In one of several great moments in “Lady Bird”, the titular
character, a catholic high school senior named Chistine McPherson who
has given herself the “Lady Bird”, is speaking with one of her
teachers, Sister Sarah Joan, about her writing sample about her
hometown Sacramento. Sister Sarah Joan especially likes the writing
sample because one can tell how much Lady Bird loves Sacramento. This
comment surprises Lady Bird because she does not like Sacramento and
has spent much of the movie stating exactly that and how she wishes
to go to college somewhere on the east coast, like New York, where,
as she says, “culture is”. But, Sister Sarah Joan remarks, Lady
Bird’s writing is so specific and detailed. She shows so much
attention to Sacramento and aren’t they the same thing, love and
attention.
Sister Sarah Joan’s point is amply demonstrated by this movie,
which on its surface is about a young woman who doesn’t like her
neighborhood, doesn’t feel like she fits in, and wants to move. But
the characters are so warmly drawn and the scenes are so wonderfully
specific, it is impossible to believe that Lady Bird’s family, her
catholic high-school, and Sacramento, all three of which she is
trying desperately to rebel against, are not also very close to her
heart. She also fights with her mother constantly, but it is the sort
of fighting that comes from micro-management, not neglect, and this
too the movie seemingly argues, is another type of love, maddening at
times yes, but still love.
The greatness of “Lady Bird” lies in its specificity. It is a
great counterargument to the prevailing wisdom about how to make and
market movies about high school. Most high school movies seek to put
characters into certain roles (mean girls, nerds, jocks, and the
like), the idea being to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
This movie could not be more different. Counterintuitively, in being
very true to itself, it has apparently appealed to a large group of
people anyway. It is has received an extraordinarily high
RottenTomatoes rating and has made a lot of money. This was
surprising to me because how many people could possibly relate to a
catholic high school girl in Sacramento. Apparently everybody.
“Lady Bird” was written and directed by Greta Gerwig, better
known as an actress. Greta went to a Catholic high school in
Sacramento before moving to New York for college. So essentially this
movie is about her. It certainly feels lived in. I felt like I could
especially relate to it because I grew up in the suburbs, went to a
Catholic high school, and wanted to leave for New York. I think she
got that 100% correct. As important, she got correct how a rejection
of one’s upbringing doesn’t necessarily mean a hatred of it.
There is a particularly beautiful scene at the end of “Lady Bird”
wherein Christine suffering from a hangover from night before, walks
into a Catholic church for Sunday Mass and hears a choir singing.
Christine isn’t religious anymore but she recognizes the feeling as
that of her home and it moves her with feelings of nostaligia and
gratitude. This movie, along with the musical “The Book of Mormon”,
are exceedingly rare things, love letters from atheists to religious
organizations. Greta Gerwig isn’t a believer, but she understands
and respects it. It wasn’t for her, but she lovingly pays
attention.
Lady Bird is played with perfection by Saiorise Ronan. Her mother is
played by Laurie Metcalf. I expect they will both be nominated this
year. Also, “Lady Bird” is a perfect candidate for Best Original
Screenplay Oscar. I hope Greta Gerwig quits acting and starts
writing/directing full-time. She is very good at this.
I wouldn’t know the first thing as to what “Coco”, Pixar’s
latest venture, gets right and wrong about the beliefs around Dia de
los Muertos, the Mexican holiday that centers around veneration of
ancestors. All I can say is that, portrayed by Coco, it makes for an
ingenious engine for plot. The conceit of “Coco”, and for Dia de
los Mueros perhaps, is that upon death, people enter into a new life
in a parallel dead realm (there is probably a better word for it than
that). In the dead realm, life goes on as usual, except instead of
class divisions based on wealth or rank, there are class divisions
based on how well one is remembered in the Earth realm. Remembrance
in the Earth realm can be both physical as well as mental. A dead
person can be remembered by having their photograph placed on a
family shrine or can simply exist within the mind of a family member.
But if the photograph is not placed on the shrine or the last family
member who remembers the dead soul dies or forgets, than the dead
soul dies a second death in the alternate realm.
Miguel, voiced by Anthony Gonzalez, is a young boy with an
interesting family history. His great great grandfather, a musician,
became estranged by the family. His great great grandmother swore off
music and forbid any of her descendants to remember the great great
grandfather. As Miguel’s family celebrates this year’s Dia de los
Muertos, the only family member to still remember the great great
grandfather is Abuelita, Miguel’s great grandmother, who is very
close to dying herself. Thus there is a ticking time clock here, for
Miguel to figure out what needs to figure out, to essentially save
the second life of his great great grandfather. I have to admit, this
is a plot I have not seen before.
The idea that the memory of ancestors keeps them literally alive,
albeit in a different place, should be inviting to everyone. The fact
that this movie is also very specific about a particular culture
presents to the audience something Pixar does extremely well. It is
an original story with emotional underpinning that is instantly
identifiable. “Coco” is not as funny as other Pixar movies, but
it makes up for it by being especially touching. Who, of course, who
would not melt a little to see a long lost relative come back to
life? And the way Pixar tugs this particular heartstring, through the
use of musical elements and cues that weave themselves through the
story, is very effective.
All that is lefts is to admit, once again, that Pixar has made a
visually striking movie. The Pixar style may seems at times to be a
bit foreign to this culture. When I think of movie dominated by
bones, I am reminded more of the stop-motion animated style of Tim
Burton, but it is not too distracting. I don’t know what details of
Dia de los Muertos is got right or wrong, but even there had not been
such a culture and this movie was made up whole-cloth, it would have
succeeded in making it interesting, important, and vibrant.
Pixar has a tradition of dual directors per film. “Coco” was
directed by the Pixar veteran Lee Unkrich (Toy Story 2, Monster’s
Inc., Finding Nemo, and Toy Story 3)
and a Pixar new-comer Adrian Molina, who also co-wrote the screenplay
with Matthew Aldrich. I expect it is to Molina’s credit that this
story has the level of detail it commands and to Unkrich, the usual
Pixar flair and competence.
For those that felt Thor would be more entertaining if his tragic
flaw was stupidity as opposed to pride (see my review of “Thor”)
and did not bother seeing the second movie because it looked more
stilted and oppressive than the first, the third movie in the “Thor”
saga is exactly the course-correction the character and story sorely
needed.
One half of the story is business-as-usual. There is a political
crisis in Asgaard. Odin has finally died (or has he?) and his
long-lost daughter, Hella, played by none other than Cate Blanchett,
has come back from the throne. As she is Odin’s eldest issue and
apparently was his right-hand person in establishing Odin’s empire,
she has a pretty good argument for being Queen. Thor, played by Chris
Hemsworth, and his brother Loki, Tom Hiddleston, aren’t going for
it though and try to start a fight. She defeats them handily and even
crushes Thor’s mighty hammer.
Thor lost his hammer in the first movie, but whereas in that movie
the event inspired soul-searching and just a little bit of crying, in
this movie Thor’s loss of his hammer merely serves to knock a few
power notches off the characters ability points so the fights he
undertakes afterwards are fairer and funnier. Thor finds himself on a
garbage dump planet ruled by the Grandmaster, Jeff Goldblum, who
specializes in providing gladiatorial contests. The whole scene feels
like the color scheme and outgoing nature of “Guardians of the
Galaxy” has been injected into the Thor universe (or that Thor has
taken a vacation in the “Guardians of the Galaxy” universe for a
spell.) This works much better than one would perhaps think. Thor has
never been especially funny, but becomes quite useful for initiating
and returning jokes in this movie. It helps that Chris Hemsworth is
an underrated comic actor and is particularly good at being a dumb
blonde hunk (see the recent “Ghostbusters” reboot).
Surrounding Thor in the trash world are other routinely funny
characters. Jeff Goldblum, an inspired piece of casting if there ever
was, is essentially playing a meme-version of himself. Given that he
is technically the bad guy, his weirdly punctual way of stilted
speaking deprives any sense of foreboding in the story. He enters
Thor in a non-consensual gladiatorial contest. There Thor meets a
rock giant named Korg whose accent and style of speaking is
reminiscent of the “The Flight of the Conchords.” That is no
mistake. He is voiced by a director of that series, Taika Watiti, who
also is the director of this movie. Thor also meets the reigning
champion, none other than the Incredible Hulk, who has eschewed his
Dr. Jekkyl-Bruce Banner persona for a running two years because this
garbage planet actually likes the other guy. Thor without his hammer
is a bit like Superman consistently surrounded by Kryptonite. It
brings him down to earth where Hemsworth comic abilities allow the
rest of us to laugh at him. It also helps that they shaved off his
pretentious long hair.
The battle scenes in Thor: Ragnarok are spectacular and not so
cringe-inducing as most other blockbuster movies. I’ve complained
ad infinitum about nameless and countless humans being destroyed in
great movie spectacles of violence without anyone in the story
particularly caring. This is less of a concern when the characters
are gods and cannot actually die or get all that much hurt. The
gladiatorial contest between Thor and The Hulk is especially
pleasurable.
Given that one-half of the movie is consistently funny and fun to be
around, the other half seems to lull in parts. This has got to be the
first time that I have written that Cate Blanchett does not inhabit
the most interesting part of a movie. Here it is true, but it is
mainly because the Thor-Hulk story-line is so entertaining. I got a
great kick out of it and look forward to the next Thor movie.
p.s. If Thor is the God of Thunder and he can summon thunderbolts, why would he not be immune to tasers that use electric shocks.
Last year, I saw writer/director Yorgos Lanthimos’s film “The
Lobster” and stated that it was one of the most original romantic
comedies I had ever seen. It was the only film I had seen of Mr.
Lanthimos, who at that point, had been making movies since the 1990s.
After watching “The Killing of a Sacred Deer” I may never see
another of his movies again.
The Lobster’s idiosyncrasies, it’s quirky characters, and its
weird dialogue had the appearance of making sense because of the
absurd fictional world that they inhabited. Having never seen a
Lanthimos film, I suppose I just assumed that when he set stories in
the real world, he would not expect to people to speak and act in the
same unreal way. My assumption was wrong. “The Killing of Sacred
Deer” has no place being set in the real world, but there it is.
The unreality of what is happening on the screen and the unbelievable
way the characters react to it makes it impossible for the viewer to
empathize or care about what is occurring in the story. As a drama,
it failed dramatically. As a comedy, the only laughs it garnered were
the bad kind.
“The Killing of a Sacred Deer” takes its sweet time in getting to
the main conceit of the story. As it meanders, you are left to wonder
what might be happening. Several interesting story-lines seem
possible, slowly the story is developed and you realize that the
story-line that has indeed been chosen is one of the stupider ones. I
will now give it away. A surgeon, played by Colin Farrell, once
negligently caused the death of a man during a surgery. The son of
that man, a shifty and sweaty Barry Keoghan, has put a hex on the
surgeon’s family. Actually, to say it is a “hex” is doing more
explaining than the movie cares to. What happens is that Colin’s
family one-by-one slowly become paralyzed, stop eating, and start
bleeding out the eyes. This happens to Colin’s son first before
happening to his daughter. We do not know how Barry Keoghan is doing
this or whether it a unique hex or has been attempted by anyone
before. There is literally no attempt to explain it.
I guess that would not matter so much if other things were not
missing. After all, many movies are based on otherwise impossible
things happening. But the movie is so deadpan toward the situation,
and its characters reactions are so absurdly understated, that it
seems the movie is making a point of how pathetic they are as they are confronted with otherworldly horror. Is the situation being played
for laughs? People in the theater were indeed laughing when the story
called for the kids crawling along the floor using just their elbows.
But did Lanthimos want us to find children crawling on the floor
because they can’t use their legs anymore funny? Really?
Characters in movies are fictional, yes I know this. But it also says
something about a writer/director who seems to be purposefully
positioning his characters in ways where it is impossible to
empathize with them. What is left is ultimately is a waste of time.
After all, if Lanthimos doesn’t care about whether or not the
sacred deer is killed, why should we?
The show was so good it is hard to believe that it was actually true.
“The Battle of the Sexes,” a tennis match played in 1973 between
Bobby Riggs and Billie Jean King plays like a professional wrestling
match. In one corner is the heel, the ex-champion Bobby Riggs, a
boastful, clownish, male chauvinist. In the other corner is Billie
Jean King, young, serious, the greatest female tennis player in the
country. Bobby believes that he can beat at his age, 55, any woman
who has the guts to challenge him. His reasoning: men are better than
women. The match became so hyped that it ultimately was played in a
football stadium and 50 million people watched it on television. Like
professional wrestling, it had a man one could love to hate and a
woman everyone wanted to win.
Except that this wasn’t a professional wrestling match. The outcome
that would delight the world, good guys win, bad guys lose, was not
predetermined. The prize money was a million dollars and Bobby Riggs,
a compulsive gambler, had bet $15,000 of his own money on himself.
There would be no throwing of the fight and the fact that Bobby had
previously soundly beat the next best female tennis player, Margaret
Court, in what was termed the Mother’s Day massacre, had put a real
suspense onto the outcome of the match. The match was exciting. And
in this movie, the feeling is fully captured.
To Billie Jean King, the significance of the match was very serious.
She had turned down Bobby several times before Margaret’s defeat,
made it essential that she take the match in order to prove that
women’s tennis wasn’t a joke. At the time, she was lobbying for
equal pay in tournaments between men and women. Her reasoning: the
men and women sell the same amount of tickets, why are they paid
differently. To Bobby, the significance of the match seems less
serious and more of a ploy to be paid more money. Bobby knows that by
trolling the women’s lib movement he could generate interest in the
match. Whether he actually hates women is an open question, but on a
certain level it doesn’t matter. He does not take the women’s lib
movement serious. As he comments in one scene: the women don’t
deserve to be paid as much as the men because they can’t beat the
men in a match-up. In fact, he says, “I’m being paid less to play
on the men’s senior circuit than the women are making in their
regular circuit. If I can beat the top women, its unfair to me to be
paid less than them.”
It strikes me that I’m talking far more about the plot than usual.
Well, that speaks to the power of the story. It is a fantastic battle
between two very strong characters. Steve Carell is the perfect actor
to portray the clownish Bobby Riggs and Emma Stone is perfect as
Billie Jean King. In fact, I think this is the fullest character Emma
Stone has ever played and is her best performance. Sarah Silverman
and Bill Pullman pull their weight in supporting roles.
The movie thankfully pays a lot of time and attention to the match
itself. It is well directed by Jonathon Dayton and Valerie Davis
(directors of “Little Miss Sunshine”) and written by Simon
Beaufoy (“Slumdog Millionaire”). This is a good movie. I really
liked it.
The last two movies of writer/director Darren Aronofsky, “Noah”
and now “Mother!”
Present a point of view that is rarely posited. Believers of God
generally think of the deity in an absolutely positive light, whether
as fully good or at least fully just. Whereas non-believers don’t
have an opinion about God (though they may hold a generally negative
of organized religion) because they don’t believe that the deity
exists to have an opinion about. Darren Aronofsky, at least in his
last two films, believes in God, and finds the deity lacking. For
example, in “Noah”,
God decides to kill almost everybody on Earth.
Some characters in that movie
were quite articulate as to the unfairness of it all. If there was a
such thing, that movie and this new one would be heretical works.
“Mother!” is an extending and
ever-developing metaphor of all the crimes ever committed against
Women/Nature. I myself did not quite grasp the overall metaphor until
about two thirds of the way through and upon reflection noticed I
missed many things early on. Then again, I went into this movie
blind. Just reading that its a metaphor will likely help you catch on
to the biblical parallels earlier. “Mother!”
has received a Cinemascore of F which should give a hint as to what
an unpleasant experience this movie can be. However,
an unpleasant movie does not necessarily a bad movie. “Mother!”
is technically proficient, well-acted, and has more things to say in
ten minutes than most movies have in their running time. I cannot say
I liked “Mother!”, but when I exited the theater I had a feeling
that reminded me of the feeling I had when I exited the theater after
watching Charlie Kaufman’s “Synecdoche, New York.” It is an
intense proceeding.
The movie takes place entirely in a
fixer-upper mansion in a picturesque landscape. Here Jennifer
Lawrence, doing her best
impression of a Renaissance Madonna,
works on renovations while her older husband, played by Javier
Bardem, tries to get out of a writing block. Nobody actually has
names as who they are and what they represent seem to more or less
explicitly change over time.
The movie can be broken into three
parts: the first is about the neuroses and concerns of a married
couple trying to decide when and if to have a child, the second is
about fame and what happens to a couple when one of them starts
spreading their love in a not exclusive fashion, the third is quite
explicitly about God and Mother Nature. In
the background, making things complicated and then throwing the whole
world into squalor and chaos are the humans. The movie takes a dim
view of the humans, and through this dim of view of the humans,
places the ultimate blame for the troubles on God, who made them in
his image. The only innocent here is Women/Nature. At least that is
what I believe this movie is about. Aronofsky does not feel the need
to be explanatory. I think that wound in the floor is Original Sin,
but there is no way to know for certain. Javier Bardem it should be
noted is quite good as God. Not sure how that sort of thing is pulled
off, but he does it.
I can’t recommend this movie to anyone who wants to see a movie
with anyone else. You are going to have to see this one alone. It’s
not a good time. However, it will make you think. It is quite
literally a challenging movie. I for one never considered what Mary,
mother of Jesus, may have felt about God giving up his only son
through martyrdom for our sins. I mean it’s not like God asked Mary
for permission or even her opinion on the matter.
Those searching for a theme to categorize the career of Director
Steven Soderbergh will be left searching. He is a man of seemingly
unlimited interests. To take just enough examples to prove my point:
his projects have ranged from an epic biopic of Che Gueverra, a
remake of a Russian science fiction movie, an action movie built
around the physicality of a female MMA wrestler, a no-budget movie
set in a doll factory starring non-actors, a remake of a rat pack
heist movie with the biggest movie stars in the world, a TV show
about a hospital in NYC in the year 1900.
Logan Lucky is no exception to the rule that there are no rules. This
movie takes place in present day West Virginia and concerns the Logan
family’s heist of the Coca Cola NASCAR speedway. You could say it’s
like Ocean’s Eleven because it technically is in the same heist
genre, but really the movie are not the same at all. Or to put in
another way, they are as different as Las Vegas is to Appalachia.
Logan Lucky is a lot of fun. In particular, you sense the deft hand
of an experienced storyteller at work in what Soderbergh chooses to
leave out of scenes. How the heist itself works is not really
explained fully beforehand, so we experience how it works as the
heist progresses. This was probably a good move because the heist,
being somewhat realistic, is also not super complicated (as opposed
to say Ocean’s Eleven). It does succeed in passing the Heist Test,
a test I’m making up now (although it probably already exists
somewhere).
The Heist Test consists merely of watching the movie and spotting
some obvious clue that the authorities have been shown in the movie
that should tip them off to the perpetrators. An example of a movie
that fails the Heist Test is Spike Lee’s “Inside Man.” In that
movie, the robbers make all their hostages shed their clothes, put on
the same uniform as the robbers, and they all walk out the front
door. The authorities could have easily just had all the hostages put
their clothes back on. The people without any clothes to put back on
are the robbers. Heist solved. The authorities in “Inside Man”
don’t do this thus that movie fails the Heist test.
I think Logan Lucky passes the Heist Test. It does this in a nifty
way by transforming the Heist of a Speedway more into an insurance
scam. That is it takes away anyone’s motive for solving the heist.
That sort of is a spoiler but isn’t really.
Logan Lucky stars Channing Tatum as Jimmy Logan, mastermind, Adam
Driver as Clyde Logan, his sibling and sidekick in the scheme, and
Daniel Craig as Joe Bang, an incarcerated bank vault specialist. They
all sport Appalachian accents. Weirdly this seems the suit the Brit
the best. Then there is Seth MacFarlane who plays a racecar sponsor
named Max Chilblain. I couldn’t tell at all where his accent hailed
from.
Logan Lucky exploits the regular fun from its Appalachian characters
and setting while undercutting the stereotypes sometimes in the same
line of a scene. For one particular good instance, Joe Bang makes
what can best be described as a white trash bomb out of bleach and
gummy bears, but then successfully explains it using chemistry
equations. I had a good time watching Logan Lucky. It’s a good
addition to the Pretty Good Soderbergh shelf.
“Dunkirk” recreates of an early event in World War II when the
German blitzkrieg flanked and encircled the entire British army at
the beaches of Dunkirk while the German Luftwaffe bombed them from
above and German U-Boats terrorized the British channel.
It is entirely possible that the large majority of the British army,
around 400,000 men, may have died on that beach. The British navy was
not sending the bulk of their destroyers to evacuate the men because
of the superiority of the German air force and submarine fleet. The
last and only hope was to draft all the “little ships” of the
England, civilian boats, to cross the channel and pick up the boys.
As a retreat it was so successful it became the stuff of legend. Only
40,000 men were expected to live. The British with the help of the
civilian effort rescued ten times that amount and a good amount of
the French army too.
Writer and Director Christopher Nolan treats the subject matter with
solemnity and reverence. Individual stories are sacrificed to the
events as a whole. (In fact, I can’t remember most of the names of
the characters.) There is no back-story and no locations that are not
on Dunkirk, therefore no characters that aren’t on-the-ground
soldiers. This minimalism suits the sense of isolation and the
impending doom felt by the men on the beach.
What is innovative is the structure of the story. Here, again,
Director Nolan (Memento, The Prestige, Inception, Interstellar)
engages his forte. The movie is divided into three parts and
seamlessly switches between the three. The first is the Mole
(french word for pier thing on the beach) and takes place over a week
and covers the entire week
that the evacuation took place in.
The second is the Sea and
takes place over a single day that the little ships were involved in
the evacuation. The third is the Air and takes place over a single
hour that the British Air Force provided a cover mission for the
evacuation. The Air’s hour takes place during the Sea’s day which
takes place during the Mole’s week. It is not necessarily intuitive
that these stories could seamlessly move back and forth between each
other, but Nolan once again proves that he knows how to clearly tell
a seemingly convoluted story. I was not particularly confused as to
what was happening when.
And it makes sense story-wise. If
Nolan had told the story straight chronologically, the second and
especially the third story-line would have been sandwiched unfairly
near the end, thereby reducing the historical importance of the sea
and air efforts. This way, they are all given equal time (even though
the their times are unequal) and the movie has this interesting
relativistic effect. The faster the characters move, the slower time
seems to move for them, and an hour in a British Spitfire roaring
across the channel equals the
time spent by a man walking on the ground.
Most of the actors, though talented like Tom Hardy (airplane) and
Cillian Murphy (ground), could have been replaced because of the
deliberate motive of the movie to have the scenario overpower any one
individual story. There is one exception and that is the civilian
captain of one of the little ships, played by Mark Rylance (Bridge
of Spies). The nobility of the
man shines through and gives incarnate form to the humble and
collective spirit of Dunkirk that became the stuff of legend. His
interactions with a shell-shocked soldier (Cillian Murphy) provide
the heart of the movie. “There’s no turning back from this, son,”
he states and there is a power in the understated yet unwavering
purpose behind his intonations. Keep Calm and Carry On indeed.
Ostensibly “The Little Hours” is based on “The Decameron” by
Giovanni Boccaccio. This 14th century work concerned a
group of ten women who relocated to the country to wait out the
bubonic plague. To entertain themselves, they each tell a story. There is only one rule: don't make it depressing like the plague. This movie is more likely to have been inspired by one
of the short stories as opposed to actually adapted from it. I don’t
know much about the actual short story except that it involved a
convent of horny nuns and their adventures with the new
gardener. That more or less happens in “The Little Hours,” but
there is plenty here that is most likely anachronistic. Then again, there is also
plenty here that isn’t anachronistic. And more than anything, the
choices that Writer/Director Jeff Baena makes as to what to stay historically faithful to
and what to not care too much about changing are what makes “The
Little Hours” a superior movie and yes, very funny.
What stays the same is the general context of 14th century
Italy, specifically the Tuscan countryside where the convent is located. I know
something about the context because of recently reading Will Durant’s “The
Story of Civilization, Volume 5: The Renaissance”. (I may have been
the only one in the theater keenly aware of the historical context of one character’s
paranoid obsession with Guelfs.) The characters, being of 14th
century Italy, and unaware of a brighter future with far more
freedom, respond to their situations in historically correct ways.
One particular nun, when told by her visiting father that the
family’s money is tight and she probably won’t get a promised dowry (and thus dashing her hopes of someday leaving the convent to marry), is
disappointed but does not get angry or disobedient. Although such a
response would be unheard of today (just like it would be unheard of
for any daughter to be forced into a convent for monetary reasons in the first place), it
is this type of detail that provides the basis of catharsis later on
in the story. This story, after all, is about life finding its way
through the strictures of not just physical but psychological
repression. That repression, though outdated, must remain heavy and
the characters must believe in it for the movie to truly succeed. When successfully providing the basis for the reality of the movie, it provides high stakes for certain reveals that in this day and
age nobody would care about. Those high stakes seen through a modern consciousness are quite funny. At the height of one particular comedic moment, I heard a sizable gasp in the audience (and onscreen) when one character accuses another character of being a Jew. (Gasp!)
What is changed is plenty. For one thing, although this is Italy,
there are no accents and there is noone speaks like Shakespeare. The
script is tailored not to the prose of “The Decameron” but to the
comedic attributes of its very good cast of talented comedians. In
supporting roles are the men. John C. Reilly plays a good-hearted
pastor with a weakness for wine. Fred Armisen plays a traveling
bishop who functions like a spiritual auditor (more in an accountant way than an inquisitor way). Nick Offerman plays
the previously mentioned monarch obsessed with Guelfs. In the main
roles are three of the most talented young female comedians around.
First is Alison Brie (“Community”) the aforementioned girl who
wants to leave the convent and marry but whose family decides is not
worth the dowry. Next is Aubrey Plaza (“Parks and Recreation”)
whose dead-pan bluntness and sullen rebelliousness makes her the
perfect candidate for witchcraft. Finally is a new-comer (at least to
me), one Kate Micucci, who is a comedic revelation. If the convent
plays a little like high school with Alison as the rich girl and
Aubrey as the goth girl, Kate is the unformed slightly nerdy girl
that just wants to fit in with the rest of them. Although the characters are of the 14th century, the
movie takes a purely modern and secular view of certain taboos
(homosexuality, celibacy, drug-use, etc.). For example, witchcraft is not so much about being evil as it is about
dancing naked in the woods on drugs. The witches are not unlike
modern hippies.
Surrounded by all these colorful characters is Dave Franco, the
humble gardener whose presence in the convent excites all of the
repressed nuns. Dave wisely plays the straight man to the craziness abounding around him and never really goes for the laughs himself.
That’s fine, because the story is driven by the women in it, and it
is their choices as it pertains to the gardener (some of which can be
decidedly categorized as sexual harassment) that reveal each of their
well-rounded characters.
A movie like “The Little Hours” could not have been made before
the digital revolution in movies. It is way too niche and obviously would be very difficult to market in any mass market type of way. If however you
stumble upon it, give it a shot. I thought it was hilarious.
In the midst of the American Civil War, on an abandoned Southern
plantation, there remains a girls school, seemingly marooned from the
world. It is headed by Miss Martha (Nicole Kidman) and employs one
teacher named Edwina (Kirsten Dunst). She teaches five girls ranging
from eight years old to an almost adult named Alicia (Elle Fanning).
One day the youngest girl finds an injured Union soldier on the road
named Corporal McBurney (Colin Farrell). He is taken into the
plantation where the women go about nursing him back to health.
According to the dictionary, to beguile means to “charm or enchant
(someone), sometimes in a deceptive way.” The titular “Beguiled”
in this movie is perhaps everybody in it. It is a case study in very
polite sexual tension. It is not just that Colin Farrell is handsome,
and he is, or that the house is full of hospitable southern women who
are quite beautiful, and they are, it is that there are several
dynamics in between all the characters playing at once. The union
soldier is injured so he must rely on the women. But the women are
trained by the culture and the time period to acquiesce to the man.
But the number of women in the house far outnumber the man. But the
women are competing amongst themselves for the man’s attention.
It is a credit to the writing and direction of this movie, that the
above does not drown itself in melodrama. Instead through very fine
attention to detail and pointed understatement the situation hovers
between absurdity and suspense. There is something funny about the
women offering the man a home-cooked meal (“would you like some
pie, corporal? It’s my special recipe.”) at a dinner they have
all dressed too much up at, and also something sinister about it
given that any actual sexuality would have drastic consequences. The
consequences again are on several levels: The impropriety of such a
lady-like institution harboring any such sensual situation, the
jealous competition between the ladies themselves, and then there is
the war waging outside that technically makes the man and all the
women sworn enemies.
The Director is Sofia Coppola, who based her screenplay off a
previous movie of the same title. (I bet this remake is much better.)
Ms. Coppola perhaps more than anybody in the business is a good argument for
nepotism. The thing is that, and if you ever watch interviews with
Ms. Coppola perhaps you would agree with me, Ms. Coppola doesn’t
really come off, forgive me, as a particularly interesting person.
She comes off strikingly competent, yes, but way too literal to be
engaging. For those who generally enjoy the insight of a director's interview, Ms. Coppola has a way of making it seem like there
is less to the movie than meets the eye. Of course, this shouldn’t
be held against her because what counts is the movie and not her
personality, and she does make good movies. I simply find it hard to
believe that she could have risen through the ranks without her last name because its hard to believe she could ever successfully
pitch a movie.
But whatever the reason she gets to make movies, it is a good thing
that she does. Most directors aren’t like Sofia Coppola and her
movies in turn are not like most. Just as nobody but Coppola would
imagine a biopic about Marie Antionette without a beheading, here
nobody would have had the follow-through to base a movie for such a
sustained period of time on tiny movements, glances, and phrases that
may or may not mean what they say they mean. Counter-intuitively,
“The Beguiled” may be a movie you should see in a theater because
it is small. If you saw it on Netflix, you might miss a good portion
of what is happening.
When the movie finally does get dramatic it is very satisfying. The
ensemble is perfectly cast. In particular, Nicole Kidman, as the
head-mistress, and Elle Fanning, as a really bored girl, do well in
their roles. Given the general dearth of good roles for women, I
wouldn’t be surprised if this movie got multiple Oscar nominations
for acting. And Colin Farrell again made me regret ever thinking he
was bad actor. I take it back. I really like that guy.
A standard hypocrisy implicitly permeates most action blockbusters,
which rely on strong-armed violence to solve problems all the while
preaching the modern day values of pacifism and tolerance. In Wonder
Woman, such hypocrisy is explicitly brought to the forefront and an
elemental part of the plot and philosophy of the movie. Wonder Woman,
also known as Diana, the Roman version of the Greek Goddess Artemis,
has spent her entire life in the secret realm of the Amazons, a Greek
tribe of woman warriors. There is a mythology in her tribe about a
woman warrior from stopping all the wars of the world by killing her
brother Ares, the Greek God of War. (I’m not sure why Diana and
Ares are in the same story. Really it should either be Diana and Mars
or Artemis and Ares, but whatever). The secret realm is penetrated
accidentally by a British pilot named Steve Trevor in a World War I
by-plane escaping German forces circa Istanbul. Steve Trevor, played
by Chris Pine, describes to the Amazons for the first time what is
going outside their cocoon. It is the War to End All Worlds. It’s
been going on for years and seemingly won’t ever stop.
Diana, played by Gal Gadot, sees her destiny. She becomes convinced
that a particular German is Ares and that she must take her sword and
shield out into the world and kill him in order to end the war. That
this plan could possibly work would appall any lightly seasoned
student of history. The tragedy of World War I was that it took so
long and so many lives before the forces realized that further
violence would not help them “win” the war, at least not in any traditional sense of the word, and that neither side was the “bad”
side. I had a sinking feeling during much of the movie that Diana
might actually succeed in her mission and thus turn the movie into a
dangerous piece of revisionist history. It was only until the last
twenty minutes that I became relieved that the movie had turned the
implicit hypocrisy of the modern blockbuster into a teachable lesson.
(Although I have no idea what Wonder Woman may have actually learned
if she is still bandying about the modern day world trying to solve
problems with sword, shield, and costume.)
Yes, “Wonder Woman” has been competently directed in the fight
scenes, but most of the film’s fun comes between the interaction of
Chris Pine and Gal Gadot. Steve Trevor though he is right when he
describes himself as an above-average male, knows that Diana, being a
goddess, is his superior. He takes this in stride and the movie does
not make a big deal out of it. Actually, if I had to make a model of
one particular aspect of this movie as a teaching point, I would show
the superior way “Wonder Woman” treats the subject of misogyny.
As this movie takes place in World War I in a European society
entirely controlled by men, there must needs to be the obligatory
scenes of men objecting to a woman in the room and so on. I’ve seen
this scene many times and have learned to take its general
heavy-handedness like I take my cough syrup, with reluctance but
knowing its good for me. That is until “Wonder Woman.” In this
movie, these scenes are are played with nuance and are consistently
funny. The point is still being made, but watch “Wonder Woman.”
It does it better.
“Wonder Woman” was directed by Patty Jenkins. In 2003, as her
directorial debut, Patty Jenkins made the great movie “Monster”
starring Charlize Theron. Then she fell off the face of the earth,
not directing another mainstream movie for fourteen years until this
years “Wonder Woman.” This, in my mind at least, is the best
living evidence of the idea that woman directors are treated unfairly
in the movie-making industry. Patty Jenkins should be making a movie
every other year. She shouldn’t have to wait until a bunch of
studio heads sit around a boardroom and conclude after much
deliberation that they would look like shmucks if “Wonder Woman”
were directed by a man.
More women writers and directors would certainly go a long way in
making men look better in movies. “Wonder Woman” is a good
example of a trend I’ve spoken of before: that members of one sex
have a tendency to idealize members of the other. Well, in “Wonder
Woman” the most interesting and noble character isn’t Diana. As
the main character in an origin story, she has a lot to learn and
must have room to grow. No, the best person is the man, Steve Trevor,
and it is his noble efforts to stop the war and help Diana with her
mission that provide the heart and soul of the movie. If we had more
women writers and directors who wrote stories with women as main
characters, we would have more male characters like Steve Trevor, an
above-average man, instead of say the multitude of man-childs that
have dominated the comedies and blockbusters of the past hundred
years of cinema. I will be sorely disappointed if I have to wait
another fourteen years for the next Patty Jenkins movie.
In what is becoming an “Alien” franchise tradition, a subsequent
installment cannibalizes a superior predecessor. I don’t mean that
the sequel is inferior or simply does the same thing in an inferior
way, I mean that is actually undercuts the pleasure of watching a
previous movie. This happened the first time in Alien 3, when in
between “Aliens” and “Alien 3” the movie actually killed off
important characters that the viewer had come to know and very much
like. “Alien: Covenant” does the same thing, killing off the main
female lead of “Prometheus,” Elizabeth Shaw, played by Noomi
Rapace. The ironic thing about the “Alien” franchises is that one
of its major themes is corporate disregard for human life in the face
of profit, and the main culprit of these in-between movie killings is
most likely the waning stardom of previous main characters. At least
that is what seems to be the main impetus behind the lack of Noomi
Rapace here. In 2012 came out, Noomi Rapace, coming off the iconic
“Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” trilogy, was a the zenith of her
star power. In 2017 she has become largely absent whereas Michael
Fassbender, the other survivor from “Prometheus,” is still
around. So “Alien: Covenant” kills off Noomi Rapace even before
the movie starts and became the Michael Fassbender show. It is
notable that this is the first canonical Alien installment that does
not feature a strong female lead.
The problems start there and keep going. I am going to limit myself
to just a few complaints, but not before noting that this movie was
directed by Ridley Scott who directed both the original “Alien”
and “Prometheus.” I merely point this out to state that he should
know how to make a better movie than this one.
A large problem with blockbusters nowadays is that they use digital
effects too much. Digital effects have their place, and that is when
the filmmakers cannot make the thing they want to show without
digital effects, like say a large crowd, or a landscape, or another
world. When digital effects are used to make something really small
and close, they should not be used at all. The filmmakers should just
make the thing they want to be represented. Compare the baby-alien
chest bursting scenes in the original 1979 “Alien” and the one
this year in “Alien: Covenant.” Even though a span of
thirty-eight years of continual special effects evolution has
occurred, the 1979 version is more believable, more visceral, and
more effective. It’s that way because they made a puppet out of
real material and performed the operation physically. The same scene
in “Alien: Covenant” looks like a digital recreation. It’s
detailed but the audience can tell the difference. There is no
financial reason to do it this way. In fact, a puppet is probably
cheaper.
This movie breaks all the rules of the Alien. For it to be a
believable story, the rules having been set down explicitly need to
stay there. Here is a short list of broken rules in “Alien:
Covenant.” One: Aliens can be killed by bullets from guns. Two: The
Alien gestates in the stomach and bursts through the chest (as
opposed to say, through the upper back vertebrae, which is novel but
doesn’t make any sense). Three: The Alien needs time (maybe a
couple of weeks) to impregnate the host, grow inside it, burst out of
it, go into the wilderness and come back fully formed. In this movie,
that whole process happens in a couple of hours.
Mr. Scott perhaps broke these rules because he felt the audience may
have been impatient. Well, the first “Alien” movie was great
because he took his time to establish the rules and follow them,
which made them visceral and effective. If he couldn’t find a way
to do it here, he should have gone back to the drawing board. After,
the end product is an “Alien” movie that doesn’t have
believable Aliens in it.
As far as the philosophical underpinnings of this movie, I am
disappointed to relate that it did not follow through on the promises
“Prometheus” made in what it was trying to accomplish here. I
feel like “Prometheus” got thrown under the bus quite frankly.
I’m not happy with this movie. Two Michael Fassbenders did not make
it all okay.
The best and longest running joke in “Baywatch” takes place over
lifeguard lunch wherein the cocky new guy, Matt Brody, played by Zac
Efron, is being quizzed on what it takes to be part of the Baywatch
family (yes, it’s called a family by the head guy Mitch Buchanon,
played by Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson). Matt Brody apparently
thinks that being a lifeguard stays at saving beach goers from
drowning. The lifeguard lists off several scenarios they encountered
just the last week: a hoard of jellyfish, sand-grifters, and various
criminal conspiracies. “The situations you are describing sound
like scenes from an entertaining though far-fetched TV show,”
remarks Brody before insisting once again that the lifeguards should
probably just call the police in these situations.
What makes this joke work so well is the deadpan absolute seriousness
that Dwayne Johnson brings to his character’s mission to “Protect
the Bay.” This man really believes that these sorts of things,
including the main plot of trying to bring down a drug kingpin, is
his responsibility. It is absurd but Dwayne Johnson makes it work to
the point of hilarity. This performance reminded me of the
performances of the late great Leslie Nielson in the “Naked Gun”
and “Airplane” franchises. The movie is crazy but “The Rock”
anchors it by playing the part so straight.
The feel and tone of this movie comes from the “21 Jump Street”
mold. The original TV series was, on the surface at least, a drama
that took itself seriously. “Baywatch” as much as it deals in the
superficial pleasures of the show (hot woman in swimsuits running in
slow motion) makes fun of the TV show as well. A good gag is when
Mitch Buchanan pulls out his keys to the lifeguard shack. On the key
ring is a “Good Luck!!!” message from the previous “Mitch
Buchanan” played by David Hasselhoff. Apparently this particular
bay has been run by two separate Mitch Buchanan for the past forty
years.
Some gags work better than others. I could have done without the
morgue scene, but overall, like “21 Jump Street” the
relationships and jokes make sense and it is fun watching these
characters interact with each and go undercover in various costumes
at the smallest provocation.
In one area, this movie does much better than others. There is a
subplot involving a chubby nerd played by Ronnie Greenbaum who has a
crush on C.J. Parker, played by Kelly Rohrback in the orginal Pamela
Anderson role. Normally I don’t find the nerd chases hot girl story
lines all that interesting. I never feel like the nerd really earns
the hot girl. In this movie, I feel like Ronnie Greenbaum earns the
hot girl, probably in the scene where he creates a diversion at a
party by putting on a show-stopping dance number.
I liked this movie. The director, Seth Gordon, previously made one of
my favorite documentaries named the “The King of Kong: A Fistful of
Quarters,” which can rightly be said to be the best documentary
about people obsessed with the old “Donkey Kong” stand-up arcade
game. I only mention it to recommend it. It’s good.
Perhaps you have heard this horror plot-line before: A group of white
settlers/tourists/explorers head into the desert/woods/jungle where
they meet indigenous rednecks/savages/headhunters that proceed to
torture and kill them. It’s a staid subgenre of horror that has
rightly been deemed racist because the indigenous people are
represented as one dimensional villains. As far as I know, this
sub-genre has always steadily produced movies, but those movies have
never been mainstream, at least not in the last fifty years when it
is fair to say that mainstream movies started going out of their way
to not be racist.
“Get Out” is an installment to this subgenre, the twist being
that it is about a black man who travels into the suburbs where he
encounters a nefarious group of white liberal elitists. Also unlike
the rest of the subgenre this movie is mainstream, written and
directed by Jordan Peele, and hitting No. 1 at the box office. That
essentially makes it is the most blatantly racist mainstream movie I
have ever seen in a movie theater.
Obviously as a person who has seen many old movies, I have seen more
racist movies than “Get Out.” The most obvious is “The Birth of
a Nation.” That movie is enlightening in the sense that it gets one
into the mind of a true racist, D.W. Griffith. You can’t learn
anything about black people in that movie. You can however learn
quite a bit about the insecurities and fears underpinning the racist
ideology of the white people. The same can be said inversely about
“Get Out.” You won’t be able to learn anything about white
people from this movie. The characterizations are absurd and
contradict themselves. You can however get a really good glimpse into
the insecurities and fears of writer/director Jordan Peele, and maybe
judging by the popularity of the movie (“The Birth of a Nation”
too was very popular) the insecurities and fears of the modern black
person. Like the insecurities and fears of D.W. Griffith, its a
rather pathetic portrait and like “Birth of a Nation”, “Get
Out” should go down in history as a pitiful document of its times.
Spoilers abound here: The movie concerns Chris Washington
(played by Daniel Kaluuya) who is traveling to the countryside with
his white girlfriend Rose Armitage (played by Allison Williams) to
meet her parents for the first time. Unbeknownst to Chris, Rose has
dated black men before, about ten of them in fact. She chooses them
for their physical prowess, seduces them, and takes them into her
family’s mansion in the woods where her family brainwashes them and
sells them as slaves to the highest bidder. This bidder, a frail
physically inept white person, through elaborate brain surgery, comes
to inhabit the body of the physically adept black man. The black man
stays in the neighborhood but his “blackness” has essentially
been removed. He wears slacks and fedoras and speaks in a calm eerily
comfortable tone with no slang at all, just like a white person.
(This particular character, a disappeared black man from Brooklyn who
has been ‘turned white’ by the evil suburb may stand in for such
disappeared black men like Ben Carson. I suspect black people may
feel that such people are brainwashed tools that aren’t really
black anymore.)
There is a lot of psychology to unpack here already but what is most
striking about this movie is its caricature of the nefarious white
people. They are actually really nice. They vote Obama and go out of
their way to be polite to Chris. They are obviously meant to be
stand-ins for the polite white people of the real world who are aware
of racism and make an effort to be tolerant. We already knew that
angry violent racists are bad people, but this movie goes further:
All white people are bad and have conspiratorial motives against
black people no matter how nice they seem on the surface. I expect
Jordan Peele, a mixed-race college graduate with a successful
television and movie career, has met a lot of nice white people in
his life. Like a total asshole, he is essentially stating here that
he does not trust them and holds them in contempt.
It really saddens me when people make the argument that this movie is
important because it shows how black people feel. Feeling something
does not make it right. Tribalism is a natural thing and may feel
correct, but that does not mean that racism is justified. This movie
does not make the argument that “racism is bad,” it makes the
argument that “white people are bad.” There is a distinction here
that is sadly lost on many people who ascribe to the identity
politics of our day. In their view, black people can’t be racist
because one needs to have a position of power in order to effectuate
racism, and black people do not have power. (Obviously, I hold a
different view as to what racism entails and whether black people
have enough power to be responsible for their actions.) Through that
view, this movie can be justified as some little ‘payback’ for
all the racism in the past. Enjoy yourself in your revenge, Jordan
Peele, but don’t fool yourself into thinking that this sort of shit
helps solve the problem.
2016 in movies provides a sea change in my relationship with movies. This was the first year where I felt certain that I no longer had a hold on movies in popular culture. It has been a feeling seeping in for quite awhile, but now I know it for certain. I perhaps saw 50 or 60 movies this year and only saw half of those in theaters. That is not nearly enough to have seen all the best. The revolution in movie making that has cheapened the process (see the great documentary by Keanu Reeves "Side by Side") has taken away the ability for even an avid-movie watcher as me to even be aware of everything that is out there. Two of my greatest experiences in the medium of this last year weren't even movies. They were television series: "American Crime Story: The O.J. Simpson Story" and "Stranger Things." These shows were extraordinary examples of story-telling but they aren't even allowed in my picks this year because they aren't movies (I don't know, I'm generally flexible, maybe next year I will include TV series in my Oscar picks).
The diversity and sheer amount of movies gives light to the idea that we are becoming more and more insulated by our own neighborhoods. A couple movies I saw this year that were terrible (i.e. Birth of a Nation) were excitedly advocated by the New York City crowd that I am apart of. At the same time, a couple movies I saw because they showed up unexpectedly in the Oscar Race but had not been mentioned at all by anyone I knew personally (i.e. Hacksaw Ridge) turned out to be great. That was the best movie I had seen this year. Nobody I know has seen it.
In the end, I think this is a good thing. The utter cheapness of movies allows anybody anywhere to make them. This allows culture to grow in places that would be otherwise fallow. In "Hearts of Darkness," Francis Ford Coppola remarked that his dream was that movies would become so cheap that a fat girl in the Midwest could make a masterpiece. That day I feel is probably here. The unexpected problem is that my Netflix queue is already so long that I will probably never see it.
Here are my Oscars 2017 (for the 2016 year Picks)
WRITING (ORIGINAL
SCREENPLAY)
The Lobster
Hell or High Water
Hacksaw Ridge
10 Cloverfield Lane
Hail Ceasar!
To say that "The Lobster" is a romantic comedy is to truly push the definition of that category. And yet like "Punch Drunk Love" there is no other way to put it. It is really the most Original of all the Screenplays this year. It creates its own world with its own rules and then follows them to the unsuspecting but logical end. It works and for me at least, it was romantic.
WRITING (ADAPTED
SCREENPLAY)
Arrival
Moonlight
Silence
Deadpool
Deepwater Horizon
The maturation of Peter Berg, director of not only "Deepwater Horizon" but also "Patriot's Day" this year is one of the best stories of the year. This the guy who once directed "Battleship." His last several movies are some of the smartest, and given their non-fictional basis, some of the most important movies being made. "Deepwater Horizon" is a textbook example of good screenwriting tackling really complicated engineering problems. There is only so much screenwriting can do in this medium to explain complex engineering. "Deepwater Horizon" does it better than most movies ever made.
VISUAL EFFECTS
Dr. Strange
Deepwater Horizon
Captain America:
Civil War
Deadpool
Hacksaw Ridge
It is a rare thing when I watch a movie and I'm blown away by visual effects. They are so dime a dozen nowaday. But "Dr. Strange" showed me something of a kind I had never seen before.
SOUND EDITING/SOUND
MIXING
La La Land
Deepwater Horizon
Hacksaw Ridge
Sully
Arrival
I can't say I fully understand this category (see all previous Oscar Picks), but the Oscars seemed to think "Arrival" knew what it was doing, and I see no reason to disagree. It was a very good movie, and as I am not honoring it elsewhere, I'm glad to do it here.
PRODUCTION DESIGN
Hail, Ceasar!
Arrival
La La Land
Silence
The Handmaiden
That 1950s movie studio had great sets.
MUSIC (BEST USE OF A
SONG)
“No Dames” -
Hail, Ceasar!
“Die Zauberflote,
K. 620” - Florence Foster Jenkins
“Hello
Stranger” - Moonlight
“On the Nature of
Daylight” - Arrival
“The Greatest Love
of All” - Toni Erdmann
Well, right? Sometimes the right choice of a song speaks so much more than a thousand speeches and proves my theory that a song doesn't need to be original to garner attention and respect.
MUSIC (ORIGINAL
SCORE)
Moonlight
La La Land
Lion
Christine
Arrival
I know, there were original songs in "La La Land," but I figured they were all the same song and should work more like a Score. Of course La La Land had the best music of the year.
MAKEUP AND
HAIRSTYLING
Hail Ceasar!
Nocturnal Animals
The Handmaiden
Actually I think both "The Handmaiden" and "Hail Ceasar!" have better makeup and hairstyling but I'm honoring them elsewhere here. This is for Laura Linney's big hair and Amy Adams red hair.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE
FILM
Toni Erdmann
I only saw one Foreign Film this year, but I would be surprised if it weren't the best one. There will be an American remake with Jack Nicholson and Kristin Wiig and I'm sure that movie will be great too. What is especially interesting is that it is a German film, takes place for the most part in Romania, and as it concerns international business contains a good deal of English. Which parts are which languages speaks quite a bit about how people speak in the Europe of 2017.
FILM EDITING
La La Land
Nocturnal Animals
Arrival
Hacksaw Ridge
Moonlight
It is interesting how "Hacksaw Ridge" won the Film Editing Oscar and was never considered part of the race for Best Picture because Film Editing is usually so intertwined with what makes a great movie. It is an editor's medium as many filmmakers have said. "Hacksaw Ridge" although only arguably the best movie the year, was certainly the most unappreciated, at least where I'm from.
DOCUMENTARY
O.J.: Made in
America
All I'm saying is I wish I had seen more documentaries. This one it is fair to say, is a great one.
DIRECTING
Damien Chazelle –
La La Land
Mel Gibson – Hacksaw Ridge
Scott Derrickson – Dr. Strange
Barry Jenkins – Moonlight
Peter Berg – Deepwater Horizon
Damien Chazelle is somebody special. I hope to see what he can do with a story that is not about musicians or Hollywood.
COSTUME DESIGN
Hail Ceasar!
Doctor Strange
Allied
La La Land
The Handmaiden
This one is for the Kimonos.
CINEMATOGRAPHY
The Handmaiden
Silence
La La Land
Moonlight
Hail Ceasar!
La La Land was the best looking movie of the year. period.
BEST SUPPORTING
ACTRESS
Kate McKinnon –
Ghostbusters
Naomie Harris – Moonlight
Michelle Williams – Manchester by the Sea
Nicole Kidman - Lion
Rachel Weisz – The Lobster
It is weird how I didn't see a better performance by a Female Supporting Actress. This is always a weak category and Kate McKinnon, well she's great.
BEST SUPPORTING
ACTOR
John Goodman - 10 Cloverfield Lane
Jeff Bridges – Hell or High Water
Mahershala Ali -
Moonlight
Michael Shannon – Nocturnal Animals
Tom Bennett – Love and Friendship
I'll let this clip speak for itself. I liked Michael Shannon, but I picked him for Best Actor already a couple years ago. Mahershala Ali has been great and not been picked for awhile now.
BEST ACTRESS
Meryl Streep – Florence Foster Jenkins
Amy Adams – Arrival
Rebecca Hall – Christine
Sandra Huller –
Toni Erdmann
Kate Beckinsale – Love and Friendship
There is something really special about this performance. Because the movie is so low key, the performance sneaks up on you. I'm attaching here my favorite clip, but without the first two hours, you won't understand why its' so great
BEST ACTOR
Viggo Mortensen – Captain Fantastic
Andrew Garfield – Hacksaw Ridge
Joel Edgerton – Loving
Casey Affleck – Manchester by the Sea
Denzel Washington
– Fences
This one was tough, but I have to give credit to Denzel. He made a movie that was so obviously based and confined by its play setting a verve and direction that a less actor wouldn't have made possible.
BEST PICTURE
Deadpool
Hell or High Water
Deepwater Horizon
Moonlight
Doctor Strange
Hacksaw Ridge
Loving
Arrival
La La Land
The Lobster
This was one year when I really did not have a clear preference. There was that mixup at the Oscars telecast and I was like, okay, I'm cool with either one. But "Hacksaw Ridge" touched me in a way no other movie did this year.
