Yet another reason to love Robert Mitchum

“During filming [The Night of the Hunter], as they drove along a freeway, [Charles] Laughton told [Robert] Mitchum, ‘I don’t know if you know, and I don’t know if you care, and I don’t care if you know, but there is a strong streak of homosexuality in me,’ to which Mitchum replied, ‘No shit!’ and then ‘Stop the car!’ to Laughton’s tortuously worded admission. This was a well-worn routine for Laughton, and Mitchum’s joking reaction put Laughton finally at ease, a precious moment of understanding between two very different people.”

– Dan Callahan, The Art of American Screen Acting, 1912-1960. (I interviewed Dan about his book here.)

Posted in Actors, Directors | Tagged , | 3 Comments

Supernatural, new ep

Sorry, y’all. I found it all to be very empty. Yet another pep talk with Jack … which of course took place in the kitchen in the bunker … ARGH PEP TALK. ARGH THE BUNKER. There were some good sequences, and Dean’s little monologue about how now he understood the violation of being possessed, blah blah, was well-played. But that’s no surprise. He plays everything well. It’s just all really EMPTY for me. Something important – the life-blood – has been severed. They’ve cut themselves off from the powerful SOURCE of the series, which fed them for 11 years. It’s not there anymore. Now, with an entire AU going on, and creatures moving back and forth, and magic spears, and a girl in a Jawa costume … it no longer feels like it takes place in our world. It’s … phony. That’s the only way I can put it. I just don’t believe in it. Sorry to be a downer. Maybe others enjoyed it and can express why! I’m always open to the thought I might be wrong, and I’m always willing to take another look.

Posted in Television | Tagged | 10 Comments

More 2018 Movies to See

So all this Top 10 stuff gets a little bit too competitive for me sometimes. There can’t be a “winner” anyway, in art. It doesn’t work like that. This has been a really good year and I’ve seen a lot of stuff I not only enjoyed, but loved. For various random reasons, they couldn’t be highlighted on a Top 10 but I would be totally remiss if I didn’t mention them. A lot of these are smaller films, without any “names” in them. They either were barely released, or released only VOD, and therefore buried in the avalanche of “content” (Grrrrr).

So here goes.

Very Good Films of 2018

All About Nina

dir. Eva Vives

I reviewed this wonderful film for Ebert. It really didn’t get much play, not in the theatres, not in the commentary, not anywhere. People were too busy bitching about Bradley Cooper loving Lady Gaga’s nose (eye. ROLL.) This is a really well-done film about a standup comedian hovering on the edge of what appears to be a nervous breakdown. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is phenomenal as Nina, an alcoholic wild woman, who’s burning bridges faster than they can be built. So many female stars now need to always “win” in every scene they do. Even when they “lose” it has to somehow be noble. They don’t want to be judged. It’s a real problem (for me, at any rate. I’m bored.) Winstead doesn’t give a shit. She goes where the character goes. The character does some crazy shit, shit that can’t be explained by a “rational” person, but … duh … that’s what happens when you start to crack up. I really loved this film and I wish it had generated more chatter. Check it out.

We the Animals

dir. Jeremiah Zagar

I reviewed this for Ebert, and although I called out some of the things that didn’t work for me, overall this is an overwhelming piece of work, mostly in a sensorial way: sounds, light, music, shadows … all pouring into the story being told, a parents’ troubled marriage seen through the eyes of their three rambunctious sons. Excellent work with the child actors (many of whom were total non-professionals), as well as the adult performances from Sheila Vand and Raúl Castillo, both superb. For me, it’s the LOOK of the thing that is the real draw – it’s beautiful and poetic, not realistic – emotional. Terrence Malick-influenced, for sure. The visuals are tactile, urgent, immediate.

Elvis Presley: The Searcher

dir. Thom Zimny

The doc was criticized for “soft pedaling” some of Elvis’ more scandalous behavior, or not addressing the critiques, etc. Oh, please. Critics have had their fun and free rein for 40 years and counting. No one will stop you from continuing to tear him down. There is literally not one corner of this man’s life that hasn’t been picked through, criticized, lampooned. And okay, fine, he’s a big target. I get it. But that’s not all there is, and this documentary, as I wrote in my review is a long overdue act of artistic redress. Sometimes, because he was so huge, the image is so separated from the actual guy and his work – it’s like screaming into a void if you try to talk about him seriously. (As I just experienced in Memphis, though, people are hungry to talk about him seriously.) Like, enough already. And again, just because ONE documentary doesn’t focus on how awful he was doesn’t mean jack-squat. Or what it MEANS is is that SOME people think his work is worth talking about. If you don’t agree, big whup. It’s a free country. What is great about The Searcher is that it tracks his artistic journey, his “search,” while also giving informative background about the phases of his career, the music that came out of each phase, what he was trying to work through, how connected he was to the things that influenced him. Like Peter Guralnick’s two-volume biography, it humanizes him – without becoming hagiographic. It may SEEM hagiographic to those who can’t stand him … but it’s not. It’s trying to correct the skewed record, it’s trying to tip the scales back – just a little bit – to consider the work. It’s about freakin’ time. Gorgeously shot, too. William Eggleston-inspired. Haunting. It’s like he just left the building yesterday. Thank you, HBO.

Destination Wedding

dir. Victor Levin

This movie has a lot of problems, the main one being the overwritten script. You can see the words on the page as the actors speak the lines. HOWEVER. Watching Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder talk and bitch and argue and debate definitely has its pleasures – and honestly I’m listing it here mainly because of the sex scene, which is one of the funniest sex scenes I have ever seen in my life (the funniest sex scene is Burt Reynolds and Sally Fields in The End). As my online pal Willow Catelyn Maclay said, when she referenced this movie on Facebook: “That scene is peak Keanu.” Totally. The sex scene unfolds in one long take which adds to the funniness of it. These two actors had to create that RIDICULOUS event from beginning to end, with no cuts. This accomplishment should be celebrated. So here I am. Celebrating it.

Nappily Ever After

dir. Haifaa Al-Mansour

I was assigned this one to review for Ebert, which was a real treat. Sanaa Lathan is one of my favorite actresses (wrote about her here), and yet she’s rarely at the center of a story. (See Something New as soon as you can. I never get sick of that movie. Also Love & Basketball, which I adore.) Here, in Nappily Ever After, she’s at the center (and perhaps it will be the start of a franchise? I’m not sure. I don’t remember the movie getting much “play” and there are no comments on my review at Ebert. This was an easily findable film, streaming on Netflix, so I’m not sure what the issue was). One of my favorite acting moments of the year is Lathan’s, in Nappily Ever After, which I wrote about in the piece. She’s not just a really good actress. She is BOLD, she makes BIG choices, but these choices are always connected to something real, something honest. Like I said in the piece I wrote about her, she’s a Leading Lady. It’s where she belongs, so it’s fun to see her run with it.

Mercury 13

dir. David Sington and Heather Walsh

Another fortuitous Ebert assignment. Here is my review. I stan for NASA and for this whole story, the space race, astronauts, the revenge of the nerds, the accomplishments, the whole nine yards. I find it endlessly fascinating. One of the reasons Hidden Figures hit me so hard was that I know so much about this era and all the players … but I didn’t know THIS. And now I am so glad I know! Hidden figures, no more! (Incidentally, as I mentioned on Twitter, my Nasa-stan stance was one of the reasons I had problems with First Man, even as critics were hailing it as the film of the year, a masterpiece, a “humanist” work, getting all lyrical (It may be a character flaw, but I get suspicious when writers get lyrical. Unless you’re Truman Capote or Tennessee Williams, you would be better off staying away from trying to be lyrical.) Mercury 13 tells the story of a group of women who went through astronaut training in its initial stages. Just like John Glenn and Neil Armstrong and Gus Grissom and Buzz Aldrin and all the rest. Many of these women are still alive, and they are interviewed, and of course we all know the end of the story: there were no female astronauts. It would take 20 years for that to happen. So what happened? I mean, it’s obvious: rank sexism and ridiculous patriarchy holding onto its privilege. Nothing new there. But HOW it happened, and what these women went through – is a fascinating glimpse of yet another group of “hidden figures,” many of whom did BETTER on all those tests and drills than the men who eventually went to the moon. I highly recommend this very well-done and informative documentary.

Black Panther

dir. Ryan Coogler

One of the few “Movie Events” of the year, the sense of excitement was palpable. Although I knew I would eventually catch up with it, I didn’t go during its release, because superhero movies do not interest me. Before superhero fans FLIP OUT, let me ask you: are you interested in Emperor Diocletian’s palace? In the minutia of the Politburo archives? In James Joyce’s juvenilia? No? Well, your disinterest doesn’t invalidate my interest. I don’t need approval from others – or a consensus – to feel like I’m “allowed” to love the things I love. And believe me, people have had weird prickly responses to my interests over the years, which has always seemed absurd to me, but there you have it. “I guess I’m dumb because I like Tom Clancy, huh” was an actual unprompted question by a regular commenter on my site years ago during Bloomsday. It is literally impossible for anyone to invalidate me loving the shit I love, even if they say to my face “I don’t love those things.” Okay, fine, you’re you and I’m me. Shrug. Whereas superhero fans need everyone to bow down in compliance or they suffer PTSD flashbacks to being bullied for being a nerd in grade school. But that is so ridiculous because superhero/comics fans have won the culture wars so completely and in a way few subcultures ever get to experience. You’ve WON. You get 10 of your movies a year. Endless franchises. The entire industry bows down before you. You have bent the industry to your will. You’ve WON. But as we saw in This Is the End, James Franco goes to Hell for being “a sore winner.” Y’all are sore winners. Preamble over: I don’t give a shit about superheroes. However, I DO give a shit about Ryan Coogler (whose Fruitvale Station and Creed were BOTH standouts in their respective years). I think he’s a major MAJOR filmmaker, and his accomplishments here are quite literally dazzling, in all the ways that matter. The cast is superb from top to bottom, the characters are well-developed, interesting to watch, the action was gripping, not too video-game-y, and the FEELING in the whole project was exciting, energetic, and NEW. It’s 100% a total blast, but it doesn’t sacrifice emotional underpinnings running really deep. There’s a lot of emotion in this movie, and you can feel it.

En el Séptimo Día

dir. Jim McKay

I loved this movie so much! I was assigned to review for Ebert and it was SUCH a treat. I loved it so much it was on my Top 10 for quite a while before the fall and I started catching up on other stuff. But it’s that good and it made that much of an impression. This is not a serious down-trodden drama, although its topic (undocumented immigrants trying to get by in New York) is quite serious. Instead, it becomes – practically – a gripping sports movie in its final sequences – where I actually found myself clapping aloud in impatience and stress, wanting him to succeed, pushing him to succeed, saying, “Oh come ON” when something got in his way. I loved it so much.

A Simple Favor

dir. Paul Feig

I saw this movie twice in the theatres – here’s my review for Ebert – and I will see it again. It’s got it all. I realize that Black Panther will probably win an Oscar for Costume Design, but I think a Special Award should be given to Renee Ehrlich Kalfus for the costumes for A Simple Favor. Blake Lively’s wardrobe alone! My God, it’s fantastic. It’s unexpected. Another film would have put her in short skirts, high heels, a nod to “She’s gorgeous” and call it a day. Not here. She wears pinstripe suits with watch chains. A tuxedo suit without a blouse. Every outfit more outrageous – and yet more perfect – than the last. You never ever know what this character will do, based only on the clothes she wears. Excellent performances from everyone, a byzantine plot that makes less sense the more you think about it, and yet never once less than totally entertaining. Anna Kendrick’s offscreen line “I’m concerned about your knees right now” is still making me laugh.

The Last Movie Star

dir. Adam Rifkin

Little did I know that my review would be a pre-emptive obituary, but it is. A summing-up of this man’s career, the gift of it, the gift of who he was (still was at that point), and what he has brought to our culture – rare and precious, really. It will seem more precious the further away we get from it. He had many career disappointments (many of which were self-inflicted), but he was an honest to God movie star, and The Last Movie Star was a reminder – a necessary reminder – as to WHY.

Blame

dir. Quinn Shephard

A couple of people I respect who also reviewed Blame didn’t care for it all that much, but I loved it. Here’s my review. Written by an actual high school girl (who also starred AND directed), it takes the “mean girls” genre and launches it to a whole other weirdo sicko level. Mysterious, fraught with emotional peril, beautifully shot … it’s sometimes silly, but never un-interesting, and it resists cliches. It’s brave enough to take on some topics adults might shy away from. Chris Messina is just great as the semi-loser wannabe-actor drama club teacher, who – honestly – should not left be alone with teenage girls. Very good performances from this young group of actresses. Believe me when I say: it’s not what you think it is.

The Happy Prince

dir. Rupert Everett

The movie is not perfect, but I treasure it for Everett’s insight into Wilde, in particular his insight as a gay man. So often the story of Oscar Wilde ends with the trial, with him a martyr on the block. Which, indeed, he was. But he lived for three more years, and those years are FASCINATING in what they reveal, but also in their sense of blank utter fucking tragedy. Everett understands and he does not try to “excuse” Wilde for living life dangerously, or for making “poor choices” (enough with critics weighing in on someone’s “poor choices” … if I wanted to join the PTA I would have joined the PTA, not decided to write about ART.) Everett understands that Wilde’s “choices” came out of “the closet” so to speak, and how gay men operated – in total secret, taking HUGE risks – was part of the draw. Oscar Wilde’s story has always moved me, and The Happy Prince brought me to tears. Here’s review.

Support the Girls

dir. Andrew Bujalski

I’ve been iffy on Bujalski’s stuff in the past. But I loved this, and could not be more thrilled that Regina Hall won Best Actress at the NYFCC voting. GOOD. I’m so happy! The second I saw her performance, I knew it would be one of the performances of the year for me – it’s my kind of acting, what can I say – and I’m just thrilled that so many other people feel the same way. The film is a day-in-the-life of her character, a manager of a family-friendly (?) Hooters-type establishment, her staff a makeshift family, whom she looks out for, but whom she keeps on a short leash too. She has issues with her husband, with the restaurant owner, with the cable company, and she’s just trying to get through her DAMN DAY. All of the acting is top-notch, and I fell in love with the rhythm of the whole thing, its slow build of emotional tension, and how strongly its style and mood helped me invest – TOTALLY – in all of these characters. And watch for the scene where Regina Hall sits on the curb outside the restaurant, talking to the cable guy about getting the TVs turned back on – and then having to deal with another call coming in from a landlord trying to set up an apartment showing. This scene is what I mean when I say it’s my kind of acting. Nuts-and-bolts stuff. You don’t hear the voices on the other end. You totally believe there are other voices on the other end. Regina Hall CREATES them. Phenomenal.

Kindergarten Teacher

dir. Sara Colangelo

Maggie Gyllenhaal gives one of the performances of the year in this, the underseen and not-talked-about-nearly-enough-if-at-all Kindergarten Teacher. I’m slightly cranky and don’t have an optimistic view of life. I’m not Eeyore, but the insistence on happy endings, morally uplifting stories, and “it all turns out right in the end” is DEEPLY alienating to me. I can groove on stories that aren’t tragic, of course. Many of the films I love show INSANE triumphs which THRILL me. But when there’s a feeling that things have to be clear, unambiguous, everyone’s choices being “right,” people trying to “be their best selves,” and that’s the only way to live … okay, that’s fine … but it’s not a requirement of art to run by those rules. The character Gyllenhaal plays in Kindergarten Teacher is extremely challenging – not for her, but for an audience. I CRINGED watching her, I gasped like “Oh my God, no, she didn’t” at her choices. I could see how this woman was way WAY off, and that taking a poetry class had made her … tip over the edge. Gyllenhaal does not judge her character, or condescend to her. She BELIEVES what this woman believes. You can see why her family loses patience. But you can also see where she’s coming from. She’s bored out of her mind. She’s been teaching 5 year olds for 20 years. She’s DYING for intellectual stimulation and – and here is where it gets dark as pitch – to feel like she’s special. Gifted. Talented. But not everyone is gifted or talented. Some people are just ordinary. This is such a bitter pill to swallow that her character basically refuses, and how she deals with this is so stressful to watch I found it hard to even finish the movie. It was a TORMENT. And I appreciate a movie that leaves room for torment. My view of the world is dark. I know people can go nuts, for no reason other than they’re lonely and lost. I went nuts because I was lonely and lost. People do unthinkable things for reasons that make total sense to them, reasons that “uplift” them, make them feel good. And the world cries out in horror (and rightly so). This is the realm Gyllenhaal, always a bold actress, unafraid of “not looking good”, lives in. She’s so so good in this.

Rukus

dir. Brett Hanover

My fellow jury members and I voted this best Hometowner Narrative Feature at Indie Memphis. It’s not distributed yet, and it’s not available to seen anywhere, so although it might be unfair to include it here, I figured it might be good to keep this title – and this young Memphis filmmaker – on your radar. It’s not an easily classifiable film. Is it a documentary? Yes. Kind of? But … not really either. I wrote more about the film here. It’s haunted me ever since I saw it. Hanover is young, but he’s a bit of a phenom. An original eye.
.

Mr. Soul!

dir. Melissa Haizlip

One of the docs of the year for me – not released yet. It’s currently scooping up awards around the country (including at Indie Memphis, where I saw it). There’s no distribution yet, but I predict this film will be HUGE. It unearths a gigantic cultural history, super important to 20th century understanding, a short chapter (the PBS show Soul! – which came and went in a 5-year period but had enormous reverb (many people who went on to be gigantic show-biz icons got their debut on this show). I wrote about it as well at the Indie Memphis roundup. Not only is the story itself interesting, but Haizlip is a talented filmmaker, a gifted interviewer – and the sheer amount of footage she had to put together for this film is awe-inspiring. She did an incredible job.

Shoot the Moon Right Between the Eyes

dir. Graham Carter

A magical sweet film, which we saw and loved at Indie Memphis. I wrote about it here. It’s difficult to describe its magic, because it’s quiet, unobtrusive, but pierced through with a kind of sweet romanticism – gentle humor – that felt sincere, organic – like, this is how Graham Carter sees the world. The film is funny, and stylized – people periodically burst into song (John Prine songs, all), but it’s also so grounded in its own sensibility, its objectives. I loved its gentleness, its rough edges, its humor. It’s a small miracle.

If Beale Street Could Talk

dir. Barry Jenkins

I can’t even tell you how intense the mood was in the packed theater at Indie Memphis for the regional premiere of Barry Jenkins’ latest film, a gorgeous adaptation of James Baldwin’s novel of the same name. If you’ve read the book, then you know it doesn’t take place in Memphis, but “Beale Street” – in Baldwin’s words – has a larger meaning, connecting the black community. Stephan James is amazing (he’s had an amazing year. He was also fantastic in Homecoming, opposite Julia Roberts. He was an acting student of a friend of mine! She adored him!), but the whole cast is incredible. It is THRILLING to me that Regina King – whom I have loved since Jerry Maguire – scored the Best Supporting Actress win at the NYFCC. I don’t think I’m talking out of school when I say the surge of excitement about that vote was palpable, as was the surge of excitement when she won. Her portrayal of a mother desperate to save her son – the lengths she will go to – the mistakes she makes (there’s a scene in Puerto Rico where you feel like you’re going to explode watching – and when she bursts out sobbing, so did I), and how she digs her heels in to follow through on the courage of her convictions. It’s an insanely moving performance. It wore me OUT. Barry Jenkins’ visual style is swooningly poetic, moving the story into an almost abstract realm (in one shot, in particular), which suits the story’s gigantic implications. It’s a beautiful film.

Mosaic

dir. Steven Soderbergh

This was the “series” by Soderbergh which you downloaded onto your phone, and then chose how you wanted to watch it. A Choose Your Own Adventure. It was all about the byways, the different inroads, the complicated intersections of disparate people. There was a lot of WTF with this, but I thought it was so much fun, and I got lost in the maze. Sharon Stone is fantastic – perfectly cast, “all” she had to do was show up – but that’s the thing: Sharon Stone is so rarely cast where she had to “just” show up. Garrett Hedlund is always fun to watch. I thought it was a hoot.

Wild Life

dir. Paul Dano

Actor Paul Dano’s directorial debut. He’s got an eye. An eye for landscape, an eye for behavior, how to place people in the frame, how to widen/narrow the frame. He knows what he’s doing. An ambitious debut, I suppose, although ambitious connotes – somewhat – reaching for something. This doesn’t feel like a reach. There’s a What Maisie Knew quality about this film, although the kid in this film is older, and when he sees stuff going on with his parents, he knows more, he can put 2 and 2 together. Jake Gyllenhaal plays a good-natured guy, a talker, a charmer, who’s really just a Big Kid. A man who is married, with a kid, and he takes those responsibilities seriously, but he also kinda doesn’t “get it.” He gets fired from jobs a lot for overstepping boundaries. They’ve had to move multiple times. Mom – played by Carey Mulligan, in one of the best performances of the year – is tougher, harder. When Dad decides to join the crew fighting a forest fire far away, she’s like, “What the hell are you doing?” You get paid nothing, and you will be GONE. Why can’t you just be NORMAL and a REAL MAN? While Dad is gone, Mom starts to act out. Almost immediately. And it’s there that the story really begins. What Mom does is pretty outrageous, and calls into question the situation set up in the beginning sequences – that Mom is responsible and Dad is irresponsible. It’s fascinating. Carey Mulligan has a sharp perpetually disappointed look on her face. You can’t blame her for having HAD IT with her husband, but … there’s stuff going on with her that is way WAY beyond what her husband would be capable of. I’m not a Mulligan fan. I’ve said this before. She’s not a Leading Lady, in the romantic sense of the term. I don’t buy her in a romantic context. Her “Daisy” was … not good. To me, she’s like a big blank on the screen. However, Mudbound – which I wrote about a lot – was great for her, because she didn’t have to carry the thing, and she was part of an ensemble, and she also didn’t have to be figure of romantic desire/aspiration. (When I mentioned my lack of thrill surrounding Carey Mulligan on my site, someone asked me if I saw Mudbound. It’s okay if you don’t read me every day, but that’s the only way to keep up. Mudbound was on my Top 10 and I wrote about it extensively, here, and also for Ebert.) So anyway, despite the fact that I had never liked her in anything, I recognized what she brought to Mudbound. She’s even better here. Maybe when she’s in stuff where you’re supposed to like her, admire her, want her, I’m just not seeing it. She’s so blah. But when she’s in stuff where she’s supposed to be part of the background, and pissed about it, she’s better, she’s got edges, she’s PISSED. Maybe she’s pissed that she’s NOT the Leading Lady. (Not HER the person, but the characters she plays.) That’s what’s going on in Wild Life. Her behavior is really quite appalling, and she not once pleads for our sympathy. She doesn’t give a shit. I admire the HELL out of this quality in an actress. It’s rare. I also admire her for her answer to the RIDICULOUS question asked at a QA about how she could play such an “unlikable character.” We are a soft soft people, we have created people who ask such stupid questions, whose engagement with art is ONLY on a moralistic basis. And these people are liberal/progressive, so don’t feel all superior. Don’t these people realize that “unlikable” (so-called) characters are the meatiest, the best roles? Of COURSE she wanted to play this mother role. It’s one of the best roles she’s ever had. She’s phenomenal.

Tehran Taboo

dir. Ali Soozandeh

Very depressing animated film, following a series of characters – who all live in the same high-rise – in modern-day Tehran, who break all the taboos in the culture – and, of course, there are many taboos. Endless taboos. They don’t break the taboos to be “daring” or to “stick it to the man.” They break the taboos because they are forced to. Such a rigid culture allows no wiggle-room. And so prostitution flourishes. Unwed mothers flourish. Lost Boys with nowhere to go flourish. Tehran seethes with discontent, with sneaking around, with a black market – all of which are – actually – healthy responses to an insane environment, rampant with a double-standard for men and women. Human beings are going to figure out ways to survive, even if you set rules meant to limit their choices. This is a bleak film, with beautiful rotoscope animation.

They’ll Love Me When I’m Dead

dir. Morgan Neville

I wouldn’t call this a particularly well-done documentary, but I would call it essential viewing, especially if you are going to watch Orson Welles’ The Other Side of the Wind. It contextualizes him, it, that time in his life, and after, the mistakes he made, the mystery of him. Morgan Neville had another busy year, with this and Won’t You Be My Neighbor?

You & Me

dir. Alexander Baack

A beautiful, funny and thought-provoking rom-com, about a deaf woman who falls in love with a blind man. Hillary Baack, the actress, is deaf, and Paul Guyet, the actor, is blind, so this setup has a verisimilitude it would lack if abled actors had been cast. The script (by Alexander and Hillary, who are married) is funny and touching – illuminating about disability and how disabled people are treated – but the touch is light. You get the point, it’s not hammered at you. Both actors have tremendous natural charm, and their chemistry feels real, based on similar senses of humor. Sally Struthers is incredible as the man’s mother, happy her son has found someone, deeply invested in the couple’s happiness. But also hilarious. The performance has it all. My wonderful brother, Brendan O’Malley, plays the “sidekick” to the lead, a sidekick who has his own life going on, his own goals and dreams. He’s an essential addition to the story. I’ve seen the film a couple of times, and it has worked every time. You care about what happen to these people. I interviewed Alexander about the film. It’s streaming now. Go find it!

Never Look Away

dir. Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck

This movie is kind of difficult to describe – although I attempted to do so in my review. I loved it so much. It’s kind of sort of the story of Gerhard Richter, a German painter, still alive and still productive after six damn decades of making work. But this is no ordinary biopic. It’s a portrait of a kid who grew up in Dresden, surrounded by Nazis (his father refused to join the Party), who is then trapped behind the Iron Curtain after the war. All along, his feelings about art are developing. But they’re not allowed to develop, because any ideological political group – like the Nazis, like the Communists – have a vested interest in controlling artists, telling them what they can and cannot convey, or whatever they DO convey they are told HOW to convey it. (There is a connection here to the guy who asked that question of Carey Mulligan. It’s an ideological question. He was trying to seem “woke.” Don’t you want to play an empowered woman? If you were “in charge,” sir, you would set about telling artists what to convey and how to convey it, I have no doubt.) So this kid is caught in the crosshairs of these ideologies. Gerhard Richter eventually escaped from East Germany into West Germany, where it was like emerging from a time machine. Surrounded by interpretive art, surrealist art, “installations,” performance art pieces – the whole ridiculous nine yards – he starts to think about who he is, what he has to say. Again, this doesn’t really describe the film, or how it does what it does. It’s a very moving panorama, but – lest it sound totally serious – with some really light-hearted moments, almost slapstick, particularly in his romance with a young fashion designer student. There are connections to be made, under the surface, political realities to be faced – former Nazis turned into good Communists – the whole texture of his world. I love Gerhard Richter (as I wrote about in my review), so this movie was a feast for the mind and soul. I learned a lot. Loved it.

Paterno

dir. Barry Levinson

Not to be rude but I do try to avoid most critical commentary. Especially in real time. I go back to re-visit what critics were saying after I see the thing. But I try my hardest not to be drenched in other people’s opinions before I see something. I had no real desire to see Paterno, mainly because I find the whole story so disgusting, and the culture of Penn State even more so, and after a couple of years dealing with headlines about these sociopaths, I was done. But one day I decided, Sheila, it’s Pacino, you HAVE to watch it. I read some critiques later which said they didn’t like the film because it focused too much on Paterno and not the victims. Memo From Sheila: The film is called Paterno. Of course its focus is Paterno. Review the movie that’s there, not the one you think the artists should have made. Besides, the victims HAUNT this thing, even MORE so in their absence. The absence of them highlights Paterno’s absolute incomprehension and indifference about what had gone on on his watch. It takes him FOREVER to get the magnitude of it, and also how much trouble he is in. That nothing, nothing, will go back to normal. And maybe people watching didn’t give a shit? Who cares about an old man who doesn’t get it? was maybe how they thought. Well, okay. Shrug. If that’s what you think. But from my perspective, what is interesting is the sociopathic narcissistic one-thing-only focus of that football program, and how it was the cover for a predator, and how Paterno – as the creeeeeepy final shot shows – knew, or at least sensed. He was not an idiot. He knew. He just didn’t care. Just speaking for myself, but that’s a far more interesting story. Or, at least, this is the story of Paterno. What helps all of this is Al Pacino’s performance, one of his best in years, one of his best in general. What I loved so much about it is that Paterno the character “robbed” Pacino of his schtick. Pacino’s schtick is “I talk very softly for a while, and I am calm and rational, and then I SUDDENLY START SHOUTING FOR A LONG TIME … WITH BIG PAUSES … AND THE WHOLE ROOM STOPS BECAUSE I AM SO POWERFUL AND FILLED WITH CONVICTION.” And listen, he’s great at it. But it is schtick, make no mistake. It’s his fallback position. Joe Paterno is so repressed, so single-minded (always yearning with his body and mind to get back to his man-cave where he can watch football), that he descends into a kind of dementia right before our eyes. He does not understand what is happening. He is 10 steps behind. Surrounded by family members and lawyers, all of whom GET how huge this is going to be, Paterno is a baffled hunched-over passive presence, who continues to think this will all blow over, who has no sense of what is the right thing to do because he’s not getting it in the first place, who cannot “step up” into a leadership position – despite his status at Penn State – because there’s honestly NOTHING there. There is NOTHING going on with the man but football. And so Pacino couldn’t throw a satisfying tantrum, couldn’t even flare up in anger or self-defense. This man is too confused, too passive, too utterly incompetent to respond in any way. This is a very brave performance because it doesn’t allow him to do the things he always gets kudos for, the things that are considered “good acting.” All of that is stripped away. And he looks very old, very tired, and – worst of all – very confused. It’s a really really good performance.

The Favourite

dir. Yorgos Lanthimos

As a single person in a culture which prizes coupledom, I found Lanthimos’ dystopian weirdo The Lobster thrilling (my review here). But he’s hit or miss for me. The Favourite is racking up awards, and appearing on many Top 10s, and I don’t quite see it. It’s definitely not one of the best of the year, not even close, but it does feature three great performances, from Olivia Colman, Rachel Weisz and Emma Stone, and the machinations of that royal court are very entertaining. Normally we see men jostling for power. Here it’s women. What was interesting to me was the different kinds of power being jostled for, and how this highlighted a conflict particular to women: Rachel Weisz’s character uses her closeness to the Queen to wield real political power. That’s why she does what she does. She is an advisor, a chief of staff, the Queen is so out of it that she needs this input. Everyone turns to Weisz for decision-making. She’s making enormous choices about troop deployments and military activities. This is HER power. For Emma Stone it’s different. Getting close to the Queen for her means a safe haven, an umbrella where she can live her personal life as she sees fit. Marry, party, whatever. She needs the power of the Queen to get there. Rachel Weisz’s character wants to be in the man’s world, where real power lies. Emma Stone couldn’t give a shit about that. She just wants to be ensconced beside the Queen so she has protection. This battle, this conflict of interests, still goes on in the ranks of feminism, and it’s a worthy fight to have. Focusing only on personal empowerment is – in many ways – the definition of privilege. Of course men don’t have to choose between the personal and the political. And they’ve botched it all up. But women botch it up too. And there isn’t room for more than ONE woman in the hornet’s nest, there’s only one “favourite.” Who’s it gonna be? Still, the rapturous response to this film is slightly baffling to me. It just didn’t have that effect on me.

Cold War

dir. Paweł Pawlikowski

As a companion piece to his extraordinary 2014 film Ida (my thoughts here), Cold War shows another side of Poland’s frozen-in-time culture during the decades of Soviet domination. In both films, music plays a huge role. In Ida, there are jazz clubs, a saxophonist, clubs. In Cold War, there’s “traditional” folk music of Poland, and then there’s rock ‘n roll, and jazz. There’s a chilling portrait here of how a folk-music and folk-dance company was put together, their successes, their travels – but you know that this is really just a propagada push from the Polish Communist overlords, and their Soviet puppeteers. Nationalism was something to be co-opted and used – it could not be allowed to flourish on its own. You’re not Polish, you’re Socialist. Severing people’s loyalty to their countries – severing that identity – was a huge part of Soviet policy towards the nations under its umbrella. There’s a reason why immediately following the Berlin Wall crumbling, genocidal wars broke out all over the place. Nationalist movements exploded. It was always there, just iced over by the Communists. So this folk-music group is totted out to admiring guests, some of them Western, to basically say, “Look at our happy peasants! Singing the folk songs and doing their traditional dances they’ve been doing for centuries. Nothing wrong here! They love being Socialists.” They sing with a gigantic banner of Stalin behind them. So this was one of the most fascinating aspects of Cold War, which takes place over a 10, 15-year period. But, in essence, it’s a love story, and a painful heartbreaking one at that. Monica Castillo wrote about the love story aspect of it over at Ebert.

Tully

dir. Jason Reitman

I had a pretty vehement disagreement with a young dude on Twitter about this movie. One of his comments was: “Why was abortion never mentioned?” It was such a clueless comment I didn’t even know how to respond. You think every woman who gets pregnant – even unexpectedly – thinks of getting an abortion? Kiddo, you’ve gotta get out more. Stop trying to be “woke.” This is a married couple, and yes, the pregnancy is unplanned, they’re already overwhelmed, but … what … they’re gonna abort the baby? In what universe? Why? I know plenty of women who are pro-choice but would never in a million years get an abortion themselves. I know plenty of married women with a couple of kids already who would never in a million years get an abortion. Not for religious reasons, but because they themselves will accept a baby if it comes. THAT’S WHAT BEING PRO-CHOICE MEANS. CHOICE. THE WORD CHOICE IS DELIBERATE. CHOICE. CHOICE. There are some aspects to this film that didn’t work for me. It doesn’t quite hang together. But what does work, works like gangbusters. Charlize Theron’s performance in Young Adult was one of my favorites in recent memory. If the world were fair, she would have won the Oscar for THAT and not Monster. She’s so believably out of it in Tully that you ache for her to get some sleep. When Tully – a so-called “night nanny” shows up – played by Mackenzie Davis, an actress I’m really excited about (every since Always Shine, my review here – things start to shift. And things start to get weird. I have not had a child, nor will I ever have a child, but I have enough friends who have to know that this is a creepily accurate portrait of just how devastating pregnancy can be – physically. Your body’s a mess, your hormones are all over the place, you’re in a brain fog, you’re sleep-deprived … everyone wants something from you, your obligations never end. And you’re not COMPLAINING because you love your kids, but STILL. Tully is funny and smart and disturbing.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Film Comment Countdown and Live Talk

Last night, I participated in a Film Comment live talk at Lincoln Center, hosted/moderated by Film Comment editor-in-chief Nic Rapold, which involved “unveiling” Film Comment‘s Top 10 of 2018. The other critics there were Michael Koresky, Nick Pinkerton and Molly Haskell (legend!). None of us knew the Top 10, until each one was announced, and then we all had a brief discussion. There were 2 I hadn’t seen, Yikes, but I was relieved when Haskell hadn’t seen one, and Pinkterton too. All in all, it was a fun night, and so cool because the house was packed. Like, people showed up, on a cold Tuesday night, for this free event. I love New York. The Top 10 is super-different, with some of the “usual suspects” but a couple surprises, in particular the #1, which made me very happy. (The ones I hadn’t seen are the Denis and Western. I had a feeling the Denis was going to be on there, but I just could not get to it in time. And Western has shown up on many of the Top 10 lists of people I really trust and respect, so I will make sure to catch up with it.)

Here’s the final list!

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Rogerebert.com: The 10 Best of 2018

All the Rogerebert.com contributors sent in votes, they were tallied up, resulting in a Top 10 for the site. (Our individual Top 10s will be published later).

For now, here is our Top 10, each entry written by a different Rogerebert.com writer. I wrote about Roma. Proud to be among such fine colleagues and writers. Worthy films, all.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

100 Day Movie Challenge: Day 2

100 movies that had an impact on me.

Day 2

Offside (2007; dir. Jafar Panahi)

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

2018 Movies: An Embarrassment of Riches

My non-definitive Top 10 is here. Many of the films in the list below had spots on the Top 10 until I had to bump them off.

But here are the films that were alternates for my Top 10, movies that were on there for a while until I saw something else and had to bump it off. See why I dislike lists? They shouldn’t be written in stone. That’s just silly. Believe it or not, there will be even more, movies I consider second- or third-tier, but still well worth seeing. Consider this a public service! And don’t let me ever hear you complaining about how there was nothing good in movies this year!

In the meantime:

Other Top 10 Contenders

Minding the Gap

dir. Bing Liu

Bing Liu, who grew up in Rockford, Illinois, has been filming himself and his friends – all skateboarders – since they were kids. Minding the Gap is, then, 10 years in the making. There are three main kids – Bing, Zack, and Keire. Details about their lives comes out slowly, as Liu starts to find his way as a filmmaker, and actually start to think of this as a documentary. He interviews his friends. He interviews his friend’s parents. He interviews Nina, Zack’s girlfriend and mother of Zack’s child. Pictures start to emerge of who they all are, where they came from (very little of it is good), how they feel, and what skateboarding has given them. This might make it sound shallow, or about a film focused on the awesomeness of skateboarders. It isn’t that at all (although there are many many beautiful shots of the boys twisting and turning down the empty streets, leaping up stairs, over walls, all shot by Liu – who is clearly on a skateboard himself while filming). What this documentary is really about is boys becoming men, in a rough world where there aren’t any father figures, and where the entire society, honestly, tells them what a man should be – which involves crushing your feelings, don’t be soft, and don’t drink margaritas because everyone will think you’re gay. The boys want to be free of all of that. All of them were physically and emotionally abused. They basically raise each other. But as they grow older, life gets more serious – Zack becoming a father the most obvious example. None of them know what they “want to do.” Only one graduated from high school. Rockford is nationally known as one of the most dangerous places to live in America. Dead end? Where to go, though? How are they supposed to be men when nobody taught them how to do it? Where’s the rule book? This film is such a beautiful and powerful experience that during the end-credits sequence, where you learn where each boy/man is at now, I was sobbing. I’m not a sobber. This one really REALLY got to me. We at the NYFCC voted it Best Documentary of the Year. Well-deserved.

A Star is Born

dir. Bradley Cooper

My old Actors Studio classmate done good. This is not the second iteration of this film (I am so horrified to discover that most people think the 1976 version was the first version, that they are not even aware of the 1954 Judy Garland version) but the FIFTH. For reasons which are not all that mysterious, the story itself – big male star in love with rising female star, female star eventually eclipses male star, mainly because male star self-destructs – has something timeless about it. As the world changes, as we change, these issues are still with us. As my friend Mitchell says, “Every generation gets its own A Star is Born, and ours is way overdue.” So here it is. What really matters in a film like this is that the love comes off, that we get what it is about him, about her, that draws them together. It’s not him being a vampire on her talent (although I’ve read critiques about the film saying that. The “discourse” around this movie has been one of the most boring movie-discourses I’ve ever experienced in my life. It was so predictable and so clueless I tuned most of it out. One writer was pissed about how much he loved her nose. His love of her nose seemed creepy to this writer. We are DOOMED if a man can’t adore a woman’s nose without being called creepy. He objectified my nose! No, he loved your nose. I mean … Most of this commentary will be extremely dated by, like, next week, so I do try not to pay attention to it.) He listens to her sing, and he falls in love with her. If you don’t hang around talented performer people, then maybe you can’t understand that this is often how it works. This is why people leave long-time partners to hook up with their directors or co-stars. Talent is the most powerful aphrodisiac of all. Lady Gaga is amazing – perfect, really – and so is he. The film is funny, HUGE, emotional, and heartbreaking. With lots of songs. It plays like a bat out of hell.

BlacKkKlansman

dir. Spike Lee

Some of these I have written up for my Ebert Top 10, but I’ll boil it down. Spike Lee’s film of this almost too good to be true real story of an African-American and a Jewish cop taking down a local Ku Klux Klan chapter by going undercover – like, really?? – has it all. It’s very very funny at points, with beautiful performances from the two leads – I loved them both so much! – but what’s most relevant, and important, is its point of view. Spike’s point of view, present in every frame, every choice he makes, the way he chooses to juxtapose different images and scenes, when he chooses to put on the brakes, when he chooses to let fly. It’s masterfully done. I love watching his films because you know you’re in such good hands. He’s dazzling.

Eighth Grade

dir. Bo Burnham

Bo Burnham, the director, is not – nor has he ever been – an eighth grade girl – and yet he proves that so much of art is about empathetic imagination, dreaming yourself into someone else’s shoes. This is a pretty explosive topic right now, and that’s fine, but I’ve got some stuff to say about it too. It’s not all that amazing to me that Bo Burnham has given us one of the most truthful portraits of middle-school-girlhood in existence. I read a couple of articles by women exclaiming how surprised they were that Burnham could imagine himself into a world not his own – which honestly makes me wonder if these people are interested in art at all. Or if they even understand what art IS. He has said that he is curious, and he treated the topic with curiosity, and consulted with Elsie Fisher, who plays the lead, throughout. He asked her what it was like, what would you say here, is this realistic or should I change it, and he listened to her responses. The result is truthful (sometimes excruciatingly so). The film does not judge her. She is, quite literally, 13 years old, with all that that implies, awkwardness, eyerolls, exploding acne. Hollywood has sexualized children to such a degree that we – as in everyone – forget how YOUNG these kids are. They are CHILDREN. They may experiment with expressing their sexuality, because that’s what puberty is about, but they still need to be protected, they are KIDS. Burnham doesn’t forget she is a child. He films her with love. He finds her funny – and sometimes cringingly so. Most of us will recognize ourselves SOMEwhere in Eighth Grade. But Burnham also respects her, respects this phase, respects where she’s at. It’s a very intense film, one of the best of the year. I reviewed for Ebert.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs

dir. The Coen brothers

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs has six episodes, separated out by chapter markers. Each episode features a different cast of characters, a different mood, even – different underlying characteristics. What connects the episodes is the presence of death, death impending, death staved off, death waiting for you around the next hill. How the West was Won was a bloody affair. Nobody comported themselves well. The Coen brothers are not interested in re-litigating all of that, or maybe they are, maybe this is one way they’re doing it. In many ways, they accept the confines of the genre, the Western. There’s a bank robbery. An Indian attack. A hanging. A wagon train. A gold-digger. What all of this may have to do with anything is up for grabs, and it’s one of the strengths of the film: I keep thinking about it. I keep puzzling over it. I’ve watched it a couple of times now. It gets deeper with each re-watch. These episodes are, somehow, in conversation with one another. I loved Nic Rapold’s interview with Zoe Kazan in Film Comment, one of the reasons being Kazan’s thoughts on how these stories connect. Her “theory” is something I hadn’t considered, but I have enjoyed pondering it, especially during re-watches. When people complain about the Coen brothers’ “nihilism”, or say they’re “misanthropic” … I have a couple of reactions. One is: If they ARE misanthropic, what’s it to you? They’re allowed to be misanthropic. Not everybody believes in happy endings, not everybody needs their movies to provide an uplifting empowering message. Honest to God, it’s like a CULT sometimes, this positive-thinking bullshit. But my second reaction is: I don’t see them as misanthropic at all. I see them as realistic. There’s a difference. They even say that explicitly in Buster Scruggs, they put the words into the mouth of the title character, played by Tim Blake Nelson. People cheating at cards, acting poorly, whatever, is all part of “the human material.” People have been trying to make me believe in various Utopias, political and otherwise, since I was a teenager. So far, I haven’t bitten. I appreciate the Coen brothers’ outlook. I also think it’s far warmer than they are given credit for.

Can You Ever Forgive Me?

dir. Marielle Heller

Marielle Heller is the real deal. I loved her Diary of a Teenage Girl (reviewed for Ebert), and now comes Can You Ever Forgive Me?, the fascinating story of forger fraud Lee Israel, played by Melissa McCarthy, in a great performance. The film really gets the deep and dark world of a writer, a writer who can’t make a living. This is not to excuse her behavior (I hate to even talk like this, though: Who I am to “excuse” or “approve” a character’s behavior, and then base my review on whether or not they are a “good person”? Ugh.) I love a film with the courage of its convictions. Lee Israel’s “scam” was insanely audacious, and her partner-in-crime is an semi-lost gay man-about-town, played by Richard E. Grant, in one of the performances of the year (the NYFCC voted him Best Supporting Actor).

Death of Stalin

dir. Armando Iannucci

This movie is some kind of miracle. It shows the vicious power-grabs that went on in the immediate wake of Stalin’s death in 1953. The power vacuum was immediate, and in the couple of days that followed, power switched hands, Kruschev coming out on top. None of this seems like it would be funny. Death of Stalin is often uproariously funny – in ways I haven’t seen on film in a long long time. But it is also a serious – and gross – look at the monsters who made up the Politburo, the vicious toadies clustered around Stalin, laughing at all Stalin’s jokes, afraid to go home to their wives because nobody could leave before Stalin did. Disgusting people. But Iannucci has a slapstick soul, and knows how to bring that out, in ways morbid and absurd. The men clustered around Stalin’s dead body, wondering what to do, should they tell anyone? The moving-and-shaking, the whispered conferences in the sidelines, the switching of alliances, the backstabbing, the manipulations … The film plays like gangbusters, a maniacal frenzied ride, never taking a breath from the moment it starts until the very end. Great performances from all: Steve Buscemi – an unlikely choice for Kruschev – is perfect. Rupert Friend is HILARIOUS as Stalin’s wild son. But the hilarity is always mixed with darkness and horror. These terribly undistinguished men were in charge of millions of people. These IDIOTS stood by as Stalin killed millions. Every single one of them is a monster. And they turn on one another the second Stalin was gone. Fantastic film. How it manages its mood swings is one of its many beautiful mysteries.

Burning

dir. Lee Chang-dong

Definitely one of the viewing experiences of the year for me, and really deserves a place on any Top 10. Lee Chang-dong masterfully creates a mood of dread, but you can’t really point to the source. The threat is in the atmosphere. It’s the air the characters breathe. Steven Yeun gives one of my favorite performances this year. I reviewed for Ebert.

Monrovia, Indiana

dir. Frederick Wiseman

Wiseman is fascinated by how institutions work. How institutions work shows us how America works. Wiseman drops himself into the everyday lives of regular institutions – a high school, a mental institution, a city hospital, a police force. He’s been making documentaries since the 1960s. If you haven’t encountered his work, then I suggest starting with High School or Titticut Follies. A huge influence on a generation of documentary film-makers, his work is nearly impossible to imitate, because it comes from him, meaning: it is HE who can sit in a high school and capture what he does. Some of the footage he gets you can’t believe, like there’s no self-consciousness in his “subjects”. It’s like he’s not even there. And so people are laid bare. You love them, you cringe, you feel angry, you recognize yourself, it runs the gamut. His latest is a collage portrait of the lives and workings of the people of Monrovia, Indiana. He moves from culture to culture: auctions, the town board, the school board, baby showers, the Elks Club, the gun shop. The film moves slowly, it drifts almost … like you’re walking down the main street of Monrovia, peeking through each door as you go. Wiseman at his deepest and best. A major major career, devoted to public service (most of his projects began as public television programs and investigations.)

You Were Never Really Here

dir. Lynne Ramsay

I can’t get this film – or Joaquin’s towering performance – out of my mind. It came out so long ago (comparatively), that it’s not getting that much awards buzz. Not yet anyway. Don’t miss it. Find it. It’s, in many ways, a genre film – a “revenge” film, but it’s also a portrait of a loner, one of the invisible men in our world, out of focus on the periphery, filled with rage, longing, sadness. I reviewed for Ebert. Lynne Ramsay is an important filmmaker, with a unique fearless vision.

Zama

dir. Lucrecia Martel

I love Glenn Kenny’s review on Ebert about this extraordinary film from Argentinian director Lucrecia Martel. Kenny gets at the layers going on in this story, of a guy stranded in the “New World,” waiting to be called home, sucked into the strangeness around him. There’s brutality, increasingly so as the film reaches its climax, and the emotional devastation is almost as extreme. But it’s humorous too, and Martel is frankly voyeuristic in much of her approach (the first scene has Zama lying in a hill of dunes, trying to pretend he isn’t spying on the naked bathing “native” ladies). Her camera peeks through doors, through tall grass, trying to see what is going on … but you only get glimpses or fragments. It’s not possible to get the whole picture. Martel removes connecting links. Because connecting links don’t exist for Zama either, a stranded miserable man in a strange world, trying to understand the forces massed against him – or even if they ARE massed against him. So much of the agony in this world is random chance, the luck of the draw.

Vox Lux

dir. Brady Corbet

Unfortunately I saw this stunner from Brady Corbet (whose first film, Childhood of a Leader, was one of the best films of 2016) too late to include on my initial list. I put it on later lists. It’s bold, audacious, sometimes ridiculous, never less than 100% confident, even at its most bombastic. This is a film really about something, you can tell, although WHAT it is about is sometimes not terribly clear. And that’s fine. Vox Lux grapples with things that drench our culture: fame, violence, self-empowerment narratives, drugs, terrorist attacks: are these symbols or are these the things themselves? Is there any meaning at all to ANY of it? Vox Lux swims in those questions. I found much of it to be meaningless, and it’s why the film so disturbed me. It seemed to be saying “So much of all of this is empty.” I’ll have to think on it further (here’s my review), and it’s a movie I really look forward to revisiting.

Madeline’s Madeline

dir. Josephine Decker

Decker is on a pretty short list of directors where I await their next film with impatience, practically jiggling my leg because I want MORE, dammit, and NOW. (Paul Thomas Anderson is another one. Scorsese. Decker is in good company). For me, her best is still Butter on the Latch, which I don’t even think was released. No matter. There is something about her work – what it looks like – her eye – that is so unleashed from conventional filmmaking that it makes other things seem hide-bound, rule-bound. Who set UP these random rules about what a shot is supposed to look like, how a story should operate, long-shot-to-medium-shot-to-closeup etc.? I mean, sky’s the limit, right? Break rules. Do whatever the fuck you want to do. People may hate it, may not respond to it, but that didn’t stop John Cassavetes. Madeline’s Madeline is her most accessible work to date, with “names” in it (Molly Parker, Miranda July), and an amazing debut from newcomer Helena Howard. There’s a “meta” quality to it (there always is in Decker’s work), in its portrait of a New York experimental theatre company, and the “phenom” that is the teenage Madeline. Decker’s work defies easy classification, or even description. It’s all in how she sees. You could pull one of her shots out of a blind line-up, it’s that distinct. I really thrill to it. Thou Wast Mild and Lovely, Butter on the Latch make an amazing double bill – I saw them back to back and almost felt like I was drunk on Decker’s visions. Flames came next, a documentary about her relationship with another filmmaker, and it’s navel-gazing but in a way I found interesting. It also was interesting because – in a Star is Born kind of way – she’s a better filmmaker than he is. It’s part of why they broke up, he couldn’t handle her pulling ahead. Madeline’s Madeline is a huge leap forward, but it’s still recognizably Decker-ish. Get on the Decker train, people. I don’t know if she’ll ever make it “mainstream” – I hope not – but what she does do is make us question why everything we see seems so rote and recycled? Where are the people with new visions, new ideas, and the boldness to accomplish what they see in their heads?

Annihilation

dir. Alex Garland

I really liked Alex Garland’s Ex Machina (review here), but Annihilation was overwhelming. It’s an extremely unnerving film, set up with “nods” to all kinds of different genres: sci-fi, of course, but also “the quest,” even a Western if you think of a Western as a group of pioneers stepping out into the unknown. The genre elements are there, but they’re suffused with such strangeness and intensity they start to feel like something else. I am still not sure how that occurs, and I haven’t seen it since my first viewing so it will take closer examination and deeper thought. What seems to happen, though, is that the entire world of the film – the quest – the environment beyond that shimmering veil – starts to reflect and mirror the psychological state of the lead character (Natalie Portman). All of this is handled in such a rich complex way, you get sucked into the quest, you forget what might be on the other end, you have no idea what’s coming, what they will find, what it will mean. By the end of the film, I was knocked absolutely flat. Among many other things, I agree with Angelica Bastien, who wrote that Annihilation was one of the best films she’s ever seen depicting what depression actually feels like. A resounding COSIGN. I saw this movie at a nearby movie theatre on a grim grey day. I took the train to the movie theatre because I live in the most inconvenient place known to man or woman. I wanted to see it. It was WEEKS after it had opened and it was still in the theatres, a sign that people were really grooving to this thing. It was playing in a small theatre and I got a seat in the front row. Every seat was full. Afterwards, the woman sitting next to me, turned to me and started talking to me about the movie. It’s that kind of movie. We ended up talking for about half an hour, 40 minutes, and ended up exchanging phone numbers. We are now dating. No, just kidding. But it’s not every movie that makes strangers start to talk to each other, not just about the movie, but what it made us think about.

Sorry to Bother You

dir. Boots Riley

It hurt me to bump this one off. It has nothing to do with the film’s merits and only to do with the fact that 10 means 10 and something has to go. Boots Riley’s film is as audacious as it gets, political, social, cultural, economic … and yet that might make it sound like its tone is serious, like “Here, let us speak about the important issues of our day.” No. Instead, it’s punk rock, revolutionary, imaginative in a way that pushes the boundaries of what that even means, a vision of a world falling apart, a world that needs to fall apart. Boots Riley was at Indie Memphis while I was there (he was the keynote speaker, and Sorry to Bother You was screening. Riley also chose a film to screen at the festival, a film he loved, and he picked Terry Gilliam’s Brazil, a major influence on him and on Sorry to Bother You). Of all of the films coming out which supposedly “speak to our era,” “the perfect movie for right now,” “relevant to our current situation” and blah blah blah … Sorry to Bother You is the only film where that really applies. It is such a blazing critique of the system the implications are inescapable. Other films “about right now” will date themselves very quickly. Not this one.

Happy as Lazarro

dir. Alice Rohrwacher

This is streaming on Netflix right now. Watching Happy as Lazarro, I had a variety of in-the-moment responses, impressions, fleeting feelings, sensations, ideas. The main thing though was: “HOW did Rohrwacher even DO this?” I had a similar feeling watching Chloe Zhao’s The Rider (in my Top 10), because her use of non-actors was so extraordinary I couldn’t believe she had even pulled it off. A similar thing happens here, although the two films are very different. I went into Lazarro cold. I had no idea what was coming, or what it was “supposed” to be. I had not read anything that “contextualized” the film for me. So it unfolded and each moment was a mystery, a miracle, a revelation. I’d think, “Oh wait … so it’s THIS kind of movie?” And then 20 minutes later, I’d think, “Wowwwww, so it’s THIS kind of movie.” It’s RARE to see something NEW, something that plays by its own rules, that takes existing storytelling modes – like fables – which Happy as Lazarro is – and infuses it with the new and modern. An absolutely extraordinary film, amazing in its broad scope but also in its particular details (the Marquise’s glasses! the pastry delivery scene! the bagpipes!). It’s something else, marches to the beat of its own dream.

Hale County This Morning, This Evening

dir. RaMell Ross

One of the documentaries of the year, and with Minding the Gap, Amazing Grace, Won’t You Be My Neighbor and Monrovia, Indiana, it’s a pretty crowded field. RaMell Ross moved to Alabama to teach photography. He documented the lives around him, the town, the scenery. Two “characters” emerge, two young guys, but the film is much more than a portrait of individuals. It is a dreamy poetic collage of disparate images: a streetlight, an empty road, a wasp crawling on a piece of wood, sunlight on fields, a child running back and forth in a living room as the adults talk, the laughter of girls singing a song outside a community center … It’s a collage. As my friend Odie put in his beautiful and insightful review: “The film has an unusual, time-jumping cadence that’s punctuated by strange sounds, odd music and beautiful, superimposed visions of sky and earth. There are unexpected camera angles and long moments that at first seem monotonous but pay big dividends. Ross weaves all these elements together in such a way that you eventually realize the film is teaching you how to watch it, subtly coaxing you onto its wavelength. Suddenly, you feel like an honorary citizen of the titular place, someone temporarily woven into its fabric. I understood this the moment that Ross’ camera sped down a street he had slowly perused in the film’s opening scene. Not only did I recognize buildings and stores, but I knew exactly when the car travelling this road would see the Alabama state highway signs.” In a way, Hale County would be a good companion piece with Monrovia, Indiana. Hale County takes place in a mostly African-American world, Monrovia in a mostly white. Both help us feel the rhythms of this particular place in this particular time. Hale County is that rarest of things, a true art film.

Beast

dir. Michael Pearce

This movie came and went. I reviewed it on assignment for Ebert, and it was one of those gifts that come when you are assigned to review stuff at random by an editor. I probably would not have sought this film out on my own. Judging from how little “play” it got, I may not have even heard of it. But it is a fantastic film – yet ANOTHER amazing directorial debut (there were many this year). It calls to mind all kinds of classics (Polanski’s Repulsion the main one, but there are others), but it brings its own weird mordant grubby mood. Jessie Buckley gave one of my favorite performances by an actress this year. It feels major, like she could be HUGE if she’s in anything that gets major play. She is so alive, so fearless, so unpredictable – it fills the entire film with sharp edges, ragged emotions, rage and dirt. Who is this girl? She looks so frail, but slowly you realize she is capable of almost anything. Beast doesn’t cop out, either. It goes the distance.

Leave No Trace

dir. Debra Granik

I love Granik’s work (Winter’s Bone!), and this one takes it to a whole new level. Grounded by two extraordinary performances from Ben Foster and Thomasin Harcourt McKenzie, Leave No Trace has a meandering structure, where things happen at random, haphazard, wandering about, appropriate for the lives of the two main characters, a father and daughter living off the grid, unconnected from society. Granik films it as though she feels zero pressure to “resolve” things, or to force some kind of plot onto these two. What interests her is their dynamic, the teenage girl and her PTSD-suffering veteran father, how close they are, how devoted, and also what it is like to be so far removed from civilizational structures. I wasn’t expecting the explosion of emotion that came at the end of the film. The only reason this occurred is because Granik works in such an unobtrusive and yet such specific way that you actually felt like you know these people, not because of what happened to them, but because of how she filmed them experiencing their lives and their extremely close relationship. It’s hard to describe what I mean – here’s my review where I did a better job of it – but all I can say is: she stands BACK from her characters, doesn’t FORCE anything on them, and allows what happens to happen. It’s an emotional whirlwind.

Won’t You Be My Neighbor?

dir. Morgan Neville

I saw this in the movie theatre and you could hear the entire audience sniffling. People walked out wiping off tears. I was emotionally exhausted afterwards and went to a nearby bar and had a delicious Bloody Mary and read a book. It felt AWESOME, a true catharsis. Fred Rogers was an extraordinary man (and a staple in our household), but I don’t think I knew HOW extraordinary until this doc. What you saw is literally what you got with him. He really WAS that guy, his sincerity was not a put-on, he was not “acting.” He felt children should be treated with respect and that they needed guidance navigating the shoals of life. He was a radical in that way. In 1968 (a bad bad year), after Robert Kennedy’s assassination, Rogers decided to address it headon, and put together a primetime special to help children deal with what had happened. Amazing. Kids’ shows up to that point had been cartoons and Soupy Sales shenanigans. This drove Fred Rogers crazy. Childhood is such an important time of learning, and children need to feel they are cared for. Fred Rogers represents the best in all of us.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

100 Day Movie Challenge: Day 1

This was one of those things going around on Facebook, and it’s now caught on among my group of friends. It’s to post an image from a movie that “had an impact on you”. No explanation, no pontification, no dramatic monologues. Most people are doing a 10 Day movie challenge, but me and my friends – Mitchell, Brooke, Alex – we’re going for 100. Figured it might be fun to post these here. Maybe some of my faves are yours too.

Day 1

Only Angels Have Wings (1939; dir. Howard Hawks)

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Supernatural, new ep, my bad

So, yeah, this tells you my investment in the show that I totally forgot it was on this past week. This makes me sad. To be fair, I’m also swamped. I haven’t watched yet but for those who have, here’s a post.

Posted in Television | Tagged | 14 Comments

2018 Top 10 Movies

To cut off people who want to say “But what about …” or “You forgot …”, let me just say: No. I did not. I did not forget. There will be another list to follow of all of the films I loved this year, many of which had places on the Top 10 before I had to make some tough choices. There are no less than 10 other films which I wanted to put on here, which WERE on here until I had to bump them off. They’ll show up on some of the Top 10 roundups I’ve participated in at other sites. One of my criteria is “Wow, I have not seen THIS before.” One of my criteria is directors who are bold, who push the medium into weirdo individual directions (there are a couple here that do that). The best bet is to just have fun with lists, don’t take it too seriously (there is no such thing as real winner in art, just as there is no such thing as a film being “robbed” – it’s not that kind of pursuit).

Hopefully some of these movies will pique your interest to seek out yourself, if you haven’t already seen them.

TOP 10, in no particular order

1. First Reformed

dir. Paul Schrader

I was so rattled by this film it took me 24 hours to shake it off. There is much to be said about it, Paul Schrader, how it fits into the Schrader continuum of lonely outsiders (Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver, Julian in American Gigolo, John LeTour in Light Sleeper, even Bob Craine in Auto Focus), his obsession with sin, redemption, isolation, and his lifelong fascination with what he called “transcendental film” (he wrote an entire book about it at the age of 24: Transcendental Style in Film: Ozu, Bresson, Dreyer). Schrader was raised Calvinist (he didn’t see a movie until he was 17 years old), and that has informed all of his work, but never so explicitly as First Reformed, where a broken priest (Ethan Hawke, in one of his very best performances) gets caught up in the struggles of a young pregnant woman (Amanda Seyfried), bringing on a crisis of faith, and an agonized confrontation with the ecological devastation of our planet. Yes, this is a BIG film. But its style and mood is muted, tormented, terribly terribly repressed. Similar to Travis Bickle’s depression, the reverend is so bottled up with feeling you fear what it will look like when it all comes out. (Schrader is hugely influenced by Ingmar Bergman and Robert Bresson, whose two films – Winter Light and Diary of a Country Priest are explicit influences on First Reformed. There are scenes in First Reformed which mirror – almost exactly – scenes in Winter Light). I found the film’s power to be almost excruciating. Like I said, it was so unnerving it truly rattled me. This, for me, is The Film of the Year.

2. Roma

dir. Alfonso Cuarón

Alfonso Cuarón burst onto the international scene with 2001’s Y Tu Mamá También, and then – because the industry works like this sometimes – he directed Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Quite a leap. 2006 brought his Children of Men (based on the P.D. James novel), a film so visually innovative, so memorable in what I guess you’d call “world building” people still reference certain shots all the time. He pushed his innovations even further with Gravity, for which he won an Oscar for Best Director, a film I loved (wrote about it here). It’s been 5 years since Gravity, but he has been busy. After years away from Mexico, he has returned – to the neighborhood in Mexico City where he grew up – to direct Roma, a sweepingly gorgeous film showing a year in the life of Cleo, an indigenous Mixtec woman working as a maid/nanny for a wealthy Mexican family. Cleo is played by the extraordinary Yalitza Aparicio, who has never acted before this, which is UNREAL when you see her performance. Filmed in black-and-white, with long long shots, sometimes involving hundreds of people, and slow horizontal pans, into the ocean, along a street, through a field … Roma is an incredible artistic achievement on the cinematography front alone. The criticisms of the film, dating back to its screening at TIFF, are valid, and some of the “THIS IS A STONE-COLD MASTERPIECE” commentary has felt a wee bit like a hammer of Thor trying to beat us into submission. It happens sometimes. It happened with La La Land and Birdman too, two films I sincerely and vigorously disliked. The conversation around Roma has been fascinating. For me, the film worked: the family living in a bubble of privilege, the hard-working indigenous woman among them, living her own life, with her own problems and trajectory, not to mention the political upheaval in Mexico at the time, pushing in on the action. We voted Roma Best Film of the year at the NYFCC.

3. The Rider

dir. Chloé Zhao

The Rider came out earlier this year, and I missed it. The reviews of it – by critics I trust, like Bilge Ebiri at the Village Voice (RIP Voice) and Godfrey Cheshire at Ebert – were so intense I was pissed at myself for missing it. Well, now I’ve caught up and I can say the rapturous response was well-deserved. I am not a List-Maker, this post notwithstanding, but after seeing it, I thought to myself, “Godfrey was right. This is the film of the year.” No one in it is a professional actor. They all live the lives of their characters. Brady Jandreau is the real discovery: he’s an actual horse trainer and rodeo rider (whose injuries withstood during a rodeo were so extreme he was no longer allowed to compete). Brady is a Lakota who lives on the Pine Ridge Reservation with his father and autistic sister. Life is tough, but Brady is a horse whisperer, for real, and there are not one, but two, phenomenal sequences where we watch him train a wild bucking horse. This is not a documentary, but at a certain point the lines between real and narrative are blurred. It’s gorgeously filmed, with a sense of the scope and grandeur of South Dakota, but also the hard-bitten life of modern-day cowboys. The fact that Zhao was born and raised in Beijing makes her accomplishment here even more miraculous, although not really a surprise: she is an “outsider” in this world, but sometimes outsiders see more clearly, the rhythms and beauty and reality of another culture. She approaches it without judgment. This is an absolutely amazing film and I beg you to check it out.

4. Shirkers

dir. Sandi Tan

It’s hard to even know where to start. This is a documentary about Sandi Tan’s experiences directing a movie in Singapore called Shirkers when she was a teenager. But that sentence alone does not accurately describe this film, what it does, how it operates. It evokes the rhythms of a childhood growing up in a very strict country without a real film culture, and how she bonded with two movie-mad friends drawn to punk rock and various subversive actions, like putting out a crazy ‘zine, and dreaming of setting the world on fire with the films they were going to make. And they made one, with the help of a teacher named Georges Cardona who taught a film class they all attended. This teacher – a mysterious man of mysterious origins – is the key to this film, and the key to that original film the teenagers made called Shirkers. The film morphs into an investigation that takes Sandi Tan from Singapore to New York to New Orleans, as she tries to understand Cardona, and tries to understand what happened to her, her film, and why. This is a gripping fascinating story, and it left me with a sense of mournfulness for what-might-have-been, anger, and yet also triumph, because here we have a documentary about it, and now the world will know about Shirkers. A great film.

5. Private Life

dir. Tamara Jenkins

I reviewed this beautiful funny and painful new film by Tamara Jenkins for Film Comment, and have since watched it 3 times. Kathryn Hahn and Paul Giamatti star as a couple so completely obsessed with having a baby it has co-opted their entire relationship. When we meet up with them, they are already years into it. IVF, adoption, egg donors … the film moves through each stage, the couples trudging wearily forward. Could they stop if they wanted to? It’s about infertility, a topic not really addressed in film all that often. People don’t want to deal with it, people shy away from the pain experienced by those who suffer from it – which is often as enormous as grief from the loss of a loved one – and the film really understands that, shows it in the reactions of friends, in particular Molly Shannon’s character, who views them both as “fertility junkies.” The stereotypical (unfortunately) viewpoint of many many fertile women. When the couple ask their young step-niece (newcomer Kalyi Carter) to donate an egg, the story swerves into another phase of the journey. Every phase has explosive emotions attached to it. Kathryn Hahn gives one of the best performances of the year, as a woman so twitchy with grief about a lost future, the betrayal of her body, she can barely bear to be in the presence of others. And Paul Giamatti is funny, exasperated, and heartbroken, too, but starting to wonder if maybe it’s time to give up, to accept. This is an amazing film, my kind of movie.

6. Amazing Grace

dir. Sydney Pollack/Alan Elliott

Has to be seen to be believed. A film 46 years in the making. It lay in a vault for all that time, beset by technical problems (Pollack hadn’t used the clapperboard, so there was no way to sync the sound), and then by Aretha herself, who did not want the film to be seen. An obsessive producer, Alan Elliott, had figured out a way to fix the sound problem, and when Aretha died he and her estate come to an agreement. So now we have the film, the visual accompaniment to Aretha’s extraordinary gospel album, filmed live in the New Temple Missionary Baptist Church in Watts. Aretha is supported by Rev. Cleveland (who, at one point, puts his head down on the piano and sobs, because of the power of what is happening in that room) and the Southern California Community Choir. As I wrote before, there were moments when I felt like I stopped breathing – I was afraid to breathe – and I’d think, “Okay, so this is clearly the climax of the song, because I honestly can’t take anymore” … only to find that no, it was not the climax – Aretha was going to go higher and deeper. For the rest of the commentary on it, I will point you to my friend Odie’s great review over on Ebert. Amazing Grace is only playing in New York and LA, short runs so it can qualify for awards season, but it will soon hit your streaming platforms. Don’t miss it. I loved many documentaries this year (Hale County This Morning This Evening, The Searcher, Mr. Soul!, Won’t You Be My Neighbor, Shirkers, see above), but once I watched Amazing Grace, it had to be on my Top 10.

7. Paddington 2

dir. Paul King

The movie is, to quote my friend Mitchell, pure liquid joy. Pure liquid joy is harder to generate than tragedy, or earnest sentiment, or even slapstick comedy. I mean, all of them are hard to pull off, it’s amazing there are any good movies at all when you consider the odds. But joy? Unabashed delirious joy? This is what Paddington 2 does, from beginning to end. The humor is effortless, the feeling generated is real – not pushed, or sickly-sweet, it’s filled with interesting characters, and has almost a life-giving energy, bringing on true laughter, true tears, and joy at the sheer inventiveness of many of the sequences. This is a movie for kids, without any age-inappropriate nods to the adults (something that drives me crazy in other films for kids. You can play to the adults – like Inside Out, did, for example – without being sneaking in sleaze). If the world were fair, Hugh Grant would win an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. His performance is out of this world, and again, my kind of acting: bold pantomime, crazy facial expressions which would fit in perfectly in a 1930s screwball, and HILARIOUS. He makes a wonderfully loopy adversary. The film is a rare bird: it made me so happy I almost wanted to cry.

8. 24 Frames

dir. Abbas Kiarostami

The final film of the Iranian master Abbas Kiarostami, I managed to see it during its run at Lincoln Center on a rainy cold day last spring. It was like I had stepped into an isolation chamber, a vacuum of space or something, where all that existed was the film. If you take your eyes off the screen for 5 seconds, you’ll miss something (It’s not that so much happens. It is that each “frame” has its own “arc,” but the arcs rely on accumulation of images and sounds.) An animated film, it’s made of 24 short films, each one its own small arc. There are no people and no dialogue. The arcs involve birds, a deer, trees, waves. Kiarostami was never a safe filmmaker (see Close Up, a stone-cold masterpiece, and Certified Copy (my review here), one of my favorite films of the last 20 years. I know I am not doing this film justice, so I’ll send you over to Godfrey Cheshire’s review on Ebert. Cheshire is an expert on Iranian film, and has interviewed Kiarostami many times, visiting him in Tehran, and elsewhere.) Kiarostami is one of my favorite film-makers. He died in July of last year, so it was somewhat haunting to see a film released posthumously, especially this film. Radical and experimental, but enriching and emotional. A dream.

9. Shoplifters

dir. Hirokazu Kore-eda

This Palme d’Or-winning film works on a slow burn, immersing us into the world of the Shibatas, a family who live in a cluttered basement room, basically squatting, hiding from an increasingly impatient landlord. The group makes a “living” through a variety of legit-unlegit activities. The father and son survive through shoplifting. They work in tandem. They have a whole system. One young woman is a sex worker. One works in a factory. The grandmother cooks. They are all off the grid. One day, impulsively, the man and the boy basically kidnap a child off a balcony, locked out in the cold as her parents scream at each other inside. They envelop her in their family, watching anxiously as the search for the child dominates the headlines. The story is told in an oblique way, submitting to the rhythms of this group, a trip to the beach, their meals, their relationships with one another – as a group and within the group – so much so that we feel we know them. And then Kore-eda pulls back the curtain, revealing how much we don’t know, how much we have assumed, how much the story has left out. From then on out, the film is a powerhouse, culminating in a couple of scenes which might rip your heart out. This is a glorious film, one which casts a long long shadow after you’ve seen it.

10. Mandy

dir. Panos Cosmatos

Oh, Mandy, OH MANDY. I walked out dazzled, almost laughing at the film’s audacious style – audacious doesn’t even cover it – how psychedelic, how satisfying in its boldness, its experimentations, its final act, featuring Nic Cage at his very insane best. I saw it with an audience, which was perfect, because people were roaring with laughter (at some of the most horrifying moments), clapping, cheering, shouting with vengeful lust at the events onscreen. It’s the appropriate response! Jóhann Jóhannsson’s score is so much a part of the film his name should practically be listed alongside the director. It’s blood-soaked, drug-soaked, but also fantasy-soaked, with its portrayal of a relationship that is a true oasis in a mad mad world. A lumberjack (Cage) and his girlfriend (Andrea Riseborough), an artist, live in a cabin isolated in the woods, and lie face to face in bed, sharing their dreams of the future. (This sounds sappy, but wait until you see how it is filmed and imagined). Then something happens. Something unforeseen and truly terrifying. To say more would probably ruin it. This is a thriller, as gory as a slasher film of the 1970s, directed with such dazzling artistry and imagination that you can’t even believe it exists. I was thinking during the film – as I was overwhelmed by what was happening and HOW it was happening, “WHY don’t more directors just UNLEASH themselves like this?” alternating with “My God, CAN THEY DO THAT??” I’ve described it as a Black Sabbath album cover come to life.

ALSO:

The Other Side of the Wind

dir. Orson Welles

40 years in the making. Released now, filmed in the 1970s, so your guess is as good as mine where this should go (I suppose the same could be said of Amazing Grace). Orson Welles’ final film, which obsessed him for years, he filmed it in spurts and bursts, until the financing ran out, bringing along with him fellow obsessives, cinematographers, PAs, producers (like Frank Marshall,partially responsible for the dauntingly huge project of actually completing this film, as closely aligned to Welles’ wishes as possible). The story of this film is almost as interesting as the film itself, but it’s the film that matters. It’s the story of a famous director (John Huston) and his acolyte, another famous director (Peter Bogdanovich), as they try to complete the famous director’s work-in-progress film, an artsy mood-piece, a departure for him along the lines of Antonioni called The Other Side of the Wind. The director walks around surrounded by paparazzi and documentary film-makers and photographers – and it is through THEIR footage that we see this film. (Brilliant.) We also see extended sequences from the film within a film, totally different style, totally different color scheme and mood. Welles was, as always, far ahead of the rest of us, in his experimentation with different film stocks and aspect ratios and black-and-white and color. Plus the reality-TV aspect of it, although both should probably have quotation marks around it. I have seen it three times already, and it’s absolutely overwhelming. On Netflix. A new Orson Welles film. What are you waiting for?

And now I’ll do my own “But what about …?” What about the Coen brothers? What about Barry Jenkins? What about Debra Granik? What about Beast? What about Spike Lee? What about Death of Stalin? Can You Ever Forgive Me? Annihilation? Burning? Boots Riley? BAH. TOO MANY.

Another list to come of other 2018 films I loved. It’s a long list.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 13 Comments