Review: Call Jane (2022)

Eerie timing for this one, a movie about Chicago’s The Jane Collective (a documentary about this same group came out this year as well). My review gave me the chance to sing the praises of Elizabeth Banks, in general. As my brother said to me last night, “She is a national treasure.” And talk about “national treasure”, Sigourney Weaver is in this, and it’s basically a two-hander, although Banks is the lead. It’s a joy to watch Weaver in this. She’s really easy, no discernible “acting”. Directed by Phyllis Nagy, whose screenplay for Carol was nominated for an Academy Award. This is her first feature. I reviewed for Ebert.

This entry was posted in Movies and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Review: Call Jane (2022)

  1. Bill Wolfe says:

    Thanks for the review. It makes me want to see this movie. If I were a betting person, I’d wager a cup of coffee that Sigourney Weaver will get a Supporting Actress nomination for this. Elizabeth Banks might get nominated for Best Actress, too, but Weaver is the type of performer the Academy likes to recognize: she’s been around forever, made a bunch of movies that lots of people remember fondly, and voting for her in this movie would be a way to express anger at the Court’s overturning of Roe. (I don’t mean all of that to sound cynical or to denigrate Weaver’s work; it’s just that a lifetime of Oscar watching suggests that this is a possibility.)

  2. Scott Abraham says:

    It doesn’t denigrate SW’s work at all. The top level Oscar categories have been (internal) politically driven since the beginning – even moreso since the 90’s. If external politics come into play then all the better for her. We’ll see if she’s willing to play the behind the scenes game.

  3. sheila says:

    It’s hard to express how little I value the Oscars in terms of meaning actual worth! Cary Grant never won one. That academy gets things wrong more than they get things right!

    Elizabeth Banks’ work is subtle, and the academy – and most people – don’t value subtlety like this – what wins awards is a lot of “transformation” and whether or not the movie is on the “right” political side – and people making a big DEAL out of how HARD they worked. lol and obviously a lot of good films and good performances fall under those categories. But someone like Elizabeth Banks isn’t that type of actor. She’s just GOOD, that’s all. She’s not like “dammit I must win an Oscar and to do so I must play a coal miner with a Swedish accent and only THEN will I be taken seriously.” Many actresses make this choice and okay I get it.

    But the way she listens to John Cusack in Love & Mercy … THAT to me is good acting. Big show-offy physical transformations mean NOTHING (or … mean LESS) if you can’t listen the way she does.

    So. there’s my 10 cents.

    and Sigourney is just great! I love how much space the character took up in this – I’d love to see a whole mini-series JUST on this woman’s life. You can bet she has stories!

  4. sheila says:

    Just to add – also I really think it’s true that a lot of the times it’s the role that gets the award, not the actor. And the academy loves super emotional stuff.

    Sigourney’s performance in Call Jane is intense but very low key. Very appropriate to the role, human-sized, no histrionics.

    It’s not really an Oscar-type role.

    It’s worth it just to see the scene she has with the doctor. WOW. I literally had no idea what was going to happen next.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.