turned it the Sandler-persona for one brief shining moment into the stuff of art.

This can be said of Melissa McCarthy's turn here in Can You Ever Forgive Me? I have always considered her shtick a bit overrated and too dependent on being a dependable jerk. In Can You Ever Forgive Me?, she inhabits a role, playing a real life jerk named Lee Israel, that takes this persona to the logical end of the line and then asks the audience to consider her nature for more time than a punchline. Their are moments of subliminity in this movie when you feel like you really understand her in a new way and, for a brief shining moment, what floats to the top is the stuff of art. Melissa McCarthy was nominated for an Oscar for her work here (her co-star Richard E. Grant was also nominated) and it is well-deserved.

Lee Israel was a real person, a writer who specialized in biographies in the bad old days of New York City. In the early 1990s, after had lost her last job because of alcoholism, and without friends or family because she was a jerk, she became desperate. She could not pay the rent and more dramatically, she couldn't pay the vet costs for her sole companion, her beloved cat. While doing research in the library for a book on Fanny Brice nobody wanted, she serendipitously found a few old letters from the comedian. She sold one, got some money, but not all that much because the letter wasn't exciting. She added some caustic wit onto the next one in a p.s. line. That letter sold for much more. So she started forging letters in the style of other authors like Dorothy Parker, Ernest Hemingway, and such.

She actually did not make all that much money. Still the movie is fascinating in several procedural ways. It explains quite succinctly how Lee Isreal made these letters and how she fooled the anitque dealers. It also makes apparent Lee Israel's artistic worth. Nobody would buy her books, but everyone believes that the letters are real because Israel succeeds so well in capturing the voices of the authors she is impersonating.

But most of all, the movie is succeeds in its portrayal of a character at her lowest gaining some victories however small. Lee Israel is a miserable person. At the time she embarks on her criminal career she remeets an acquaintance named Jack Hock, played here by Richard E. Grant. Jack Hock is absurdly optimistic given his status as a lonely and penniless queer man. One of the biggest laughs in the movie is when Jack Hock is revealed to be homeless and speaking about this to Lee he relates his failures but adds, "I can't say I have any regrets." "That can't possibly be true," she deadpans. Jack Hock is so low on the societal totem-pole he seems to be unable to judge Lee's immoral behavior. This allows him to become her drinking buddy and every now and again, there is one particularly sublime moment in a jazz club, we see Lee Israel relax enough to the point where she experiences something along the lines of happiness.

This is what the movie does so well. It presents a person that is not particularly likable, but also does not require the audience to like them. The movie shows a frank discussion with Lee and her agent (played by Jane Curtain) in the beginning of the movie and allows the agent to win the argument as to whether or not she deserves an advance of money ("You're not famous enough to be an asshole," her agent explains). However, the movie succeeds in explaining the character and once a character is explained, it is possible to empathize with them and her small victories become something the audience shares in. Courtroom speeches from guilty defendants are the thing of drama and Can You Ever Forgive Me? does not disappoint in this regard. We believe Lee when she states that she does not regret her actions, that the period in which she was forging letters and being able to pay the rent and help her cat were some of the best times in her life and that she had never been more proud of her work's artistic merit. We also believe her when she admits that pretending to be someone else is a coward's act, that the true artist is someone who explores herself, which she has always failed to do. She is granted parole and we are glad she doesn't receive a prison term. She is directed to attend AA meetings, which she doesn't, and we forgive her that as well. She is too old to change and is not asking anything more from us anyway.

Can You Ever Forgive Me?, was directed by Marielle Heller, She previously had made the movie The Diary of a Teenage Girl, another movie that took great interest in the overlooked inner world of a not-so-obvious character. I hope to see more movies from her.

Vice (3/5 Stars)

Not that it is wise to suppose that Dick Cheney cares, but I bet he never suspected at the time when he was at the height of his power, that the little known writer currently working at Saturday Night Live producing Bear City skits would go on to make the definitive biopic of him. That is the problem with being an under-the-radar bearaucrat with little to no personality. Nobody talks about you, until one person does and that person becomes the only storyteller around.

The writer and director of Vice is Adam McKay, better known for his work directing Will Ferrel comedies such as Anchorman, Talldega Nights, and Step-Brothers. Will Ferrell is still doing that type of shtick. For the time being, Adam McKay seems to have moved on to more serious entertainment. His first venture into this genre, The Big Short, was one of the best movies of the year. Vice is in the same vein. It takes a complicated subject, the life and politics of hugely influential if not particularly known man, Richard Cheney, and tries its best to explain the significance of his policies and politics. The Big Short had an easier time at it. That movie's subject matter was complicated to, but the movie (and the book as well) adroitly got all the major points across by inserting them into the stories of several sympathetic well-rounded characters. Vice lacks a sympathetic well-rounded character. We learn alot about Dick Cheney but not so much about what makes him click. We learn much about what he did but not much about why he thought it was the right thing to do. Perhaps it would be hard for a writer-director such as Adam McKay to really understand someone so politically opposite. I have seen it done before though. I thought Oliver Stone did a particularly good job with Richard Nixon in Nixon. I mean, the movie makes a big deal about Dick Cheney's pursuit of power, but what is power without purpose. Did he actually want anything besides it? I'm not sure this movie found the answer to that question.

The most chilling thing about Cheney is that there might be less to him than you would think. I watched Errol Morris' documentary interview of Donald Rumsfeld and was absolutely taken aback by the utter lack of seriousness and self-introspection in Donald Rumsfeld. Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney go back a long way, Cheney basically learning the ropes of Washington from Rumsfeld. Was Dick Cheney like Donald Rumsfeld? Can he really be explained by a scene in the beginning of Vice in which a hungover and bruised Cheney is read the riot act by his wife and told that if he does not make something of himself she will leave him. To gain power to keep his wife, is that the sum total of this man's ambitions. What a scary thought.

Adam McKay does not seem to agree. I think McKay's politics are provoking him to seek some more nefarious answer to that question. So the movie makes much more sense in its first half when Cheney is an underdog more defined by a simple pursuit of power than in the second half when Cheney gains power and pursues many of his controversial policies like war and torture. McKay hasn't achieved insight into Cheney motivations, but he is assuming that something more is there. Maybe, maybe not.

The performance in Vice are damn near perfect. Christian Bale may seem a not obvious choice to play Dick Cheney until you see him onscreen for five seconds and you realize its the perfect casting choice. As a matter of course, he seems to have gained like fifty pounds to do this role. All in a days work for this man. This is a much better version of Dick Cheney than we briefly saw Richard Dreyfuss give in W.The most perfect choice of casting though belongs to Steve Carell as Donald Rumsfeld. That is some uncanny shit. I remember being unnerved while watching the real Donald Rumsfeld in The Unknown Known. I felt the same thing here and think it a stroke of genius to use Steve Carell, an actor who has played famously empty characters before like Brick the Weatherman, to portray Rummy.

Like any half-way decent movie that portrays well-known people, the viewer gets a kick out of who got cast to play whom. Tyler Perry plays Colin Powell. Sam Rockwell plays George W. Bush. Amy Adams plays Lynne Cheney. George W. Bush, bless his big dumb heart, doesn't seem to know what he is doing half the time and is under the unfortunate impression that Rumsfeld and Cheney do.

I like political movies with a point of view. Not only does Adam McKay have a point of view, he is brilliantly angry about it. This movie and The Big Short reminded me of the best movies of Oliver Stone. They take chances, they are vibrant, and they are passionate about the subject matter. Sometimes this really works like when Dick and Lynne Cheney speak Shakespeare. Other times not so. Vice has a narrator who is not really introduced and might not be a portrait of the actual person he is supposed to be. (Noticeably, he narrates this story in a wearied manner, not unlike the narrator in last years War Machine. Is this how Afghanistan and Iraq are to be remembered? As sad slogs.) We do not know who this man is until he gets run over by a car and Dick Cheney as organ donee, receives his heart. The movie argues that Dick Cheney slighted the dead man by referring to his donor heart as "his new heart." I get what the movie is getting at, but heart problems don't seem to be a fair thing for which to criticize someone.

I found Vice to be frequently funny. That does not mean the movie has jokes. This relates more to the skill of the writer/director who consistently finds ways to present information in a clever and efficient manner. I am a big fan of Adam McKay. I look forward to whatever he does next.

The Favourite (5/5 Stars)

“The Favourite” was directed by Yorgos Lanthimos. Now here is a director whom I have a love/hate relationship with. I have seen three movies of his, rated the first (“The Lobster”) five stars, the second (“The Killing of a Sacred Deer”) with one star, and now the third, “The Favourite” five stars again. The style of Lanthimos does not change all that much, film by film. The main difference between “The Lobster” and “The Favourite” and “The Killing of a Sacred Deer” is that Sacred Deer takes place in the present day with supposedly normal people. “The Lobster” by contrast took place in a futuristic society with humans that consistently did not act like humans. The setting of “The Favourite” though obstensibly historical is more in line with a setting like “The Lobster” in fact that is part of what makes it so funny. “The Favourite” presents an absurd historical scenario. It concerns the short reign of Queen Anne of England (played by Olivia Coleman) who reigned in the first decade of the 18^th century. Queen Anne has no business being on the throne. She has been involuntarily been delegated the task of ruling a nation through the childless efforts of the past three Tudor kings. She herself lost seventeen children within fifteen years to miscarraige, still-birth, and infant mortality. Such a history would make any person a little unhinged if not completely crazy. Queen Anne is no exception. She will be the last of the Tudor dynasty and it shows.

This consistently ill (her maladies include fevers and gout), generally burnt out and severely insecure lady nevertheless has enormous influence over the fate of the nation. She never leaves the house (to be fair it is a big palace) so the most important decision makers in the nation camp out in her court waiting for her to be well enough to attempt to address the issues of the day. “The Favourite” refers to the woman who at the moment has the most weight with the Queen. This is not a merit based position. It takes fierce ambition, the capacity for much mean girl backstabbing, and a mental limberness that allows one to completely subjugate one’s thoughts and feelings to the whims of a sick crazy woman in order to ultimately manipulate all the other people around her. Does Yorgos Lanthimos show Queen Anne or her sycophants any sympathy. Absolutely none. At times this seems unnecessarily cruel, but given that all the people involved are running an incompetent and irresponsible government it is very much what they all deserve. It’s okay to laugh at these people. They are all doing terrible things. “The Favourite” would make a great double-feature with “The Death of Stalin”. If you ever feel bad about democracy, go and watch these two movies back to back.

The original favourite is Lady Sarah (played by Rachel Weisz). Her ambitions are mainly political. She wants the Queen to finance a war with France. The subject is brought up constantly in this vague abstract way that can’t possibly lead to competent decisions about it no matter what side they ultimately fall upon. Lady Sarah’s political opponent is the leader of the opposition, Lord Harley (played by Nicholas Hoult). Court dramas are generally stiff affairs what with the costumes and the elevated language. Not so with “The Favourite”. Lord Harley is dressed like an insane clown. He has this big white wig, way too much white face makeup, and stupidly high heels. Nicholas Hoult is already a tall actor. Put heels on him and he absolutely towers over the women of the story. It is rather funny how this towering man with a large powerful constituency has to ingratiate himself to a fickle weak women by his dumb dress and absurd courtly manners. Nicholas Hoult has become an eminently watchable actor. This is the same guy who played Nux in “Mad Max: Fury Road” and amazingly, the boy in “About a Boy”. There is a certain confidence he can bring to odd characters that put at least his work in “The Favourite” on the level of a Robert Downey Jr., Sam Rockwell, or Christopher Walken. The man just walks around and kills it in every scene.

Because Lady Sarah’s ambitions are mainly political, she fails to notice at first the upstart Abigail (played by Emma Stone) who has designs on the Queen herself. Abigail does not particularly care whether the war is financed. She wants the Queen’s attention to elevate her position from a servant girl into something more. Her first successes in winning the Queen’s favors draws the attention of Lord Harley. Lord Harley is willing to arrange a wedding with a Lord for Abigail that will automatically elevate her to the nobility herself, in a polite exchange of course for Abigail’s services in backstabbing mean-girl style Lady Sarah’s relationship with the Queen. The movie resembles more “Heathers” than any Merchant and Ivory costume drama and I mean that in the best way.

“The Favourite” presents the learned viewer with a view to a historical anomaly in the stature of women. Three hundred years ago, the women of England had no greater political rights than any other women in the world and no other women in the world at that time had any political rights for the last several thousand years. However, England like other countries had a hereditary monarchy, and in a hereditary monarchy, a woman (not women) could have considerable power given their access to the royal persons. (In the case of England’s Queen Elizabeth, it was possible that a hereditary monarchy could even luck into a great monarch in the form of a woman.) An influential woman in the court of a hereditary monarchy could have the type of power akin to the President’s Chief of Staff in our system. They could direct the monarch’s attention to certain matters and enable or restrict access to the monarch from various constituencies. Lady Sarah does exactly that in “The Favourite”. It is an interesting historical fact that although women were universally oppressed for all of human history, they were most able to attain power in the most oppressive of governments. It was not unnoticed by the Ancient Greeks when they compared their government, a direct democracy (which limited rights only to men), to that of Persia, whose royal courts were continually dominated by the mothers and wives of the emperors. The United States of America is a good modern example. It has been almost 250 years and we have yet to elect a woman as president. Meanwhile anti-liberal states like Pakistan and Myanmar have both had woman heads-of-state in the past 50 years. These women are not coincidentally family members of important political dynasties. Political power spread wide but unevenly as in Ancient Greece and the United States (at least until the 1970s) keeps women from power. Political power tightly held routinely ends up in the hands of a woman.

But what type of woman gains this power? The movies in today’s time have a conundrum that will be a hard needle to thread. How do we, in this newly woke society, treat women in history. We want to tell stories that show empowered women. However, as much as women in power hundreds of years ago may have been ambitious, may have been brilliant, and may have been heroic in their intentions, they were all confined by the misogynistic structure of society. Thus, to gain any power, they would all need to be cunning, scheming, and duplicitous. “The Favourite” shows this dynamic in spades and contains fully-developed interesting female characters. An example of how to not to thread this needle is the last several seasons of “Game of Thrones” TV series which has bowed to consistent pressure as to how it portrays women in its medieval fantasy land. The most annoying example is the nine-year-old Lady Mormont who speaks with vivacity and eloquence to large groups of male warriors and sometimes even persuades them to change political tacks. It is totally unbelievable that these men would let her into the room and even more unbelievable that they would be persuaded by her words, which are even more unbelievable in that they come from a nine-year-old child (you can contrast her behavior with that of Bran who was also a child lord). I suppose in this season of #MeToo, women characters must all be born with an unreal amount of pluck and wisdom lest the creators be branded sexist. A certain amount of complexity in character development is sacrificed when a movie inserts unreality into a historical situations for modern political purposes. The women in “The Favourite” given the society they live in, must adapt in sometimes deceitful and amoral ways. This makes them more interesting and, in my opinion, a better movie. Political correctness be damned.

Bohemian Rhapsody (3/5 Stars)

A movie with a Queen soundtrack is automatically good.

“Bohemian Rhapsody” belongs to that relatively new subgenre of movies, the musical biopic. These movies trace the life of a famous musician with the help of a greatest hits soundtrack. This subgenre has its pluses and minuses. The pluses are the guarantee of a soundtrack that is composed of great songs, a must have in any good movie musical, and an existing fan base that can guide the creators to the important much loved milestones/controversies of the musician’s life. The drawbacks is the inborn sense of responsibility to the musician’s brand, which can gloss over certain unsympathetic events (say the omission of multiple children by multiple women in the movie Ray while the musician was married) or act as an excuse to put the plot of the movie on autopilot. There are great movies in this genre that use the pluses and avoid the drawbacks. Ultimately they can do this by not making the musician the hero of his story, but as a means to explore deeper themes. Amadeus has a Mozart soundtrack but is ostensibly about a less famous rival of his, Salieri, and his envy. Very good movies like Get on Up and The Doors do not treat their musicians sympathetically at all and act more like cautionary tales about fame and/or drugs. It is rare that a musical biopic can have it both ways: an exception would be What’s Love Got to Do With It, which believably portrayed Tina Turner as the hero of her life without provoking the usual cynicism.

Bohemian Rhapsody belongs to the middle-of-the pack biopics that herald a great soundtrack, make sure the fans get all the milestones/controversies they came to see, but ultimately fails to connect the music with a unique story. This movie follows an autopilot plot of early and unlikely success, large success marred by egotism, a break-up, soul-searching and an ultimate reunion for one last concert. You’ve seen this before. The music is probably better this time, but that is because Queen is a special band, not because the movie is a special movie.

Having said that, I enjoyed the entirety of the movie. How could I not? They were playing Queen the entire time and some of the cliché scenes were rendered enjoyable simply by the truth of it all. Did a producer really drop Queen after hearing their magnum opus album “A Night at the Opera” because he did not like/understand “Bohemian Rhapsody”. Yes, apparently this happened. The recluse Mike Myers drops in for a cameo scene as the clueless producer in order to milk this scene for all its worth. When the band exits the producer’s office they warn that the producer will be always be remembered as the man who lost Queen. This is the type of movie that has no qualms about unfairly utilizing 20/20 hindsight. Still its enjoyable because its true. What a dolt.

Bohemian Rhapsody may be notable in that its autopilot plot noticeably avoids a take on Freddie Mercury that would plausibly argue that he was a great figure in a continuing cultural battle. Freddie Mercury was gay at a time when he could not be open about it. However this biopic is not all that concerned with any prejudice Freddie Mercury may have encountered (his rift with his parents is much broader than sexuality given that they are conservative Zoarastrians from Zimbabwe) and portray him as a figure fighting for gay rights. In fact, his first wife is glowingly portrayed while the character the movie decides to make its villain is Freddie Mercury’s first gay lover and his gateway into the homosexual lifestyle of the late 70s and early 80s. It is there through debauched partying that Freddie contracts AIDS, a truth that the movie does not describe in detail and does not ask the audience to sympathize with in any particular way. The story ends with the LiveAid concert for Africa wherein a healthy and robust Freddie strutted and performed before an audience of one billion people. His death a mere five years later is not shown. I wonder whether had this movie been made ten or twenty years ago perhaps this part of Freddie’s story would have had a more central importance to the movie. Now that the cultural argument seems to have been all but won in favor of homosexuality, perhaps we will see the argument sidestepped more often and even more villains garbed in studded leather jackets.

Freddie Mercury is played by Rami Malek, a decent casting choice. Rami Malek and Freddie Mercury both look vaguely foreign in the same unique way that it almost seems like Bohemian Rhapsody was a movie waiting for Rami Malek to become famous before it could get made. Rami Malek does a fine job in performing Freddie moves on stage. However, there is a slight problem here. Rami has to be about five or six inches too short and it apparent in several scenes where he is sharing a stage with other actors who should be the same height or shorter than he is. It is possible to heighten an actor in a movie. Steven Spielberg somehow plausibly grew Daniel Day-Lewis by seven or eight inches to play Abraham Lincoln. Bohemian Rhapsody fails to perform the same magic with Rami Malek and this hurts his ability to project Freddie Mercury’s stage presence. You can look at a YouTube video of the LiveAid concert alongside the movie’s shot by shot performance of the same concert and see what I mean. At the end of the day, Rami Malek falls short of Freddie Mercury.

The director of this movie was Bryan Singer (The Usual Suspects, X-Men) who has done some very good movies in the past. Apparently he was fired half-way through for allegations that have not been fully revealed but seem connected to the #MeToo movement in a Kevin Spacey-like way. Dexter Fletcher took over and made a safe mediocre movie. I’m not sure what Bryan Singer was doing, but I bet it wasn’t too much different than the world that Freddie Mercury was apart of for awhile. A more ambitious movie may have explored that a little further, but perhaps we are not ready for that yet. It certainly wouldn’t fit the operatic bouyant eminently entertaining music of Queen all that well.

A Star is Born (4/5 Stars)

Most popular movies spawn sequels. This is the case when we are more in love with the characters and/or the movie stars. “A Star is Born” is the type of movie that finds its staying power in its archetypal plot. This particular plot can be categorized as an evolutionary offshoot of Pygmalion, that ancient myth about a male sculptor who labors over the sculpture of his perfect woman. The goddess Aphrodite is so impressed by his creation that he deigns to grant one wish of the sculptor. The sculptor wishes that his perfect woman was real. Aphrodite grants that wish and the perfect woman becomes flesh, climbs down from her pedestal and embraces the artist. This myth has as its progeny in every “make-over” play and movie that followed, the best “My Fair Lady”. The “A Star is Born” plot is disarmingly simple but powerful. A famous man spies a talented but unknown woman. He helps her with her career. She becomes a star. Meanwhile, his personal demons and substance abuse set his career path on a downward trajectory. The movie is especially powerful in its treatment of its themes. Fame has both good and bad facets. Personal relationships are both a help and a hindrance. Art is created by both good fortune and personal destruction. Meanwhile we are treated to mandatory great performances, that which must attest as to why the Stars in the story should be considered Stars. For this reason, “A Star is Born” is continually remade. You know the story, but then you’ve always known it. What is interesting is how it is being done this time. And of course, the success of the movie ultimately depends on the “A Star is Born” test: The plot states that the characters are Stars? Do the actors and creators of this movie live up to this description?

A Star is Born (2018) was directed by the actor Bradley Cooper who also has a writing credit. along with two other screenwriters and a host of other story credits for the past three iterations of this movie. Bradley Cooper also acts in this movie in the lead role of Jackson, a country music rock star. I don’t know if he can actually play the guitar or whether that is actually him singing, but it sure looks like it. Bradley Cooper also speaks fluent French. Just thought I’d throw that out there. The look and feel of A Star is Born is a simple and straightforward style. You get the feeling that it does not really matter that Bradley Cooper is the director. However, one must recognize that the director’s invisibility is also a choice of the director. Bradley Cooper has decided to draw attention to his characters not his director’s self. This is probably a good idea.

Bradley Cooper is eminently believable as a country-music star named Jackson. One night, Jackson, needing a drink after a concert, randomly walks into a bar populated by drag-queens. They are tolerant of him and he of they. The drag-queens are having a revue. It’s almost all drag-queens, but they have made an exception. An old employee of the bar named Ally, played by Stephanie Germanotta aka Lady Gaga, performs a perfect rendition “La Vie En Rose”. Jackson falls in love with Ally’s talent, if not yet her person, at first sight. It is important to stress here the importance of this scene and how it is acted. We as an audience have to come to realization along with Jackson that we are watching a first-rate albeit unknown talent. To do this, Lady Gaga has to sing and perform a great version of “La Vie En Rose” without production value, backup, or flash. She does. The pipes on that girl. Holy shit.

Here is where the movie really works and what makes it arguably the best “Star is Born” to date. The soundtrack of this movie is first rate and performed by fantastic artists. Bradley Cooper can’t be said to be a great musician or vocalist, but he doesn’t noticeably suck either. I liked his songs. Lady Gaga just absolutely kills it every time she opens her mouth and/or is on some sort of stage. What is also interesting is the variety of music in the movie. Jackson has some good fast and slow country songs. Lady Gaga starts out in this vein and then, true to her character, she becomes her own star with her own voice, which in the 2018 version includes pop songs. There are also the customary romantic ballads. Like the best musicals, there isn’t a song which makes you want to fast forward the movie to the better songs. Can Lady Gaga act? Yes, and with brown hair. I bet she can speak fluent French too. These freaking talented people.

A Star is Born is further populated with interesting choices for supporting characters. Ally’s father is wannabe crooner turned blue collar limo driver. He is played by Andrew Dice Clay, a former comedian, who seems to have gotten out of bed playing the role. There is a certain warmth that one would not expect, but when he beams with pride about his daughter’s success you totally believe it and feel enthused with him. Another character that flits into the movie is an old colleague of Jackson, that had lived fast for a while and then moved on. He is played by the comedian Dave Chappelle. Something about the way Chappelle speaks, his laid back delivery of precise words, sounds preternaturally wise. I enjoyed his presence. The movie is populated with non-actors (I think the pop producer character might be an actual producer). They all do fine work.

Is this the best “A Star is Born”. Well, I wouldn’t know. I’ve only seen the Judy Garland version. I can say this one is better than that one. I never bought a forty-year old Judy Garland as a twenty-year old neophyte (whereas Lady Gaga here seems to be playing her own age). I’m pretty sure this is better than the Barbara Streisand version simply because I’m pretty sure Babs wouldn’t allow her ego to act like she wasn’t a Star the entire way through the movie. The first movie I heard does not have any music. A bet this “A Star is Born” is the best one. I look forward to the next one, like thirty years from now.

Bad Times at the El Royale (4/5 Stars)

1968 in all its terrifying glory

Welcome to the El Royale. A classic party hotel near Lake Tahoe on the border of California and Nevada. I mean right on the border. The border runs right through the hotel and neatly divides the rooms available into California and Nevada rooms. There are a lot of available rooms. The hotel recently lost its liquor license and with it all of its regular customers.

“Bad Times at the El Royale” is a nice compact story that uses some old tricks of the trade to confine its characters in time and place. These tricks of the trade (I won’t get into too many details) will feel like familiar tropes of horror and mystery stories. For instance, many horror movies requires that all the characters stay in the same place so as to limit the chance of escape. Mystery movies limit the amount of characters so as to help flush out a culprit. “Bad Times at the El Royale” is not a horror or a mystery movie. What it does is use the above tropes to gather and force a suspicious and varied group of characters to interact with each (sometimes violently) within the course of one day/night. Like most great writing, the writer/director Drew Goddard imposes these constraints through the reasonable choices of his characters. The movie acts at many points like a very good play with areas of extended conversations that never get tired punctuated with reveals and reversals.

The movie is divided into chapters based on the rooms that each of the characters originally let. There is Laramie Seymour Sullivan (Jon Hamm), a sociable southern traveling salesman, intent on taking the Honeymoon Suite he can finally afford since no-one uses the hotel anymore. There is Father Daniel Flynn (Jeff Bridges) in town to visit an old acquaintance. There is Darlene Sweet (Cynthia Erivo) a “Wall of Sound” backup singer in town for a gig in Reno. There is a surly woman (Dakota Johnson) who won’t give her name. And finally there is the Royale’s one and only employee Miles Miller (Lewis Pullman) a meek lad who doesn’t seem to be particularly good at anything. No-one is as they seem and some reveals as to who they actually are always good, and sometimes great (particularly the first and last reveals). By the end, it seems the Drew Goddard has decided to lump all the outrages of 1968 into one day/night at this one hotel. We have government conspiracies, Manson-like cultists, Vietnam trauma, and mafia schemes. Darlene Sweet is the most exact reference, obviously referring to the real life Darlene Love of Six Feet to Stardom replete with an obvious Phil Spector-like creepy manager. Her story is the most straight-forward in that she is actually who she says she is. Her character more than pulls her weight though by providing the music’s soundtrack, great acapella versions of “Wall of Sound” doo-wop music. If you love that sound like I do there will be long stretches of this movie you will find particularly enjoyable.

Chris Hemsworth shows up without a shirt half-way through though I won’t be able to tell you why. Jeff Bridges’ performance is great too though the scene he is particularly memorable in I can’t give away either. Several people die. A couple of other people get rich. Everyone in the audience has fun.

Drew Goddard has only one other writer/director credit to his name Cabin in the Woods (He is a prolific producer and writer though of TV shows like Lost). I have not seen that one but I heard, and now believe, that it is was made by a man who knows his stock characters inside and out. More than anything, that is what “Bad Times at the El Royale” is. It is a genre piece from a certain period of time with recognizable characters. Drew Goddard mixes it all up and makes it interesting again. Weirdly it is an original script, though the material really could not be more adapted.

First Man (3/5 Stars)

Can there be just one astronaut’s wife that doesn’t continually lose her shit.

First Man tells the story of Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon. The moon landing occurred in 1969, an event we are told was watched by 400 million people worldwide. Amazingly, this is the first biopic about Neil Armstrong that has ever been made. It comes twenty years after Apollo 13, the movie about the most disastrous Apollo mission, and even a couple of years after Hidden Figures the “untold story” about three obscure NASA mathematicians who happened to be black women. In a way, First Man’s long delay is a great illustration of the artistic community’s disconnect with science and engineering. First Man probably took so long to get made because Hollywood has no idea what makes the story interesting. Watching First Man it is clear that Hollywood still has no idea. Bless them, they understand the drama of a black woman being unable to use a “white’s only” bathroom, but a successful trip to the moon, that is uncharted territory.

It is possible to make an interesting movie that takes place in space and does justice to the people involved in the missions. Apollo 13 was a particularly good movie. The Martian also did a great job. What these movies understand is that science puzzles and engineering problems when presented with clarity and acuity can be suspenseful and interesting. First Man being based on real events that presented engineering problems, sometimes with fatal consequences, had a lot of potential to take this road. What the movie chose to focus on instead was family drama, most of it probably trumped up, and none of it deserving to be shown alongside the extraordinary historic moment the movie is supposedly celebrating.

Neil Armstrong is played by Ryan Gosling, who channels his Drive persona and does a great job in playing someone who historically was described as calm, quietly brave, and no-nonsense. I expect the real Neil would approve of the portrayal. Janet Armstrong, played by Claire Foy, can hardly keep her shit together. It would be hard for me to imagine the real Janet not being somewhat offended by her portrayal. The movie, in its misguided search for drama, decides that Janet’s fears for the safety of her husband is on the same level of importance as a mission to walk on the moon for the first time. She even goes so far as to berate her husband right before the mission about his cold emotional stability about the whole thing. I just wanted to shake her and explain, “Neil is about to WALK ON THE MOON. Your life, children, and nerves are insignificant bullshit compared to that!” There is even a segment of the movie that does a tour of the country zoning in on all the naysayers who thought the moon missions were a waste of time and money. Why is this here? I saw this movie because I was interested in Neil Armstrong and Apollo 11. I don’t care what a bunch of short-sighted idiots think.

First Man was directed by Damien Chazelle. This is his third feature behind Whiplash and La La Land. His first two movies were great movies about music and musicians. I really have no idea why he chose First Man as his next project. The direction is competent but lacks interest in the subject matter. Chazelle seems more interested in Armstrong’s dead daughter than he does about spaceflight. Surely dead daughters and fretful wives can be the subject of great films, just not great films about a man walking on the moon for the first time.