OSCARS 2020

This year was notable in that I found several talented relatively new filmmakers that had been around for a few years whose movies I had not been aware. The main reason may be my general aversion to horror films, at least the kinds of horror films that I grew up with, which specialized in torture scenes. The horror movies that are coming out now, spearheaded by the very talented producers at A24, are very good movies that have more in common with the horror renaissance of the 1970s than the schlock of the 80s and the torture porn of the aughts. I saw my first Jennifer Kent movie last summer ("The Nightingale") which led me to see her brilliant first movie (2015's "The Badadook"). I saw my first Eggers Brothers movie last fall ("The Lighthouse") which let me to see their very good first movie (2015's "The Witch"). I just saw Ari Aster's extraordinary "Midsommar" and have put his first movie "Hereditary" on my list. Then outside of the horror genre, I saw the Safdie Brothers "Uncut Gems" leading me to put "Good Time" on my list, and I saw Keanu Reeves "John Wick 3: Parabellum" leading me to watch the first movie in the series. I already knew about Marielle Heller ("A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood") and Greta Gerwig ("Little Women"), so all in all I feel more caught up with new talent in movies than I have been in years.

Also, I feel like for the first time in forever, the races for Best Supporting Actress and Best Actress were just as competitive as the races for Best Supporting Actor and Best Actor. This probably reflects more and better roles for women.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Kathy Bates – Bobi Jewell – Richard Jewell

Laura Dern - Nora Danshaw - Marriage Story

Nicole Kidman – Gretchen Carlson - Bombshell

Scarlett Johansson – Rosie – Jojo Rabbit

Yeo-jeong Jo – Yeon Kyo - Parasite

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Baykali Ganabarr – Billy – The Nightingale

Brad Pitt – Cliff Booth - Once Upon a Time…In Hollywood

Joe Pesci – Russell Bufalino – The Irishman

Kang-ho Song – Ki Take – Parasite

Wesley Snipes – D’Urville Martin – Dolemite is My Name

BEST MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING

1917

Bombshell
Jojo Rabbit
Joker

BEST COSTUME DESIGN 

Joker

Jojo Rabbit

Little Women

Midsommar
One Upon a Time…in Hollywood

BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood

Joker

Midsommar

Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood

Parasite

BEST USE OF A SONG IN A MOVIE

Old Man Piano Medley – Under the Silver Lake

I’m a Believer and Heroes (German Version) – Jojo Rabbit

In the Still of the Night – The Irishman

Being Alive – Marriage Story

Beethoven (Pathetique Sonata) – Little Women

BEST SOUND EDITING AND SOUND MIXING

Ford v. Ferrari

The Lighthouse

They Shall Not Grow Old

1917

Ad Astra

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS

1917

Avengers: Endgame

Captain Marvel

The Irishman

 Star Wars IX: The Rise of Skywalker

BEST FILM EDITING

Honeyland

The Irishman

Knives Out

Parasite

Uncut Gems

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

1917

Honeyland

The Lighthouse

Midsommar

Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood

BEST DOCUMENTARY

American Dharma

American Factory

Honeyland

One Child Nation

They Shall Not Grow Old

BEST ACTRESS

Aisling Franciosi – Clare – The Nightingale

Awkwafina – Billi – The Farewell

Charlize Theron – Megyn Kelly – Bombshell

Florence Pugh – Dani – Midsommar

Taraji P. Hensen – Ann Atwater – The Best of Enemies

BEST ACTOR
Adam Driver – Charlie – Marriage Story

Adam Sandler – Howard Ratner – Uncut Gems

Joaquin Phoenix – Arthur Fleck – Joker

Keanu Reeves – John Wick-  John Wick 3: Parabellum

Willem Dafoe – Thomas Wake – The Lighthouse

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Anthony McCarten - The Two Popes

Greta Gerwig – Little Women

Jojo Rabbit – Taika Waititi

Lulu Wang - The Farewell

Micah Fitzerman-Blue, Noah Harpster – A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Bong Joon Ho - Parasite

Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers - Spider-Man: Far From Home

David Robert Mitchell - Under the Silver Lake

Mike Leigh - Peterloo

Rian Johnson – Knives Out

BEST DIRECTOR

Ari Aster – Midsommar

Bong Joon Ho - Parasite

Safdie Brothers – Uncut Gems

Sam Mendes – 1917

Quentin Tarantino - Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood

BEST PICTURE:

This was the first year that a foreign language film won the Best Picture Oscar (Bong Joon Ho's "Parasite") and it will be the first year since I've started this blog (2005) where my pick for Best Picture was also the Academy's pick. So good job Academy.

1917
A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
The Farewell
Jojo Rabbit
Knives Out
Midsommar
Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood
Parasite
Spider-Man: Far From Home
Uncut Gems

1917 (4/5 Stars)

The technical achievements of 1917 alone are enough to warrant a viewing of this movie in a theater where one can experience in focus and isolation the high level of skill the creators exhibit. The Director of 1917 is Sam Mendes and the cinematographer is Roger Deakins. This is the fourth time they have worked collaborated. Notably, they previously worked together on James Bond’s Skyfall. What this movie attempts and largely achieves is one long broken shot, a technique first attempted by Alfred Hitchcock in the middling movie “Rope” and perfected by Alfonso Cuaron and Alejandro Innaritu in the more recent movies “Gravity” and “Birdman”. “1917” efforts fall somewhere in between.

The digital revolution in filmmaking has made long shots much easier to edit and cheaper to produce. Surely it still takes much skill in creating a movie that relies so much on logistics and choreography, but, at the end of the day, when everything in movies now seems possible and comes out every week, it is just as important to ask whether any story should be shot in one take. Let’s consider for a moment exemplary uses of the technique in “Gravity” and “Birdman”.

“Gravity” is a great example of the utility of long shots, especially in action sequences. Long takes build up the you-are-there suspense to a scene, a sort of kinetic energy if you will, that makes watching them especially exciting. When done well, the audience has a perfect sense of where everyone is and how fast everything is moving. Any danger presented is more immediate more serious because there is not present the safety of editing, which too often in lesser movies bends time and space to aid the protagonist. How many times have the main characters not gotten hit by that train which is barreling down on their stalled car. “Gravity” was set in space. Its subject does not particularly lend itself to a one-shot technique, but there is no reason why it wouldn’t be appropriate. As it is an action movie, it the one-shot technique greatly enhances the overall effect of the movie.

“Birdman” is not an action movie, so it is a particularly good example of using the one-shot technique as a way to develop an appropriate subject matter. That movie was centered around a Broadway play. Plays and movies are written differently due to differences in the immediacy of the audience and the fact that movies have editing. By taking out the editing, “Birdman” allowed a movie audience to experience “play writing” in a cinematic experience.

“1917” is a movie about World War I. There is plenty of action in any war and the long takes here make those sequences in this movie more exciting. The storyline is sparse and includes a journey of two British soldiers through enemy lines with the mission to call off an assault that will certainly be ambushed and end in slaughter. We follow two Lance Corporals, Black (played by Dean-Charles Chapman) and Schofield (played by George MacKay) as they march through no-man’s land, tunnels, fields, a burned-out city, and forest, till they get to their mission’s endpoint. They have until the next morning to stop the assault, so a time limit is set and the journey happens pretty much in real time. George MacKay has a face that belongs in the 19^th century and does a good job inhabiting the old world. There are several more prominent stars in the cast that pop up now and again in what are essentially cameos. Colin Firth is a general. Andrew Scott is a lieutenant. Mark Strong is a captain. Benedict Cumberbatch is a colonel. Everyone does a fine job.

A journey story with a time limit is good for a one take technique. But (and I realize this may be a bit unfair) is a plot about a journey with a time limit appropriate for a World War I story? After all, World War I more than any war before or since was not about going places in a hurry. What generally defined that war was that nobody went anywhere and took an exceedingly long time not to do it. World War I was about hoping a bomb didn’t land on you while you waited in the mud.

Sam Mendes has made a very good movie and he dedicates it his grandfather, a World War I veteran. Do you think his grandfather would have recognized the subject matter of this movie? Is such a mission that we see here likely to have occurred in a World War I setting? Do you think the veteran would have laughed at the sheer distance the characters make within a day? At least the mission seems to be generally futile. That at least is in the spirit of World War I.

Uncut Gems (5/5 Stars)

The comedian Artie Lange once described the lure of a gambling addiction. He’s sitting at his home with a friend watching a football game, Browns v. Rams, two terrible winless teams.

“What a boring game, I don’t care about this game,” says his friend.

“You want to make it interesting?” says Artie, “How much money do you have in your savings account?

“$800”

“Put $1,500 on the Rams.”

Suddenly you are watching the most exciting game of your life.

Artie’s anecdote came to me while watching “Uncut Gems,” a whirlwind of a movie about a compulsive gambler, Howard Ratner, played by Adam Sandler. The movie starts with Howard Ratner in the hole six figures deep with loan sharks circling and his family falling apart. We do not have much sympathy for Howard. It seems highly likely that he legitimately owes the money (he probably gambled it away) and that his wife should definitely divorce him (he is cheating with an employee at his jewelry store). But Howard has a plan or at least chutzpah and he is about to take us on a fast and frenetic tour of the diamond district in NYC at a very specific time in 2012. It’s all or nothing game time. He is betting big long shots to either save everything or lose everything. Whether or not he wins feels besides the point. Who cares if the Browns win or Rams win. Everything is on the line and it is exciting.

This movie is exciting, remarkably so. It was written and directed by a relatively new team of writer/director brothers Benny Safdie and Josh Safdie, and their natural talent sparks off the screen. The movie’s plot is all walking and talking. There are no special effects, no fight scenes. And yet, “Uncut Gems” feels like it has more action than most blockbusters. And it is continual action. It starts off frenetic and keeps the pace for the entire movie. This is great writing, stirred with great direction, finished with great editing. I would love to see the Safdie brothers get their hands on a comic book blockbuster. It would be interesting to see if they can translate their skills through the machine. The outcome, if successfully, ought to be the best of both worlds.

The plot is exceptionally clever. Howard Ratner’s crazy scheme involves getting his hands on a lucky rock, a solid block of uncut gems, smuggled in from black Jews in Ethiopia. He loans it to a professional athlete who believes the rock is lucky and will help his game. Howard then bets big on the personal stats of the professional athlete. As his bookie says to him, “that’s the dumbest fucking bet I’ve ever heard of.”

But who is this professional athlete? Well, it is Kevin Garnett, the real professional basketball player. And guess what, there is Kevin Garnett, cast in this movie as himself. And when does this movie take place? It takes place during the 2011-2012 Eastern Conference semifinals between the Boston Celtics and the Philadelphia 76ers. These are real games and the actual ESPN footage is shown in this movie. And here Garnett is in this movie acting as his approximately seven years younger fictional self, looking to give his historical self an edge via a lucky stone. Because “Uncut Gems” is such a great movie, it may have the effect of cinematically immortalizing that playoff series. Print the legend sort of thing. For what it is worth, Kevin Garnett’s performance is the best by an NBA player I have ever seen, but then again that bar is decidedly low (looking at you, Shaq)

The casting in this movie is perfect and contains the kind of names that make you believe the Safdie Brothers may have some special pull in the acting community. Adam Sandler pulls off a great performance. Everyone who has seen “Punch Drunk Love” knows he can be a good actor, if only he showed up and cared more than once a decade instead of doing a fourth Hotel Transylvania. The Safdie Brothers somehow made him care. They also got three of the more interesting Jews in the business: Eric Bogosian, Judd Hirch, and Idina Menzel. And these guys aren’t especially in the business anymore as far as I know. Eric Bogosian is a monologist. Judd Hirsch is retired. Idina Menzel is on Broadway. Then there is the irreplaceable LaKeith Stanfield who always seems to be underutilized.

Overall, “Uncut Gems” is one of the best movies of the year. I think they should pass it out in all major movie studios to those in charge of the action blockbuster department. If only movies with 100 million dollars budgets were this entertaining.

Jumanji: The Next Level (3/5 Stars)

I had written in my review of Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle that it was the type of movie that you had to take a step back and shake yourself into realizing it was a great film. Jumanji: The Next Movie is the same concept, with the same actors, and the same director, but it is not a great film. Again, one has to take a step back and contemplate what exactly is the different since there is so much in common.

The most obvious difference is the disappearance of the original writers: Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers. I sung their praises before so I will not dwell on their greatness here. Notice instead how this movie lacks the sheer efficiency and ingenious character development of the first movie. In particular, the game itself was more fully realized (and more obviously a video game) in the first movie. Here, the video game’s plot is not so clearly constructed. It is hardly to imagine the various scenes as video game levels. Still, this movie has a few good ideas and does its best to exploit them to their most enjoyable.

The best idea of this sequel, and a further confirmation into what made the first movie work so well, is to fully lean in on the actors doing impressions of other actors. Regardless of what the plot is doing, I always find this interesting. This sequel introduces two more real-life characters: Uncle Eddie played by Danny Devito and his ex-business partner Milo Walker played by Danny Glover. When the real people are sucked into the game this time, Danny Devito inhabits of Dr. Smolder Bravestone, played by Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. Likewise Danny Glover inhabits Moose Finbar, played by Kevin Hart. Both are fun impressions. I would give Kevin Hart the upper hand on his though. (Favorite line: “Did…I just kill Eddie…by talking…too slow…just like…he always said I would).

Dr. Shelly Oberon, played by Jack Black, who was the avatar of the mean girl in the first film, is now the avatar of Fridge, the black football player. So Jack Black's impression this time around is a complete 180. This is one of those things that might seem controversial but much like Robert Downey Jr.’s performance in Tropic Thunder has inexplicably not raised eyebrows. Also joining the cast is Awkwafina as another avatar player character in the video game. Near the end she  switches places and becomes the avatar of Danny Devito. She does a great job (dare I say better job than The Rock) in acting like an old short fat outspoken Italian man.

The acting shenanigans are the most interesting part of this movie. So much so, that the action sequences, though packed with special effects, feel like they are get in the way of the performances. In the original movie there was more of a balance (or at least the action sequences seemed to be more intertwined with the character development). What is also lacking from the original movie is any particularly interesting development in the original four teenage characters. The pathos of this movie belongs entirely to the characters of Danny Devito and Danny Glover who have had some bad blood in their previous business break-up and are seeking away to heal old bonds. In effect, this makes them the main characters as they have the more emotional territory to cover. Unlike the first movie, there is not enough for all the characters to do, less balance between the character plots and the character's skills/weaknesses do not pay off as well.

Overall, Jumanji: The Next Level is a decently good movie. It is what a sequel should be in a way: the same, but more of it. I got enough of exactly what I was looking for.

Knives Out (5/5 Stars)

The Trope (aka Movie Cliché) abounds for a practical reason. They represent to the unimaginative a kind of shortcut in the creative process. Instead of going through the rigamorale of producing from scratch a totally original plot, they reuse tried and tested plot devices gleaned from genre and tradition. Like jokes told more than once, these tropes lose some of their effect each time they are employed, but this should not cover up their inherent truth: They are used so often because they work.

Perhaps the most used plot is the murder mystery. Agatha Christie at one point would churn these stories out annually making her the most best-selling author behind The Bible and William Shakespeare. Someone gets killed: Big Deal. The killer is still out there: Present Danger! Who is it? Suspense! The most used trope within the murder mystery plot is the locked room. That is, all the characters are in the same locked room with the dead body. We don’t know who the killer is but they must be someone in the room.

This story has been told many times over. As stated before, such retelling lowers the effectiveness of the trope. That is unless the writer reemploys creativity to the trope, subverting the audience’s already held expectations. In this way, the plot’s dull edged are resharpened and, once again employ their original effectiveness. Such is “Knives Out” an ingenious locked room murder mystery written and directed by Rian Johnson (Brick, Looper)

The setting is an old mansion isolated in the New England woods. Therein Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer), best-selling author of murder mysteries, is holding his 85^th birthday party. All his family is in attendance, a colorful privileged lot of bigoted conservatives and insufferable liberals. Harlan does many things that night to give a colorable argument for each of his family members to seek his death. And then Harlan commits suicide by slitting his own throat. The police are pretty sure it’s a suicide but then the great private detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) shows up, hired by an unknown someone who suspects foul play.

Benoit Blanc is himself a mystery. He is played by an Englishman (James Bond no less), has a decidedly French name, and employs a southern accent. This is not explained. Without giving too much away, and I can’t because what I am about to reveal happens in the first twenty minutes, the story is not necessarily a whodunit, but more of a how did a particular character didn’t do it?

We are shown in the first twenty minutes that Harlan’s in-house nurse Marta Cabrera (Ana de Armas) mixes up his medication, giving him an overdose of morphine. In order to spare her a criminal conviction, Harlan instructs her how to escape the house without attracting suspicion and then kills himself. But is that all to this story? And who hired Benoit Blanc to investigate? And why?

The family of Harlan Drysdale is a cabinet of unique caricatures and good casting. The more important ones are: Linda Drysdale, daughter of Harlan (Jamie Lee Curtis), her husband Richard Drysdale (Don Johnson), and their playboy son Ransom Drysdale (Chris Evans); Walt Thrombey, son of Harlan (Michael Shannon); Joni Thrombey (Toni Collete), daughter-in-law of Harlan. It is to the credit of Rian Johnson, that they are not all terrible people. They have their faults, and some are worse than others. Others, like Walt Thrombey, are not so bad, well, most of the time. In this way, the writer throws the audience leads and red herrings and makes us thinks very hard about how much we trust everyone.

There is one character that Rian Johnson wants us to trust completely and that is the in-house nurse Marta Cabrera. Marta has a medical disorder that causes her to vomit every time she tells a lie. But she is also the one who gave Harlan a fatal dose of morphine and last saw him before he died. How did she not do it? Well, watch the movie and see if you can figure it out before the cliché everyone-in-the same room as the great detective makes his speech scene. The reveal is highly effective.

Best Movies of the Decade

2010

The Social Network

Inception

Black Swan

Exit Through the Gift Shop

2011

Bridesmaids

Take Shelter

Midnight in Paris

2012

Silver Linings Playbook

Django Unchained

Skyfall

2013

Inside Llewyn Davis

The Act of Killing

Gravity

2014

Birdman

Guardians of the Galaxy

The Grand Budapest Hotel

American Sniper

2015

Mad Max: Fury Road

The Revenant

Results

Inside Out

2016

The Lobster

Hacksaw Ridge

Toni Erdmann

2017

The Florida Project

Lady Bird

Thor: Ragnarok

2018

Sorry to Bother You

Avengers: Infinity War

The Death of Stalin

2019

Parasite

The Farewell

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (2/5 Stars)

In my review of Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi, I stated that the quality of Episode VIII would rely on how Episode IX resolved the interesting questions that were raised. I found especially intriguing the idea that Rey would not be related to any of the other main characters, this usually being a prerequisite for importance in a Star Wars movie. The idea posited was that the Force is self-balancing. In this way, a being that was either very light or very dark would naturally bring about their opposite at some other place in the universe. With this understanding, Luke Skywalker felt it prudent to leave behind the force altogether in order to not further provoke more Sith Lords.

It turns out none of this matters or even happened, which kind of renders both Episode VIII and Episode IX pointless, which in turn renders Episode VII pointless too. To watch this new trilogy is to watch the most expensive interplay between bad improvisors in the history of movies. At the very least, as things were being made up as they went along, the contributors could have abided by the first and only important rule of improvisation, “Yes And…” That is if you are to not have a plan, the very least you can do is not undercut your fellow collaborators. This basic concept is lost on the director of the Episode VII and Episode IX J.J. Abrams and the director of VIII, Rian Johnson.

For certain movies, a warning against spoilers is warranted. “Parasite” is a good example. Its plot twists are nonobvious and are brought about with Hitchcockian suspense that is quite pleasurable to experience in the moment. For other movies, warnings against spoilers behaves more like a marketing tool. By begging reviewers to not allow spoilers, the mega corporations involved keep away from the audience certain unimaginative details that would be complete let-downs if revealed.

For instance, Rey is not a total nobody as presented in Episode VIII. Actually, she is the granddaughter of Emperor Palpatine from “Return of the Jedi”. What a let-down. That sound is the most interesting development in Episode VIII hitting the bottom of the dust-bin. What is more disappointing is the reason why Rey is a Palpatine. It seems entirely do with the decision to hew as closely to the structure and development of the plot of “Return of the Jedi” as possible. Looking back, I don’t see why I expected anything less. After all, Director J.J. Abrams did the same thing with Episode VII, making that movie’s plot an almost retread of Episode IV: A New Hope and Director Rian Johnson did the same thing with Episode VIII, making that movie’s plot structure a retread of Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back.

It should be noted that Director J.J. Abrams is once more complicit in the murder of billions of people. With an amazing lack of originality, a weapon that destroys planets has been developed by the bad guys. Mr. Abrams once more shows no hesitation at all in using this weapon, incinerating a planet as an afterthought and not particularly caring about treating the aftermath with the sort of respect that should be called for amongst such an extraordinary loss of life. The movie, like all Disney movies, is PG-13, because there is not a hint of sex involved anywhere. Even Poe, played by Oscar Isaac, the Han Solo-ish character, is not getting lucky anytime soon. A sad development given that he is instrumental in saving the galaxy by the end of the movie.

There are certain things about this movie that do not come remotely close to making sense. However, it is hard to talk about them in a critical manner because the movie moves so fast from plot point to plot point that it hardly matters what has just happened. “Look Something Shiny and New,” is the name of the game here. When the original Star Wars trilogy came out, the critics wailed about its reliance on special effects and lack of character development. What glory days those were, when characters engaged each other in half a minute-long conversations and military tactics, however limited, were considered. In Episode IV, the main characters land a ship in the Death Star and by subterfuge, loosely defined, rescued the princess. Here, the main characters land a ship in an enemy star destroyer and the first thing they do is come out guns blazing as if three people with blasters could take down a gigantic ship by brute force. The original trilogy at least gave the audience certain outs for unlikely scenarios. To experience this trilogy without rolling your eyes you must be a total idiot.

The ending bespeaks a recent trend in the ever-escalating stupidity of movie villains. Like the army of the undead in “Game of Thrones”, the evil forces here are both impossibly powerful and also can be take down with the capture of a single target. I would posit that fair fights that are resolved by strategy are more interesting that lopsided battles won by technicalities. But this idea is lost on the makers of Star Wars.

There is a bright spot in this movie and that is the basically good acting of Adam Driver as Kylo Ren and Daisy Ridley as Rey. This is helped by a storyline that gives these characters things to do and emotions to develop. The same cannot be said for the characters of Poe, played by Oscar Isaac, or Finn, played by John Boyega. They do not do anything in this movie but run around from plot point to plot point. From the promise of Episode VII, it is rather disappointing that Poe and Finn do not ultimately have interesting story arcs. However, at least these characters had the promise of an interesting story arc. There are several characters in this trilogy who were introduced and then promptly forgotten. Rosie, a seemingly important character in Episode VIII hardly shows up in Episode IX (Maybe the focus groups found that the world was not ready for a Black-Asian romance). Benicio Del Toro from Episode VIII does not appear at all in IX. Domnhall Gleeson has a fate that suggests he wasn’t willing to work for more than a week. Keri Russell literally phones it in, perhaps only showing up to work for one day to dub the lines for her bemasked minor character. Several other characters are introduced in this episode seemingly for the limited purpose of introducing new series on Disney+. But is there actually a plan to make these series or are these scenes just bait for the focus groups where the real decisions would be made? If that series starring Lando Calrissian does not come to fruition, Episode IX will harbor an utterly pointless scene in a few years’ time.

There is a way to plan out a franchise and that way was ably demonstrated by Marvel over the past decade. Not every movie in the Marvel franchise is a must-see-most-important-installment-of-the-franchise movie. Most movies focus on a single character which in coordination with other smaller movies build into the bigger spectacle movies every four or five years. Star Wars has not done this. The sad thing is that it probably could have. What really helped Marvel was its library of over fifty years of comic book storylines that the movies could pick and choose plots from. Star Wars has a library substantially similar to this: four decades of books written by professional fans and blessed as canon by George Lucas. None of this material was considered for Episodes VII, VIII, or IX. Why?

Corporate cynicism comes to mind. The new trilogy is the same thing as the old, but with better special effects and a more diverse cast. Why take a risk making something new, when you can repackage the old as a presentation to international audiences unfamiliar with the old movies. The global marketplace is where the real movie is made. My appetite for Star Wars has officially been sated. I do not plan on seeing any further of these movies in theaters. 

The Lighthouse (4/5 Stars)

“The Lighthouse” is firmly rooted in that David Lynch territory where realism and continuity are sacrificed to effect and mood. What we are seeing on the screen is not so much what the characters are experiencing but what they feel they are experiencing. And what they are feeling looks to be the sailor’s version of cabin fever. There are two men, an experienced lighthouse operator played by Willem Dafoe and his new apprentice played by Robert Pattinson. What happened to the last apprentice that worked here asks Pattinson. He ended his own life, explains Dafoe, after going mad.

“The Lighthouse” was directed by Robert Eggers, written in cooperation with his brother Max Eggers. Writer/Director teams of brothers (Coens, Wachowskis, Nolans) have led to some of the more confidently weird movies in existence. This team of brothers can be added to that shortlist. The Eggers are relatively new. They have only one other mainstream movie (The Witch) which I have just added to my Netflix queue.

There is much to the “The Lighthouse” that makes it a unique experience. To start, the movie is shot in black and white and has a narrow aspect ratio. The time of the story looks like the late 1800s or early 1900s. There is only one location, a lighthouse on a deserted rock. The original score blares ominously, and much delusions of mermaids and pigeons. Then there is the ACTING, which involves much yelling in Irish/Scottish/pirate brogue. The dialect is given special mention in the credits because it is not of this time and seemingly not of this world. Willem Dafoe, not a particularly handsome man, and Robert Pattinson, who I insist does not look normal, successfully inhabit this alien land. They spend much of the time drinking moonshine and colorfully cursing each other.

There is some character background and plot but it doesn’t much get in the way of the weirdness. To summarize, Robert Pattinson is new to the lighthouse, drawn to the job because the wages are higher for work on desolate rocks in the middle of nowhere. Willem Dafoe appears to have been there forever. He is a hard taskmaster, but when a storm grounds all work (preventing the new man from leaving at the end of his tour), and there is nothing to do all day but get piss drunk and dance, the professionalism of the lighthouse suffers quite a bit.

This is one of the those movies I would love to hear a director’s commentary for (not that these things are done much these days) because I can only imagine how crazy it was to be on the set with Willem Dafoe cursing up a piratical storm. I bet there are a lot more good stories there.