The Florida Project (5/5 Stars)

Roger Ebert once remarked that the power of movies was derived from their ability to act as empathy machines. A great movie allows the viewer to experience different points of view, different people on different continents and in different periods of time. This movie is a great illustration of that insight. I knew nothing of this world and now I feel like I have spent several hours ensconced in it.

Writer/Director Sean Baker has been making movies for a good twenty years now, but he made headlines big enough to garner my attention a few years ago when he shot an entire movie on an iPhone. That movie was “Tangerine” and to my delight it was a real movie that contained a gimmick and not the other way around. More notably, “Tangerine” was about something I had never seen a movie about: a romantic rivalry between transvestite prostitutes with a subplot about a homosexual immigrant Armenian married-with-children taxi driver that frequented the services of the streetwalkers. Again, as Roger Ebert remarked again, to judge a movie objectively you must divorce yourself from the idea that a movie’s worth is derived from what it is about. You must judge the movie based on how it is about how it is about. The plot of “Tangerine” contains many choices and controversies that most of us would find crazy and petty. However, the characters in the story took the problems seriously and the movie took the characters seriously. I did not agree with what was going on but I understood it and in this way the movie must be judged as a good movie.

“The Florida Project” asks the same leap of the audience, to understand various people on the edge of society that are under stress and not dealing with it in constructive ways. What differentiates “The Florida Project” from “Tangerine” though is that it contains at least one great person among the throng of misfits and sublime vignettes of genuine beauty.

The story concerns the very free range childhood of Moonee (played by Brooklyn Prince) one summer in the cheap motel outskirts of Disneyworld, Florida. For all intents and purposes, Moonee and her mother Halley (played by Bria Vinai) are one step from being homeless. They live week to week in the cheapest of motels called “The Magic Kingdom”. The motel, painted bright pink, is home to those just visiting and those on the outskirts of society. It attracts a certain crowd of people that it takes a large degree of patience to work with. The hotel manager, Bobby, not only takes care of the motel, he in large part takes care of the people who live there. And especially, he takes care of the kids of the not-so-responsible adults that find themselves in such a place. A very interesting and sometimes heartbreaking part of Bobby’s job is the line he draws between people who are invited to stay at the hotel and those who are so far out of the mainstream that they become disinvited.

The sense of place that Sean Baker creates is indelible. If you didn’t know how a cheap motel works and the various sorts of people that frequent there you will have a good idea by the end of this movie. Our guide is Moonee a rambunctious six or seven year old as she finds and becomes best friends with another girl who just moved into the motel across the street, the Purple Castle. They explore the main strip, conspire to procure free ice cream, and generally annoy Bobby. At times I was taken out of the movie by just contemplating how natural is Brooklyn Prince’s performance. I’m not sure what spell Sean Baker cast over the child but he is getting scenes and reactions out of Moonee that seem impossible when one considers the difficulties of working with children.

The enabler of Moonee’s carefree sometimes dangerous childhood is her mother Halley. Moonee’s father is not around nor does Halley bother mentioning him during this movie. Halley is a bit of a free range child as well and the movie’s plot arc has more to do with Halley’s decline in prospects than any substantial change in Moonee. Sean Baker’s treatment of Halley says a lot about his great compassion for his characters. Baker is not defending Halley’s actions, but he does not condemn her unnecessarily as well. Nevertheless when child protective services shows up at the end, the audience understands why they have come and they understand why Moonee and Halley probably should be broken up. As Moonee’s childhood is a happy one and her mother obviously loves her, the actions of the government have more to do with a question of culture than a pattern of abuse. It fairly reminds me of the reasons given by past governments to separate children from indigenous tribal people and put them in government run orphanages and schools. That is, they simply believed the children would be better off. This is a good movie to have an interesting conversation with the people you have seen it with. “The Florida Project” is one of the best movies of 2017.

Phantom Thread (4/5 Stars)

Paul Thomas Anderson has my vote for the world’s most enigmatic writer-director. If I were to define his career into a type, most likely his next movie would prove me wrong. This is his filmography: “Hard Eight”, “Boogie Nights”, “Magnolia”, “Punch-Drunk Love”, “There Will Be Blood”, “The Master”, “Inherent Vice”, and now “Phantom Thread”. One used to be able to define him by locale. His first eight films all took place or were at least tangential to Southern California. “Phantom Thread” is about a dress-maker who lives in London, England. Its off the grid and comes back to back with “Inherent Vice” a movie that could not be more opposite in style and tone. As loose and wild as “Inherent Vice” was, “Phantom Thread” is uptight and repressed. The main character is Reynolds Woodcock, an aging dress-maker played by Daniel Day-Lewis at his most fastidious. At this rate, P.T. Anderson’s next movie might take place on the moon.

“Phantom Thread” presents an intense character study and utterly strange love story. Reynolds Woodcock is a great artist who uses the high demand and idol worship of his craft to tightly control the people in his life. In an early scene, brilliant in the efficiency of its setup, he breaks up with a significant other. She brings up during breakfast the fact that he does not pay enough attention to her. He responds that he has to deliver a dress that day and that he cannot start the day with a confrontation. She leaves and he does not seem to be bothered one bit. The line of people who want his attention are around the block outside.

Enter into his life, Alma, played by Vicky Krieps. He picks her out at a restaurant where she is a waitress because she is his favorite body type to make dresses for. Alma is a nobody next to Woodcock. Vicky Krieps could be said to be just an unknown (at least to me) opposite to Daniel Day-Lewis, one of the greatest actors in movies. At first glance, she would not seem to stand a chance in this relationship given the extraordinary level of competition for Woodcock’s affections and his intense focus on his work.

The movie is rather simple plot-wise so I will say less about it other than that Alma proves to be an especially worth adversary in the battle for Mr. Woodcock’s affections in ways that illustrate the notion that all things are fair in love and war.

The power struggle between Alma and Mr. Woodcock is surrounded by impeccable costume design. I have not the slightest notion of high fashion, but the women looked good in the dresses, that much I can say. Daniel Day-Lewis once again has the preternatural ability to convince the audience that he is and always has been this particular character. His retirement announcement is laughable given that he has only acted in six movies from 1998-2018 (Oscar nominated four times in that span, batting 0.750). I figured he was already retired and that he does acting gigs as a respite from not working. I expect we will see him once more in the 2020s just as soon as he feels like returning calls from A-List directors beggin to offer him another role of a lifetime. 

Call Me By Your Name (4/5 Stars)

 Elio lives a charmed life. He is the teenage son of a graduate professor named Mr. Perlman and a mother who apparently inherited a Tuscan estate. Every summer the family vacations for three summer’s in an Italian paradise. They eat outside underneath olive trees, food served by the ancient stewards of the estate. There is wine and fish caught fresh from the nearby lake. There are teenage girls in the town that have the care-free summer off as well. Mr. Perlman seems like he is the friends of the most interesting people in the countryside. They come over for dinner and have conversations about highly intellectual topics. Mr. Perlman himself is an expert in ancient languages. Elio’s hobbies are swimming, flirting, and transcribing musical compositions. Really, the hardest thing about this movie is trying to shun the crushing sense of envy one feels while watching it. This looks and feels like the world’s best summer vacation.

The only thing that could possible count as some sort of conflict in this story is a forbidden love situation that also turns out as well as things possibly could have. Mr. Perlman, played by Michael Stuhlbarg, invites one of his graduate students to spend the summer with him as a research aide. This summer it is Oliver, played by Armie Hammer, a tall strapping late twenty-something. Elio, played by Timothee Chalamet, little by little falls in love with him. It is 1983, so homosexuality is still a concern to these particular characters. A 2017 audience will be more concerned about the fact that Elio is underage. This thorny issue the movie deftly handles with something akin to grace.

Most importantly, almost the entire story is told from the point of Elio, which provides the character with a high degree of agency. Timothee Chalamet here provides a sublime performance that has deservedly garnered him an Oscar nomination. It is a tricky feat to pull off, because the character cannot be any more articulate than a teenager and must necessarily convey a certain non-understanding of his homosexual feelings that apparently he was unaware of before this particular summer. He wants Oliver but at the same time understands the awkward position he is putting the older man in. He is also obviously nervous about revealing his feelings when there are so many good reasons why he would be rejected. To count the prospective ones off: Oliver believes it would damage his relationship with Mr. Perlman, Oliver does not have reciprocal feelings for Elio, Oliver has reciprocal feelings but does not believe he should act on them because of either a stance against homosexuality or Elio’s age, or Oliver likes Elio but not in a sexual way because he is not a homosexual himself.

How Elio comes out to Oliver is a tour de force scene of movie directing. Director Luca Guadagnino blocks the scene in front of a World War I memorial in the old Italian town’s square. It is the middle of the day, the square is deserted. The camera watches the action far away in a long shot. Oliver and Elio start the scene talking about the memorial. Elio stays on one side while Oliver walks around it on the other side. Although we hear Elio, we never see his face. The conversation switches from the memorial to an almost existential conversation about knowing things and wanting other people to know about the things you know. Almost nothing is actually said. There are no close-ups. But the amount of information conveyed to the audience is enormous. It is one of the best directed scenes of the year.

The movie’s theme is actually summarized in a scene near the end by Mr. Perlman. In most other movies, such an obvious exposition of “meaning” would not kindly looked upon. But this movie by that time had earned such a speech by living it out in real time for two hours. And Mr. Perlman, an educated and sensitive man, is actually a character well qualified to give it. This is the experience of “Call Me By Your Name” in a nutshell: A lot of scenes handled with grace and sensitivity that would probably crash and burn in offense and awkwardness in less qualified movies.

Not that all romances could be shown in this light. I do not believe a heterosexual romance of this kind would work even with the deftness of the makers of “Call Me By Your Name”. The closest movie that I believe has come to it was “Diary of a Teenage Girl” from 2015. I say that movie was the most similar because it too provided the very rare level of agency afforded to Elio here. However, it still concluded that the older man was not a good person. Is it possible that a movie someday could look on a heterosexual romance like the one seen in “Call Me By Your Name” and conclude that the older man is not guilty of something? Maybe, but not yet.

Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (5/5 Stars)

One has to step back and shake oneself into believing that “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle” is one of the year’s best films. After all, the movie itself does not make this kind of demand on its audience. It is marketed and feels like a good time family comedy that aims only to please, not enlighten. But when a movie accomplishes what it sets out to do so well, it is important sometimes to try to deconstruct how it does what it does. There are many levels to “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle” and they interact with each other seamlessly to an extent that puts this movie on par with such other great comedies like “Hott Fuzz” and “Tropic Thunder”.

“Jumanji” was written by Erik Sommers and Chris McKenna, both alumni of the TV show “Community”. In particular, it was Chris McKenna who was credited for writing the Emmy nominated episode “Remedial Chaos Theory”. That brilliant episode, and “Community” in general, works in much the same way as “Jumanji”. Here, like in “Community”, the characters are deliberately stock characters. We have four high-schoolers, a nerd named Spencer, a jock known as Fridge, a mean girl named Bethany, and a sarcastic girl named Martha. They find themselves for various reasons in detention, a plot set-up that seems to deliberately recall “The Breakfast Club”. Detention involves cleaning out the school’s basement, wherein the four find a video game named “Jumanji”. Using the plot conceit of a previous “Jumanji” movie from 1995, itself based on an early 1980s board game, the game comes to life as the kids are playing it. In the 1995 version, the game came into the real world. In the 2017 version, the four are sucked into the game.

While in the game the four stock high-schoolers are transformed into archetypical video game avatars that they unwittingly chose before playing the game. The nerd is transformed into Dr. Smolder Bravestone, played by Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, and strong, courageous, and intelligent archeaologist (think “Indiana Jones” type). The jock is transformed into Franklin “Mouse” Finbar, played by Kevin Hart, a side-kick and zoologist. The mean girl accidentally chooses the Avatar “Shelly” Oberon, curvy genius, thinking it to be beautiful woman and not a fat middle-aged man, played by Jack Black, who excels in cartography and other sciences. And finally the sarcastic girl is transformed into Ruby Roundhouse, played by Karen Gillan (the blue robot in “Guardians of the Galaxy”), a scantily-clad femme fatale (think “Lara Croft”) who excels at Karate, Tai Chi, and Dance Fighting.

The video game they inhabit also has its rules. They have to work together with their character’s strengths and weaknesses to find their way through various levels, solve mysteries, and beat bosses in order to win the game and leave. Anyone who has ever played an old Nintendo game will immediately recognize the set-up. One of the cleverer ways this is played out is through a character named Nigel Billingsley, played by Rhys Darby, who serves as an explanatory character that, because of his programming, can only say certain things in response to certain things. This is annoying to the characters and funny to us.

Like “Community”, “Jumanji” uses cliches as a launchpad, not a crutch. By using tropes, it constructs a base of familiarity which it then exploits by developing the story through realistic character choices. We can predict how a stereotypical jock will react in a situation and we can predict how a stereotypical sidekick will react in a situation, but we are less familiar with how a stereotypical jock trapped in the body of a stereotypical sidekick will react. “Jumanji” presents eight familiar characters within four characters and stays true to all of them. Brevity is the soul of wit, and the rate of information thrown at the audience is amusingly efficient.

And how it does this is not just an achievement in writing, but in casting and acting. Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson is so good at playing a sensitive teenager that the shear believably of it is in and of itself amusing. Kevin Hart, a diminutive comedian who excels at large in-your-face comedy, seemingly didn’t have to change his personality at all in order to believably play the jock in the side-kick role, which in turn itself is a humorous take on his style of comedy comedy. But the best example of the possibilities of combining teenagers with video game avatar is Jack Black’s impersonation of a self-absorbed teenage girl. Not only is it pitch-perfect going one way, Jack Black sounding exactly like a teenage girl, it is pitch-perfect going the other way, a self-absorbed teenage girl inexplicably possessing larger-than-life intelligence. Remember that the teenagers now inhabit the special powers of their avatars. The Jack Black avatar Sheldon "Shelly" Oberon is a curvy genius. This does not make Bethany less self-absorbed, but it does make her especially articulate about her behavior in a way that is almost never seen with this particular stock character trope. This is a great example of how using otherworldly premises with their own special rules of reality can help develop the character of a real person in a way that regular drama cannot. Upon finding herself sucked inside a video game, Bethany complains about not having her phone anymore. The sarcastic girl chides her for being so self-absorbed. Jack Black’s response is so exceedingly reasonable and well thought out you wonder why nobody else is complaining about their phones being missing. Jack Black’s acting in this movie is worthy of an Oscar nomination. There is absolutely no chance of that happening because it is unthinkable that this type of role would result in such a thing. However, I would put this performance alongside Steve Martin’s in “All of Me” as a performance so unexpectedly good, one has to take a moment to realize just how underrated it is.

Finally the movie has great teamwork. There is not a character here that does not have a good role and the movie, directed by Jake Kasdan, seamlessly gives everyone something to do. Even the sarcastic girl who was transformed into the usually thankless role of the femme fatale, has her own touching developments. There is this one particular scene where Martha and Spencer within the bodies of smoking hot Karen Gillan and Dwayne Johnson act in the age-old awkward teenager “I like you” exchange. It is just something special. It is so recognizable, but as it is coming out of middle-aged movie stars, it is also very funny. This movie is something special and can be shown to anyone anywhere.  

The Last Jedi (4/5 Stars)

The merit of “The Last Jedi” will be reassessed when the third movie of the new trinity comes out. There are several interesting developments in this movie. The question is whether they are going to lead anywhere. I feel like I have been in this place before. I am reminded of the middle seasons of LOST and “the Girl who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest.” These were incomplete but intriguing stories. However the later installments could not fill in the holes. This might be the sad fate of “the Last Jedi” too.

For those who have seen “The Empire Strikes Back” many times, the structure of “The Last Jedi” should seem very familiar. Like “The Empire Strikes Back” most of the characters are fleeing the bad guys while one person is engaged in Jedi training. This happens in “The Last Jedi”. Poe, Finn, and the last of the rebellion are fleeing General Hux’s large battle fleet while Rey seek Jedi training with Luke Skywalker. There is a difference however that renders uneven the first half of the movie. Unlike “The Empire Strikes Back” the fleeing characters have no respite from the pursuing forces, like say hiding out in an asteroid field. Thus, it seems like the time period in which the movie takes place is much shorter than the previous film. Although technically this may seem like it would make the movie more exciting, it also makes less sense. After all, Rey’s Jedi training seems to be a week or a month long at the most, whereas it seemed like Luke Skywalker had at least a year in “The Empire Strikes Back.” The movie then would seem to be wielding a rather liberal view of how a person with force abilities would be able to attain the abilities of a Jedi master. There is a decent if not completely satisfying explanation to this and it is one of the more interesting features of this installment.

Like “The Empire Strikes Back”, “The Last Jedi” expands the audience’s understanding of the Force (this is bound to create seas of unrest amongst fans who like religious zealots already believe they know all there is to know about the Force). As Luke Skywalker seems to be explaining it, the Force is not something individuals attain. It is a force that exists within the very fabric of the universe. It has two sides, dark and light, but neither are its natural state, which is a balance. If a Jedi or Sith were to use the Force, the Force would create an opposite to render balance to the universe. A person who wants to use the Force for good, may end up making things worse because to use the light side of the Force is to create a Sith who uses the dark side. Perhaps then the wise thing to do is to not use the Force at all, which is why Luke Skywalker closed himself off from it and exiled himself to the furthest part of the galaxy. Because the only ones using the Force in the world at the time of “The Last Jedi” are the Dark Sith Lord Snoke and the Sith Lord Kylo Ren, a very strong opposite has emerged in Rey, which may be the reason why her training is so very brief. Maybe.

It is hard to tell where a more nuanced understanding of the Force will lead a franchise that is so ingrained in the notion of a fight between good and evil. This episode seems to be deliberately muddying the waters of such a black and white vision. The most interesting and confusing character is Kylo Ren (played by Adam Driver) who seems to be oscillating somewhere between the light and dark side of the force, not exactly sure of which path to follow. Where he ends up and whether it makes sense will decide whether this trilogy is a good one.

The least interesting person in the first film, Rey (played by Daisy Ridley) also became more nuanced and interesting in this one. As I mentioned in my review of “The Force Awakens” the Star Wars movies are generally guilty of blockbuster narcissism in which large events are dictated by a few familial connections. However, it is revealed in this movie that Rey does not have a connection with anyone. If Kylo Ren is to be believed, she is a nobody from nowhere. I love that. That is great. It unties Rey from any kind of pre-ordained fate. Kylo Ren seems to feel like he should be a Sith because his grandfather was Darth Vader. However, Rey could probably be whatever she ultimately decides to be. It is impossible for me to tell how her arc in the last film will go.

The “Star Wars” franchise still propels its weird relationship with violence. “The Last Jedi” in particular seems to consider the futility of violence while showing as much of it as possible. The majority of characters introduced in the “The Force Awakens” met violent deaths by the end of “The Last Jedi”. For those looking between the lines, this has the tendency to render the lighthearted moments of these movies in a rude light. Some of the battles feel like World War I suicide missions. At one point Poe Dameron (played by Oscar Isaac) decides that it is best to retreat than keep moving forward. He does this after most of his comrades in arms have been blown to smithereens. A decent leader would probably have made the retreat decision before sending most of the army to its death. Furthermore, because there is no policy discussion that would enable the viewer to tell the difference between the good guys and the bad guys, the war may as well be about the colors of their uniforms. In any case, I felt several times in this movie that the good guys should have probably just given up. That may have been the point of this movie, which will be expanded further in the last one. Or the last of the trilogy may simply feature a battle in which the good guys win (like “The Return of the Jedi”). That would be the obvious thing to do, but it would also render stupid all the interesting points that were made in “The Last Jedi.” Like I said before, much is hinging on how all of this is resolved.

The Shape of Water (4/5 Stars)

“Unable to perceive the shape of You, I find You all around me. Your presence fills my eyes with Your love, It humbles my heart, for You are everywhere.”

Legend has it, writer-director Guillermo Del Toro read that the above poem somewhere, perhaps in an old Islamic text and forgot who said it first and could not find after looking. Then he wrote a movie around it.

“The Shape of Water” is a striking combination of movies, part “Creature from the Black Lagoon” part “Amelie”. It centers upon a single middle-aged woman named Elisa Esposito who happens to be a deaf-mute and works as a janitor in a top secret government in the midst of the cold water. The big bad American government, represented incarnate by a man named Richard Strickland, played by Michael Shannon at his most type-cast, has captured a fish-man from a river in the Amazon. The fish-man’s strange abilities, for breathing underwater and regenerating itself, persuade the government to perform experiments and/or pointlessly torture it. Elisa, played by a fine Sally Hawkins, falls in love with the fish-man.

Writing this after the fact, I can’t think of a logical reason why Elisa would fall in love with the fish-man other than their commonality of being outsiders (deaf people are outsiders, right?). But during the movie, I felt it. This has much to say about the style and direction of Del Toro and the masterful craftsmen he employs. Technically, the movie takes place in Washington D.C., but it feels like Paris at its most romantic. The color palette is brown and wet and green and warm. There is french accordion music playing in the background.

But mostly I believe the love story because I believe Sally Hawkins. I expect it is a tough role to pull off. She has to make us believe she finds the fish-man, played with extensive make-up by Doug Jones, attractive. She does so. She also has to be deaf and sign all of her lines. This she does also with a confidence that makes it seem like she is completely fluent in sign language. It is her greatest performance and her best opportunity for one since “Merry Happy”.

The romance is also helped by the sinister forces that aim to keep the lovers apart, and thus encourage the audience the root for the love as it stands against hate. Norah Ephron once remarked that there were two kinds of love stories, the Christian and the Jewish as she would put it. The conflict in the “Christian” type of story comes from without as in the case of “Romeo and Juliet” (whereas the conflict in the “Jewish” type comes from the imperfections of the lovers themselves). “The Shape of Water” stands directly in the “Christian” form of love story. It is almost taken for granted that the fish-man loves Sally Hawkins and the other way around. What drives the story is the evil Richard Strickland.

It may simply be my affection for the actor Michael Shannon, but I feel for Richard Strickland in this movie. Think about it. Every single character in this movie is an outsider but Richard Strickland. Sally Hawkins is deaf. Her friend and work colleague (played by Octavia Spencer) is black. Her neighbor (played by Richard Jenkins) is gay. The empathetic scientist who works at the lab (played by Michael Stuhlberg) is communist. The fish-man is a fish-man. Michael Shannon, the true-blue patriot who believes in positive thinking and 1950s conformism and commercialism, is all alone. Every other character who isn’t playing a bit role is an outsider.

Are minorities really minorities when they outnumber the supposed majority? Can a movie stand for non-conformity when the supposed conformist is the one character not conforming to the rest? Sure it can. This is America. Anyone can be whatever they want to be.

Lady Bird (5/5 Stars)

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.

Coco (4/5 Stars)

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.