I didn't say much about the Oscars this year; I did watch the show, and sure, I could've given a few minor criticisms if I live-tweeted it or something, but honestly there wasn't anything that egregious, and frankly it was just a good show in general, and that's about all I ask for these days. Conan did good, and the winners, eh-, well I haven't seen most of the films or nominees, so I didn't feel too right criticizing or complaining, but they seemed okay to me. The few I had seen I basically agreed with, although one of the films that tied for Live-Action Short Film was one that I thought was terrible, but I seemed to be in the minority on that one.
There's not too much else going on at the moment, even though it does take me longer to get out these blogposts than ever. I actually intended to stop writing commentaries in general, to be honest, I know my last blog on A.I. ended up what I last posted, but actually I was hoping to do fewer and fewer of those and mostly make this blog in the future be focused in on movie reviews, with Canon of Film posts in between. That's another reason I wasn't particularly infatuated with the Academy Awards as I had other years with this blog, modern movies have interested me less and less lately, and I kinda just hope to watch and rewatch older films in the immediate future. Of course, the ever-growing, constantly updating personal self-imposed algorithm that tells me what films/tv shows to watch next wouldn't completely allow that, so all the reviews here are clearly from the recent past, and a lot of them were Oscars and other award show darlings, but I still intend to focus more on that for now. Part of it is that I have other projects outside the blog I'm working on, another part is that I just feel like I have less to say about the state of cinema and entertainment for now, and frankly I only want to post commentaries when I feel like I have something to add to the discourse, in the meantime, I feel like I would rather just talk more about the movies I watch, the new-er-ish, ones that I review here and occasionally the ones I love and admire from the past. Hopefully, I'll be doing more of the latter very soon.
Anyway, let's get to this edition of our reviews!
EMILIA PEREZ (2024) Director: Jacques Audiard
⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2
So, this was the movie that evvvv-ver-y-body, seemed to have an opinion on. By far the most controversial film among last year's Oscars' Best Picture nominees. I didn't listen closely to all the controveries when they were going on, other than from a cursory view, 'cause I hadn't seen it, and frankly didn't want to say anything until I had. Now that I have and went back, and a quick google search later, umm, hmmm. Well, there's definitely some baggage with this film. Hell, just the premise of it will definitely get a few people up in arms. I'll tell you though, the first thing I really noticed that was strange for me, wasn't any of the Twitter issues or anything, but it was the, well, the curious director behind it.
If you were to ask me, who would be making a Spanish-language musical about a Mexican drug kingpin who goes through a sex change operation, believe it or not, there'd be a few names I'd think of. Pedro Almodovar comes to mind immediately. I can even see Del Toro or Inarritu trying it. I don't think Alfonso Arau is still directing, but would it be that surprising for the guy who made "Like Water for Chocolate" to tackle this? (I mean, other than the fact that he's 90-something now.) But, instead, it's Jacques Audiard, a French filmmaker. A good one, one of my favorite in recent years actually. "Read My Lips", "Dheepan", "A Prophet" all great films there. My favorite of his is "Rust and Bone" which is the film I like to pretend is actually the movie Marion Cotillard won her Oscar for instead of the messy Edith Piaf biopic, "La Vie En Rose". None of those other films of his are musicals though, although there is a lot of modern music in "Rust and Bone", and to be fair, he did start out by making music videos, so it's not completely out of his wheelhouse. And actually, come to think of it, there is a lot of parallel themes in those films that you can bring in to "Emilia Perez". Cotillard's character was as an animal performer/trainer at a water park show that lost her legs in an accident, "Read My Lips" is about a deaf girl who decides to get caught up in with a thief to pull off a con. There's a body issues theme going on. There's a lot of criminality in his films too. They're also, not always limited to just France and the French, "Dheepan" is about a Sri Lanka immigrant who was a Tamil freedom fighter trying to protect his new family while struggling to make it in Paris. No, this isn't that unusual, I guess; the deeper you look this makes a little more sense why he's the one behind this film.
That still doesn't answer the question of whether this is a good film, or even besides that, whether all this is a good thing for him to be making. His weakest recent film is his only American film, the interesting but forgettable western "The Sisters Brothers". So maybe, he doesn't necessarily translate well outside of his native France? That's a possibility, and not necessarily a negative, I wouldn't want to see Tarkovsky try make a Hollywood blockbuster. And one of the controversies surrounding the film, is around how, not-Mexican a lot of this film is.
I can go into how most of the main actors are not of Mexican descent, or the fact that most of the film was made in Europe, and mostly in France from what I heard, but let's looks at the story, which yes, is very much not Mexican. Is based off on one of Audiard's operas, which itself was inspried by a chapter in a French novel. The titular character is Manitas (Oscar nominee Karla Sofia Garcon) when we first meet her-, well, actually, we don't meet her first, we meet Rita (Oscar-winner Zoe Saldana) who's a disgruntled defense lawyer working for some big name clients and a big name lawfirm, although she's the biggest help in getting some of the richest and probably guiltiest people off, and she's rarely given the credit for it. Manitas, eventually finds her, and convinces her to help him out as he plans to retire as the leader of the largest cartel in the country. He does this, by saying that he wants to secretly and securely transition into a woman, and he's hiring her to basically arrange it, literally flying all across the world to learn about the procedure, procure the proper physician and surgeons, getting Manita's wife Jessi (Selena Gomez) and their kids out of the country for their protection while he's on the run, and eventually, he has his death faked in order to begin his life as a transitioned woman.
These two meet again, not by chance, four years later, and now, Emilia is trying to get his kids and wife back. They're not aware that he's Manitas, but they come back to Mexico and stay at her mansion, and meanwhile, with Rita's help, begins establishing charities for those who've lost loved ones, during the drug wars that have continued being slaughterous since Manitas's "death". She even meets Epifania (Adriana Paz) a widow of the drug wars, who she starts dating, while Jessi rekindles a secret relationship she had with Gustavo (Edgar Ramirez) who she was having an affair with during the later years of her marriage to Manitas.
(Deep sigh)
Okay, I have no idea if any of this sounds remotely plausible to the current status of the Mexican cartels, which,- well, recent news makes some of this seem more realistic honestly, but I'm not going there. What all this does feel a lot like, is a telenovela. I mean, I'd actually be surprised if something like this hasn't happened on some telenovela before, everything except for maybe the sex change,- I mean, even the music I bet. I'm surprised soap operas don't have more musical numbers honestly; it's literally in the genre's name-, well it's American name. But, material wise, yeah, I'm not surprised this comes from an opera. People who think operas are like, the most stuffy of literary mediums, have never looked deeply into most of the stories in them, but again, the word's in the name of the genre, for a reason; they're full of all his romantic melodrama and love and sex and death and cheating and murder,- and yeah, I buy that even a modern form of this genre would simplify the cartel trade this much to tell their story. The only thing missing in this is a villain with an evil mustache to twirl while smacking his wife and fucking his mistress.
So, I have no idea if this passes the Mexican test, but it felt like it passed it enough story-wise for me, and frankly I was entertained. I was caught up in what was going to happen, and how it unfolded and I wasn't sure exactly how, but I knew it would somehow end tragically. In fact, this being a musical made me realize the movie's biggest issue with claiming that it's a good Mexican representation, (And no, I'm not even going to pretend to get into the argument of whether this was a good representation of gender dismorphia or trans representation,- I'm just, no, I'm not going there. Comment section that's all yours.) 'cause the story that this felt the most familiar to me, was a very French piece of literature.
Like, one of the big ones. About a criminal, who escapes his past by creating a new identity and begins to become a beacon of the area that he's around before his past suddenly comes back wanting to take him back to his criminal ways, while there's several new figures of love in their own very complicated life, and there's also a rebellion and/or war in the middle of it, one for the soul of the country too?!
Oh, and it was also adapted into a musical!? I mean, really, there's some serious "Les Miserables" fingerprints all over this. That musical eventually got adapted into a feature film that polarized a lot of critics and fans as well. I've seen multiple versions of the story in film, and even tried reading the Victor Hugo novel at times, for me, I always thought the musical is the best medium to tell that story. You can get through a lot of complicated ideas, conflicts and emotions in a musical while also getting out some much needed exposition, way quicker and better in song than I think you can in other genres, and okay-, this wasn't perfect with all it's exposition in the songs,- they apparently got some things wrong about vaginaplastia during the hospital musical number. Also, the movie's best number, the "El Mal" segment that went over the corruption of the entire room that Emilia was heading over for her charity, also kinda seemed odd, particularly in how she invited and still knew a lot of the local cartel leaders even after transitioning and faking her death. Interesting that they didn't particularly care about her leaving the life or the fact that she recently became, well, a she. That seems like-, well a progressive take, but maybe still an unusual one, but yeah, that scene probably won Saldana her Oscar. She in particular is great in this, although another argument is that she got nominated and won in Supporting Actress, and that probably is category fraud. And that one, I will take a stand on, 'cause yes, this was category fraud; they should've both been considered leads. I can see the argument for Supporting, but she has more screen time, for the majority of the film she's the main character we're following...- yeah, congrats on the Oscar campaign team on that one, but I don't blame them for doing that either, she deserved to be honored, and her and Garcon's performances alone are worth the watch.
Oh, and it was also adapted into a musical!? I mean, really, there's some serious "Les Miserables" fingerprints all over this. That musical eventually got adapted into a feature film that polarized a lot of critics and fans as well. I've seen multiple versions of the story in film, and even tried reading the Victor Hugo novel at times, for me, I always thought the musical is the best medium to tell that story. You can get through a lot of complicated ideas, conflicts and emotions in a musical while also getting out some much needed exposition, way quicker and better in song than I think you can in other genres, and okay-, this wasn't perfect with all it's exposition in the songs,- they apparently got some things wrong about vaginaplastia during the hospital musical number. Also, the movie's best number, the "El Mal" segment that went over the corruption of the entire room that Emilia was heading over for her charity, also kinda seemed odd, particularly in how she invited and still knew a lot of the local cartel leaders even after transitioning and faking her death. Interesting that they didn't particularly care about her leaving the life or the fact that she recently became, well, a she. That seems like-, well a progressive take, but maybe still an unusual one, but yeah, that scene probably won Saldana her Oscar. She in particular is great in this, although another argument is that she got nominated and won in Supporting Actress, and that probably is category fraud. And that one, I will take a stand on, 'cause yes, this was category fraud; they should've both been considered leads. I can see the argument for Supporting, but she has more screen time, for the majority of the film she's the main character we're following...- yeah, congrats on the Oscar campaign team on that one, but I don't blame them for doing that either, she deserved to be honored, and her and Garcon's performances alone are worth the watch.
It is otherwise a mess of a musical, but it's a fascinating mess, perhaps of misintent hubris, but I'd much rather be on the side of defending this. It's an audacious film, and maybe Audiard went a little too close to the sun, but you know, he was aiming for the sun, and he came close to it. I applaud that. It looks and feels like an over-the-top melodramatic, emotional rollercoaster of a soap opera, or just like a regular opera, really, and I think if it's accepted as that, it's a much more enjoyable experience.
THE SUBSTANCE (2024) Director: Coralie Fargeat
⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2
Oh boy, I've been waiting and hearing about this one, and yikes, I was not disappointed.
Man, I don't even know where to start on this one. I guess this isn't a new subject, the fading youth of a major star actress, and the All About Eve up-and-comer coming in to replace her,- I'm not even sure it's new in this subgenre of body horror, but man, this is a hell of a way to go about it. Coralie Fargeat is one of the big female directors who's suddenly hit the world of horror, and not just any horror films, body horror films. I liked her debut feature, "Revenge" quite a bit, and I wonder how much that movie has to do with this one, 'cause weirdly they're both about survival. In "Revenge", a young woman is raped, assaulted and left for dead by a gang of rich cheating older men, and she somehow manages on her own to, not only survive, but, well, get revenge on them. (Sidenote: there should absolutely be a law against naming your movie, "Revenge", there's way too many movies with that title.) But yeah, she did what she could to survive, and here, you can kinda argue that same thing, that Elisabeth Sparkle (Oscar-nominee Demi Moore) is doing what it takes to survive.
Elisabeth is a big time actress, purportedly an Oscar-winner who's turning 50, and she finds out after a taping of her,- um, exercise show...-? Ummm-, oh-kay,- the whole world of fame, in this movie, is so outlandish and surreal that I think taking any of it literally, is going give you logical thinking cramps, like I think this movie takes place in the same universe as that game show in "Requiem for a Dream", which,- yeah, actually Fargeat is really influenced by Aronofsky now that I'm thinking about it, especially his early work.
Anyway, Sparkle has a star on the walk of fame for her movies and now she's being fired from her exercise show 'cause she's turned 50. Even if you're able to still do a regular exercise routine show on TV,-, which, btw, eh, just recording a single exercise tape of something, is actually, really fucking hard. Like, anybody remember that reality show, "Workout", the Bravo show that took place at the Beverly Hills Gym, with Jackie Warner? Anyway, one of the later episodes of that series, they record an exercise video, and it's brutal! It took like ten hours, and remember, they have to be exercising the whole way! Like, fuck! Like, go watch that old Jane Fonda video and try to keep up and then, imagine having to do that for the next 12 hours to get enough footage! But apparently, in this world, you can take over that show and become a huge star, and then be out on your ass if you're too old. At least that's what we get from the really grotesque and eccentric producer, Harvey (Dennis Quaid), hmm-mm, yes, Harvey, is his name..., and I'm gonna leave it at that.
Well, eventually, Harvey, does replace and find a new star with Sue (Oscar-nominee Margaret Qualley), just Sue. Who is Sue? Umm, it might've been better if she was called Eve, but she came up with the name Sue in the casting session. Um, yeah, I'm not gonna explain Sue, other than to say that she's Elisabeth's replacement and now they're competing with each other. How, can somebody older try to compete with somebody younger and more beautiful, well, after a car accident, Elisabeth got a note from a nurse to go to a secret place that provides her with the titular "The Substance" that she has to take regularly in order to stay young and even get younger. The Substance does of course have some side effects, like any mysterious product that claims to make you seem younger would, and this is where the body horror comes in, and I'm trying to figure out how much else I can say, and frankly the less I think I can say, the better. Other than to say that the events and how they're depicted in the rest of the movie and so beyond outlandish and dive headfirst into the most absurd and surreal depictions of, what we're just gonna call "Fame", for lack of a better word, that it can only reasonably be understood as some kind of insular Kafkaesque nightmare logic, perhaps with a touch of the drug illusions you'd read about in a William S. Burroughs novel.
One thing that's kinda odd to me, is how lonely fame seems to be. Or, at least, how lonely and insular fame is for Elisabeth Sparkle. The way it's depicted in the movie, it appears to be the only thing that she wants and craves, and she's often alone. Often at home alone, usually staring at herself in the mirror, starving, hysterical, naked, dragging herself along her tiled bathroom floor, and, looking for an angry fix. Well, maybe she's not starving, for reasons beyond my understanding, her going-away gift given to her by Harvey, and chipped in by others, was bizarrely, a French cookbook..., um...- that sounds like the weirdest going-away gift I can think of, especially for somebody known for an exercise show? (Also, isn't that like, the one profession in hollywood where the older you are and still look good, the better it would be for you to be doing it? Like, Jack LaLanne was in exercise commercials 'til he was in his 90s!- I'm sorry, she's making a larger point and just going as over-the-top as possible with the exercise bit,- like, the legwarmers, and I know that, I get it,- and yet it still just seems like such a strikingly odd choice.) Like, there's a subtext going on here, that Elisabeth Sparkle is, probably a lousy person to be around, 'cause there seems to be nobody around her, and we, don't learn why. Like, she does run into "fans", only one of them, a former high school classmate of hers, Fred (Edward Hamilton-Clarke) who seems remotely interested in her as a human being, and even then, he might just be a starfucker who's only got the one chance to fuck a star, and even then, after her supposed fame was up. There's no husband, no boyfriend, no girlfriend, no friends at all, no kids,... Even for famous stars, and ones who are actually fairly known for being hard-to-work-with, this is kinda odd.
Perhaps, I'm trying to look for immediate inspiration without diving headfirst into the hypertext. Obviously, I can think of tons of actresses who've struggled in some ways, or taken steps to combat either the ageism in Hollywood, or the aging process against themselves through thinks like strict diet, extreme exercise practices, plastic surgery, or even worst and more grotesque versions of body dismorphia. Including Demi Moore, who, to dive into the hypertext, who, even though she's definitely taken more than her fair share of roles that aren't focuses so much on her appearance, has definitely been defined for most of her career for how beautiful she's been, and for that matter, how drastic she's been willing to go from showing off her body in demanding roles, to altering her body in severe ways, and going back and forth again, and even completely abandoning acting on multiple occasions for very prolongued periods of her career, sometimes at the top of her career. But either way, the times that she's been most pushed as a major movie star, like, "Ghost", "Indecent Proposal", "Striptease", "G.I. Jane", and that "Charlie's Angel's" sequel nobody wants to remember exists, much, if not, most of the attention, was based around, how she looked. I'm only bringing this up because it's one of those performances where everybody else in the audience would be thinking about that; it's part of why she finally got an Oscar nomination for this film, not that she doesn't deserve it, she does, but the narrative for her helps.
Meanwhile Margaret Qualley, who also got nominated, I've seen in two films, this and "Poor Things", and it's kinda odd to me, that both times, she's playing a literal creation. That's- I hope that's a typecasting that goes away, 'cause I might argue she gives an even better performance as a bright-eyed young ambitious starlet who'll do just as much, if not more, to keep her fame and her perfect swimsuit model looks.
The real star though is the director. What bends this movie to me, is mostly surrounding her, 'cause, as much as I might wanna hypothesize ways to make this story just as good, but use a more naturalistic storytelling structure for a metafilm about Hollywood, like, if Robert Altman combined the horror of this film with the hollywood of "The Player" and the surrealism of "3 Women", I bet that would be interesting, and selfishly I might enjoy it more, but it wouldn't be as striking and compelling. Fargeat's intense focusing on the close-ups of the gross and the grotesque, countered with the photoshopped lusciousness of the gazeworthy and awed at. The intense Aronofsky-esque quick-cutting that's borders on the hypnotic and obsessive. In fact, the more I watched this film, on top of some of the other major body horror figures like Cronenberg that I could compare her influence-wise, this movie in particular feels like she was inspired by Darren Aronofsky's best film, "Requiem for a Dream". And you could argue, they're pretty similar, if you think of fame as an addicted drug that our characters can't live without. I mean, there's a literal drug involved, and it does graphically change the characters' appearances the more it's used. (Come to think of it, there's almost as many fetal positions in this film as their is that film too.) But, Aronofsky's was getting mostly into the mind of his character, Fargeat, is far more visceral and physical in her approach, from beginning to end. I can't blame her, she's right about what women are forced to and in some cases are willing to do to their bodies for,- well, not even fame, even just getting basic acting gigs sometimes.
There's a moment during a casting call where a couple producers talk about some unseen actress they just saw and they talk about how they wish her breasts were on her face instead of her nose. That's harsh, and ridiculously over-the-top and reductive but honestly, it's more true than you'd think. Like, have you ever seen a pre-nose job photo of Lisa Kudrow? I have, and she's still beautiful and a great talented actress, but I'd be hard-pressed to tell her that she made the wrong decision by getting that nose job, and I doubt she regrets it. I've also seen what bad plastic surgery does and that's before getting into such deadly activities like eating disorders and extreme exercising have done to a lot of Hollywood stars, particularly women. And, if I have to play devil's advocate, and apparently I feel like I do if I'm writing this, there's lighting and photography reasons why, say, HBO used to have a casting agent on hand just to determine what breasts were good enough to be shown on screen on episodes of "The Sopranos" and their other TV shows; some breasts are harder to photograph well than others.
(Shrugs)
And Jenna Fischer's wonderful book "The Actor's Life" talks about how her accidentally gaining an extra couple pounds meant that the costume designer's perfectly tailored buttoned-down shirt that she worked days on, couldn't be used in a shot on in "Walk Hard...", so it's not just looks-obsession for looks-obsession sake, sure,- but way too much of it is an obsession on looks. "The Substance" dives head first in the deep end of that pool and isn't afraid to land splat, right on concrete steps of the Walk of Fame, leaving us with a bloody, gory, nauseating look at beauty extremes we put on ourselves and those that the industry thrusts upon on.
CONCLAVE (2024) Director: Edward Berger
⭐⭐⭐1/2
I'm one of those weird people who's actually not that into the original "Nosferatu". It's a classic of German Expressionism of course, and it's infamously the first adaptation on film of Bram Stoker's "Dracula", which, honestly, has always kinda struck me as weird.Like, technically it's true-, actually, legally, it's true, so legal that the original film, technically shouldn't even exist. For those unfamiliar, and it's actually a long, more fascinating story, but the people behind the original "Nosferatu", they changed the names and some elements of the original novel in order to avoid legal action from Bram Stoker's widow, and that failed. In fact, she won a lawsuit and the court orders prints of the film to be destroyed, which happened, especially for the master prints, most of them were actually destroyed, and getting secondhand prints together from took awhile, although eventually they did, and cobbled together a pretty good cut and you can pretty easily find the original streaming, although you can also find a lot of questionable versions of it. I was gonna rewatch the original on Tubi before watching this one, but Tubi's got the colorized version for some reason. (I honestly can't believe that's still a thing in some parts of the internet. Don't colorize black and white films, people, it ruins them.) The film itself is still pretty terrifying, especially for an ancient silent film, but, maybe I just grew up on more modern vampire interpretations; my favorite "Dracula" is the original Tod Browning one from 1931, with Bela Lugosi; personally I always felt like "Nosferatu" fit closer to story to something like "Frankenstein" than a modern "Dracula". (Huh, there's a new "Frankenstein" adaptation out too.... Everything old is new again, I guess.) BTW, it does make perfect sense that Del Toro would redo Frankenstein while Eggers would redo "Nosferatu".
⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2
Something that I think gets a little lost when we look at-, well history, in general, but especially from having a very natural but limited localized view of history, is that, you kinda don't realize just how often so many different things were going on, at the same time. And not just in those weird TikTok videos where they tell what was happening in China was Jesus was alive or something like that, I mean, from geopolitical historical analyses. Cause, what was also going on in the world, does effect, how other countries and governments acted during those times. The Cold War, is a great example here, because we think we know, essentially what all the major players were doing, but even then....
You know, maybe this is my own naivete, perhaps a small holdover belief from before I reached the age of reason, but, you know, at least in regards to the process of the "Conclave", at least in terms of the modern ones, I don't actually think there's nearly as much politicking that goes on there, than we'd like to think. I'm fairly confident that at the top there's far less going on, at least, less than there was in the past, 'cause if you know anything about the history of the Papacy, than you absolutely know that this is not remotely true, there was tons of politicking in the past, but in modern times, I think it's far less than we think. Ideally-, (Slight chuckle) you know, I tried explaining this to somebody, during the conclave last year, somebody who wasn't Roman Catholic, and probably worships at the alter of whatever congealed conglomerate of pop culture slime that TikTok spits out at her, but she hears of the practice and she can't go off of the idea that it is a vote, and an election, and whatnot,- but like, see, that's the kind of thing that's technically true, but if you try telling that to somebody who's Catholic, even a lapse one like me, they'll-, well, that...-, that's just simply not how they think of it. The Cardinlas are not voters trying to be persueded or corrupted by the best of multiple bad options, they're insisting, waiting on God to tell them who should be the one that most represents him. In their mind, (Eye roll) again, ideally, it's not their vote, it's God's vote, and they are only a mere vessel for which that vote shall be placed. The Pope isn't chosen by Cardinals, no, pope's are chosen by God, and it's through the Cardinals for which God has ordained to be his voice and God expresses his wisdom who shall next be his human embodiment on Earth, who we call the Pope.
This is why, we, really should be talking about how a pope, in our lifetimes, resigned from the office way the hell, 'cause, seriously, what-the-fuck, the Pope is literally defying God's will! Like, that shouldn't happen. We should really be talking about that, the last time that happened previously, was a century and a half before Columbus discovered the New World! It should be the most shocking thing the papacy ever did in our lifetime, until they did something even more impossible-to-believe actually happened in my lifetime and named an American pope, but I digress.
(Actually, no, I won't digress 'cause do you guys have any idea, how ridiculous that sounded before it actually happen. Like, not only did I literally tell that person that their wasn't a shot in Hell that an American would ever be Pope, like a few days before it happened, but I'm-, I won't go into too many details, but one of my personal projects is a sci-fi idea that takes place like five or six centuries into the future, and I had an idea for an episode to involve there being a conclave going on at that time, and I would've said the same joke about how an American wouldn't be pope even then, and here's the real kicker, the zinger to that punchline would've been that by the end of the episode, they would've named the first ever Chinese pope. Like, that is literally how impossible, ridiculous and absurb that concept would be, and I have would've had no problem making such a prediction as though that was a futuristic prognostication that I would've thought was going to be true, that's how unbelievable that genuinely was! GRRRRRRR~!)
[Long deep breaths, sighs, long pause])
[Long deep breaths, sighs, long pause])
Anyway, "Conclave" takes place in, I presume modern time, although I couldn't exactly tell you when or where. It's apparently a world that's very unease, including terrorist attacks going on all through modern-day Europe and the Pope (Bruno Novelli) has just died. Cardinal Lawrence (Oscar-nominee Ralph Fiennes) is in charge of convening over the conclave, a position that he literally doesn't want; he confessed that he even submitted his resignation from the position to the Pope, but he rejected it. As the conclave goes on, it becomes clearer and clearer why as there is division among the Cardinals on who should be Pope, and there's also quite a large divergence among them about what the future of the church should be. Lawrence is originally pushing for Cardinal Bellini (Stanley Tucci) an American who's quite humble but also very progressive, but there's also Cardinal Tremblay (John Lithgow) a moderate Canadian pope who seems to be the most like a politician in the group, and perhaps has some scandals lurking, especially since he was one of the last to see the Pope alive before his passing. There's also Cardinal Adeyami (Lucien Msamati), who is an an African, and a black one at that, but perhaps is a little too socially conservative, although that's perhaps better than the more traditional choice, the bombastic Italian, Cardinal Tedesco (Sergio Castellito), who's a staunch traditionalist in terms of Catholicism. These are very simple descriptions of all these characters, and it's also quite easy to look at them as conflicting points of view on and within the church currently. What happens over these days,-, well I don't want to give too much away. In fact, I'm pretty conflicted overall of what to even make of the events.
In trying to put my finger on it, but what exactly is this film trying to say about the church, or about conclaves? The movie's based on a novel by Richard Harris, and other than a name change or two and one Cardinal's location changed from Baghdad to Kabul, which-, actually that is sort of a weird thing, I should mention- Cardinal Benitez (Carlos Diehz) is an unexpected arrival to the conclave, because he was apparently named a cardinal en pectore,- which, yes, is technically a thing, kinda-, popes have named cardinals in secret before when they're in parts of the world where Catholicism is not particularly socially accepted, and potentially their lives would be in danger however, normally those Cardinals, unless their names are revealed before the death of the pope who named them, are not allowed to participate in a conclave, and this is concerning when he arrives unexpectedly. Now, the way they go around this is that they claim that the Pope, when he declared Benitez a Cardinal, rescinded that part of the conclave rules, which, um,...- I think that technically is possible. I could be wrong here, but from my understanding, If a pope ever did decide to enact that, I think he could, so sure, I guess this contrivance technically works.
I think my issue is how this film is so much of a mystery. I mean, the whole point of the conclave is that the Cardinals are secluded from the outside world and they have to decide who the next Pope is, so you would think this would be a lot of inner debate and discussion, but instead, there's quite a lot of eavesdropping and investigating, probably too much if we're being honest. At one point, Cardinal Lawrence even breaks into the Pope's room, which is literally sealed off and preserved per tradition after a Pope dies, which is true, and no, you're not supposed to break that seal, that's a big no-no. He's also brought in several people to secretly help out in finding out these things, Archbishop Wozniak (Jacek Koman) is investigating reports about Tremblay, his assistant Monsignor O'Malley (Brian F. O'Byrne) is looking into Benitez, as while he's got the documentation for his eminacy, they still have to match it to the papacy's, which was so secret they're still trying to investiage Benitez's own background, and just to make sure he is a legitimate cardinal. (And yes, that's happened before, fake cardinals have tried to sneak into a conclave, so this isn't unusual; the church is much weirder than you think.) He even brings in Sister Agnes (Oscar-nominee Isabella Rossellini), who has the housekeeper and caterer role for the conclave, which is-, honestly from what I've ever heard of the food at a conclave, is cooking the best food ever given to cardinals, but she's also important helping search and spread some information.
It's also kinda bizarre; I guess it works overall because of the skills of it's actors, but the movie feels like one of those paperback novels at an airport that's basically, let's get a high-profile situation and then add a murder to make it appealling, well, without the murder, but essentially it feels like that kind of mystery. Like an Alina Adams ice skating murder mystery novel. And I'm not sure that's the right approach. Wouldn't this film be more compelling if there was more debate and discussion about the futures of the Church, basically all we see in the conclave is everybody voting. At one point Lawrence, depressed by all the politicking tries voting for himself before he's interrupted, which, also absolutely not, NO! You're not allowed to vote for yourself, and no, you can't just write your own name; you have to sign the papers as well, so that's not a thing. (Also, you think God's telling you to be Pope, hell no, that would not be accepted by the papacy, once that informations brought up, you'd lose every vote and probably be asked to resign. I don't care how corrupt and political the Cardinals have become that would never have be tolerated. And don't tell me "Well, the ballots are destroyed, the complete results are secret...- like I said, you have to sign your ballot, they'd be aware after it's counted. [This was b.s. in that "Angels and Demons" movie too.]) It is kinda fascinating, that after all the investigations are mostly finished they actually do get to these discussions and it eventually leads to the Pope getting elected. I don't know though, I feel like the less of the other stuff and more of the discussions the better. In fact, getting to know these Cardinals through that discussion would be better.
"Conclave" is a movie that seems enthralling on original watch, but upon reflection you feel like there was far less there than their originally was. It's the first English language feature from Director Edward Berger; he did that remake of "All Quiet on the Western Front" a few years ago, that I also found more interesting than enthralling. He's a talented filmmaker although admittedly I've had some trouble really getting a grasp on him, and I feel like this is the film that should've done it though, but at the end I felt more cold from the movie, not that I needed something to uplift my religious spirits, something that would've also made me more skeptical of the church would've been good to, but I think he didn't want to pick one. There's some criticisms that I saw from those in the Catholic community and those outside it, that while the film is generally good, it is very much a Hollywood version of what a conclave would be; I don't necessarily disagree although I would add that that's a limitation of the book as well. For somebody who's not enticed by the majority of the modern Catholic church, the papal conclave is one of the practices that genuinely does fascinate and intrigue me but the movie didn't focus as much on the aspects of the conclave that intrigue me and ultimately despite the great performances and technical skills of the film, it's good, but it's just disappointing.
Also, really, you-, you want to choose that as your papal name? Have you, looked into other popes that had that name, buddy? Umm, let's just say they all weren't exactly so innocent, y'know?
NOSFERATU (2024) Director: Robert Eggers
⭐⭐1/2
I'm one of those weird people who's actually not that into the original "Nosferatu". It's a classic of German Expressionism of course, and it's infamously the first adaptation on film of Bram Stoker's "Dracula", which, honestly, has always kinda struck me as weird.Like, technically it's true-, actually, legally, it's true, so legal that the original film, technically shouldn't even exist. For those unfamiliar, and it's actually a long, more fascinating story, but the people behind the original "Nosferatu", they changed the names and some elements of the original novel in order to avoid legal action from Bram Stoker's widow, and that failed. In fact, she won a lawsuit and the court orders prints of the film to be destroyed, which happened, especially for the master prints, most of them were actually destroyed, and getting secondhand prints together from took awhile, although eventually they did, and cobbled together a pretty good cut and you can pretty easily find the original streaming, although you can also find a lot of questionable versions of it. I was gonna rewatch the original on Tubi before watching this one, but Tubi's got the colorized version for some reason. (I honestly can't believe that's still a thing in some parts of the internet. Don't colorize black and white films, people, it ruins them.) The film itself is still pretty terrifying, especially for an ancient silent film, but, maybe I just grew up on more modern vampire interpretations; my favorite "Dracula" is the original Tod Browning one from 1931, with Bela Lugosi; personally I always felt like "Nosferatu" fit closer to story to something like "Frankenstein" than a modern "Dracula". (Huh, there's a new "Frankenstein" adaptation out too.... Everything old is new again, I guess.) BTW, it does make perfect sense that Del Toro would redo Frankenstein while Eggers would redo "Nosferatu".
That said, I'm not yet sure how I feel about Eggers. He's clearly a lover of the classic horrors, but his background as a production designer is really what distinguishes him, 'cause his previous films were infamous for seemingly going the extra mile, is horror no less, of trying to recreate eras of the past. "The Witch", or "The VVitch" as it's supposed spelled, went to great lengths to incapsulate the world of early pilgrims in the 1600s and create this horror-fantasy of the Salem Witch Trials, and that was nothing compared to "The Lighthouse" which was a startling black-and-white two hander about two lighthouse workers on a turn-of-the-century New England island. I haven't seen his first real Hollywood film, "The Northman" quite yet, but overall it's an odd conflict, his style. He's almost got an anthropologic desire for authenticity and then he drifts into psychological and spiritual horror out of this recreated realism. He has definitely seen "Eraserhead" one-too many times, and that's not a negative, per se, but it's still an odd mix of inspirations that I'm not sure I fully get ahold of either.
Anyway, I didn't ultimately decide to compare the two versions, (I haven't seen the Werner Herzog adapation that he did in the '70s, so I'm not throwing that one into this mix either.) it has been awhile since I watched the original, but the essence I always got from it was that it was always a Frankenstein movie disguised as a vampire movie. This version, however, it's definitely more recognizable for me, as a "Dracula" story, and to be clear, "Dracula" is a very specific story. I know over a century of reimaginings and reinterpretations of the "Dracula" archetype has kinda twisted a lot of the original narrative, but "Dracula" mostly takes place in London, and involves the vampire as he tries to navigate and insert himself into the upper crust of London's elite; "Dracula" is a count, he is an aristocrat, and even though, he's from Transylvania, and lives in a horrifying castle, away from the rest of the people in the area, and everybody fears him, 'cause he'll suck your blood and all, he's trying to seduce and work his way up to the tops of society. There's other symbolic metaphorical meanings behind Dracula's attempt to infiltrate the bourgeoisie, but "Nosferatu",- well, even before Germany became Fascists, when the book came out they didn't really have this appreciation for the monarchy; in fact, after World War I, they had just gotten rid of it, so it does make sense that F.W. Murnau would get rid of that part when telling his version, and Eggers's version basically does this, but he's definitely going for more of the Ancient Eastern European folklore of vampires.
Anyway, I didn't ultimately decide to compare the two versions, (I haven't seen the Werner Herzog adapation that he did in the '70s, so I'm not throwing that one into this mix either.) it has been awhile since I watched the original, but the essence I always got from it was that it was always a Frankenstein movie disguised as a vampire movie. This version, however, it's definitely more recognizable for me, as a "Dracula" story, and to be clear, "Dracula" is a very specific story. I know over a century of reimaginings and reinterpretations of the "Dracula" archetype has kinda twisted a lot of the original narrative, but "Dracula" mostly takes place in London, and involves the vampire as he tries to navigate and insert himself into the upper crust of London's elite; "Dracula" is a count, he is an aristocrat, and even though, he's from Transylvania, and lives in a horrifying castle, away from the rest of the people in the area, and everybody fears him, 'cause he'll suck your blood and all, he's trying to seduce and work his way up to the tops of society. There's other symbolic metaphorical meanings behind Dracula's attempt to infiltrate the bourgeoisie, but "Nosferatu",- well, even before Germany became Fascists, when the book came out they didn't really have this appreciation for the monarchy; in fact, after World War I, they had just gotten rid of it, so it does make sense that F.W. Murnau would get rid of that part when telling his version, and Eggers's version basically does this, but he's definitely going for more of the Ancient Eastern European folklore of vampires.
So, the couple at the center art the Hutters, Thomas (Nicholas Hoult) a real-estate broker who's hoping to move up at the brokerage firm run by Herr Knock (Simon McBurney). He's recently married his young bride, Ellen (Lily-Rose Depp), but she's begun having sleepwalking spells as well as other metephysical illnesses that confuse and dispell them both. Despite this, he's sent by his boss to Romania to help execute a purchase of a house to Count Orlok (Bill Skarsgaard) a disfigured old nobleman who's behavior seems more animalistic than human. After an uncomfortable negotiation, Thomas spends the night at his castle, but then both him and Ellen begin having weird dreams and nightmares that seem out of their control. Of course it's naturally revealed that Orlok is indeed, the nosferatu, which,- honestly, that's something that's also a weird about this, "Nosferatu", is, not really a word. There's arguments about the intended origin of the term, most likely, it's a mistranslation of some other word that was intended as a descritive for vampirism, although nobody can even agree on which term that was,- or when it got applied even to the original film; it's not the name of anyone in the original movie, and basically it's stuck around because the original movie is a classic and it sounds scary, like it should be an old term for vampire.
I think that's always been my holdup over the original is that, while I can appreciate it, I just prefer "Dracula" compared to most of what was changed for "Nosferatu". Now, Eggers does go back and add in some stuff that the original didn't. For one, I don't think of Murnau's "Nosferatu" as sexual, in any way, which in this movie, there is sex, I wouldn't call it erotic or arousing, but Orlok, basically is able to possess the mind of Emily, which as well as others who blood he's feasted on, but I prefer versions where that isn't so much possession of another's faculties, as they are, that person's faculties are so enraptured and aroused by the vampire that they essentially, let them in. In this version, it's definitely more folkloric and it actually makes the exposition characters who understands what's going on, in this case, Von Franz (Willem Dafoe) an occult scientist who recognizes Orlok as the demon possessing Emily, as a particularly believeable and frightening expositor. Especially in this time period and place, his character is very credible.
After that, other than a lot of scenes which may or may not be dreams or possessions of thoughts, so much so that I couldn't be sure I was watching "Nosferatu" or "A Nightmare on Elm Street", the movie soaks into the detail, and that's basically what determines whether this film works for you, do you like the details that Eggers goes into in telling this story or not? And he does research, the vampire eats into the chest, not the neck, as in old myths, they would go for your heart, and that's the blood center, for instance, apparently Eggers really liked that one. There's more graphic violence of course.
After that, other than a lot of scenes which may or may not be dreams or possessions of thoughts, so much so that I couldn't be sure I was watching "Nosferatu" or "A Nightmare on Elm Street", the movie soaks into the detail, and that's basically what determines whether this film works for you, do you like the details that Eggers goes into in telling this story or not? And he does research, the vampire eats into the chest, not the neck, as in old myths, they would go for your heart, and that's the blood center, for instance, apparently Eggers really liked that one. There's more graphic violence of course.
(Shrugs)
Honestly, the more I watched, the less I cared about the details; in fact, while some of them might be more accurate than others, but even within that, a lot of it just reminded me a lot of other horror movies and monsters, perhaps too much. Some of that is Eggers's own cinematic inspirations, a lot of it is just that this story has been inspiring to the horror genre for so long, it's just too difficult to tell a really straightforward telling of the story anymore. Robert Eggers is really a pretty interesting rorschach test on how you analyze a filmmaker; if you admire the craft of filmmaking, the technical aspects, the effects, the makeup, the look, the style of the film, the work put into making the story as close to depicting it as how- well, it's not exactly how it happened, but how it could've happened if the more supernatural elements actually existed, than you'll probably like his "Nosferatu" more than I ultimately did, but if you're more intrigued by the telling of a good story and having and interesting pace, and a narrative that thrives in it's deconstructionistic narrative, than you might be limited in how much you like his films. I think that's where I'm at, 'cause his best films, "The WWitch" and especially "The Lighthouse", as fascinating as they were, I was more intrigued because I wasn't entirely sure what or how what was gonna happen, and "Nosferatu" is the opposite of that. You know what's gonna happen, so you're kinda just waiting for it to happen, and therefore all the exquisite details feel like window dressing as oppose to making the story better. I think that's why I've gotta ultimately pan this one; even when it drifted into being interested in how it's gonna tell the story, it ultimately wasn't different enough to draw me in. It might be enough for others, and I might appreciate the film more if I did do the direct comp with the original film, but as a standalone film, the movie didn't compel me the way I think it intended.
Honestly, the more I watched, the less I cared about the details; in fact, while some of them might be more accurate than others, but even within that, a lot of it just reminded me a lot of other horror movies and monsters, perhaps too much. Some of that is Eggers's own cinematic inspirations, a lot of it is just that this story has been inspiring to the horror genre for so long, it's just too difficult to tell a really straightforward telling of the story anymore. Robert Eggers is really a pretty interesting rorschach test on how you analyze a filmmaker; if you admire the craft of filmmaking, the technical aspects, the effects, the makeup, the look, the style of the film, the work put into making the story as close to depicting it as how- well, it's not exactly how it happened, but how it could've happened if the more supernatural elements actually existed, than you'll probably like his "Nosferatu" more than I ultimately did, but if you're more intrigued by the telling of a good story and having and interesting pace, and a narrative that thrives in it's deconstructionistic narrative, than you might be limited in how much you like his films. I think that's where I'm at, 'cause his best films, "The WWitch" and especially "The Lighthouse", as fascinating as they were, I was more intrigued because I wasn't entirely sure what or how what was gonna happen, and "Nosferatu" is the opposite of that. You know what's gonna happen, so you're kinda just waiting for it to happen, and therefore all the exquisite details feel like window dressing as oppose to making the story better. I think that's why I've gotta ultimately pan this one; even when it drifted into being interested in how it's gonna tell the story, it ultimately wasn't different enough to draw me in. It might be enough for others, and I might appreciate the film more if I did do the direct comp with the original film, but as a standalone film, the movie didn't compel me the way I think it intended.
NICKEL BOYS (2024) Director: RaMell Ross
⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2
At about 25 minutes into "Nickel Boys", a movie with a fascinating if oft-putting motif of mostly showing the movie from the singular perspective of it's main character, Elwood (Ethan Harisse), the movie suddenly switches entirely into, a very familiar black-and-white scene. A rainy black and white scene shot of a dark road and two headlights coming towards the camera as an unknown voice is singing "Long Gone (from Bowling Green)", and I immediately recognize what it is; it's the opening from Stanley Kramer's film "The Defiant Ones", and a chill came over me. Depite this film being from the perspective of a young black man growing up in the South during the '50s and '60s, it was at this immediate moment that I knew that I had to fear for the worst of what could happen in this film.
For those not familiar with "The Defiant Ones", the film stars Sidney Poitier and Tony Curtis as two chain gang convicts, obviously one black and one white, who have to find a way to work through their differences in order to escape. Stanley Kramer, was one of Hollywood's most socially-conscious filmmakers, maybe the most ever, especially back then. He made "Guess Who's Coming for Dinner?", "Inherit the Wind", my favorite is "Judgment at Nuremberg"; "The Defiant Ones" hasn't been as remembered but it's still a really stirring film, and the fact that it was made in the '50s is kinda astonishing today. "The Defiant Ones" isn't in his very best tier, but it might the most direct film he made about race, even moreso than "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?", but the way it's being used in this film,...- Like, it's put in the middle of a scene, a scene in which Elwood, is in the back of a cop car, although with two white young men, and are being taken to some place called "Nickel Academy". The scene flashes in front of our eyes real quick, because it's flashing in front of Elwood's eyes; recalling that films opening, and realizing similarities to his own situation. And you know, for all the times I've seen movies reference other movies, or movie characters reference other movies, I don't think I've ever seen that trick done before, certainly not done like this, and this well. I wonder if that's in the book this is based on?
"Nickel Boys" is adapted from a popular Pulitzer Prize winning novel by Colson Whitehead, and the book and the movie is inspired by the Arthur G. Dozier School for Boys, a juvenile,- (sighs, rolls eyes) a "reform" school for juvenile delinquents and...- honestly, I don't even want to go on, detailing what happened there; just look it up yourself on Wikipedia, or watch this film, if you don't want to, literally, see where the bodies were buried.... (Ugh, I want to punch somebody and I want to throw up.)
The titular "Nickel Boys" are the aforementioned Elwood, as well as Turner (Brandon Wilson). Elwood was hitchhiking to college when he got in a car that turned out to be stolen, and ended up there. Turner is a lifer there it seems. Elwood's idealist upbringing especially from his grandma Hattie (Aujanue Ellis-Taylor) gives him some hope and inspiration, and she's trying to get him out, and keep in touch. She tries to visit him, but is denied; she tries to hire a lawyer, but the lawyer himself ran off with her money and meanwhile, Elwood has to circumnavigate a strange world of segregation, corruption, abuse, of all kinds,...- again, I don't even want to go into all of it. Even the Reform school's annual boxing match between the black and white students,...- like, okay, a lot of people, from troubled backgrounds learn some form of pugilistic arts, traditionally; it's not unusual, it's not even that unusual a way to try to get out of your troubles, both economically or legally, but-, like, why would you have kids, 'cause these are mostly teenagers and younger, have an annual fight at the reform school, with each other, as like, a major yearly event, especially a segregated one, and have people betting on it,- like why would you do that? I think even prison boxing matches usually doesn't have anything that grotesque. I'm not sure that's from the book itself, or an addition from writer/director RaMell Ross, but unfortunately I have no doubt that's probably something that's happened somewhere at one of these places. I bet it's a creation of Ross though.
RaMell Ross has one of the more unique backgrounds for a filmmaker I've seen; he actually played college basketball at Georgetown before he ventured into art school. He earned an Oscar nomination a few years ago for his documentary, "Hale County This Morning, This Evening," about the daily lives of Hale County Alabama, one of the poorer counties in the South, and he spent a year there locally, and focused his camera on the people of the county, and if I remember that film correctly, there was a lot of sports in that film; I think he actually coached a high school basketball team while filming that movie. (I might be misremembering that honestly; I couldn't find the note about that to confirm that.) That film was intriguing, and lot of people did praise it pretty highly, comparing him to people like Charles Burnett, and-, y'know, I found it more of a curiosity than a groundbreaker, but with "Nickel Boys", yeah, I see it now.
It's not just that he's using this admittedly odd and oft-putting 1st-person camera angles, it's how he's using them; he's trying to give us different points of view. He switches between the first person POV of Elwood and Turner periodically, and although the timeline isn't linear, and there aren't a ton of scenes where we see the same scene from both their points of view, there are a couple. One of them involves an orientation given by one of the main guards, Spencer (Hamish Linklater). From Elwood's POV, the speech he's giving about what to expect at Nickels,-, it's delivered in a-, manner-of-fact kind of way. It's hard to describe if you're not seeing it, but it's done in a way where, it's like Spencer is aware that there's something brutally wrong with the system and the way things are going on, like a teacher knowing that they're teaching a part of the curriculum that they don't really believe they should be spending time on, but they still have to teach it anyway. Yet, when you see it again from Turner's perspective,- I mean, it's not R. Lee Emery in "Full Metal Jacket", it's not even George Kennedy in "Cool Hand Luke", but you can see that it's given with more force and deliverance. Which one is more accurate,- we don't know, and I'm not sure it really matters. Probably both at some point. One isn't necessarily wrong or right, what Ross is doing is using film to show different visual perspectives. How the ideals and moments and memories of the worlds they knew shaped their world views now.
Ross has often talked about how he believe people's inability to get out of their singular perspective is what prevents us most from coming together, and it's one thing to say that, it's another thing to show that in your art. Film in particular, can often be a very singular and unique perspective and even attempts to show multiple perspectives within film are really rarely more than just showing the multiple ideas from the filmmaker themselves. Even great films, Kieslowski's "The Double Life of Veronique" for instance, one of my favorite films, but even though that film depicts the world from two distinct characters, it's all Kieslowski. Ross, is trying to not do that, and you can make an argument that he might be closer than anyway to ever actually succeed at this.
Notice, Elwood's perspective is almost always shown from a first person perspective when he's younger, but when we skip to shots of him when he's older, (Daveed Diggs) it's-, usually shown from an over-the-shoulder perspective, almost like a Aronofsky's walking behind his subject shot,-, actually it feels more like, an angel's perspective, a guardian angel's that's floating over you.
I don't want to give anything else away. The only other thing I can add is that I see why some people seem to be willing to ride-or-die on this film while others might find it more of an accomplished curiosity. Like, even though I don't think anybody thinks the film should've been told linearly in time, but I would question why some scenes occur in certain parts of the films and think some could be switched and not lose anything in particular. It is nitpicking, but the story itself is, so traumatic that I think the only way you can really criticize it is in the way the story is told, but all that said, I'm not sure changing the way it's told would make it better; in fact, I think a lot would be lost. I do hope this becomes more of a unique signature for Ross and doesn't start a trend of shooting entire movies from this first-person camera perspective;- like there's been several creative ways to come up with first-person narratives in films, from voiceover to found footage to simply breaking the fourth wall, but this works for this film 'cause it helps tell this story better. If this starts a trend, than every bad uncreative amateur filmmaker's gonna accidentally remake the Prodigy music video for "Smack My Bitch Up", and we don't need one ninety-minute movie looking like that, much less a bunch.
Yeah, if I have to stretch that far to criticize than it's hardly worth it, but it is an unsettling film. It's probably just the subject matter and the uniqueness of the style and approach; I mean, even films I love which can have jarring first person narrative approaches, feel far more digestable that "Nickel Boys". I can easily see this movie regarded as an undeniable masterpiece in the years to come because of that. I hope that's the case honestly, I'd like to revisit this film later when I'm more able to be engrossed in the approach as opposed to just being impressed by it. It's absolutely a must-watch either way right now though. This is a film that needs to be viewed now and then needs to be revisited later.
SUGARCANE (2024) Directors: Emily Kassie and Julian Brave NoiseCat
⭐⭐⭐1/2
So, Canada's history with the treatments of their indiginious peoples, is almost as bad as the United States's history with how we treated our indiginious peoples, and, it might actually be worst somehow. That's sounds like a strange and disturbing statement to make, especially if you even take a glancing view at American history, but like, seriously, I wonder who was worst sometimes. The more stories that trickle down into America about them, you do wonder about them. Especially if you look at America right now, and see how much we've screwed up the country and try imagine Canada as a possible Utopia to escape to at some point. I bet they leave a lot of this stuff out of the Canadian History part of their Citizenship Exam. Although, I bet the Catholic Church leaves the story of St. Joseph's Mission out of their teachings up there as well.
Man, the Lord's Prayer's is disturbing when it's being forced to be recited by young First Nations children against their will, many of whom were victims of some serious atrocities.
"...Forgive us, our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us,"- you ever realize how fucked up that part of the prayer is? It's saying to first, "Forgive Us first, for our trespassing," and then, "as we forgive those;-" but what if they were the ones trespassing against us, which, is also often what was going on with the Catholic Church, and then it's saying to forgive us, because we forgive others who do it to us? Like, even if you wanna argue, "Well, it's a prayer to God," it's still insinuating that you need to be forgive those for the trespasses they're doing to you! It's so much more sickening the more you think about it. (I knew there was a reason I always liked the "Hail Mary" better.)
"...Forgive us, our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us,"- you ever realize how fucked up that part of the prayer is? It's saying to first, "Forgive Us first, for our trespassing," and then, "as we forgive those;-" but what if they were the ones trespassing against us, which, is also often what was going on with the Catholic Church, and then it's saying to forgive us, because we forgive others who do it to us? Like, even if you wanna argue, "Well, it's a prayer to God," it's still insinuating that you need to be forgive those for the trespasses they're doing to you! It's so much more sickening the more you think about it. (I knew there was a reason I always liked the "Hail Mary" better.)
Anyway, "Sugarcane", refers to the Sugarcane Reserve, a First Nations reservation near Williams Lake in British Columbia, where the First Nations peoples known as the, Secwepemc [Pronounced She-whep-m], where the Canadian Government and the Catholic Church forced members of the Secwepemc to attend the Mission, separating them from their families and-, basically,-,well there's what they were supposedly trying to do, which, is already bad enough, but like, any discussion about indoctrinating the First Nations people into a forced cultural assimilation into Western ways is dwarfed by the events that apparently did actually occur there. Two hundred unmarked graves, some once they dig around there have little crosses on them, many of them might've been newborn children. Others might've been the students themselves. Director Julian Brave NoiseCat, is actually the son of one of the children born at the mission, one of the only ones to survive, and it wasn't for lack of trying to be killed.
(Sigh)
God, I don't even want to talk about what occurred there. They do show some of the "investigations", which is a weird word here; it's more-or-less just a word to describe trying to figure out, how pervasive the abuses that went on there were, and who/if it's even kinda possible to find out what happened to who, and let the surviving family members know, if there are any. Most of the film though, is often just talking to some of the people who were there, and slowly having them talk about what they or others might've suffered. Trying to piece together a bunch of fragments of horrors basically, but what's really going on, is that were seeing how this mission effected the entire area. So far, I've only discussed what happened to those who were there, but that's not taking into account anything that happened after to any of the survivors. There's a lot of suicides, alcohol and drug problems, violence....
(Sigh)
All the while, there's this struggle to continue to survive, not only the people themselves, but the culture, the Secwepemc, as well. One of the early scene shows Julian performing in a traditional native dance performance, where he actually wins the top prize in his category. Those scenes are interesting to intersperse with them, actually going to The Vatican to try to get,- well, they'll get apologies, but I mean, try getting more than that out of the Catholic Church even on their best day. The Prime Minister shows up at one convenient point and Trudeau kinda bumbles a question on whether or not he's there for the photoshoot more than anything else. The movie is surprisingly meditative, but, honestly that's probably because that's the only way the film could deal with such atrocities.
I've been going back and forth trying to figure how to rate this film. It's not exactly an entertaining subject, or filmed in a visually enthralling manner, but it does serve it's subject in about the best way it could, and considering that subject, it's a mini-miracle this film isn't completely unwatchable. I guess there's similar films about people struggling to live in the shadows of crimes against humanity, but....- I recall once hearing a story about a Canadian television show that had some indigenous characters in it, and how the people behind the show, who weren't indigenous people, struggled trying to force western storytelling structure into stories about indigenous people, because, our structures involve things like conflict and drama, and a lot of their stories just don't involve stuff like that. I wonder if my struggles with this documentary are similar as a viewer; I'm looking for a more concrete narrative of some kind, but that's not how goes and that's probably not how it should be told. "Sugarcane" could be more succinct in telling it's full story, but that's probably not the way it should be heard. It might make it more palatable to a general audience, but good lord, if there was ever a story that we shouldn't be able to easily digest, it's this one. Maybe it's poetic and proper that the film struggles with it as much as I am?
SOUNDTRACK TO A COUP D'ETAT (2024) Director: Johan Grimonprez
⭐⭐⭐
Something that I think gets a little lost when we look at-, well history, in general, but especially from having a very natural but limited localized view of history, is that, you kinda don't realize just how often so many different things were going on, at the same time. And not just in those weird TikTok videos where they tell what was happening in China was Jesus was alive or something like that, I mean, from geopolitical historical analyses. Cause, what was also going on in the world, does effect, how other countries and governments acted during those times. The Cold War, is a great example here, because we think we know, essentially what all the major players were doing, but even then....
A good example is shown here in this documentary, "Soundtrack to a Cout D'Etat", it's about the Cold War, but it's also about jazz music, which during the 1950s one of our biggest cultural exports and many of the great jazz and R&B performers of the day were touring the world as cultural liaisons, particularly in the Soviet Union. And, unbeknownst to many of them, those concerts and performances, done on behalf of the United States were often covers for some spy missions, including a few that were, at least, intended to be, pretty deadly. You might, dismiss that and go, okay, but that's not as atypical as it probably should've been for the time, but we were doing that, they were spying on us too? Eh, yeah, but there were other things going on, and it wasn't just the USSR. This movie is actually about, Africa, during that time. Why? Because that was when the decolonization of the continent was starting to take shape, and those jazz artists performed there too, and those performances, were often covers for missions. So much so that Nina Simone actually ended up being a spy inadvertantly at one point.
Even then, there's a lot of different layers to all of this, and, 'cause while some European countries left Africa rather ceremonially, others were a little more difficult...- hmm, you know, I get it, trying to explain all of this, it is convuluted, it is, jumping around like jazz music, trying to keep everything straight. In that sense, I guess the film works, in terms of like understanding all of the nuances of the footage and a few interviews they show,-, the whole movie, is mostly footage of everything going on, and then slowly telling the story of the assassintion of Congolese Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba by the Belgian,- well, government, slash, corporation whose interests were in the area. Yeah, nowadays you don't even hear about this story unless you're really paying attention in that one Billy Joel song, and it's basically the origin point of Africa's issue ever since, and a lot of this, is that the Cold War, was apart of it, because the Soviets backed Lumumba's regime, and it wasn't necessarily America being against it, although I can't imagine that the way Khruschev would pound the table at the UN when he was in favor of something made us like him more. Khruschev was utterly fascinating, and yeah, a lot of the time the more you look into a lot of this, the Soviets might've been onto more things than we were. It might help because the U.S. actually did stay away from Africa for the most part, this was all apart of a Soviets vs. Western Europe part of the Cold War, and a lot of Africa was caught in the middle, and apporpriately, the most caught in the middle, was the DRC, right in the middle of the continent. And the U.S. was pretty divided. A lot of those jazz performers had a lot of sympathies for what was going on there; Louis Armstrong nearly denounced America and threatened to move to Ghana for it, and even threatened to run for President in response to some of it.
For my money, it's all a little too complicated to set into a documentary like this one, even with al the jazz music soundtracking it. It's a fascinating experiment, but it doesn't make the intracacies of what happened more understandable or clear-cut, I'd argue it actually makes it harder to follow. It does make it eye-opening though; the one thing I did get out of this was looking at how history is often frame in a very narrow, narrative singular perspective, and how much the whole board of the world we really have to look at.
ALL WE IMAGINE AS LIGHT (2024) Director: Payal Kapadia
⭐⭐⭐⭐
(Me, looking Wikipedia entry on "All We Imagine as Light")
Academy Awards selection controversy
For the 97th Academy Awards, All We Imagine As Light was not selected to be submitted by either France or India, with the former submitting Emilia Pérez, and the latter submitting Laapataa Ladies. The film had been shortlisted for France's submission.[39] The Film Federation of India's (FFI) decision to not submit the film was unexpected, with NPR's Diaa Hadid remarking that the film's international reception had "garnered raised hopes that India might finally have a serious contender for an Oscar in the best foreign film category".[40] Many like Naman Ramachandran of Variety drew comparisons to India's decision to not select The Lunchbox (2013) and RRR (2022) for its Academy Awards submissions, particularly in light of the film's success at the Cannes Film Festival with it having won the Grand Jury Prize.[41]
At the initial news announcing the selection of Laapataa Ladies, FFI president Ravi Kottarakara explained All That We Imagine As Light's exclusion, saying "The jury said that they were watching a European film taking place in India, not an Indian film taking place in India...."
Hmmm.
As I was looking through some analyses, and other critics, trying to fully decipher my own thoughts on "All We Imagine as Light" and I came across this blurb on the wikipedia page. I can kinda see both sides of this. Having now watched "All We Imagine as Light", I'll definitely say that, the movies that I often thought of watching it, well, they weren't exactly Indian films. Granted, that could just be me; India, is the one major, major, maaaaa-jor, film country that I consider having the biggest blind spot for, but then again, why do I have that blindspot? Now, I can analytically explain the overwhelmingly difficult task of even trying to decipher the Indian film industry, 'cause like, it's not just Bollywood, it's far more complex than that- it's far more complex to decipher than any other country; I'd argue that tackling Indian cinema for somebody who's not from India, it's more like trying to decipher like, minimum 20 different countries' cinemas. Then again though, being an American, for most of my life, Indian cinema hasn't easily been at my disposal. Perhaps, being an American it's vastly easier to become a more Western-centric cinephile, and perhaps having those influences primarily, means that we just don't fully understand what is Indian cinema.
That question alone, "What is Indian cinema?" is a loaded question btw, I know enough to know that even if I was more knowledgeable that I wouldn't begin to answer that question, but, that said, it is curious, that the Oscars, are noticeably lacking in Indian representation, especially considering just how beloved film is there and how many movies they make in India. They make considerably more films that any other country and yet, India's never won the Foreign Language Oscar, in fact, only three times has it ever been nominated, and of those three,... Well, "Mother India" is kind of a controversial film now, it's basically that country's "Gone with the Wind", but there's a certain argument that that film represents a certain idealist portrayl of India. There's also "Salaam Bombay" from Mira Nair, who is probably the most western filmmaker to ever come out of that country. Great filmmaker- I love most of her films, but did you know how western she is? She's so western, and this is completely true btw, that her son is the current mayor of New York City! She's that western-, I barely think of her as an Indian filmmaker; she's basically an American now. And the third one "Lagaan" is famous for being the only Bollywood film ever nominated in the category. You can definitely argue whether or not Bollywood is a good or bad representation India or Indian cinema in general, but to the general American public at large, anything we can call Bollywood represents India to the majority of us. I'm not sure how beloved "Lagaan" is, even in Bollywood circles; it's rarely a film I hear mentioned even as an essential Bollywood film, not as often as I hear something like older classics like "Pyaasa" or modern big ones like "Dilwale Dulhania le Jayenge" or my personal favorite "3 Idiots". (Shrugs) Maybe it is, and I'm not looking in the right places,-, but y'know, these are all semantics, but it is kind of the issue, like, do you need to have a film that feels less "Indian", whatever that means, to attract American/western audiences? It seems like the Oscars think so, but is it wrong to pick something that is more representative of the country? Again, I don't even know what that means.
"All We Imagine as Light" is from an Indian filmmaker who was born and studied film in India's biggest city, Mumbai, which is where most of this film takes place, it has an all Indian cast, and yet, while controversially it didn't get named India's representative for the Foreign Language Oscar, it also didn't make France's, which doesn't weird at first, but it was on that country's shortlist though. In fact, the country's listed for the film, are India, and four other different European countries.
So, if I'm saying, I like this film a lot, am I saying that I like this film, because of how European it is, or am I saying I like it because of how, non-Indian it is? People seemed to like it, a lot, including in India, but obviously, not as much as the rest of the world thinks India should like it.
On top of all that, including feeling more like a film I'd expect somebody like a Sofia Coppola to make than most filmmakers from India I've come across, the movie does feel like it has a pro-western perspective. The movie is about three working women, all people who work at a busy Mumbai hospital, mostly on the night shifts it seems. Prabha (Kani Kusruti) and Anu (Divya Prabha) are roommates and both of them are in the midst of some complicated romance situations. Prabha is married, but she hasn't seen her husband (Anandsami) in over a year, since they were married in fact. It's an arranged marriage, and he's gone to work in Germany, and only occasionally contacts her, and even then.... At one point, Prabha receives a very expensive and elaborate rice cooker, that it appears he sent, but they're not 100% sure he sent it, and if he did, why he sent it. Meanwhile Anu is having a secret hidden affair with Shiaz (Hridhu Haroon) a local Muslim man who she's quickly falling in love with. Now, in my reading of the movie, through a narrow lens of what I think I know about Indian culture, this is basically, the traditional marriage put up against the modern ideas of romance, and modernity is clearly winning in this film.
So, if I'm saying, I like this film a lot, am I saying that I like this film, because of how European it is, or am I saying I like it because of how, non-Indian it is? People seemed to like it, a lot, including in India, but obviously, not as much as the rest of the world thinks India should like it.
On top of all that, including feeling more like a film I'd expect somebody like a Sofia Coppola to make than most filmmakers from India I've come across, the movie does feel like it has a pro-western perspective. The movie is about three working women, all people who work at a busy Mumbai hospital, mostly on the night shifts it seems. Prabha (Kani Kusruti) and Anu (Divya Prabha) are roommates and both of them are in the midst of some complicated romance situations. Prabha is married, but she hasn't seen her husband (Anandsami) in over a year, since they were married in fact. It's an arranged marriage, and he's gone to work in Germany, and only occasionally contacts her, and even then.... At one point, Prabha receives a very expensive and elaborate rice cooker, that it appears he sent, but they're not 100% sure he sent it, and if he did, why he sent it. Meanwhile Anu is having a secret hidden affair with Shiaz (Hridhu Haroon) a local Muslim man who she's quickly falling in love with. Now, in my reading of the movie, through a narrow lens of what I think I know about Indian culture, this is basically, the traditional marriage put up against the modern ideas of romance, and modernity is clearly winning in this film.
Even the third nurse, and older widow named Parvaty (Chhaya Kadam), a cook at the hospital, is in the middle of a struggle involving her home being one of many that's attempted to being taken down and have a skyscraper placed on top of it. Her issue is even more complex as according to the law, she might not have an legal residency since her husband put everything in his name, a remnant of laws and traditions regarding marriage that seem downright archaic, and yet are probably more common today than we realize. Outside the bustling, ever-growing metropolis, Parvaty decides to return home to Ratnagari and Anu and Prabha come with her on the road trip, and it's that contrast of experiences between the city and the more local fishing village that's basically the jist of the movie, and where everything, I guess, comes ahead?
(Shrugs)
(Shrugs)
Despite all of this, "All We Imagine as Light" is more mood piece than anything; it is in a sense a meditation on love and life in a modern world, or a modern India, I should say, especially for women. The expectations put upon them by others, the lives they want to live, the contrast between the differing worlds of India, and how all of them are apart of everyone. There's a scene late in the film when one of the nurses saves a man from drowning in the village, and tries to get him to a hospital when she's told their isn't one, but that there is a medicine man. It's not that long a road trip, but they are different worlds, and the thing I like most is that I don't know if the movie picks one or the other. I think it's showing that both worlds can co-exist with each other, and that it's the culture and societies of both that lead to the world and people around it. Some people live in the village, others escape to it to get away from their troubles, and you can say the same thing about a metropolis like Mumbai, so people escape to the village to get away from there. I want to know if the movie has something deeper to say, but perhaps it doesn't and that's what makes it special. The film is the second feature from Kayal Kapadia, and it doesn't surprise me that she previously mostly worked in documentary films beforehand. She's clearly a fascinating and skilled filmmaker who's got something to say about her homeland, and at least compared to the artifice I've noted in most other modern Indian films I've encountered, she's going for, not only a more neorealist depiction of India, but also an emotional sense of ennui that connects both to India directly, but perhaps also is universal to those outside the country. Maybe it is good to see India as a world that's less,- for lack of a better word, foreign, to those outside of it?
(Shrugs)
Well, maybe that's a step too far, and perhaps a little too ignorant and dismissive, especially from a Western reviewer like myself. What I can tell you is that I enjoyed "All We Imagine as Light" immensley, and am looking forward to what else I get to see from director Payal Kapadia.
(Shrugs)
Well, maybe that's a step too far, and perhaps a little too ignorant and dismissive, especially from a Western reviewer like myself. What I can tell you is that I enjoyed "All We Imagine as Light" immensley, and am looking forward to what else I get to see from director Payal Kapadia.
THELMA (2024) Director: Josh Margolin
⭐⭐⭐1/2
It's amazing how short June Squibb's career has actually been, at least on the screen. In her mid-'90s now, she's been around forever, but mostly worked in theater, on-and-off Broadway, mostly off though for the majority of her career, not even getting a SAG card until she was 55, and not acting in a theatrical film until 1990. Even then, it took decades before she became a household name after her Oscar-nominated performance in "Nebraska". Ever since then, she's been such a delight to see onscreen whenever she does pop up; honestly- you can basically cast her in a cameo role for a minute or two in the worst movie ever and I'd probably give the movie an extra star or two just for having her in it. Like, this film here, "Thelma", it does show off Squibb's wonderful acting, but mostly it's a film that's basically a love letter to a beloved grandmother, and because that grandmother is played by June, you love the film.
I'm not kidding with that, the film is the directorial debut for Josh Margolin, and his inspiration for the film was his beloved grandmother, who was ten years older than Squibb when the film was made, and is still alive last I checked, and how she was almost scammed out of $10,000 from scammers. I don't know, how much the rest of the film is based on fact, it's just probably a fun fantasy adventure, but it's made with such care and love, that real logic holes are just,- eh, not worth bringing up. The Margolin self-insert is Thelma's (Squibb) grandson Daniel (Fred Heichinger) and he's a quarterlife slacker who prefers to watch over his grandmother than to find a job. Thelma's a widow who lives alone after her husband passed, but is convinced to give $10,000 to a scammer who convinces her that her grandson was in an accident. It's believable at first, since Daniel's so close to her, but she feels embarrassed about it. Determined to get her money back, she goes to one of her husband's friends, Ben (Richard Roundtree, in his final film performance) who lives in an adult living facility, to help her travel across town to track down the money that she sent. He initially refuses, but Thelma steals his scooter and eventually, they're on the way, as they have to get across town, and all the while avoided Thelma's family, both her grandson and his parents, Alan and Gail (Clark Gregg and Parker Posey) who are concerned for her welfare.
There's some other good actors in the film, Roddy McDowell has a good scene near the end. There's not much else to the film, but I'm not complaining; I enjoyed every minute of this. I don't know if I would have if it wasn't June Squibb, or if the film wasn't shot with such care and delight. There's a lot of indies about quirky old people believe it or not, and sometimes they're not even really that quirky. Half of them seem to be just be set with the idea that a film be based around an older character and barely give them a plot or a story. It's almost like, the joke or the idea is just, they're old, (Or, whatever the filmmaker idea of "Old" or "Older" is) and that's supposed to be enough to make us care. Most of those films are forgettable honestly, and it's because it's not really a film that the filmmaker's care about; they're probably just making these films because it's easier to get a bigger named older actor to star in them than other actors, especially if it's a lead role. "Thelma" is made with care and love, in front of the camera and behind the camera. June Squibb always seems to be happy and excited for whatever part she gets, and Josh Margolin didn't make a movie about his grandmother, he made a movie inspired by his grandmother, that his grandmother would love. I guess I could complain that there's not more to it than that, but I don't see the point, let's just enjoy what we have.
There's some other good actors in the film, Roddy McDowell has a good scene near the end. There's not much else to the film, but I'm not complaining; I enjoyed every minute of this. I don't know if I would have if it wasn't June Squibb, or if the film wasn't shot with such care and delight. There's a lot of indies about quirky old people believe it or not, and sometimes they're not even really that quirky. Half of them seem to be just be set with the idea that a film be based around an older character and barely give them a plot or a story. It's almost like, the joke or the idea is just, they're old, (Or, whatever the filmmaker idea of "Old" or "Older" is) and that's supposed to be enough to make us care. Most of those films are forgettable honestly, and it's because it's not really a film that the filmmaker's care about; they're probably just making these films because it's easier to get a bigger named older actor to star in them than other actors, especially if it's a lead role. "Thelma" is made with care and love, in front of the camera and behind the camera. June Squibb always seems to be happy and excited for whatever part she gets, and Josh Margolin didn't make a movie about his grandmother, he made a movie inspired by his grandmother, that his grandmother would love. I guess I could complain that there's not more to it than that, but I don't see the point, let's just enjoy what we have.
MY CHILDHOOD, MY COUNTRY: 20 YEARS IN AFGHANISTAN (2021) Directors: Phil Grabsky and Shoaib Sharifi
⭐⭐⭐
(Sigh)
It's hard to remember this now, but there was a time, at the beginning of-, um, the beginning of,- man, I don't even know what call it, the Afghanistan War...? The Afghan Conflict? Looking it up real quick, reminded me that we had several other names for it. "Operation Enduring Freedon", or "Operation Freedom Sentinel".
(Eye roll, frustrated sigh)
Sorry, our military got it right once with "Desert Storm" and now they think they can name everything. But yeah, at the beginning, and it's hard to remember this from our end, but the Afghan people, were actually pretty excited about us coming in and taking out the Afghani government and the ruling Taliban, hoping that, especially for those in the far outstretches of the desert areas, that things were gonna be different and better for them. And you could say that is was, for awhile,- I mean, nobody liked the Taliban. They were and are, a virilently repressive regime, the most repressive in the world. And the fact that, yeah, they likely were hiding Osama Bin Laden at that point, and even if they physically weren't, there's a halfway decent chance that they knew who was, and they're refusal to help us find him, meant that we had to overtake them....- I mean, honestly, even with the power of hindsight, it wasn't unreasonable. And I believe we could've done it. Yes, the Taliban unfortunately took back over after Biden finally got us out of there after the longest "conflict" in American military history, but- well, that because we completely fucked up.
Sorry, our military got it right once with "Desert Storm" and now they think they can name everything. But yeah, at the beginning, and it's hard to remember this from our end, but the Afghan people, were actually pretty excited about us coming in and taking out the Afghani government and the ruling Taliban, hoping that, especially for those in the far outstretches of the desert areas, that things were gonna be different and better for them. And you could say that is was, for awhile,- I mean, nobody liked the Taliban. They were and are, a virilently repressive regime, the most repressive in the world. And the fact that, yeah, they likely were hiding Osama Bin Laden at that point, and even if they physically weren't, there's a halfway decent chance that they knew who was, and they're refusal to help us find him, meant that we had to overtake them....- I mean, honestly, even with the power of hindsight, it wasn't unreasonable. And I believe we could've done it. Yes, the Taliban unfortunately took back over after Biden finally got us out of there after the longest "conflict" in American military history, but- well, that because we completely fucked up.
(Shrugs)
I-, I don't have a better word, but if there's any Afghanis reading this who lived through all that, um, well, sorry. Truly, we-, we screwed you guys over. Perhaps if things had gone differently and perfectly,.... well, I wish I could say that things would've turned out better, but I honestly don't know. From everything I've ever observed about our involvements in the Middle East, whether it was good-intentioned or not, it seems that us coming in will inevitably make it more likely that things will get worst than it will get better. "My Childhood, My Country: 20 Years in Afghanistan" basically documents the full length of our involvement, and boy did that bring up a lot of rough memories.
The film documents Mir, from a young child in the in deserts of Afghanistan from the moments the invasion breaks out to eventually, the day we pull out. He grows up to eventually become a cameraman in Kabul who spends most of his time, heading out to see, well, suicide bombers as they attack at various places within the ctiy. We meet his family, particularly his father, who seems,- well, he's definitely not Al-Qaeda or anything, but definitely brought up in the very traditional old ways of the Afghan people, but he also sees the world change around him as the war progresses. He's not angry at it, and seems surprisingly at ease with the camera, but they're living is pretty hard and rough. The clash between those desert caves to the big city is quite striking honestly.
I don't know how else to really consider this film honestly, especially as an American who lived through us doing all this, the film mostly makes me feel guilt more than anything. Obama's declaration of striving to help the Afghani people defend themselves,- I mean, it's hollow, knowing what we know now. Could they have ever defended themselves however? Even as,- well, better-intentioned as this invasion was than say, Iraq, it was probably a doomed prospect no matter what. We would've had to have completely wiped out Al-Qaeda, and then stayed around and continued fighting their remnants, basically for eternity, and that's supposing, that we actually did focus 100% on that, which we definitely did not. It looks like Mir ended up okay, all things considered though. Apparently, he's a taxi driver now that Al-Qaeda's taken over again. He's also married with a kid. I like his wife, she seems like the kind who will keep him in line.
(Shrugs)
I guess, all things considered, things are better than it could have been for him, I guess?
On the one hand, we failed the Afghanis, on the other hand, should we have ever put ourselves in a position, to fail them? These are depressing questions that I will leave to those who's ability to revisit this period of our history without feeling nauseated. Those people I suspect either have a blissful ignorance of our failures there, or have a much stronger stomach for it than I do.
