tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26967900600367023462024-03-11T21:52:37.580-07:00David Baruffi's Entertainment Views and ReviewsIntelligent, observant, and thoughtful analysis of the film, TV and the entertainment world. DAVID BARUFFI'S ENTERTAINMENT VIEW AND REVIEWS! Includes Random Movie Reviews, Cannon of Film blogs and Critical essays and commentaries on the latest goings of the entertainment world and culture. CHECK IT OUT!
FOLLOW US ON TWITTER AT: @DavidBaruffi_EVUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger933125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696790060036702346.post-34029113304794639622024-03-05T21:34:00.000-08:002024-03-05T21:34:01.551-08:00MOVIE REVIEWS #204: "ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (Berger)", "NAVALNY", "AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER", "BARBIE", "TRIANGLE OF SADNESS", "EO", "ALL THAT BREATHES", "EMPIRE OF LIGHT", "DECISION TO LEAVE", "HAPPENING", "X (West)", "PEARL", "SAINT OMER" and "THE VELVET UNDERGROUND"!<div style="text-align: left;">I wrote most of these movie reviews months ago. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I don't think they're particularly my best work, but at some point I gotta get back to watching and reviewing movies. More importantly I gotta get back to writing. 2023 was a rough year for me. 2024, itself isn't starting out great either. In fact, the last few years have been...- well, they've sucked for me. I haven't posted anything in a while, and the last thing I posted here, I didn't even promote for personal reasons. (If anybody's interested in that post, I read and reviewed a comic book of all things, and found it-, um, mostly perplexing honestly. Here's the <a href="https://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2023/09/i-read-comic-book-called-kingdom-come.html">link</a>) <br /><br />Lately, I haven't been saying much either. It's not that I haven't had opinions on things that have been happening, but I haven't felt the desire or need to express them. In some ways that could be considered growth, but I just consider it grief. I don't even think I'm gonna be posting for the upcoming award season this year. I'll be paying attention, but with a more passive perspective; the desire is gone. I haven't had the desire to watch films in a while, even before my mother passed. My life's been too much Hell to focus on it. I'm still struggling, I started a <a href="https://www.gofundme.com/f/michele-baruffi">GoFundMe</a>, just to get through. I finally did get guardianship of my autistic brother, but now my mom's boyfriend/stepfather, he's been sick as well, and, he's starting to do better, but it's still a struggle. And my brother's not doing great either. I'm gonna be struggling to figure out the next steps for awhile, and hopefully I'll be able to come out of this eventually, and hopefully stronger and better, but for now, I've got other things I have to focus on and it won't be easy. <br /><br />I've always viewed entertainment as that which is there to distract us and help us relax as we deal with the struggles of the world. I still do, but I certainly get why people, as they get older, just watch and rewatch those programs that make them most comfortable. I haven't been able to focus on newer films, or watch them for that matter. When I do, I feel more distracted than ever. I've had bouts of such apathy before, but never this bad. I hope it's temporary, but even if it isn't, my focus is just not there right now and I don't think forcing it to return is the best thing for me at the moment. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I will write again, and write here again, I'm just not sure when or what it'll be on, but while I'm still grieving, and struggling with the perils of finding Robbie a place, hell, just keeping a roof above us for now....</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">So, most these reviews are old, but they're still the latest I've written, and as a writer, you have to show your work even when you don't feel like it. As for those in true grief you know that there's never a real "time" to move on, you just have to move on anyway, and hope you emotionally catch up, so that's what this is. Sorry, I've been so absent and sorry my mind's been elsewhere. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT </b>(2022) Director: Edward Berger </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐⭐</span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://occ-0-2794-2219.1.nflxso.net/dnm/api/v6/E8vDc_W8CLv7-yMQu8KMEC7Rrr8/AAAABQzidigpk2obHBTzWBkuww1AYB1kk2RDa8BtIPlDGeY5dgulGUznyWu31pcYpXQwdFF8hSxM7vfKQZ4JWI4mTLiqhBBQbrO7neVs.jpg?r=e2e" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://occ-0-2794-2219.1.nflxso.net/dnm/api/v6/E8vDc_W8CLv7-yMQu8KMEC7Rrr8/AAAABQzidigpk2obHBTzWBkuww1AYB1kk2RDa8BtIPlDGeY5dgulGUznyWu31pcYpXQwdFF8hSxM7vfKQZ4JWI4mTLiqhBBQbrO7neVs.jpg?r=e2e" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>I haven't read "All Quiet on the Western Front", but I have seen the original Hollywood film. The 1930 Lewis Milestone-directed epic was one of the first really great war movies in Hollywood, and it's especially noteworthy for a lot of the technical aspects that we often associate with modern war cinema, particularly sound effects. It was in 1930, it was Milestone's first sound film, and sound in films itself was barely a few years old, and considering the technology of the time, the film was a modern miracle, much less and incredible advancement in cinematic directing. As to the plot, and the story, I don't remember a lot of the specific details, mostly I remember three scenes that, actually had very little to do with the epic battle sequences. I remember the first early sequence where the young kids are excitedly heading off to the war, not only because it almost seems like the movie's about to burst into song, right before it doesn't. I remember a midpoint scene where, the was has been going on and the battle, for the time being is stalled, and the soldiers begin to question why exactly they're fighting the war to begin with and what they are fighting for and why are they fighting the people they're fighting. And then a scene at the end, where the main soldier, is supposed to give a similar boisterous talk up of the war, and then he breaks down and doesn't. In hindsight, I might've made up that scene. It's been awhile seen it, so I'm a little rusty on it, but it definitely seems like a scene that was supposed to be there. </div><div>Nowadays, scenes like these in war and anti-war movies are kinda commonplace and cliche; it's actually easy to forget how influential "All Quiet on the Western Front" is in marking out the modern-day soldier-at-war narrative film; to some degree, it feels like most war movies basically are just modern remakes of "All Quiet on the Western Front". </div><div><br /></div><div>That said, it's a little odd that Germany hasn't produced their own version of the film until now. Well, it- kinda is and kinda isn't, because the book and the original movie were actually banned in Germany by the Nazis of course, who really wanted to glorify WWII and bemoan those who seeked and got the armistice signed. That's inherently the biggest difference between the two movies, as well as the book. The original film, might be most remembered for those elaborate battle scenes, but the movie's narrative is actually quite tunnel-visioned in it's approach. It's simply about the horrors of war and what that experience is like on it's soldiers. And it's here too, and a lot of the scenes are basically the same. We follow Paul Baumer (Felix Baumer) as he goes from excited young soldier to eventually, disenchanted and disenfranchised dead soldier, but it also skips back-and-forth between two other tales. </div><div><br /></div><div>The first one follows Matthias Erzberger (Daniel Bruhl), as he leads the charge towards ending the war peacefully and we see him struggle to eventually get the armistice signed. Erzberger is actually a real person who was ostracized by the incoming Nazis for his part in ending the war before Germany could've hypothetically won;- see, this is kind of the issue. The other tale is that of General Foch (Thibault de Montalembert), who is a fictional character, but represents, essentially the Nazi stand-in of those who gung-ho fighting generals and others who wished to distort and propagandize the German's spot in the war. Now both sides of these are incredibly distant from the actual battlefield, despite making decisions that effect them, which is itself a major point, but really, this is a look at, World War I, from the German perspective, in modern times, knowing what we know now. One of the few real problems with the original "All Quiet on the Western Front" is it's lack of hindsight and awareness; in hindsight, knowing how WWI would lead to Germany's role in World War II, is something that, well,- Germany at least, has had to deal with and try to contemplate all the implications of it. So, I guess in that light, it makes sense why director Edward Berger would want to explore that, as much as the actual novel. Apparently, in light of Russia's invasion of Ukraine which has indeed turned very much into a very similar World War I-style trench war at certain parts of the country, it resonates a lot more in Europe. The movie won the BAFTA for Best Picture among other acclaims, and while it did okay here, including four Oscars, a Best Picture nomination and winning International Feature, it definitely plays better overseas. </div><div><br /></div><div>As for me, I think I just like the tunnel-visioned storytelling of the original too much, and appreciate more, the horrors of war and seeing how it effected the soldiers than I like anything else. It's not that there's not a good story with Erzberger and the Nazi stand-in, and it is something worth exploring, and has been done many times before and done well, Michel Haneke's "The White Ribbon" does a decent job exploring that. I just don't know if it particularly improves this text in of itself. It could just not relate to me, but it could also be representative of Germany's conflicted legacy about "All Quiet on the Western Front" itself. I don't know, maybe if I didn't have the original to compare it too, I'd appreciate it more, but this version's still how powerful and important the story remains even today, so at least that didn't get lost in the translation. So recommending it, but eh, I think we're gonna have still more and better movies in the future that will reflect on all the subjects touched on in this film, whether it'd be inspired by the novel itself, war itself, in particular the Ukraine war, or even exploring that strained part of Germany's past they're still struggling to overcome. This'll do for now though. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>NAVALNY </b>(2022) Director: Daniel Roher</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2</b></span></div><div><br /></div><div><div>
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/81AAlzoKNPU?si=JpDpLMdukUe0Kf88" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe> </div><div><br /></div><div>(NOTE: This review was originally written and posted on Letterboxd on Nov 17, 2023. [Sidenote: Yeah, I have a <a href="https://letterboxd.com/david_baruffi/">Letterboxd</a> now, I'll discuss it at a later date] This review has not been altered or revised in light of recent events.) </div><div><br /></div><div>I've spent months dealing with my own personal struggles and grief and unwillingness to write this, or any review. (Or write anything really.) That had nothing to do with the film itself, the movie is great, it's not the movie's fault I haven't felt inspired or compelled to write. That said, recall and memory of the film are definitely a bit foggier than I would like, which is a real shame cause it's such a mind-boggling expose into the genuine, terror, horror and utter stupidity of the Kremlin and Putin in particular, that I really wish I was more in the state of mind to be inspired by it.</div><div><br /></div><div>Alexei Navalny, is himself a major political figure in the nation, although the most apropos comparison to him in the U.S. is somebody like a Jon Stewart type. He's an inspirational YouTube foil for Putin, so much so that in 2020, Putin tried to kill him through poisoning. It didn't work, thankfully, and Navalny's around to make the movie, but what's so striking, is just how idiotic and short-sighted Putin's assassination attempt was, but also, how shockingly easy it was to figure out how and who did it. Literally, at one point, with the help of internet detectives, they're actually able to single out the three men who were assigned to the project, and Navalny has their names, addresses and phone numbers. It doesn't just show how wrong-headed Putin's Cold War KGB Perspective on the world it, but it also suddenly reveals, possibly, just how simple-minded and dumb much of the KGB practices probably were. The Cold War was pretty lucky to have gone on back before the days of the World Wide Web. (Don't think the CIA was necessarily smarter or better at their brands of spycraft, "Navalny" shows that if anything, we are firmly passed that classic era, except Putin's powerful enough to think that he's still in it, and that it doesn't matter what detractors like Navalny might say. Why are all dictators so damn stupid?)</div><div><br /></div><div>Anyway, "Navalny" won the Best Documentary Oscar and I can see why. Navalny is a compelling man with a compelling story, one that's still getting told. He might someday, somehow overthrow Putin, and that shift towards a more Democratic Russia could have its own potential issues. (While Navalny himself is generally on the Left-to-far left, the constant presence of Putin's control over Russia has made him literally march with some more far-right bedfellows in the painfully slow march towards Russian Democracy. In the meantime, Navalny is one clever court jester, hopefully one of many figures that are picking and prodding at Putin's continued reign. Hey, he can't kill all his enemies, literally.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER </b>(2022) Director: James Cameron</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐</b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BYzA5MWExMWYtYjA5Ni00YWZkLTkzOTUtZGJlZGJiYzNlZDVkXkEyXkFqcGdeQXZ3ZXNsZXk@._V1_.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BYzA5MWExMWYtYjA5Ni00YWZkLTkzOTUtZGJlZGJiYzNlZDVkXkEyXkFqcGdeQXZ3ZXNsZXk@._V1_.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>I guess before I start this review, I don't think I've ever actually expressed my thought on "Avatar" before, so, let's get that out of the way:</div><div><br /></div><div>(Clears throat) </div><div><br /></div><div>Ahem. There is a certain James Cameron style and approach to filmmaking, and I like his films the farther and farther away that he gets from that style, so I enjoyed "Avatar", a lot,... for about the first ninety minutes or so. In fact, I might dare say, that, if the movie ended at about that point, I could easily see myself ranking the film among the best movies of the 2000s decade. Then, the movie turned into a James Cameron action film, and I frickin' hated all that. I've never cared for James Cameron to be honest; admittedly I gotta catch up on a lot of his back catalog, but I have not particularly liked what I have seen. Actually, that's not entirely fair..., well, except for "True Lies", which is just, trash. Sorry, I'll never understand why anybody likes that one, but I guess "Titanic", eh,- well, that movie is just weird in general to me. It's not a technically bad film, but I've never found it as interesting or as compelling as everyone else did at the time and to a degree seems to now. Cameron's movies are strange to me, like, I can watch them once and generally give them a pass, but if I ever try to watch them more than that, the flaws and the simplicity of his stories really start to burst out at me. </div><div><br /></div><div>Actually, that's why "Avatar" ultimately, pissed me off; it's never been so much that he decided to create that hugely elaborate, beautiful and amazing new world, and then used it as a battleground, although that does piss me off, but it just annoys me that, it feels like, in his case, turning this land into a battleground, was the only thing he could think to do with it. I do tend to get annoyed at that trope in general when there's a fantasy world that we spend all this time learning about, experiencing and living in, and then, all that ends up in is some giant special-effect blast. Of all the things that pissed me off about "Avengers: Civil War", and there are a lot, the biggest one that pissed me off the most was Wakanda just being used as a sight for a huge Avengers defeat. I just learned about this Wakanda place, loved this place, and now you're just destroying this place; and all I can think is, what the fuck was the point of all that to begin with then? There's so many other interesting and intriguing stories you can tell with that world..., and "Avatar" just felt the same way; the last hour-long fight at the end, it should've been the end of like, the fourth movie, not the first! (You know, actually,- I take that back, I don't really get why it should've been the end of any of the movies; why create this world just to threaten it with destruction? Can't you just enjoy your creations and let it wash over us?)</div><div><br /></div><div>For comparison, let's look a movie that clearly "Avatar" wanted to be based on how much they stole from it, Hayao Miyazaki's "Princess Mononoke"; now that's a movie about a stranger coming into and learning about a foreign fantasy land and there's a giant battle at the end of that movie as well, but the conflict of that battle, is complicated, and filled with complexities that go beyond the simple meatheaded military conflicts of a colonizing force wanting and striving to overtake a more natural group tribe of locals. The battle, comes around, naturally, because of the complexity of the situations and of the people, the natural evolution and changes in beliefs and technology, and therefore the battle for power is really a battle for survival in a world, where only one way of life can and will survive, and that's regardless of whether the factions fight each other or not. One side is dying out and the other side, might not survive themselves if they don't seek to take out the others...,- it's so much more intriguing and elaborate, and meanwhile, "Avatar", just doesn't have that kind of complexity. Some may argue about the implications and metaphor it's making for the sins and ills of colonization, but, like, it's barely metaphor, and this can be done in much more subtle and complex ways. Off the top of my head, even something like "Dances With Wolves", isn't so simplistic with it's details of the Americans raping of the indigenous lands and genocide of it's peoples. </div><div><br /></div><div>Or even, Terence Malick's "The New World" is much more elaborate and nuanced than the story seems on the surface. I mention that one, 'cause I wonder if Cameron is trying to be Terence Malick with this film. I know that seems like a strange comp, but especially in the opening, of "Avatar: The Way of Water", with the editing of the family sequences and the voiceover, it does feel a bit like he's trying to evoke the gravitas of a Malick epic, before the ships from Earth come back in, in an attempt to do the same stupid thing the humans were trying to do in the first film, only dumber,- (Well,- not-, actually yeah, let's go with dumber.) and they're now after Jake (Sam Worthington) as well as his whole family. </div><div><br /></div><div>And I do mean they're back, kinda.... The same group of villains are here, only this time, they're avatars themselves. Except they're not exactly the same villains, they're Na'avi avatars, who were inserted with the memories of the past fallen warriors who died years ago, so they essentially are, like powerful zombie clone avatar versions of them. They're not after the unobtanium anymore, per se, but instead, they're looking for tulkun, a whale-like creature who have a substance in their brains called Amrita that prevents human aging, so instead they're now after that substance and have brought in some marine biologists and harpoonists to go chasing after them. </div><div><br /></div><div>Okay, this is what-, why would you do this? Like, I get, why the military is here to overtake the land, I've read American history, I get how colonialism works, but like, why would they do this? Like, okay, maybe in a desperate move, after all else fails, this would make sense, but like, it's almost like this was Plan A to bring back these soldiers, from the dead, to fight the indigenous peoples who took them out the first time? First of all, I don't want to see these people at all, even in the first movie these cartoon villains pissed me off. (Jesus, a lot of things piss me off with this film!) And they are cartoon villains; there's like one, like, half-a-line from a monologue from Edie Falco, who plays like, the main general, about how is the Earth is dying? And that pacifying the natives on Pandora can lead to them being able to colonize and find a hypothetical new home, but you never actually believe that, and besides, since we're dealing with zombie clone soldiers of evil soldiers from before, who the hell cares? </div><div><br /></div><div>And why, just go after Sully, and his family, so much that they decide to leave their forest and instead live amongst a far off island tribe who connect with tulkuns unlike the forest people who connect with, the flying hornet-like dragon things? (I don't remember what anything was called, I'm trying to follow a Collider guide while I'm writing this. Pandora's a beautiful world, but for a story so simple, it's fantasy is too complex) I guess, it's because Sully is like, the one main skillful soldier who can out-maneuver the humans attacks in guerrilla warfare, but, I don't know, I still feel like following him across Pandora to take him out specifically feels like a strange strategy. Wouldn't you rather have like, a multi-pronged attack from several direction on multiple parts and directions, especially if the tulkuns are the more valuable resource now, why aren't they more focused on going after the more coastal tribes connected to the tulkun anyways-... not to mention, just coming to attack the Naa'vi is just stupid, when you could just come as refugees if the Earth really is dying like they say? You tried this already, the Na'avi are aware of working with other humans for years who are friendly....- MY GOD! Are these space-traveling earthlings just fucking incompetents idiots and jackasses in the future!?!?!??!?!?</div><div><br /></div><div>I think I'm just focusing on all of this so much because it's the stuff that keeps ruining this franchise for me. Like, Jake and Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) start a family, that's fine. There's conflict with the humans, that's fine, if it wasn't stupid and this conflicts leads them to head off to another part of Pandora and have to discover and learn more about the world and different parts of their world, that all makes sense, and is interesting on paper, even this idea of the island Na'avi connecting more closely with the water creatures, this is all intriguing and fascinating, and yet, I can't get into it, because I know what's coming. The last hour of the movie is basically an action movie, and a James Cameron action movie at that, and this one, comes complete with, apparently Cameron's new trademark, a sinking goddamn ship! Again! At least, with the first "Avatar", you didn't know that the conflict was coming up and I could actually be impressed and intrigued with the world they were showing, but here, in this film, I was impressed by the visuals, but I wasn't impressed by the world itself. I wasn't getting my hopes up, 'cause I didn't want to get built up to see it annihilated and massacred again. </div><div><br /></div><div>The fact that the villains are so single-mindedly military and bullish; it undercuts everything that would otherwise be fascinating after "Avatar", about this world that's apparently ingrained deep inside James Cameron's mind. Also, it doesn't help that it's been done a little better at times. I can't have been the only one who was thinking a lot about the "How to Train Your Dragon" sequels and wishing they were watching them while watching this. Actually, I can go into a long rant about how they should just make these films animated, but Cameron loves his goddamn special effects. "Avatar: The Way of Water", feels like a stew of all the worst indulgences and tendencies James Cameron has. Maybe others see some of these things as fun, with Cameron, but I never have, and frankly for as long as he takes to make these movies, now, like...; I know I'm just watching on a DVD or streaming on some streaming service, but I feel like I'm watching a lot of ingredients for an elaborate seven-course meal come into the kitchen and then when I sit down at the restaurant to eat, I find all the least fattening and unappetizing parts of those ingredients prepared in the least appetizing ways possible, and only in three courses instead of seven, but still getting charged for the whole seven I was hoping and imagining I would get. Like the kind of meal where sauce is presented in foam form. That's what James Cameron movies feel like to me the more I see them, and especially this one.</div><div><br /></div><div> </div></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>BARBIE </b>(2023) Director: Greta Gerwig</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐⭐<b>1/2</b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"> <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pBk4NYhWNMM?si=pq-ClkRfpbAux8-p" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe> </span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">I’ve been forgetting to talk about this, but the guys over at the Geekcast Radio Network,
invited me to submit a ballot for them in a poll. I’ve participated in a few of
their polls before, and occasionally we’ve gotten into some spirited debates,
sometimes a little way too spirited admittedly but they’re good guys; this time
they did the Top 100 Greatest Toys of All-Time. I had plans to post my ballot
here on this blog, but life got in the way and frankly I just didn’t feel like
it, at the time, and frankly I just forgot the whole thing existed it until
recently. Here are the links to their podcasts where they reveal the final results:</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><a href="https://www.geekcastradio.com/podcasts/geekcastradio/top-100-countdown-toys-part-1-introduction/">https://www.geekcastradio.com/podcasts/geekcastradio/top-100-countdown-toys-part-1-introduction/</a></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="https://www.geekcastradio.com/podcasts/geekcastradio/top-100-countdown-toys-part-2-100-76/">https://www.geekcastradio.com/podcasts/geekcastradio/top-100-countdown-toys-part-2-100-76/</a></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="https://www.geekcastradio.com/podcasts/geekcastradio/top-100-countdown-toys-part-3-75-51/">https://www.geekcastradio.com/podcasts/geekcastradio/top-100-countdown-toys-part-3-75-51/</a></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="https://www.geekcastradio.com/podcasts/geekcastradio/top-100-countdown-toys-part-4-50-26/">https://www.geekcastradio.com/podcasts/geekcastradio/top-100-countdown-toys-part-4-50-26/</a></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="https://www.geekcastradio.com/podcasts/geekcastradio/top-100-countdown-toys-part-5-25-01/">https://www.geekcastradio.com/podcasts/geekcastradio/top-100-countdown-toys-part-5-25-01/</a></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="https://www.geekcastradio.com/podcasts/geekcastradio/top-100-countdown-toys-part-6-wrap-up/">https://www.geekcastradio.com/podcasts/geekcastradio/top-100-countdown-toys-part-6-wrap-up/</a></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">
And if you’re interested, I did eventually post my ballot on my FB pages, so if
you want to look at that you can.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/david.baruffi/posts/pfbid0hENVWzCvmenY12HhLFCJtabwDZwDypMWFXUNQea42T7FzNSJQ23W1KdHaziqNnbbl">https://www.facebook.com/david.baruffi/posts/pfbid0hENVWzCvmenY12HhLFCJtabwDZwDypMWFXUNQea42T7FzNSJQ23W1KdHaziqNnbbl</a></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid03XSTj2vDrEi6ZQxU9n8JkEdaR5GP2TYPb6EyNP5xq9n8p1yHGgXmWMp3N77ZFLfyl&id=100057155933433">https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid03XSTj2vDrEi6ZQxU9n8JkEdaR5GP2TYPb6EyNP5xq9n8p1yHGgXmWMp3N77ZFLfyl&id=100057155933433</a></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">(Shrugs)</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">I think it’s a good list, but-eh, it’s apparently very different than the
results that the GCRN crowd and group came up with. I did expect that, to a degree;
I typically am the outlier in this voting group. Also, apparently people like playing
with action figures way more than I ever did. (They sent every voter a reminder
packet of toys to consider and separated them into a bunch of different
categories. Action figures, took up like four or five pages, and before I saw
the packet, I was debating whether or not action figures as a whole were worth
putting on the list at all. I did ultimately put a couple on there, and maybe
should’ve put “Star Wars” on their at least, considering their importance but I’m
sorry action figures just annoyed me growing up. I don’t get how they were so
appealing to others) Also, another spoiler, my number one missed the list entirely,
which was playing cards! How the f- how do action figure for TV shows that lasted
like thirteen episodes make the list, but a deck of cards doesn’t make it! I
know it just missed, but c’mon! You can do anything with a deck of cards, all
action figures do is stay there and break if you do anything to them!-</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">I’m sorry, I had a point I was making… Oh, yeah, anyway, on my ballot I ranked Barbie
number six.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">(Shrugs)</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">I think it was a good spot for her. I never played much with “Barbie” (Margot
Robbie) myself growing up, although I never had anything particularly against Barbie
either, which actually makes me unusual ‘cause nearly everybody else in the world
does have something against Barbie. Boys hated Barbie ‘cause they were girls, girls
hated Barbie for a litany of reasons that would take up a book if I went into
detail over all of them, although if I had to boil it down, most of the reasons were
because Barbie is a girl, and of course everybody hates Ken (Ryan Gosling)
including Barbie, who I believe officially broke up with him, around the mid-2000s I think. (Google search) Yeah, Feb. 14, 2004, oh on Valentine's Day too! Damn Barbie, that's a bitch move!.... So, there you go, everybody hates Barbie. But, a “Barbie” movie has always been
a weird thing to me. In fact, any Barbie media on film or television or home
video, has always sounded weird, ‘cause, well, who is Barbie? Frankly, I couldn’t
particularly tell you. Barbie is…- whoever or whatever Barbie needs to be or
whoever you want her to be. She’s,- ummm,- she’s an image of admiration, I
guess, but- it’s hard to explain, even if you’ve lived in a world that’s been
shaped by Barbie literally your whole life. She is and has become so malleable
over the years that, it’s hard for me to actually believe, literally anyone or
anything actually is Barbie, so how would you create a story about here?</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Well, a few people gave it a shot over-the-years; I’ve been following this film
project back when Amy Schumer was originally tasked for writing and starring in
the film, and even before then, the project was stuck in pre-production Hell forever. I love Amy Schumer, but I get why she would’ve been the wrong choice
here, even if you wanted to do a spoof of Barbie, it’s a fine line to take a
product and also be able to satirize it, while also selling it and I don’t know
if that really was in her wheelhouse. Frankly, I’m half-amazed it’s in anybody’s,
but eventually, Greta Gerwig took over the project and I suspect she started
from scratch.<br /> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"> <br /></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Or,
actually, I think she started from “Enchanted”. Yeah, I don’t know if anybody’s
compared these two, but “Barbie” struck me as a sardonic version of “Enchanted”.
Instead of a fairy tale princess in the real world, we just have a Barbie girl
in a Barbie World. Literally, Barbie, lives with all the other Barbies in her
own dreamhouse in her owl dreamworld where everything is perfect. Except she
begins to have thoughts of death and other disturbing ideas. Then, her feet
become flat and other odd things start happening. She can’t fly down anymore
from her rooftop anymore, her toast got burnt, even the Lizzo song interrupts her
day to ask if she’s okay. It’s weird. Eventually, she ends up getting help from
Weird Barbie (Kate McKinnon), the Barbie who got played with a little too hard
and rough in the real world. She’s like the Barbie World medicine woman who everybody
makes fun of behind her back and to her face, even if everybody kinda begrudgingly
respect her.<br /> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"> <br /></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Robbie
is Stereotypical Barbie, so she’s the most bubble-headed bleach blonde of them
all, even to the point of behind completely oblivious to Ken’s needs and
desires to be with her. In this world, Ken’s are just there to be at the beckon
call and will of Barbie, but apparently something is amiss, so before things get
any wronger or stranger for her, she decides to leave for the Real World, to
find the girl playing with her, figuring that solving her emotional crises
could help her get over hers. Ken tags along, and immediately, they get
arrested a couple times, as they begin rollerblading on the West Coast, and
realize that they don’t have a lot of money or the means to get by, and
eventually two stranger dimwits going around half dressed saying their Barbie
and Ken, gets the attention of the Mattel people. Apparently this has happened
before, y’know, but with Skipper, so nobody cared, and they need to get Barbie back
to BarbieLand. (They're not so much worried about Ken being out.)<br /> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"> <br /></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Eventually,
Barbie does find out about how much or how poorly Barbie’s influenced the
world, eventually finding her owner, (America Ferrara) a Mattel employee who’s
struggling raising her angst-filled daughter. Meanwhile, Ken learns about
patriarchy and begins embracing a more machismo view of the world and the media
he’s apart of. While he’s not equipped to get the male positions in society
that he really desires, he goes back to Barbieland and immediately starts
changing things in order to make all the Kens more dominant in decisions and
the Barbies becoming more subservient to them. This is actually kind of a
improvement from “Enchanted” but it’s still just as goofy. It’s just goofy and
definitely has a sharper point about
society at large.<br /> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"> <br /></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">That
makes sense. In a way, if you can describe Barbie, it’s that she’s always been
a representative of the times that she’s around. When she started, in was in
the 1950s, and my Aunt Patty had one of the early original Barbie that would’ve
made me buttloads of money if my grandmother hadn’t toss it away not-knowning the
value that doll would’ve had now. Back then, just the idea of a doll
that wasn’t a baby or child for a child herself was a novel idea, the idea
being that she could become the adult that the girl would envision. What that
adult is, eventually could be anybody and continue to evolve and change based
on what society has thought that “anybody” could or should be. So, the film,
taking the approach of comparing an ideal Barbie World, to the real world, and
then seeing the collision between them, how Barbie struggles to have the
influence/impact on the world that was originally intended, and then seeing
that ideal world, ruined by an idea of a Ken-dominated patriarchy…- it’s
definitely subversive, and at times, really funny, even if it is still a commercial,
although Mattel doesn’t necessarily come off that ideal in it, but I don’t
think they care that much. I mean, they’ve had a couple female CEOs in the past,
so they’re good?</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">How
good is “Barbie” though… Well, I don’t know honestly. I’ve been debating this
one myself. It’s apparently beloved for its sharpness and wit, it’s made most
of the award season, including the Oscars. I can’t completely tell if it’s
truly that good. I guess in order to really see just how good it, I have to
think about, exactly what it could’ve been, ‘cause absolutely this could’ve
been awful. Most toy adaptations are questionable-at-best, despite many of them
being much more easily adaptable to the feature film format. I mean, I’ve never
like G.I. Joe, but I get why that could be a movie franchise. (Yes, I left G.I.
Joe off my poll, not only is G.I. Joe an action that sucks, but he’s caused
more harm to society than Barbie has done. [There’s your controversial “Barbie”
opinion for you]) Barbie, really could’ve been as empty and blank as a stereotypical
barbie doll, and it probably would’ve still been big, but Greta Gerwig is a lot
smarter than that. She made not only “Lady Bird”, but also the best adaptation
yet of “Little Women”; in fact, her “Little Women” is very much the key to this
film. That movie is also about recontextualizing a text, and a very feminine
one at that, and then looking at how it was essentially corrupted and reinterpreted
by a more masculine patriarchal structure before being put out into the world,
and essentially revealing just how that itself has effected the world; how
Louisa May Alcott had to change the ending despite finding love not being
representative of Alcott’s own vision. That’s what makes her perfect for
Barbie. Gerwig’s constantly struggling to find an equal place in a masculine-controlled
world. Hell, even her Best Director snubs in recent years can be interpreted as
such, and it’s all through her material. “Barbie”’s just the most populous and
pronounced product that she’s supplementing this conflict through. It’s also
probably the most obvious medium you could express this ache and frustration
through.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">In
that respects, “Barbie” is exactly the only movie that could’ve been made, at
least the only one with any emotional power at all. It’s still a blatant
commercial, but in a way, it’s the</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">st kind of blatant commercial, the one that’s honest enough about it to show its greatest faults warts and all. Good job, Ms. Roberts, you got about a good movie out of you as you possibly could’ve been. (Yeah, Barbie’s actual full name is Barbie Millicent Roberts. That’s my favorite Barbie fact; I guess because knowing her middle name is Millie shows just how old she actually is.)</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></div>
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>TRIANGLE OF SADNESS </b>(2022) Director: Ruben Ostlund </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div><div><br /></div>
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VDvfFIZQIuQ?si=bnjEpxhQIqcY0rhV" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe>
<div><br /></div><div>I think if I was more, in the mood or willing, I'd probably write a lot more analytical look at Ruben Ostlund's first English-language feature "Triangle of Sadness"; the metaphorical significance of what he's saying or trying to get at or analyze, but I don't think that makes the movie more entertaining or enjoyable. Besides, it basically boils down to, "Let's laugh at the capitalist rich and famous," which is fine by me and more than enough, but "Triangle of Sadness," just takes such a deliriously absurdism, surrealist takes on it, that it's just too much fun to actually dissect. Besides, this story is just too absurd to secretly be about the Russian Revolution or anything like that anyway. </div><div><br /></div><div>Ostlund's movies, while they're all various forms of dark comedy, they're all really about taking a look at the accepted norms of humanity and society and then breaking them, and breaking them down, tearing away the artifice and facade, and showing them for the incompetence and unimportance they are. The film is titled after a cosmetic term; a "Triangle of Sadness" is basically what a bag that grows under one's eye is called, and it's something that botox injections are famous for trying to alleviate. </div><div><br /></div><div>The movie itself is separated into three segments. The first showcase a pairing of a couple, Carl (Harris Dickinson) a male model and Yaya (Charli Dean) a social influencer. This feels like it's in the same universe as Ostlund's last film, the absurdist satire of the high art world, "The Square", and the two characters get into a very elaborate discussion over money and how they much they make. </div><div><br /></div><div>The second, and longest segment, takes place on a cruise ship that Carl and Yaya are on, a trip they got free due to her fame as an influencer. There's other couples there, mostly older couples. I don't want to give too much away about them, but the big thing you want to know about them is that, through a series of scenarios too ridiculous and absurd to fully describe, they eventually put all their lives on the line, in several ways, during the cruise's "Captain's Dinner", where they honored their inebriated Captain (Woody Harrelson). The slow build-up and watching all these eccentric and mostly rich characters, unaware of how their own little insistences led to such, nauseating problems for themselves and everyone on board, the movie finally kinda started working for me. 'Cause, this is basically a Jacques Tati film this whole sequence. It's "Playtime" at sea basically. You can look at every little detail if you want, but really think about it, would the entire sequence make any less sense, if M. Hulot was walking around everyone and everything during this scene? If anything, that's what this movie needs. If you like these kind of slow-moving setups, for Tati to come in and make a mockery out of everything, this sequence is perfect for you. </div><div><br /></div><div>Inevitably, the ship gets blown up by pirates in the middle of this, stranding and shipwrecking fellow passengers, luckily most of the castaways that we've been following throughout the boat trip. On the island, with everybody else seemingly cos-plays as the Thurston Howell III and his wife, that leaves, the toilet maid Abigail (Dolly De Leon), eventually becoming the leader of the group, being that she's the only one who can catch food, build a fire, basically do anything to survive on their own. Now, if you're me, than the movie this part reminds you of, is Lina Wertmuller's "Swept Away...." and it isn't exactly off per se. At one point, she even has Carl, basically as a sex slave in order to get extra amenities for him and Yaya. This goes on, until even this situation, falls into a twisted perversion of power and wealth dynamics running amuck. </div><div><br /></div><div>"Triangle of Sadness" probably inspires me the least of Ostlund's recent outings, but it's hard to top "Force Majeure" which is simply a brilliant and nearly perfect script, but "Triangle of Sadness" feels like a modern-day Luis Bunuel film, particular at his most surrealistic. You could easily play this on a double feature with "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie" or "The Exterminating Angel" and feel like you're watching the same story just told fifty years apart. I've listed a lot of filmmakers off in this video, I can probably list more; I'm sure I won't be the first review to mention "Monty Python's The Meaning of Life" in a review of this film, but you know what all these artists have in common is that their approaches to filmmaking and their style of filmmaking and storytelling were very at-odds with the times they were working in. They were all rebellious filmmakers who's work constantly challenged the norms of filmmaking, and often of society. Even Tati always seemed out-of-time-and-place; he seemed like an old comic from the silent days who accidentally stumbled into a modern film and modern world. And they were all satirists too, maybe not always comedically per se, but they saw the world as a joke and sham that needed to be exposed for the flaccid incompetence that was really behind them. "Triangle of Sadness" takes dead-aim, and if it does falter, it's only because the power and oligarchy that he's making fun are just the same ones that have been around forever now. Only, this one takes Instagram photos of pasta dishes that they don't eat at the dinner party that they can't seem to leave. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>EO </b>(2022) Director: Jerzy Skolimowski</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://filmforum.org/do-not-enter-or-modify-or-erase/client-uploads/EO_thumbnail.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="497" data-original-width="800" height="398" src="https://filmforum.org/do-not-enter-or-modify-or-erase/client-uploads/EO_thumbnail.png" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>There's a famous movie called "Au Hasard Balthazar"; it was made in the '60s and basically the movie follows a donkey from it's birth, an through several owners, almost all of whom mistreat the donkey in various ways over the years, and then, the movie ends with the donkey's passing. The point of the movie is that, the donkey, just keeps doing whatever he's doing, whatever's asked or required of him and he doesn't react with any callousness or any other recognizable emotion or reaction, he's a donkey. I've seen the movie, I've even thought about revisiting it a few times over the years, but I gotta admit I've always been a little reluctant to do so. It's by a filmmaker who I haven't talked a lot about over the years, Robert Bresson. If you talk to most of the really big critics over the years and some of the really big filmmakers as well, they'll often list Bresson as one of the all-time greats, and it's not that their wrong, 'cause I've seen more than a few Bresson films and all of them are great films, but I tend to find him, much harder to connect to than others. </div><div><br /></div><div>For one thing, his films were really religious. Christian to be exact. Not necessarily in content, like I said, one of his more famous films is just following a donkey, but the idea of that film even, is that the donkey, and his life, is representative, of life as a whole and how we should live it, in this very reserved, evangelical counsels way. No money, no fuss, just going about your day and doing what you can and should, it's almost saint-like some people describe it. A lot of this also has to do with his unique filmmaking style. He didn't like professional actors 'cause he was a severe minimalist, only shooting the most essential details and didn't want his performers to express much emotion; he would often wear out his actors, shooting and re-shooting scenes until they gave almost no emotion in their performances. The effect is, fascinating; it makes you pay attention more intently, but the lack of emotion also means you gotta essentially start putting your own emotions onto the characters and situation; it's almost like some kind of a reverse audience Kuleshov Effect. </div><div><br /></div><div>Essentially, "Eo", which is, one of the absolutely most annoying-titled films to search through when trying to find it on a word document, is essentially a modern remake of "Au Hasard Balthasar". It's definitely not exact, but a lot of the elements are there. The donkey's named Eo, and when we first meet him, he's working for a circus act, which is getting protested for them using animals. He gets sold to a stable, where the horses run free, which, I guess, Eo, finds.... um, yeah, I think it's implied that he finds the horses being free, inspiring. He ends up working at a labor farm where Kassandra (Sandra Drzymalska), the person who he performed with during their act, visits for his birthday. That's the last time he sees her as she ends up escaping and into a brutal and chaotic, often violent world. At one point, he gets adopted by an amateur soccer team. At another, he ends up nearly killing a man who works at a fur factory. He gets befriended by a priest, Vito (Lorenzo Zurzolo), and by "befriend", I guess, talks to Eo like a person and not like a donkey. Vito has a gambling problem, that his stepmom, The Countess (Isabelle Huppert, weirdly) complains about him enough. Eventually, Eo does end up dying, he ends up, somehow in a slaughterhouse and gets caught up in the line. </div><div><br /></div><div>Honestly, I don't know what to make of most of this. "Au Hasard Baltazar" is in many ways, just as out-of-reach for people like me as "Au Hasard Baltazar" can be, but even in that film's episodic nature, there are a few continuous threads going on, and a lot of it actually does tie into Baltazar specifically. Clearly, "Eo" isn't entirely random either, but it's weird, 'cause the movie seems to be indicating that Eo, has a lot more agency in his actions than Baltazar had. The whole point of "Au Hasard Baltazar" is that everything that happens to him, and is out of his control, in "Eo", I don't think that's entirely what he's going for. I still kinda read it that way, but at multiple points, Eo seeks out freedom and escapes into the world, and it's indicating that he was inspired to do this. I guess, you can read it like that, since he grew up originally in the circus and that kind of free-spiritedness is inside him, but eh, I don't know. I feel it's just a little hard to be believable. I kinda have the same problem with Steven Spielberg's "War Horse", that essentially we have to be putting these extra human actions and emotions onto an animal that frankly, eh, I question whether or not a donkey is an animal that's really capable of it, and especially a real donkey. Six different donkeys played the role of Eo, not that I could tell them apart, but this isn't a special effect film. It's impressive in that regard; despite the advancements in CGI technology, and yes, the horrors of some of the more exploitative stories of animals on set, I do miss real animals in stuff. </div><div><br /></div><div>The thing is, they only, kinda go along with this idea that he's in control of certain actions and not in control of others, so I don't really know the intent by this decision. It makes it actually feel less meaningful and more pointless to me if the movie is indicating that he does have motivation and desire to act out, and not have it just be, something that happens. It would make the story, like, he got out of his bondage, and then, bad things happen to him, and ultimately, it doesn't work, and he dies like all the other animals. Eh, it's not as inspiring or moving. The tragedy is that, Eo doesn't have the freedom, right? Would that just be too close to "Au Hasard Baltazar"? </div><div><br /></div><div>Maybe. The film was an Oscar-nominee for Best International Film, as was directed by the legendary Polish filmmaker Jerzy Skolimowski, and he's had a very eclectic career in Europe and the United States, both in front of and behind the camera. He's 84 years old and started work as a screenwriter for Andrej Wadja, one of the all-time great Polish filmmakers. (His film "Ashes and Diamonds" is basically the Polish version of "Rebel Without a Cause") Skolimowski's been a little bit of everything though, he's an award-winning writer-director, he gave it up to paint in L.A. for a couple decades, he was a boxer at one point in college, he came into film through architecture like Fritz Lang had...- he's basically one of those renaissance guys who's done everything. Hell, he even had a minor role in "The Avengers", and six decades after writing the dialogue for Roman Polanski's breakout feature "Knife in the Water", he's writing his next feature film. (I'll let the penal colony determine their own judgements on that one, but whatever..., they're legends of the Polish New Wave) Probably his biggest films in America was 1970's "Deep End" and 1982's "Moonlighting". I haven't seen either of those films, and I also haven't watched too many other feature films he's directed unfortunately, so while I can list off the list of people he's worked with, I don't really have a sense of his style or motifs as a director. Nor, do I really get, why he wanted to make this film of all things. </div><div><br /></div><div>I could speculate, the idea of stardom with the circus and then breaking free and getting beaten down by the constant search for fame, from the donkey, and then seeing, that strange robot, could be, the failure of the donkey being replaced with a machine, then he's exploited,.... I-eh, I don't know. I feel like trying to make logical sense out of the film is just stretching. "EO", is fine, as a movie, but it's thin when you analyze it any deeper than that. It's a well-made and interesting homage to Bresson, but interesting is about it. I'll still barely recommend it, but there's probably better introductions to Skolimowski and I hope to explore them someday.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>ALL THAT BREATHES </b>(2022) Director: Shaunak Sen</span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐</span></div></div><div><br /></div></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://static.hbo.com/2023-01/all-that-breathes-ka-1920.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://static.hbo.com/2023-01/all-that-breathes-ka-1920.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>I guess my initials thoughts while watching "All That Breathes" were some variation on the idea that, "Well, I guess somebody has to." It's one of those things, looking at the greater world that you do wonder, why and how somebody would focus their time and energy, into something like what the brothers in "All That Breathes" do. The Shehzad Brothers live in Delha, a city that's recently been both a political hotbed center in the world, as well as, in some cases very paradoxically, one of the biggest and most technically advance in the world. That however has lead to pollution. Now in some of America's bigger cities, we're kinda use to waking up to some smoky gray skies, or in the old days in Las Vegas, dirt brown skies, but in recent years, certain big American cities have started alleviating that problem. Delhi however, is a little slow on renovating the air quality and that has led to a phenomenon of, birds dying. </div><div><br /></div><div>Yeah, birds. Black kites to be specific, and some of them have been literally falling out of the sky. And the brothers have over the years started collecting and helping them heal, building a sanctuary for them. "All That Breathes" is a meditative look at having such a,- well, I don't know what the word would be, but as we see the brothers as they continue to find and help heal these birds, the discussion often runs towards some of the political activities going on in the country. I can barely understand a lot of it, India's politics have always been a little on-edge, caste systems and several various groups, there's been a controversial populist movement in the country in recent years. I'm not gonna I understand most of it, but the main conflict of the film, is that, when you're surround by, a greater chaos, what's the point of just of birds. </div><div><br /></div><div>And mean birds at that. Blue kites are predators, but traditionally, the locals would throw meat up at them to eat and I guess it, some kind of good luck. I wasn't entirely sure about that, but like, they're raptors, which I didn't even realize is a kind of bird, which,- seems a little +Hitchcockian-like foreboding for me, but you know, the struggles of the birds are indeed, an effect of the problems with Delhi right now. And yeah, I mean, birds are falling out of the sky, somebody has got to help back into the air. </div><div><br /></div><div>The movie was directed by Shaunak Sen, it's his second feature, his second feature, the first one I've seen. His previous feature, "Cities of Sleep" was about the homeless of Delhi and the struggles for them to get beds at night at the local shelter. Apparently the health of the city is important to him and he shot over 400 hours of footage of "All That Breathes". I'm not surprised, but it still felt like a bit of a struggle to come up with a true narrative, and I'm not surprised by that either. I can kinda see how this film more than others would appeal to the Academy members as the movie got nominated for Best Documentary. Normally I'm not as big anymore on these meditative documentaries on life being lived, but "All That Breathes" does put it in a bigger context. it might strain itself trying to reach it sometimes, but it gets there. I probably appreciate more than I like it, but at least it's aiming to soar, even if it just mostly flutters. </div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>EMPIRE OF LIGHT</b> (2022) Director: Sam Mendes</span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.rogerebert.com/uploads/review/primary_image/reviews/empire-of-light-movie-review-2022/empire-of-light-movie-review-2022.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="332" data-original-width="800" height="266" src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.rogerebert.com/uploads/review/primary_image/reviews/empire-of-light-movie-review-2022/empire-of-light-movie-review-2022.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /></div><div><div>It admittedly feels weird trying to review a movie that's essentially about how great the old moviehouses used to be, to be writing a review on a blog while listening to some Youtube video, which I occasionally pause on the TV to watch different Youtube videos on my computer, while listening to a podcast on Spotify on my tablet, but here we are. That said, "Empire of Light" did continue to capture my attention. </div><div><br /></div><div>That said, it is underwhelming in hindsight, especially for Sam Mendes. I always felt he's mostly been overlooked as one of our great directors. "1917" was regarded as a comeback for him to many, which-, I don't really get. Maybe it's that he didn't originally come from film; he's probably more of a theater director than a filmmaker, it might be that the modern reevaluation on his debut breakout feature "American Beauty" hasn't been kind and most people still associate him mainly with that film, (Even though they're wrong, it's still a masterpiece) Yet, here's the thing, he's never made a bad movie. In fact, I think most of his other films are pretty damn good. "Road to Perdition" is in my Canon of Film along with "American Beauty", "1917" will probably be there eventually. "Revolutionary Road" was a damn-near gscinating anti-war movie about Persian Gulf. Okay, "Spectre" isn't the greareat film, "Away We Go" is an underrated comedic gem. Even "Jarhead" is a fatest modern James Bond, but he also did "Skyfall" and that's up there with any James Bond. Exactly, how and why doesn't he get more credit and appreciation? </div><div><br /></div><div>Even "Empire of Light", it's a bit flawed and cliched, but it's got some moments. The "Empire" is a classic old-school moviehouse on the Eastern shore on the English coast. It takes during the early eighties, around the time "Chariots of Fire" was coming out. Hillary (Olivia Colman) is the leader of a nice little crew of people running the Empire. She herself, doesn't actually watch a lot of movies, and is actually fairly quiet it seems; she's been doing this longer than anybody and has seen everything. She's also seeing taking lithium now, as the only person she really talks to occasionally is her doctor. And her boss, Donald (Colin Firth) who she's having an affair with, and it's a rather depressing affair at that. </div><div><br /></div><div>Eventually, she befriends a new employee, Stephen (Michael Ward), a young man who's family came from Trinidad. Right around the time of the upheaval of in the UK of race attacks. (Sighs) Margaret Thatcher just totally sucked; I'm sure there's more that needs and should be said there but that's about all that really needs to be said. Anyway, she starts a relationship with him, a tender one that include romance in the upper abandoned theaters, where they take care of a bird that's nesting. He does have his own relationships with people his own age and ethnicity; he befriends a nurse named Ruby (Crystal Clark) for instance, but he's more drawn to Hillary at first. Both of whom have one good acquaintance in Norman (Toby Jones) the projectionist. He's another of those older male projectionists who can spout poetry about about the magic of movies, and the projector. I guess he's not the romantic blind schemer character like, say, Alfredo in "Cinema Paradiso" or anything but it interesting to me that, at the end of the movie, a movie is played for one character and a book is given as a gift to another. I like that idea, that a gift to remind one another of stuff is art. </div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>That said though, I think the problem is that these two stories aren't exactly good at being connected. I'm leaving out a point about Hillary's condition, that's partially a reveal, partially shown ahead of time, but either way,- you know something's up but you don't realize how bad it is until much later in the movie, but I'm not sure it was ever gonna be good. The movie that I was reminded most of was "Educating Rita", Another movie about two characters who fall in love through each of them experiencing their own diverse worlds, That movie has simplistic reveals about each of their main characters as well, and honestly it's not as deep as it thinks it is. (Apparently the play was better, and I believe that) "Empire of Light" is not that bad. The May-December is a little more interesting and intricate. I don't know, it just have the magic of the kind of romance that it's trying to force on us. It's more idea than story,- perhaps if it was a more in-depth miniseries I would like it more, but eh, for Mendes's worst film I can still kinda appreciate what he was trying to do at least. </div><div><br /></div><div>It's a shame though. This could've been better. </div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b style="font-size: x-large;"><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"><br /></div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"><br /></div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"><br /></div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"><b style="font-size: x-large;">DECISION TO LEAVE </b><span style="font-size: x-large;">(2022) Director: PARK Chan-wook</span></div></b></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://i0.wp.com/615film.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Decision-To-Leave-movie.jpg?fit=2556%2C1278&ssl=1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="800" height="320" src="https://i0.wp.com/615film.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Decision-To-Leave-movie.jpg?fit=2556%2C1278&ssl=1" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div></div><div><div>It took me a few times to even push my way through "Decision to Leave", the latest from the great Korean director PARK Chan-wook. I wasn't really big on him until his previous feature film "The Handmaiden", which, was actually inspired by a book by British author Sarah Waters. It worked pretty well anyway, because, well, Waters is a pretty good writer to begin with, but the themes that that film developed through the complex class relationships between their characters, actually held a lot more metaphorical value. "Decision to Leave" though, is just as western in influence, it's basically a romantic thriller, but I'm not sure it's actually a good one, or if there's a greater depth to it that I'm missing. Personally I kept watching it and found myself thinking about more interesting recent neo-noirs. "Basic Instinct" came to my mind a lot, which is unfortunate 'cause "Decision to Leave" is way better than that film, but compared to something like say "Body Heat", ehhh.</div><div><br /></div><div>Yeah, "Decision to Leave" is basically one of those films, that neo-noir erotic thriller film where a detective on a case, Hae-Jun (PARK Hae-il) falls in love with a suspect, in this case, the wife of a immigration officer Seo-Rae (TANG Wei) who's husband was found off the edge of a mountain. Seo-Rae is a Chinese emigrant who works as a caregiver for elderly patients, and was found with both several unexplained bruises, plus a unique tattoo that matches the markings on some of her husband's prized possessions, possibly indication something nefarious. She also seemed noticeably unshaken by her husband's death and Hae-jun is soon watching Seo-Rae under surveillance as they suspect foul play. </div><div><br /></div><div>Little is found, but he becomes infatuated with her. Hae-jun is already an insomniac, and while he is married, he rarely sees his wife due to her job, and he becomes getting closer to Seo-Rae. Eventually, he falls for the femme fatale, and they begin a relationship but eventually it does end, only for them to reconnect later when she's with another guy and eventually they reconnect when she's with that other guy, Ho-Shin (PARK Yong-Woo) who also, soon later, winds up dead under suspicious circumstances. </div><div><br /></div><div>Honestly, PARK Chan-wook's films have, been much more hit-and-miss for me over the years, and sometimes it does take me a while. It took me a couple viewings before I really understood the power of "Oldboy", his big breakout film in the West, in fact, I hated that film at first, but eventually I warmed up to it. Park is more western-influence than most of the big Korean filmmakers, like I said, his best film is an adaptation of a British work, and even "Oldboy" is basically a reimaging of "The Count of Monte Cristo". His vampire film "Thirst" is pretty popular as a vampire goth romance, that's pretty western all-in-all, and it's okay, but I didn't care much at all for "Stoker" his only English language film, even if it was basically a reworking of Alfred Hitchcock's "Shadow of a Doubt". </div><div><br /></div><div>I think that's my issue with him, I think Park just lacks depth sometimes and is more-or-less attempting to coast on doing interpretations of these other genres and films without always adding greater context to them. It makes me think that when their is something else to them, that it's almost entirely by accident moreso than intent. Compare him to say BONG Joon-ho, I don't love everything he's ever made, but even his worst film, which for the record is "The Host", which is basically a Godzilla film, and frankly I can't stand it but, it's got a lot of subtext going on, like the origin of that monster and how it relates to the ways that the sins of the rich western world has hurt other countries. PARK's films, I don't always see that, and when that's not there and all you see is the genre, you kinda feel deflated. </div><div>Perhaps I am missing more than I should, I guess there is something with the notion of a Chinese emigrant coming in, and suddenly those who've brought her in have sudden passings, but, eh, I feel like I'm stretching with that. I think Seo-Rae is basically just another femme fatale who tries to get away with murder by manipulating the detective investigating her, and perhaps I've just seen too many of those films. I mean it's less sexual than most of those erotic thrillers that loved this kind of plot, especially the '80s and early '90s ones and that's mostly for the better. In fact, it's not nearly as sexual as you'd expect, that's a positive. I found "Decision to Leave" better than most of those movies, which isn't saying much, most of those films were pretty sketchy, and it's not in the great category either. </div><div><br /></div><div>I'll say this, "Decision to Leave" marks the last film I'll get on DVD from Netflix, so for that, it means something to me. That means something, but I wish it was a better film though. It's okay if you just want something familiar-but-new, but if you're looking for a transcendent take on a classic genre, eh, I didn't get that. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>HAPPENING </b>(2022) Director: Audrey Diwan</span></div></div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2022/05/06/still-7_wide-4864fd64c6bc5d0356c86cdd45dcea13e4ae7020.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2022/05/06/still-7_wide-4864fd64c6bc5d0356c86cdd45dcea13e4ae7020.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>Out of curiosity, after I watched "Happening," I googled what year it was that France made abortion legal, it's 1975, but more importantly, I ran into a recent article talking about how next year, France will have abortion legalization ingrained into their Constitution. Huh, can't help but notice the irony, being in today's America, where our backwards-ass Supreme Court reversed Roe and the right is doing their damnedest to backpedal without actually backpedaling on the issue. </div><div><br /></div><div>So, "Happening" feels particularly prescient at the moment to us, but perhaps to more civilized and progressive parts of the world, it plays like a reminder of the horrors of the way life use to be, and not as a foreshadowing of the ways the world will become if we don't fucking fix this. </div><div><br /></div><div>I'm not gonna get too political with the film though. Every so often, even without abortion being in the news, it's important to be reminded of where we were and how far, or how little, we've come. The film takes place in 1963 France, and Anne (Anamaria Vartolomei) is a precocious and ambitious young student in the dorms. Even though, sex is a constant discussion amongst the girls, even the supposedly prudish ones, somehow Anne's the one that's been branded as the slut, because occasionally she has a one-night stand or two. Of course, she ends up pregnant though, and begins to struggle to get an abortion. No doctors will help her, one of them even lies and gives her pills to make the embryo stronger, which- how was that not illegal?- and she seems to continually ostracize all the coeds and professors around her. To me, this is a little unclear why she's rubs everybody around her the wrong way, but it doesn't help that when asked, she doesn't speak up as much as she should. One of her Professors, Prof. Barnac (Pio Marmai) seems like he'd be more sympathetic if she ever let him in on her problems, but perhaps since she's shunned or misguided everywhere else, Anne's reluctant to share her struggles and pain. </div><div><br /></div><div>Perhaps this is just, the time period too. This is the story of a successful abortion in technicality only. "Happening" is adapted from Annie Ernaux's memoir, the Nobel Laureate and was directed by the Lebanese-born French screenwriter, Audrey Diwan, who'd been a go-to screenwriter for a while after years a journalist and she noted how personal the novel was to her. The movie swept the Venice Film Festival among other accolades. It was her first big breakout hit as a director, and she's now directing...- </div><div><br /></div><div>(Stares at IMDB. page with wide eyes!) </div><div><br /></div><div>"Emmanuelle"? </div><div><br /></div><div>Seriously, they're remaking that? Huh, they won't put it in the XRCO Hall of Fame, but it's getting remade again. </div><div><br /></div><div>Oh-kay, that'll be interesting. Anyway I can understand Diwan's devotion to the story and this is a good time to tell it. It sucks that I do have so many other films I can compare this too though, 'cause I would recommend, say Mike Leigh's "Vera Drake" or Eliza Hittman's "Never Rarely Sometimes Always", or Christian Mingiu's "4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days" over this. Although that shows just how prescient and important this subject is that so many films and filmmakers are tackling this issue. "Happening" There is something to be said about the way it's done here though. </div><div><br /></div><div>More than once, Anne talks about the baby as an illness, and how it's the sickness that turns women into housewives. That's odd enough, and definitely true feelings that many women have, although, in hindsight, I realize how rare the actual word "abortion" was uttered from her, or anybody for that matter. Something so taboo has a lot of euphemisms doesn't it? "Happening" is definitely one of them. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>X </b>(2022) Director: Ti West</span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://static1.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/ti-west-x-filming-locations-not-texas.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="800" height="320" src="https://static1.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/ti-west-x-filming-locations-not-texas.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>I gotta admit, I get a little chuckle every time I hear somebody talk about how they're going to make porn that's more artistic and even make it mainstream. Believe it or not, that kind of thinking still exists. I think I once heard porn director Kayden Kross a few years ago, talking about how she had intended to make a film that, with some edits for the really adult content would actually be able to be shown in mainstream theaters. Believe it or not, that's actually happened before. Not lately, but there were a couple attempts at that back in the early '80s before the home video market completely took over the porn industry. </div><div><br /></div><div>I bring this up because "X", this, artistic horror movie from writer/director Ti West, follows one of those crews hellbent on making one of those kind of artistic porns. Of course, the movie takes place in l979, and admittedly looks it, especially with the farm aesthetic and the gorgeous cinematography the movie does indeed look like, well, a lot more of those supposedly artistic porn movie than you'd think. The film could've been on double feature bill with a Bethel Buckalew film. The film takes place in Texas in the 1979, and this Houston-based crew have rented out a small side house to a farm out in the middle of nowhere owned by a Howard (Stephen Ure) who's the kind of old-time farmer in the middle of nowhere you'd expect in these kind of movies, the ones that open their doors with their shotgun in hand. He warns about his elusive wife, but they all plan on avoiding them at all cost while they quickly film this artistic porno film.</div><div><br /></div><div>So, trying to describe the rest of the movie is tricky.... For one thing, the movie isn't really complete, it's actually part one of a trilogy of films, all starring Mia Goth, in a duel/role as one of the actresses, Maxxxine, with three X's and as Pearl, deep in makeup as the wife. The second movie is "Pearl", and it's high on my Netflix queue, I'll get to it soon enough, with the third film being "Maxxxine", that's currently in post-production. So far, I'm not entirely sure, why, she's playing both roles, other than Mia Goth is probably just that fascinating a muse, which I can understand. I haven't seen her in much, but she takes on some brave roles when she does. There's actually quite a few interesting actors here, Jenna Ortega from "Wednesday" plays a girlfriend of the film's writer/editor RJ (Owen Campbell) Another couple porn actors are played by Brittany Snow, slightly against type here, and her boyfriend is Scott 'Kid Cudi' Mescusi, I didn't even know he acted, but he's actually quite good here as a former Vietnam vet who went into porn and reminds me a lot of Eddie Steeples's Crabman from "My Name is... Earl". </div><div><br /></div><div>I guess the parallels of youth and attraction also helps in the double-role. A lot of the conflict, before the movie turns into a blood-soaked disaster, is about that gray area between love, sex and art, and then, when the old couple eventually make their feelings known, the idea of youth, sex and beauty comes into the story. I'm not sure exactly what he's saying about it, other than using this conflict as a reason to get to some horror deaths,... I guess that's my issue in that, while I appreciate the influences and look and style of the film, and the attention to the details, I just don't know or think there's much else to the film though. Compare these horrors to say, Jordan Peele's movies, there's just as much detail and ideas in those films, but they're making bigger points and using the motifs of the genre to create more unique and personalized points, and in that light, "X" feels rather miniscule in comparison. I'm still gonna recommend it for doing just enough to create an interesting and different take on the genre, but I wonder if the movie itself is just as shallow artistically as those porno films from the past were. Hey, it's true, sometimes they were making art as well. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>PEARL </b>(2022) Director: Ti West </span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐</span></div><div><br /></div></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://variety.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Pearl-Film-Review.jpg?w=1000" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://variety.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Pearl-Film-Review.jpg?w=1000" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Okay, I think I get Ti West now. </div><div><br /></div><div>I was intrigued by "X", his previous feature, took place in the late '70s and followed a ragtag group of filmmakers trying to make an artistic porno, but unfortunately running into the wrong farmhouse. And the wrong Farmer's wife, Pearl (Mia Goth). </div><div><br /></div><div>Now, we got "Pearl", the origin story prequel. Why did we need an origin story to "X".... Umm,- no, we didn't. Honestly, most prequels I don't think we really need, especially horror prequels, but I at least get why West would do it now. He loves old movies. He loves movies and filmmaking in general. That's why "X" genuinely did look like old '70s porn, and "Pearl" opens with credits that feels like an old Douglas Sirk movie from the '50s. </div><div><br /></div><div>Of course it strays from that aesthetic into horror, but actually narratively, it doesn't stray that much. Pearl is the story of a small-town young war bride during the end of WWII, who's stuck living in her family home with her demanding mother (Tandi Wright) and her nearly-catatonic and disabled father (Matthew Sutherland). She dreams of eventually becoming a star and is excited about an audition for a traveling group of dancers, who are holding an audition in town, and while her mother won't let her go, and insists on just dealing and living with what you have and not have such high goals and dreams, she doesn't recognize the clear-cut fact that Pearl is frickin' insane. </div><div><br /></div><div>Like, really crazy, insane. We learn that in "X" of course, but in "X" she's this sexed-crazed old woman who's as murderous as she is lecherous. In this movie, it's hard to tell whether she started that way or became that way, but she does get pushed by having a brief affair with a sleezy film projectionist (David Corenswet) who shows her some very early stag films. I don't quite know what to make of all this, but I kinda like that about "Pearl". Most of the time, I feel like giving movie villains a genuinely sensible excuse or explanation for their actions, is kinda,- well, it takes away from the villain's power and influence. Sometimes, the scariest stuff is that which isn't naturally explained. We don't exactly get an explanation, just a series of events per se in "Pearl". </div><div><br /></div><div>Or maybe, I'm just more sympathetic because I like the film's throwback style as well as the performance of Mia Goth. This is partially her story as well. Originally, their was no plans for a sequel, but after shooting "X" in New Zealand, the cast got stuck in the area after COVID and they decided to come together for a prequel since they were still around and still had the set. So, I kinda like that it feels kinda half-formed as a true sequel and ends on such a twisted note, leaving us to fill in a lot of blanks. All that said, despite West's flair for circumventing the aesthetics and expectations of classic movie genres, the movie only really works because of Goth. She's been one of the more daring young actresses around for the last few years, and she's used these films to really thrust herself into the breakout roles. In many ways, "Pearl" is actually kind of a demo reel of all her skills and work not just showing what she's done up til now, but what she's really capable of doing. The movie is kinda reminds me of is actually "Jolene" a movie that would otherwise not be noteworthy except for how it shows Jessica Chastain as basically any part you can ever possibly imagine her being cast in. "Pearl" is a little more interesting artistically than that, but it basically serves the same purpose. I don't know which film is better, but I think I slightly prefer "Pearl", and I'm looking forward, although admittedly, I am slightly worried about "Maxxxine"; they might've had too much time to think about it and try to make something too coherent for this series. Hopefully, I'll be proven wrong.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b style="font-size: x-large;"><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>SAINT OMER </b>(2023) Director: Alice Diop</span></div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"><br /></div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐<b>1/2 </b></span></div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"><b> </b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-size: medium; font-weight: 400; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Saint-Omer-de-Alice-Diop-2-SRAB-FILMS-ARTE-FRANCE-CINEMA-2022_.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="534" data-original-width="800" height="427" src="https://www.rollingstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Saint-Omer-de-Alice-Diop-2-SRAB-FILMS-ARTE-FRANCE-CINEMA-2022_.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"><br /></div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">"Saint Omer" has one of those strange conceit plots that,- eh, well, it's hard to explain but essentially, it's a movie that's more about how a character reacts to the events and actions of others, as opposed to just being about those events. There's ways to kinda do this well, "Nocturnal Animals" essentially comes to my mind, but I don't like that example, because that film is a little too complex. It's about a character reading a book, and what that story and book means to her. "Saint Omer", is kinda trying to do something, similar, but not really. It doesn't help, that also this isn't a fictional tale at all, in fact, it's autobiographical, sorta.... </div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"><br /></div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">It's hard to explain. Let's start with the filmmaker, Alice Diop. No relation to the famous Senegalese filmmakers Mati Diop and her famous father Djibril Diop Mambety, but she is Senegelese, but mostly until now a documentary filmmaker, and even then, I think I might argue that she's been more a journalist than a filmmaker. In fact, this movie, "Saint Omer" is actually about a case that she was a journalist on. And it's about her, being a journalist on the trial of this case. It's from her perspective, or at least, the surrogate character's perspective, Rama (Kayije Kagame). She's a pregnant young journalist, from Senegalese immigrant parents, and she's in a relationship with a Frenchman outside her nationality and heritage. </div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">The trial, is a murder case where a young Senagalese woman, Laurence (Guslagie Malanda) is on trial for murdering her 15-month old daughter. A daughter, she had in secret, and didn't tell her French boyfriend about, and has issues with her Senagelese immigrant family. </div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"><br /></div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">This is, based on a real trial, and an infamous one that Alice Diop herself was in the courtroom for, and reported on. I don't know if she intended to interpret the story as a modern day telling of "Madea", in the movie she's a literature professor, and finds the story intriguing, but eventually, begins to find the story, more meaningful to her. Laurence confessed to allowing her daughter to drown on the beach, believing that the witchcraft and evil forces led her to the decisions she made. This was a big trial in France and attracted a lot of attention, especially from women notably, many of whom sat in on the trial from the beginning to the end.</div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"><br /></div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">Now, the trial itself is kinda interesting, and I'd be interested in a story about Fabienne Kabou, the woman Malanda's story is based on. There's been good stories about mothers who, for one reason or another begin to lose it mentally. The Joachin Lafosse film "Our Children" comes to my mind; that movie's still harrowing to me. "Saint Omer" is not though. It's too disconnected to me; it wants to tell the story of how a trial affected her and frankly, all it really does is point out the similarities between them, and yeah, I guess, we do become fascinated by cases and random things we see on TV and in movies that reminds us of ourselves and viewing how somebody's life, especially when we see how troubled they are, just how different our life is to theirs, or how close our life could be to theirs, it is fascinating. It's not really a movie though, I don't think. </div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"><br /></div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">This movie has gotten a lot of praise, but I'm not seeing it. I think there's some interesting stuff here, but the perspective is just all wrong. I get that it's personal and it's her first non-documentary feature, so I get why the film is like this, but it just doesn't work. There's a way to do this, maybe focus more on her personal life, and then intercut more with the trial instead of being as meticulously detailed about recreating the trial.... I don't know, once you start with the off-perspective to a story, if you're not doing something with it, it becomes tricky and the plot becomes too distancing to really cover and make up for it.</div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"><br /></div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"><br /></div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"><b style="font-size: x-large;"><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>SAINT OMER </b>(2023) Director: Alice Diop</span></div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"><br /></div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐<b>1/2 </b></span></div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"><b> </b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-size: medium; font-weight: 400; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Saint-Omer-de-Alice-Diop-2-SRAB-FILMS-ARTE-FRANCE-CINEMA-2022_.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="534" data-original-width="800" height="427" src="https://www.rollingstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Saint-Omer-de-Alice-Diop-2-SRAB-FILMS-ARTE-FRANCE-CINEMA-2022_.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"><br /></div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">"Saint Omer" has one of those strange conceit plots that,- eh, well, it's hard to explain but essentially, it's a movie that's more about how a character reacts to the events and actions of others, as opposed to just being about those events. There's ways to kinda do this well, "Nocturnal Animals" essentially comes to my mind, but I don't like that example, because that film is a little too complex. It's about a character reading a book, and what that story and book means to her. "Saint Omer", is kinda trying to do something, similar, but not really. It doesn't help, that also this isn't a fictional tale at all, in fact, it's autobiographical, sorta.... </div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"><br /></div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">It's hard to explain. Let's start with the filmmaker, Alice Diop. No relation to the famous Senegalese filmmakers Mati Diop and her famous father Djibril Diop Mambety, but she is Senegelese, but mostly until now a documentary filmmaker, and even then, I think I might argue that she's been more a journalist than a filmmaker. In fact, this movie, "Saint Omer" is actually about a case that she was a journalist on. And it's about her, being a journalist on the trial of this case. It's from her perspective, or at least, the surrogate character's perspective, Rama (Kayije Kagame). She's a pregnant young journalist, from Senegalese immigrant parents, and she's in a relationship with a Frenchman outside her nationality and heritage. </div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">The trial, is a murder case where a young Senagalese woman, Laurence (Guslagie Malanda) is on trial for murdering her 15-month old daughter. A daughter, she had in secret, and didn't tell her French boyfriend about, and has issues with her Senagelese immigrant family. </div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"><br /></div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">This is, based on a real trial, and an infamous one that Alice Diop herself was in the courtroom for, and reported on. I don't know if she intended to interpret the story as a modern day telling of "Madea", in the movie she's a literature professor, and finds the story intriguing, but eventually, begins to find the story, more meaningful to her. Laurence confessed to allowing her daughter to drown on the beach, believing that the witchcraft and evil forces led her to the decisions she made. This was a big trial in France and attracted a lot of attention, especially from women notably, many of whom sat in on the trial from the beginning to the end.</div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"><br /></div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">Now, the trial itself is kinda interesting, and I'd be interested in a story about Fabienne Kabou, the woman Malanda's story is based on. There's been good stories about mothers who, for one reason or another begin to lose it mentally. The Joachin Lafosse film "Our Children" comes to my mind; that movie's still harrowing to me. "Saint Omer" is not though. It's too disconnected to me; it wants to tell the story of how a trial affected her and frankly, all it really does is point out the similarities between them, and yeah, I guess, we do become fascinated by cases and random things we see on TV and in movies that reminds us of ourselves and viewing how somebody's life, especially when we see how troubled they are, just how different our life is to theirs, or how close our life could be to theirs, it is fascinating. It's not really a movie though, I don't think. </div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"><br /></div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">This movie has gotten a lot of praise, but I'm not seeing it. I think there's some interesting stuff here, but the perspective is just all wrong. I get that it's personal and it's her first non-documentary feature, so I get why the film is like this, but it just doesn't work. There's a way to do this, maybe focus more on her personal life, and then intercut more with the trial instead of being as meticulously detailed about recreating the trial.... I don't know, once you start with the off-perspective to a story, if you're not doing something with it, it becomes tricky and the plot becomes too distancing to really cover and make up for it.</div></b></div></b></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>THE VELVET UNDERGROUND </b>(2021) Director: Todd Haynes</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://d21ehp1kf1k9m9.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/08142647/VelvetUnderground.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="712" height="360" src="https://d21ehp1kf1k9m9.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/08142647/VelvetUnderground.png" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>You know, I'm fairly knowledgeable about the history of rock'n'roll, the evolution of it to be exact, and how the major cornerstone artists and trends changed, altered, reinvented and reimagined the genre, and-, the thing is, I rarely, if ever, think about The Velvet Underground on that paradigm chart. In one way, they kinda don't belong there; in another way, it feels more fitting to actually put them outside of that chart. They are influential and groundbreaking, their music was way ahead of their time. And yet, I don't think about them. Trying to explain or examine their importance and influence, within the history of rock'n'roll is, just is too difficult. I mean, I can go through the same talking points that others make, that while The Beatles were doing "I Want To Hold Your Hand", The Velvet Underground were doing songs like "Heroin", or whatever, but what does that even mean, how exactly do you characterize that? (Shrugs) I don't really know. They don't follow or start any trends, they weren't successful, John Cage talks about how he once got a $2.37 check and that was more money than he ever made with the Underground. I rarely if ever hear their songs on the radio, and if I do, it's usually not their version, it's usually like Cowboy Junkies's cover of "Sweet Jane" for instance. They don't come from the same music backgrounds and inspirations as everyone else did from their era, and hell I barely think of them in terms of music at all; I tend to place them more into the New York Underground Pop Art movement of the '60s than I do, anything else that was going on. They were progenitors to hard rock and punk I guess, but they're not really hard rock, and they were too good a musicians to really be listed as pre-punk. They weren't hippie, West Coast or East Coast. Honestly, I think it's easier to fit Frank Zappa onto this chart. </div><div><br /></div><div>Luckily, Todd Haynes, doesn't try to do that. He knows the story of "The Velvet Underground" can't fit into a traditional rockumentary narrative. "The Velvet Underground" is naturally more of a mood piece, as much as the music is. My big nickname for the Velvet Underground myself is the House Band at the Factory and it is probably more important and accurate to look and think about them in terms of their relationship with Andy Warhol and their place with his whole scene than any analysis of trying to connect them to the music scene of the time. The movie itself, while it does have some talking heads, it's mostly footage and that's been collected over the years. The idea is to get us right inside of all aspects of the band and the scene they were apart of. Perhaps it does that in the content, but I mostly just fell into the tone and the mood. Like their music, "The Velvet Underground", is music that sets and places you in a particular vibe. It's one of the frustration of addiction and personal struggle, especially when it seems bathed around you with peace and love that feels just as counterintuitive as the Nixon-era squares that were really running the country. They told stories of the disenfranchised, those shunned by society. Those who were addicts, those who were gay, those who were just struggling with life in general. </div><div><br /></div><div>"The Velvet Underground" goes through the band's history well-enough, but it more than succeeds at creating a visual tone of the band and their music overall. If you like the band you'll like the movie henceforth. If you don't, well, maybe you'll find the experience it's own hallucinogenic wave for a few hours enjoyable anyway. </div></div><div><br /></div></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696790060036702346.post-25021779141128040132023-09-27T06:45:00.000-07:002023-09-27T06:45:03.358-07:00I READ A COMIC BOOK CALLED "KINGDOM COME"; AND I-EH, I DON'T THINK I GET IT.... <div style="text-align: left;">EDITOR'S NOTE: This blogpost was written months ago. It hasn't been posted until now because personal events have taken up and upended much of my current time. I allude to some of them that were going on at the time in this article. I also reference other personal events that occurred to me; none of this is done directly, and I don't plan on posting or commenting on any additional context. All I'll say is that, me and my family are still struggling and have a long road ahead, and that I started a <a href="https://gofund.me/3b8057f4">GoFundMe</a>, in order to supplement for recent losses and to pay for any/all doctors/legal and any other fees in the immediate and it's still going and will continue to until all is settled, and any little bit can help, so if you can donate, please do so, if not, at least share the GoFundMe with others. Thank you and on with the article I originally intended. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/go6GEIrcvFY?si=8eWajj7gSOkd4PH1" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe> </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I-ehhhhhhh...? Huh...? </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Umm...- (Sigh)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I don't really know how to start this one. It's not that I don't have to something to say, I do, but...- </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">(Scratches head)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">So, I read a comic book.... </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Alright that sentence is already gonna make a bunch of people who know me heads turn like Scooby-Doo discovering something, but... (Sigh)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Alright, let's start at the beginning. This started a few months ago.... I was on Facebook and a friend of mine mentioned the movie "Shazam". (Actually, I think he mentioned the sequel that came out earlier this year, but I,- doesn't matter.) Anyway, I don't know if anybody caught my <a href="https://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2020/02/movie-reviews-166-parasite-toy-story-4.html">review</a> of that film at the time, but I really hated that film. It made my worst list, and-, anyway, I really found myself unnerved by it, and expressed it. It felt like something I should say, 'cause, I don't know, apparently I was one of the few who really despised this film and particularly find myself dumbfounded by the praise for it. And I particularly found it out-of-place within the DCU, or is it the DCEU? I don't know, anyway, considering how goofy and old-fashioned the film was, I found it particularly out-of-place with the rest of those movies which, good or bad, usually had a much more darker look and tone to them. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">That criticism caught the attention of another fellow critic, one I admire, and she recommended to me a comic book that told a darker variation on Shazam's origin story. What followed next, was, well, basically me being an idiot. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I mean, I didn't realize that, I was being an idiot at the time, of course. Honestly I was, still coming down from remembering how much I despised that film, and some other personal things I was dealing with..., so I wasn't in the right state of mind. And in that incorrect state of mind, to me, while I didn't want to read the book, at least not right away, I decided to try to understand some things about comic books and comic book fandom/culture that I didn't understand. That's all I was trying to figure out, and when I didn't get an answer that made sense to me, I became confused and disgruntled, and... like, I said, I was being an idiot. There's no me, backing out, of this, on my end, I was an idiot and I've taken responsibility for that, and I'm trying not to be from now on. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">So, I guess, as my penance, I decided to read the comic she recommended to me. Which is rare for me, because....- Okay, I've talked more-or-less about my experiences with comics several times over the years. Several times, here's one of my earliest articles about <a href="https://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2011/08/comic-books-actually-exists-and-other.html">comics</a>. I've said other things over the years, too, so I'll try to wrap it up as succinctly as possible here. <br /><br />AGE 6ish:<br />(Watching that "Simpsons" episode where Bart, Milhouse and Martin share a comic book)</div><div style="text-align: left;">That's pretty funny. It'd be hilarious if that kind of thing existed.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">AGE 10ish: Boy this Batman cartoon is pretty good. I wonder why the movies suck though; they should really stop making films about these characters from, what are these? Comic books? Didn't those things like die, 60 years ago or something?</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">AGE 16ish: Wait, people still make comic books?! That's a thing? I thought that was a plot device for TV shows? Well, I mean, there can't be anybody who actually reads those things, right? We got television now, why would we?!<br /><br />AGE 17ish: Why are they making a Spider-Man film; it was always such a terrible cartoon. I'm sure it'll flop; we have way too many of these comic book movies already. What are there like, I don't know like, what, couple hundred people who care about these things? Seems like a weird group to focus on. <br /><br />AGE 21ish: WAIT! There's COMIC BOOK STORES are a real thing!? WHY!? <br /><br />AGE 28ish: I guess I'm glad they finally made good Batman movies now, but c'mon, people! I don't know why everybody cares about these things. Now, "Iron Man" gets a film?! Christ! Well, at least this won't lead to anything long-term in the industry! And has anybody noticed that the people who liked these things are just mostly just fucking terrible! We really shouldn't be listening to fans like this, y'know!</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">CURRENT AGE: These people- they, just-, I swear I didn't think comic books were a real thing, how have they just taken over everything!!!!! WHAT THE FUCK!!!!!</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I'm skipping over a bunch of other incidents there, but as far as I'm concern, this whole, thing, it's just severe dropshock for me. People explain to me how much and how important and relevant comic books and comic book characters have been to their lives whole lives and-, I,- I just, I feel like I'm talking to aliens; this was literally, so not a thing in my life, for so long, that it just will never compute to me that it was thing for anybody, and I genuinely can't fathom how in the hell it is. I had no friends who read them, no family members who read them, there weren't comic book stores around when I young....- When I heard about comic books, I think the closest thing I thought they were were sticker books. Does anybody remember them? You collected stickers of, like I don't know, some Disney property and you bought the pictures that you stuck in the books? I knew what comics were, I read the funny pages growing up; my comic heroes weren't Stan Lee or Bob Kane or Alan Moore or anybody of that ilk, they were Charles Shultz and Jim Davis and Gary Larson; and I thought that that's what they evolved to. Comic books were a thing in a past, they were kids thing, eventually some of the bigger names and characters caught on, but they weren't moneymakers and superheroes were kinda not great storytelling to begin with, so eventually it evolved into strips in the paper. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I guess the best I can explain it to, is like those reaction videos on Youtube that a lot of younger people or foreigners make to pop music that's been around for decades and they're like stunned at like, how great so much of it is, and you just yell at the computer, "Yes, "Piano Man", is an amazing song, how did you not know that 'til your 20s! That's what I feel like everyone is to me when they talk about something with comics. Except, most of the time, I look at the group who are obsessed with comics and comic book culture and fandom and how they've taken over the world, and yes, I don't like most of what I see. I do see the appeal and the good parts of it, but mostly I see how awful most of it is. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">To be fair, I think that's just what fandom is in general, it's mostly awful and terrible and I still highly believe that being a "fan" is not a good thing. It's not inherently a comic book thing, being fans of anything is not good in my view. It's just frustrating that for my purposes, being someone who's found film and television to be the inspiring art of my time period, and not realizing that comics had such widespread appeal until long after my formative years, and have taken control and over so much of my industry that it's become my instinctual reaction to them is much more adversarial than I probably should be. I don't think the medium is the problem. I mean, most movies and TV shows, are storyboarded, that's just comics in another form too. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">And I've read a few comics in the past before. I did eventually read "Watchmen" which I love. I read "Ghost World", which I liked a lot. Yes, they're movies that I liked first and went back to read the comics, but y'know, that's why I read them. I never begrudged the medium; I had issues with the trends towards superheroes among other stuff that the medium propagates. I have other issues involved here, but-, here's what I'm building towards. I've never actually, read, like, a real, regular superhero comic, before. I've heard a lot about them. I do try to keep up with the goings-on in the genre, partly 'cause I just have to with film and television being so thoroughly dominated by it now, I know a decent amount of some of the main points of reference and history regarding some of the bigger characters and names and stories. But, superhero stories, um, I like some, I don't like most, and I'm apparently really picky. And apparently, if I don't like something about a character, there's several other versions and variations of the character which I can look and find one until I like it, which....</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">(Sigh)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Which is what brings me back to this comic book. This darker version of Shazam! It was not something I was looking forward to, considering how much I really hated my introduction to this character, but to reiterate, I was an idiot. So,.... </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I read it. It's called "Kingdom Come" by Mark Wald & Alex Ross. It's from 1996; I actually had heard of this comic, even before it was recommended to me. It's one that popped on a lot of all-time lists for the best comics. It's apparently influential and important within the genre and community. And-eh, so yeah, I decided to read it. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">So, one of the things I was told was that, if I was more involved with the culture, I would understand more why it's more acceptable to have such varying multiple versions of some of these characters, which was one of my questions. And I didn't like that answer. I did eventually find an answer to that that made sense to me, and that answer was licensing. See comics are cheap to make, but they were also cheap to sell in the old days and so, they had to make things that would sell much more than original and unique work. So, when a superhero or other character caught on, the companies would own the copyright and licensing of those characters and they would beat those characters to the ground. And they still do that essentially, so while I would like to blame fans for wanting to keep seeing these same characters over-and-over again, and true, I'm sure the market was there, but-eh, I tend to now think this is more of an issue with the industry than it is, the fandom. You go into Marvel or DC, and give them an original idea, they'll ask you to mold it to fit with one of their superhero franchises. That why we have spider-verses full of Spider-Man, whether that's a good idea or not. (It's not) Even "Watchmen" which felt to me like it was an original world and universe, both the film version and the original book was apparently inspired by something called Charleton Comics and many of the characters and their depictions coincided with those characters and a lot of references to them just went over my head. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">And-eh, after reading "Kingdom Come", I'm definitely thinking there's stuff that went over my head here. I hesitate to call this bad, 'cause I don't think it is, but I do feel like I'm not getting what I'm supposed to be getting here. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Well, the-eh... um...- </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">(Sigh)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">You know, I finished the book a few days ago and I've been trying to figure out what to say on it, and I'm a little stuck to be honest. Okay, so.... I guess I'll start with the Shazam stuff, since, that was the catalyst for this whole thing, and yes, there is-, well, I wouldn't call it a different origin of him, per se...,? Actually, scratch that, I better start off with the book itself.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Okay, so, "Kingdom Come" is a miniseries, a short-run elseworld novel. So, it doesn't take place in any particular continuity or universe, basically these are ways for creators to explore some of those most famous license characters and put them in these other alternative worlds and explore other ideas. Basically it's that "What If..." show, which I haven't seen yet admittedly, but I get the idea. (I guess "Watchmen" could also technically qualify as this too....? Maybe? I don't really know.) It's also not about Shazam, he's actually just a minor character in this story. It takes place, in the near future, but it's a world where...-, basically Superman confronts a philosophical question about his existence, and it's an interesting one. It talks about whether or not, the presence of Superman, as well the several dozens of other superhero characters out there in this world, is actually holding back humans evolutionary advancement. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Honestly, I've always kinda wondered about stuff like that myself, especially with this universes where there are several superheroes around. Like, I watch those "Avengers" movies and personally I always wondered what the regular person trying to go through his day was like in those films. Like, how this superhero shit must be annoying to be constantly getting in his way. Like he's taking the bus, and suddenly superheroes are fighting on the bus. Or the Fingersnap of Doom happens and now half his co-workers are gone and now he's got to do all their jobs 'cause the office is short-staffed. Or perhaps, my favorite, scenario, the superhero stuff goes on in the extreme background, and he's oblivious to all of it, and he's just like, having real trouble finding the right carpet design all day, so he's going from carpet store to carpet store or something like that. Seriously, why hasn't anybody done like, an "American Splendor" type comic that takes place in the MCU, but like none of that shit matters; I think I would enjoy that. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">That's not the direction, "Kingdom Come" goes though. It, instead imagines a future where Superman has retreated to his childhood home, and began living off the grid raising a farm and basically ignoring his superpowers as other superheroes similarly follow suit. I guess it's supposed to sorta be like "The Incredibles" in that way, but...- I- I don't quite get this apocalyptic future that they're explaining. I kinda get Superman becoming temporarily a recluse, especially after, apparently everybody from the Daily Planet being killed in an attack by the Joker, which means his love interest is now Wonder Woman, who's also going through an identity crisis feeling like her actions haven't promoted the Amazonian ideals enough. Batman's become particularly angry with Superman and more of a cave-dweller mad scientist recluse than normal. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">See, I was kinda hoping with an Elseworld story I wouldn't have to know all the traditional beats and background characters to understand the story, but I kinda feel like I did need to know a lot of this. It also doesn't helps that when humanity on their own, can't fully handle themselves and things get really dire and when Superman finally snaps out of it and reforms the Justice League that, we also find out that he's a fucking narcissistic messiah-like idiot himself! </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Yeah, he stops most of the superhuman villains that are out for no good, but he's puts them all inside this huge self-built prison in Kansas called the Gulag; Kansas was a desolate wasteland after an atomic attack years earlier...- again, I couldn't fully follow this, but he doesn't want to kill any of them, so, he uses the prison as a corrections facility essentially. Like he's trying to teach these guy to become good and use their powers for the good of humanity, and that goes about as well as you think and leads to possibly the apocalypse, which is also being foretold throughout this whole story.... The narrator is a priest who sees visions and there's this dark figure named Spectre who's showing these images of a horrific future, but he only passes judgement and can't help.... I'm assuming that this makes sense to a lot of people, all this.... I-, (Sigh) yeah, I don't really get any of this. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Let's just say that, if you gave me this premise this would not be where I would take it, nor where I would want to take it. I don't think of Superman as being so single-mindedly dense or tunnel-visioned; I think he would've taken into consideration some of the possibilities of his effect on humankind, and perhaps, y'know, wouldn't fly around the world to pull a cat out of a tree or something and only really come for the truly big disastrous moments that require Superman. And it wouldn't be like, a miniseries, but it also wouldn't have all these other superhero characters, 'cause I think that defeats the point of that idea. This is why I think all the "Avengers" films suck, the whole point of a superhero is that they're superhuman, and if everybody's a superhero, than an idea like, are superheroes preventing human advancement, loses all it's power and luster. If there's already so many damn superheroes than, humanity has clearly already started advancing, plus...- </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">(Sigh)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">You know what, I won't go over all my problems with multiple superheroes coming together-, unless the story begins with a bunch of superheroes already in a world, I don't like crossing superhero characters over into each other. I get why they do it, but I don't get why is it popular, like, at all. I have no fucking clue. It's another thing I'm not against in theory; television did that all the time, but y'know, what's the harm of, I don't know, having a character from "Mad About You" show up on "Friends"? It's not losing the whole conceit of the idea of either of those shows. (Although, in hindsight, I don't really get how Mork started in the '50s on "Happy Days", but when he went to live on Earth, he flashed forward to modern day in the '70s to live, and then would occasionally travel back to the fifties.... Okay, that one was just Robin Williams can get away with anything) When it's superheroes it kinda just defeats the purpose. Like, I know there's examples in mythology, especially Greek and Roman mythology looking out over the humans and whatnot, but like, even at the time, those stories were understood as not complete narratives of gods existing and controlling the world, they were fragmented and scattered tales used as explanations for why things happened. The soap opera between the gods was about how it affected the humans, when I see gods fighting and arguing amongst themselves, especially in these superhero stories, it's almost like, the protecting of the humans, or even just their relationship with the humans really doesn't matter. It loses that extra context that makes the mythological ideals that superheroes are inspired from work. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Anyway, that's how I generally feel with stories like these, and there are exceptions; I'm generalizing here, but another reason I'm reading stuff like this is that I'm hoping to find the exception that makes me understand why this is appealing. I'm trying to understand, which is why I'm very frustrated that I don't really get all this. I think it's supposed to be, like a tale about, how superheroes are great, not in the world that the book takes place in necessarily, but as a metaphor for the greatness and importance of comics and superheroes overall. Which, for that, it's... (Shrugs) Eh.... maybe if this Superman wasn't such an idiot. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Sorry, I can't get past that, you really thought locking the supervillains in a prison of your design in to go through a conversion therapy was gonna work?! I know this was 1996, but seriously what the fuck!? Is this just me on this one? Am I interpreting this wrong? I feel like that's...- this is why Superman's better with Lois Lane than Diana. There, I said it. I love Diana, I love Wonder Woman, she's probably my favorite of the DC superhero, but she doesn't belong with Superman, even if Lois is out of the picture. Lois keeps him from doing stupid shit like this. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Okay, if you guys know the text and want to tell me what I'm missing and why, than, please, comment sections are all yours, I'm not gonna say anything or dispute anything you want to argue or explain, please go ahead. I clearly, don't relate to this story. If I was supposed to be convinced, I wasn't, but if it was reaffirmation for the choir who already likes superheroes, than eh, I think it was, um,... okay? I don't know I'm fairly lost by this whole thing. I'm just gonna talk about the Shazam part now. That was the part that I was originally recommended this story for. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">So, the darker, "Origin" of Shazam? Well, I won't give away the ending, but I wouldn't call this an origin, necessarily... I guess it hypothetically could be; I would argue that in this universe, it isn't an origin of him, but let's say it is, for the sake of this article, um-, it's definitely darker than the movie.... So, in this world, Lex Luthor has created a liberation front to protect the supervillains, under the guise of protecting humanity, and Billy Batson, is brainwashed by him, and Luthor plans to use him in order to help the villains break out of the really stupid prison that Superman created and have the supervillains go to war with the superheroes, probably causing destruction, and Superman has to break him out of that spell. It is, very dark and I did say that I didn't care for the Billy Batson narrative in "Shazam" because of how goofy and light it was, compared to the tones of all the other DC movies until then. I don't know if I like this one better though.... </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Like, I think it's a better story; I like the idea of a character who was once a hero, but-, and I think it's a little too goofy the way it's explained and used in the book, but the fact that Shazam, is part human and part god in his powers, in the source of his powers, that the idea of him, living in a world where he decides to suppress his more superpower side to him, and that leaves the human side dominant and more vulnerable to evil influence, that is interesting in of itself. I don't know if I like it in the context of this story, I think as a standalone idea, that would be a compelling narrative and that could be something that would appeal me to the character. So, I guess I like it better than the DCEU origin story, as a story, that we got, but honestly, as much as I hate that film, I think I would prefer the film's origin to this one. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Yeah, I'll be honest, I think I'd appreciate the arc of the movie more knowing this other narrative, but I still don't think it really works...- Although, honestly, I think I just hate this character. Or maybe more precise, I just don't like this character in the DCU, maybe in another world, I'd like it more....</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">After thinking about it more, yeah, I think this character just gets on my nerves. He's literally, the child superhero in the film. Another thing I'm not necessarily against in theory, like "Kick-Ass" mostly worked for me, but I'm against it here, 'cause of how it's worked. Honestly, the character that Billy Batson most reminds me of, in hindsight, in the movie anyway, is Ash from "Pokemon". </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I wrote about <a href="https://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2021/05/justice-for-team-rocket-my-complete.html">"Pokemon"</a> as well, not too long ago, and my personal experiences with that franchise, and spoilers, I think a lot less of "Pokemon" than I think of comics and superheroes to be honest, but I especially hate the Ash character, and I kinda hate Billy Batson for the same reasons. They're basically the awkward, uncoordinated, average, unimpressive kids who are put in the spot of superhero, chosen for that position to be the best, even though there's probably better and more well-knowledgeable and qualified people for the role out there. It's to make it relatable to the target audience, sure, but that always just felt like I was being talked down to. Like, instead of the best and the brightest, I'm being told that, any idiot can be special, and that only goes so far with me. To me, it would be like, imagine if Jar Jar Binks was actually the lead perspective character in "The Phantom Menace" how bad that would be. That's kinda how I think of Ash, and Billy Batson's is not that bad, but he's kinda in the same boat for me. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Now, I do think an adult version who had the same backstory of the character, is a little better, but I also expect him to be, an adult who's not a surrogate for a childlike protagonist. So, ehh.... is that what I get with Shazam in "Kingdom Come"? Umm,... well, I don't really know; he's literally brainwashed through most of the story. In the end, I guess he makes a very adult decision, but I could see him making the same decision as a more childlike version of him too. I don't know, I guess this is a decent dark story for Shazam, but I think as an origin story itself, it's-, well, I don't think it's an origin story to begin with, but even if it was, somehow, I don't think I like it more than the one I got in "Shazam". Yeah, I think it's too much of an overcorrection in that regard. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I don't know what I would want in it's place though. Like, it's a weird thing that there's all these versions of the all these superhero characters in comic books, so that, ideally I could look for some version of the character I like, however, if I think too far outside certain core aspects of these characters, then I might as well just be asking for a different character completely. Like, if I create a Batman who's parents weren't murdered when he was young, and in fact were still alive, and living a happy well-to-do life, you know how many people would be after me? If I don't like that part that everybody associates with that character, than, there's really not much anybody can do. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">So, what did I learn or gain from this experiment? </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Um, well I read one more comic book, that's good-ish. I guess...? I don't know if it's any good. Um, I don't like Billy Batson, sorry, he's just not a character I want around. I hate Superman a little more than I thought I did. I really don't like him and Wonder Woman together. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Mostly though, I just found myself, frustrated with the comic book industry. Not the fans so much this time, but the industry itself. Mainly because I came out of the comic not being more inspired by superheroes or feeling that their presence was beneficial or essential, but instead, I found myself saddened that so much of the comic book world focuses so prevalently on superheroes as opposed to other stories and genres that I think would be much more interesting and appealing. There definitely are stuff other than superheroes, but I wish we heard more about them and see them portrayed much more prevalently across the rest of media, it would encourage people like me be more interested if those stories were more prevalent and promoted more. If it was a story I like or cared about I would probably enjoy reading these more and appreciate the appeal. </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696790060036702346.post-11636767713756964562023-08-20T03:18:00.001-07:002023-08-20T03:20:01.860-07:00MOVIE REVIEWS #203: "THE WHALE", "BLACK PANTHER: WAKANDA FOREVER", "ELVIS", "THE BATMAN", "BABYLON", "ALL THE BEAUTY AND THE BLOODSHED", "TURNING RED", "THE QUIET GIRL", "MRS. HARRIS GOES TO PARIS", "PUSS IN BOOTS: THE LAST WISH", "FOUR GOOD DAYS", "THE WHITE TIGER", "THE DISSIDENT" and "A SECRET LOVE"!<div style="text-align: left;">If you guys just want the reviews, just scroll down and you'll get to them. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">My mother passed away last week from pancreatic cancer. She had been suffering for months, but-eh,... treatment didn't help and eventually she just lost her battle. I haven't been mentioning her illness until now; I normally try to keep my personal.... (Sigh) It's not the only reason that I've been so absent recently, but it's a big one, it's the main reason I'm still absent, 'cause I've got a lot to deal with now.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I've mentioned my severely autistic brother before occasionally, but now that she's passed, on top of struggling with the depression and lethargy of grief, which I'm-, (Sigh) I hope I can overcome someday..., but my mother's passing left me with, a lot of legal issues, especially regarding my brother and his guardianship. I don't want to go into it all right now, but for the immediate time being I can use and need all the help I can get. So, I started a GoFundMe, you can find it at the link below: <br /><br /><span a="" face="CircularXXWeb, Trebuchet, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" href="https://gofund.me/3b8057f4"><a href="https://gofund.me/3b8057f4">https://gofund.me/3b8057f4</a></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">I don't ask for much, I certainly don't like asking for money, but-eh, any little bit you can, I greatly appreciate it, and I won't forget it. If you can't donate, I understand, but share the GoFundMe to anybody/everybody you can, anybody who you think would or could donate. Or if you want to find other ways to help, please don't be afraid to contact me through Facebook or Twitter. Thank you all. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>THE WHALE </b>(2022) Director: Darren Aronofsky</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BN2ExM2NlZjMtYWYwZi00NTNkLThkOWYtNGJlOThlNmE5YzVlXkEyXkFqcGdeQVRoaXJkUGFydHlJbmdlc3Rpb25Xb3JrZmxvdw@@._V1_.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BN2ExM2NlZjMtYWYwZi00NTNkLThkOWYtNGJlOThlNmE5YzVlXkEyXkFqcGdeQVRoaXJkUGFydHlJbmdlc3Rpb25Xb3JrZmxvdw@@._V1_.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>At one point in the film, Charlie, (Oscar-winner Brendan Fraser) an English professor, during a stress binge, writes an email to his online class, where he demands that the assignments don't matter and that he simply demands, that they "WRITE SOMETHING HONEST!". </div><div><br /></div><div>(Long pause)</div><div><br /></div><div>You know, it's a strange thing, honesty in writing or any kind of art for that matter. As a critic, we probably don't use that word enough when expressing why something is good. It's also just weird to use it in general, because well, art is a lie. By it's very nature and definition, all art is a lie. Anybody that comes into art and expecting to hear the full truth is just, wrong. Even if it's a documentary and it's bias perspective, whatever it is. And yet, it is honesty that we most relate to and are most looking for. What we are actually looking for, is through the medium of lying, the ability to decipher what is indeed, truth. Honest truth, maybe not my truth, but somebody's truth. The artists' truth. The artist, we're searching for something real and honest. </div><div><br /></div><div>Charlie teaches his writing class online, and without his camera on, to hide his face and body. He was always a big man, he claims, but in recent years, he's been eating himself literally to death. His arms are so gargantuan that they simple don't seem real, even as prosthetics, which I know consciously they are 'cause I know what Brendan Fraser looks like after decades of films, but at first, you can't help but notice, but as the film goes on, you start to ignore it and feel like you're absolutely caught up in his own little world. Which is, his apartment, he's barely able to stand up and has preparations near him at all times, in case he does indeed, die. His only visitors, are his nurse, Liz (Oscar-nominee Hong Chau), and, perhaps occasionally, a delivery guy. He seems to have orders already set for most days, and one pizza guy, Dan (Sathya Sridharan) tries to ask for help, but instead, he just leaves the pizza on the doorstep and he takes a twenty-dollar bill out of a mailbox. </div><div><br /></div><div>Why is he eating himself to death? Well, he has multiple regrets, the first one, somewhat strangely comes in the form of one of the few non-delivery visitors, a young man named Timothy (Ty Simpkins), a missionary who's going door-to-door trying to preach the teachings for a religious movement called "New Life", which apparently is an offset-Mormon apocalyptic cult that both Charlie and Liz are quite familiar with (I'm not entirely this is a real church they're referencing. I don't think it's the New Life Church that originally Ted Haggard founded, which, actually would bring up a lot more interesting layers to this story, but I don't think that's the case.) Anyway, he says Charlie and the amount of pain he's in and decides rather quixotically to attempt to save him, figuring that since he's refusing medical help to save him, that spiritual salvation is what he actually needs. Charlie, at least humors him as much as he can, but Liz is having none of it as she explains how Charlie's boyfriend Alan, was an exiled member of the church and she believes the brainwashing eventually led to his suicide, which in turn, has led to Charlie's depression and overeating. </div><div><br /></div><div>The second regret comes from his daughter Ellie (Sadie Sink) who isn't normally around, but he's convinced her to see him occasionally and desperately asks her to write for him. He even offers her money to stay around and write her school assignments, which she is flunking out of. Charlie left the family to be with Alan, who was a student of his when she was eleven, leaving her to be raised with an alcoholic mother, Mary (Samantha Morton) who means well, but can't really control her. </div><div><br /></div><div>Ellie's angry outbursts and actions are hard to describe here. Her mother outright calls her evil in how smart and manipulative she is, and she is very sociopathic. She is one of those teenager girl for whom everything she says has a hint of vile in her voice. There's one particular sequence who she's alone in her the apartment with Timothy, along with a sleeping Charlie and she really finds a way to dig into him until he reveals some real truths about why he's there. </div><div><br /></div><div>"The Whale" is adapted from a play by Samuel D. Hunter who adapted it into this film's screenplay and for a movie that's basically about about a man eating himself to death, he makes some interesting and unique choices to add to this film. For instance, making him a teacher who preaches honesty above all else, even though he's constantly in denial and literally hiding from the world around him, including his students. The fact that he made him gay and his partner dead after struggles with a religious cult, even the setting of the movie, in Idaho, presumably one of the few college areas in the state is an odd choice on the surface. Yet, it makes more sense when you look up Hunter. He himself was apart of a fundamentalist religious family, and after he eventually came out, he struggling with overeating as well, before eventually having the support and drive to overcome it, and "The Whale" is essentially his imagining of somebody similar to him, and what would happen if he wasn't able to have the support system around him. It's daunting to be honest. </div><div>The film was directed by Darren Aronofsky, and it's his first feature since the widely-panned "mother!", and he takes an interesting approach directing this film. Aronofsky's always been best when he's on a budget and has limitations, but even this movie tests his boundaries. His films are often about obsessive characters, who are often taken down by their obsessions, but usually they were pretty active characters anyway. I always notice that his signature shot is a Steadicam shot where he follows somebody from behind as they head somewhere. That shot is nowhere near this film though, instead using a dolly around a very constrained set with only rare and occasional glimpses outside. Sure he's made comparable films and showcased some characters with aching similarities to Charlie before, but the material challenges him artistically and it's the most interesting I've found his directing in a while. Apparently the idea was to show the other characters walking around Charlie, to emulate them being voices in his mind, especially when they're behind him. I like that concept, and I can imagine it working even better on stage. </div><div>We do see some of him gorging out on food, especially at his worst, and to be honest, I didn't care for those scenes much. I get why they're there but it straddled that line between arbitrarily showing him over-indulge for the emotional appeal of wanting to be angry that he does waste his life like this, to just seeming like they were showing it to show it. </div><div><br /></div><div>That said, "The Whale" achieves honesty. It expresses the feeling of which that this story, might not be my story, or even the people creating it, but it emotionally feels like it does for them, or for at least somebody, and it feels like it touches on it for several others out there. The movie is titled after of course, like all whale references in art, after Moby Dick, it's not just an insulting nickname to someone who's overweight either, "Moby Dick" is referenced quite a bit, especially in one particular piece of criticism that Charlie finds inspiring. I find it inspiring, mostly because I agree with it about the book and not so much that it's particularly well-written, but the critique that, through the writing, it really does convey the truth and honesty, in that novel. Of course is also as much a lie to, but I'm sure to Melville and many others who read it, that it Captain Ahab represented Melville's honesty and truth as much as Charlie represents Samuel Hunter, Darren Aronofsky and all the other filmmakers involved in the project. It's honestly all we ever ask for, and despite the inherent sadness in this tale, the fact that it succeeds, makes me happy. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>BLACK PANTHER: WAKANDA FOREVER </b>(2022) Director: Ryan Coogler</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://imagesvc.meredithcorp.io/v3/mm/image?q=60&c=sc&poi=%5B1420%2C333%5D&w=2000&h=1000&url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.onecms.io%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F6%2F2022%2F11%2F07%2FBlack-Panther-Wakanda-Forever-110722_2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="800" height="320" src="https://imagesvc.meredithcorp.io/v3/mm/image?q=60&c=sc&poi=%5B1420%2C333%5D&w=2000&h=1000&url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.onecms.io%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F6%2F2022%2F11%2F07%2FBlack-Panther-Wakanda-Forever-110722_2.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div>Maybe we should've left well enough alone. </div><div><br /></div><div>I hate to say that, but eh, it's really all I could genuinely think about watching "Black Panther: Wakanda Forever", not that this is a terrible movie or even necessarily a bad one, but..., eh. </div><div><br /></div><div>This is tricky to talk about but "Black Panther" is the best and my favorite of the Marvel movies. It marked one of the very rare times where I thought this constant expansion of the MCU into these greater worlds and places actually not only helped the franchise but actually added power and emotional value to it. The idea of a non-colonized area of Africa and seeing a hopeful alternative world scenario of an African nation being a major world superpower and the most advanced technical and cultural center of the world, that was actually inspiring. As somebody who doesn't care about the MCU and superhero and in particular is not inspired by elaborate fantasy and world and universe-building, at least not in the ways I usually run into it through film, "Black Panther" marked a huge exception for me. This was the rare time where they all got this right. Frankly, I don't think about it within the terms of a Marvel movie, which is good, 'cause if I did, I'd have to think about how fucking awful and dismissive the whole nation of Wakanda was basically just used as a battlefield in "Avengers: Infinity" which, is still fucking garbage I might add! (Yeah, I'm still angry at how shitty that film is, and the treatment of Wakanda in particular.... God, that movie alone makes me hate every MCU movie, just a little more.) I was hoping that, if they continued "Black Panther" that at least within those films, I could ignore all the other bullshit in this universe.... </div><div><br /></div><div>In a way, I got my wish, but not exactly how I wanted it. Chadwick Boseman's sudden and surprising passing through off a lot of people, myself included. I wasn't the biggest fan of his, but for somebody who really was just beginning to hit his stride as an amazingly talented actor, and seemed to have a lot more to give, it felt like we were cheated when he died. Writer/Director Ryan Coogler was blindsided as much as everybody else was, as he had basically three "Black Panther" movies in various stages of pre-development all about T'Challa's continued struggles as King and as Black Panther. I can't imagine what I would've done if I was in this situation, you're friend and colleague who you both had simultaneously become more successful than you two could've ever imagined monetarily and critically just passed away and you've only just begun to tell this amazing story..., honestly, I might've moved on to something else entirely, but I also get why he would continue. And it's not like their weren't some outs in the original comics that he could use. One of them is that T'Challa's technological-bound sister Shuri (Letitia Wright) takes over as Black Panther after T'Challa and essentially we get an origin story of how that happens, and I'm very conflicted on this.</div><div><br /></div><div>For example, I like how this ultimately comes about. Shuri is a medical and technological experimenter and the film opens with her struggling to recreate an herb in order to help keep T'Challa alive, which ultimately she can't complete in time. Without T'Challa and under Queen Ramonda's (Oscar-nominee Angela Bassett) reign, have led to other world powers and some less-than-reputable world actors trying to attain some of Wakanda's most powerful resource, vibranium. That's...- I don't know how I feel about that subplot; I find it repetitive, but I also find it believable. I do like how the Wakanda's often called any white westerners they run into, mostly CIA agent Everett Ross (Martin Freeman) a "colonizer" as an insult though. </div><div><br /></div><div>However, instead of one of those powers being the first big competitor to take on Wakanda, their biggest threat comes from a distinct different secret culture that's only now starting to make themselves known to the world, and they want to destroy it. Or at least, their leader Namor (Tenoch Huerta Mejia), who is threatening to take out Wakanda and the rest of the world. Talokan, apparently is this Mayan-inspired, underwater Na'avi peoples, although Namor isn't blue, for some reason. Yeah, I made allusions to "Avatar" when I watch "Black Panther", but yeah, now there's a new separate hidden world and it's if Pandora was Atlantis and it survived completely underwater. It's a little freaky.</div><div><br /></div><div>They get the help, of basically everybody, especially an MIT student named Riri (Dominique Thorne) who everybody's after since she built a machine that could detect Vibranium, and by Nakia (Lupita Nyong'o) who's spent the time since T'Challa's passing living in Haiti away from the political affairs of Wakanda. </div><div>I don't know, on paper, I get and like the ideas in this movie, I even liked the Michael B. Jordan cameo that comes out of nowhere and adds an intriguing dimension to Shuri's evolution and transformation. Still though, I found this film underwhelming overall. It might just be overload, I really enjoyed Wakanda in the first film, and I thought finding out more about the world and how the country itself would continue as it's part in MCU affairs around the world would be intriguing, and instead, we get this whole other universe that literally feels like it's from another world and movie. Like, I already got that experience, and now the people of Wakanda are gonna get their own version of that experience? I don't get it. Like, "Avatar" is the most obvious comp, but actually the Talokan stuff reminded me mostly of the "Maleficient" sequel where we saw the whole fairy land. </div><div><br /></div><div>Actually, now that I think about it, that's what so bothersome about "Black Panther: Wakanda Forever", this plot device of seeing this incredible new utopian world that's under attack and striving to be protecting, I don't know if you can do that, twice, in the same franchise, twice in a row? It's bad enough when we're already in a fantasy world and now we're meeting a new fantasy world, but a fantasy world within a fantasy world, within a fantasy world! That's a little too much; it's like the opposite getting a character out of jail, it's like, "run into a wall, let's create a whole new world?!" </div><div><br /></div><div>Also, Wakanda, has way more compelling and intriguing dynamics involved in it. It hypothesizes a world that projects where a modern African society would be if colonization from the West had never happened and evolved naturally both culturally and technologically completely outside of Western influence, it's a look at a best-case scenario world that should've been. Talokan is just, like another version of Atlantis, with some Mayan influence thrown in, and frankly I don't get it. Honestly, the more I think about it, the less I like this film. I feel like there were many interesting stories about Wakanda to be told, even without T'Challa that would've been captivating without the addition of a new society being created to do it. Hell the first "Black Panther"'s villain was a relative of the crown, it was Shakespearean, not only a threat from within the world of Wakanda, but within the family at that! I like the idea of other nations worried about what Wakanda will do considering their power while simultaneously thinking about finding ways to take their resources and take over Wakanda themselves, even if some of the casting is weird there. (Am I the only one who saw a scene in this movie with Martin Freeman, Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Richard Schiff in the room and wondered why this sitcom pilot scene ended up in the middle of an MCU film?) I don't know what I expected from this, mostly I just felt sad though. It like, got halfway there.... I'll spare the half-star strike for the post-credits scene, even if it was hokey, I at least felt it was honoring the fallen well. I guess I'll slightly recommend the film as an homage to Boseman. A look at what he could've been as oppose to what Wakanda could be. If there is a third "Black Panther" film, I hope they get it back on track though. Show me that there's more to a universe this profound that's been created other than to see it attacked by other made-up universes or used as a battlefield for others. If we can't though, then perhaps go back to my original assessment, and leave well enough alone. </div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>ELVIS </b>(2022) Director; Baz Luhrmann</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZDBjNGIwMzctMTc2OC00NWRmLTg5OTgtYzUwZjliOGIxZmQ3XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMDM2NDM2MQ@@._V1_.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="347" data-original-width="800" height="278" src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZDBjNGIwMzctMTc2OC00NWRmLTg5OTgtYzUwZjliOGIxZmQ3XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMDM2NDM2MQ@@._V1_.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>You know, I honestly have no idea what the hell possesses Baz Luhrmann to do anything he ever does. I know people who love him and definitely people who don't, he's absolutely a polarizing director. But, whether I've liked him or not, and it's usually not, I find his excessive quick-edit style just obnoxious and outlandishly unnecessary most of the time, (And especially his frickin' obsession with filling the movie with lettered graphics all over the place, good lord it's getting more and more obnoxious; watching a recent Baz Luhrmann film feels like I'm reading the National Enquirer headlines while in line at the grocery store! That has gotta be wrung in really damn fast) but honestly ignoring a lot of this stuff, as hard as that can be sometimes, mostly I'm just, not sure what-the-hell inspires him or not. I mean, I thought I knew at one point, and "Elvis" has some of that. I mean, he likes pop music, and he's intrigued by this anachronistic idea of taking music from one era and putting it into another, or even taking whole stories and finding newer more elaborate variations and ways to tell them. He likes stories about fighting against the conformity of the surroundings, and breaking out doing your own creative thing, which does makes sense since he's Australian and for some reason that's a theme that comes up in a lot of Australian cinema. I know that's like a big theme everywhere, but it's somehow more pronounced and often way more grotesque in a lot of the more popular Australian films, and trust me, watch enough Australian cinema and it becomes really noticeable and distinctive very quickly, and Luhrmann more than fits into that. Hell, he had a movie just named "Australia" which, oddly was one of his more perplexing films. (I don't really get where sweeping time period epic fits into his aesthetic.) He likes showbiz and performances, his Red Curtain films have always shown that. And, apparently he likes, eh, classic literature, for some reason. I really don't get how that one fits everything else, especially "The Great Gatsby" which- like, okay I didn't like his "Romeo + Julies" but I still felt like he had a connection to that story, but I don't have any idea what he saw about "The Great Gatsby" that inspired him with that film, if it inspired him; I honestly doubt it did. </div><div><br /></div><div>I guess the point I'm trying to get at, is that despite some obvious similarities that sometimes his choices and muses are just so random that frankly, sometimes I've found them just as strained and jarring as his filmmaking. Like, it's not that I'm inherently against another "Elvis" (Oscar-nominee Austin Butler) story, but like, why Elvis? Why a biopic of Elvis, hell, why this biopic of Elvis? Why one, through the perspective mainly of Col. Tom Parker (Tom Hanks). Like, again, I'm not necessarily against this, I'm just more-or-less confused and baffled. Hell, why a biopic at all. all of sudden, even of a famous musician; he's never had an interest in this genre before. And if you asked who he would've made one of, eh,- well, I guess I have no idea who I would've picked in that regard first, maybe Madonna, but certainly wouldn't have thought Elvis. It's kinda odd to have much of an Elvis fascination at all these days when Elvis's influence arguably seems less relevant than ever. </div><div><br /></div><div>Well, I guess he's not irrelevant; Elvis's music will never go away. And yeah, I do get how Luhrmann's connecting a lot of the modern rap and hip hop scene to the early blues and rockabilly that evolved into early rock'n'roll that Elvis incorporated into his music helped stamp out that pattern of white America incorporated traditionally black music into their own aesthetic still matters. Hell, nowadays it's not uncommon for white musicians to start their careers as rappers before switching to more of a rock'n'roll sound, so yeah, a lot of that, and all of rock'n'roll really traces back to Elvis. </div><div><br /></div><div>To be clear, I actually know quite a bit about Elvis; in fact I had family members who actually knew Elvis, in fact they knew him back when he was appearing regularly at the International, or the Las Vegas Hilton as it was mostly called back then. (Now, it's the Westgate, which, honestly is the worst people who should be running that property now but I digress) For instance, I do know how Steve Allen made him sing "Hound Dog" to an actual hound dog. What I don't think happened was that performance leading to people protesting that the that was the end of the "Old Elvis" and that they wanted him to keep swinging his hips. (Also, his version of "Hound Dog" is not inspired by Big Mama Thornton's original version; his version was a remake of a Las Vegas lounge act's very white version of the song he heard when he first appeared and performed in Vegas, where he bombed huge at the time, I might add. Yes, his first forays were not successful, like, at all.)</div><div><br /></div><div>Also, was that really a big moment in Elvis's career, the Steve Allen performance? It's an interesting note, but it was really his third appearance on Ed Sullivan that really started Elvis's original popular downfall, and not just because they famously shot him only from the waist up when he sang "Don't Be Cruel", but something that's forgotten is that after that, he ended the show by singing "Peace in the Valley" a full-on gospel song and performance. He was still big after that, but he was no longer dangerous, it wasn't just that he was censored, it was that that sex appeal that was sanitized from that. </div><div><br /></div><div>Something else with Luhrmann that I've noticed lately is that, while he just loves the quick edits and splattering of signs and graphics and signs over graphics, when he actually does want to slow the scene down and just let it be, he's usually pretty good at it. In fact, a lot of his movies, since "Australia" really, just start at a million miles per hour and then suddenly shift to more traditional paced filmmaking. My favorite scenes in this movie, are the ones with Elvis and Priscilla (Olivia DeJonge), and where you see the best and worst of Elvis's home life. Honestly, I'm more confused by that approach than anything; I kinda get the quick-cutting editing when it's showing the excessiveness and wild exuberance of the world around what he's creating, or to create a sense of confusion and wild-eyed wonder, but sometimes I think he wants to film like that. Like, his magnum opus, "Moulin Rouge!", there's almost no breaks in that film from the editing, and it's all a wild rush of a party. The best part of "The Great Gatsby" is the opening party atmosphere, when he slows it down to tell a story, it's almost like he doesn't know what to do. (Not that it would've helped if he did, maybe in the minority on this, but I don't think "The Great Gatsby" has ever been a good; great American Novel, my ass! Louisa May Alcott's "Little Women" wants a four-letter word with you Mr. Fitzgerald.)</div><div><br /></div><div>Here, we have a lot of sequences intercut. Elvis's rise to early fame off his early recordings like "It's Alright, Mama...", and "Hound Dog", we have the goings-on and who's who's of fellow famous people who they've made several biopics on with his Beale Street crew, we even get a black church sequence that turns into a revelation for Elvis. There's also a performance with Parker's traveling carnival-like show, intercut with a literal clan rally that happened miles away.... I guess, there's some kind of point here about how quickly he rose to fame, but y'know, I was thinking back to "Walk the Line" recently, and how well that movie, which isn't great at all, but it does show the early beginning of Johnny Cash's career well, and how innocuous and paced his version of meeting Sam Phillips and recording on Beale Street was. Somehow I don't really picture Elvis's beginnings as being so manic. I actually think it would've been better in reverse, start off slow with a long sequence of Elvis's early rising to fame, and then have the editing get faster and quicker the farther into his career we get, and the more the lying Dutchman's control over Elvis took shape. </div><div><br /></div><div>And speaking of Col. Parker as well, it's not necessarily a bad idea to tell the story through his eyes for the most, but it is a curious one. I think I do get where he's coming from though. Tom Hanks probably received the most criticism for his performance in this film, he even got a Razzie nomination for the performance, and I can kinda see how some people might think that, but I also don't think it's his fault. The performance feels jarring and gratingly over-the-top, but all of Luhrmann's villain characters have been these over-the-top pompous and grotestque caricatures, even going all the back to his first film "Strictly Ballroom", which I might add is still his best film. I think it's apart of his style an aesthetic, but what is weird is that, now he seems to be sympathizing with that character. Perhaps he fears that he is a Tom Parker-type himself. I mean, for all the talk about, why he's so worried about international security as to why Elvis Presley won't travel the world, they don't actually go into the actual probable story of why Col. Tom Parker, couldn't go outside the country and had to adopt this new name and persona. Perhaps because it's unlikely that even Elvis knew exactly what the story was, and to be fair, we're not 100% sure either, but most Elvis historians believe that he was a fugitive from the law after murdering a woman in his native Holland. I guess he doesn't have to bring that up, but it's just odd what he does and what he doesn't.</div><div><br /></div><div>To be fair though, almost none of this feels like a realistic and beat-by-beat biography of either Tom Parker or Elvis; what we're getting is a very stylized depiction of what I guess Elvis symbolizes and means to Baz Luhrmann. And..., well, I don't quite know what that is. I think I believe that he has a meaning and opinion on Elvis, his legacy and his music. To be fair, you can make dozens of stories and movies about Elvis, and people already have, in his short life, he lived a lot. They barely get into a lot of things that I find more interesting about Elvis, like his movie career; his movies aren't necessarily great or watchable, but he was actually a pretty decent actor who enjoyed acting. I like some of the focus on the '68 Comeback Special, that really was intended to be a Christmas special, although why anybody including the TV execs or Tom Parker would be obsessed with him singing "Here Comes Santa Clause" is beyond me. BTW, black leather Elvis is my favorite Elvis, so I liked most of that stuff anyway. But, y'know, no mention of his infamous meeting with Richard Nixon a couple years later, right as he was starting to get fat and drugged up and weirdly wanted to help curb the drug epidemic thanks to the hippies? In fact, a lot of this movie seems to show Elvis very emotional about the Left at that time, and- well, I don't know if that's untrue; he was a big Martin Luther King supporter, but from what I've heard Elvis was much more mercurial person than what we see in the film. Nothing against Austin Butler's performance, I think he actually is really good here as a version of Elvis, but I don't know, I ultimately just don't know if Baz's Elvis is the Elvis that I'd like to see or remember. </div><div><br /></div><div>"Elvis" is a very uneven film that I don't really know what to make of it. I'm not saying it doesn't succeed at what it's trying to do, I just don't know if what it was trying to do was the best way to go about it. I guess I just think Elvis the man is way more interesting than "Elvis" the star, the attraction and the story. I've never gotten tired of people telling their Elvis stories before no matter how mundane or in some cases, insane or outright lies they might be, and I guess this is an story about Elvis that's done well enough and with enough care to be told, but I definitely find myself more numb to it. It does make me want to listen to more Elvis though.... (Shrugs)</div><div><br /></div><div>Although now that I'm looking at the soundtrack, anybody else surprised at some of the Elvis songs left out of the movie? I mean, "Suspicious Minds" is my favorite Elvis song too but like, why keep coming back to that one, and like, not have any "Jailhouse Rock"; in fact the only movie song was a weird Stevie Nicks and Chris Isaak duet of "Cotton Candy Land". Hell, no "Viva Las Vegas"?! Half the movie takes place in Vegas?! No, "All Shook Up"? I don't even like "Don't Be Cruel", but I'd prefer that than "In the Ghetto", why have that one in their at all? Maybe I just gotta stop trying to follow Baz's strange and weird muses, I'm never gonna fully get this guy.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>THE BATMAN</b> (2022) Director: Matt Reeves</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/D-ZAFPdkNgf6_knQQfYC0oNceQ4=/167x0:1517x707/fit-in/1200x630/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22932138/the_batman_2022_movie_trailer.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="419" data-original-width="800" height="335" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/D-ZAFPdkNgf6_knQQfYC0oNceQ4=/167x0:1517x707/fit-in/1200x630/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22932138/the_batman_2022_movie_trailer.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>You know, I used to think that all those parodies and satires, often by other DC properties, that would mock how much of an emotional trainwreck of a person that Batman had become were kinda way too much, but now, I'm kinda thinking, you know what, maybe Batman has become too moody for and, for lack of a better word, emo, for his own good. Oh, excuse me, not Batman, it's "The Batman".</div><div><br /></div><div>(Sticking finger in mouth, and simulating gagging motion like a '90s teen girl.)</div><div><br /></div><div>I'm not saying that their isn't tragedy in his backstory, and that sometimes exploring and going over and even reinterpreting that backstory can't be done well or exciting, but there has been just, way too much focusing on Batman's backstory over the years. This isn't even the worst offender film-wise, I say "Batman v. Superman" still has that strang;ehold, but this is the first time I watched a Batman movie but this was the first time I really felt like I was caught up in the grips dourness ennui headspace that the most mocking of parodies focus on. I'm not even really a fan of the more lighter and comical tones that many of the older variations on Batman played on, but even in the great Nolan movies, you could tell that, even if that old Billionaire playboy son, Bruce Wayne (Robert Pattinson) was an act for him, he did like, enjoy playing that part a little and lavishing in it a bit. He did play the part well for as long as he needed to, and was able to do so. </div><div>But here, in that version of "The Batman", that part just doesn't exist. Even Carmine Falcone (John Turturro, really good here, btw), when they meet up for the first time, mentions how Bruce is the only person in Gotham more reclusive than him. </div><div><br /></div><div>"The Batman" is also another film where we see the re-evaluating of just how great the Wayne Family actually was to Gotham. I kinda get why there's been such a desire to re-evaluate that, especially as the world because more and more conscious of the ruthlessness of and corruption of the rich and wealthy. So, Bruce finding out more bad things about his father and that he wasn't exactly the perfect idyllic charitable billionaire that he thought he was, that's always a little intriguing, but, it plays so much more into his dourness, and frankly I'm just not intrigued by boring emo Batman. Not without earning it; it really only works when you actually see the transformation of Bruce Wayne, the charismatic, flamboyant trust fund baby playboy turning into the mopey and misanthropic caped crusader. That is I think why I'm ultimately down on this film. </div><div><br /></div><div>It might help just this film that was stuck in the moody mud for three goddamn hours! Why is this movie so long?! Matt Reeves is a good director; I enjoyed his "Planet of the Apes" reboot trilogy, and was thoroughly impressed with how each of those films got better as they went on, but sometimes you need to cut some things down. I like that he's telling as full and rich a story he could, but I don't know.... I feel like there's too much here. I mean, I like the Carmine Falcone stuff, especially when he talks about his connections; I even like that The Penguin (Colin Farrell, also quite good here) as a henchmen of his, and I like that we have Batman and Commissioner Gordon (Jeffrey Wright) both working towards trying to seek out the corruption at the highest levels of local government. And, I also, like the new Riddler (Paul Dano) motivation, to an extent. </div><div><br /></div><div>I'm not a Batman villain aficionado admittedly, but The Riddler, has-, almost literally by his name, is one of the more cartoonish villains in the franchise. I mean, the last time he was on film he was literally portrayed by Jim Carrey, back when he was basically just a cartoon as well. Putting him, in a darker, more Nolanesque-inspired Batman world, ehh, kinda iffy to me. I think he pulls it off, surprisingly well, and they give a really decent motivation. In fact, there's an extent where you, and the movie for awhile, actually seems to debate whether or not he's more on the right side than he probably should be, which is also kind of another problem with this movie, but,... I don't know. Some of the Riddler's riddle are kinda just,... it doesn't really feel right. I guess, if I squint, I can kinda see him as a variant on Heath Ledger's Joker character, but the thing that made that character so menacing, other than the performance and how maniacal and unpredictable he was, it was that, he wasn't doing it for any real cause or to make a larger political point or commentary. The only reason the Joker will assassinate a Mayoral candidate, and then try to kill a corrupt politician during his public funeral, would be because it was fun. He would think it was a laugh. Riddler, is going to such elaborate ends to make a point about the true corruption of the city of Gotham, and how he indeed became, this mirrored opposite to Batman, also effected by the death of Thomas Wayne (Luke Roberts). </div><div><br /></div><div>There's also Catwoman (Zoe Kravitz) around, she works at Carmine Falcone's club and has her own agenda, involving one friend that's gone missing, as well as having her own hidden agenda involving Carmine. She's also the opposite of Bruce, in how she's more of a vigilante justice fighting against the corrupt system from the outside. In fact, that's really the problem, everybody and everything in this movie, is like, the opposing viewpoint to Batman. It's like, everybody's a mirror image of him. There's the image of him that's working within the system, there's the maniacal vigilante, there's the political vigilante, Carmine's the corrupt alternative reality version of what happens when you seek wealth and you just want power, while Batman's trying to be the charitable, reputable, trying to do good version.... This movie isn't really a movie, so much as it is, a psychological profile of Batman, at least for what I want out of Batman, I don't think it's a good one. Or, it's more like an incomplete one; it feels more like it's a film about Batman, told or shown from everyone else's perspective about him. These all work well enough in one movie, and you can even combine a few of these well and make it work; there was always multiple villains in the Nolan movies even and each of them has specific connections and conflicts with Bruce, but you know, say Scarecrow, didn't need a huge psychological analysis of how his choices and paths were effected by Bruce or other members of the Wayne families to make him who he is and why he wants to get vengeance against the system. We didn't need that, we had enough with the other more central villains, but it's literally like, every tertiary character gets their opportunity here. The only one who doesn't weirdly is The Penguin and frankly I liked his arc better as he's got both Carmine and Batman and Gordon out there trying to figure out whether or not he's a rat in Carmine's gang, or if he's got some other undermining activities going on. </div><div><br /></div><div>I think Matt Reeves is a very talented and underrated filmmaker in fact, especially for a Hollywood filmmaker, and I think he just shoved too many ideas into this film. Like, I get what he's doing, he kinda did the same things with his "Planet of the Apes" films. If you're not familiar with the original franchise of films, it's fascinating how he retold the story by taking ideas and stories from all over the five main films in that original franchise, and wonderfully recontextualized them into a new tale over three films, plus adding in some other new elements and finding new paths to go down. I think he tried to do the same thing here, take ideas from all over the Batman franchise to create something new, but I think he took too many and ultimately tried to force it, instead of separating these ideas, limiting them down to one, and then, when that works lean that, in future movies, into other directions and path, and finish the story more thoroughly. By doing this, he makes the story and the plot seem too elaborate and messy to seem plausible and clear, and instead of a story, we get a movie that feels more like a tonal poem. Ultimately it's a movie that's feels more like a movie that striving for the feeling of Batman, or "The Batman" than actually presenting us with a good Batman movie. I don't necessarily hate that feeling, but I don't think it's enough alone. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">BABYLON </span></b><span style="font-size: large;">(2022) Director: Damien Chazelle</span></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐1/2 </span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></b></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://people.com/thmb/V9my0baL2iJDBYWBwYIDUGUmUNs=/1500x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(764x396:766x398)/babylon-090822-4-98e504eb5b3445218631e509753f955c.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="359" data-original-width="800" height="287" src="https://people.com/thmb/V9my0baL2iJDBYWBwYIDUGUmUNs=/1500x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(764x396:766x398)/babylon-090822-4-98e504eb5b3445218631e509753f955c.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /></div><div><div>Well, it seems that little Damian Chazelle has finally completed his metamorphosis transformation into his Baz Luhrmann. </div><div><br /></div><div>Okay, that's not exactly true, but it sure seems that way. But, I prefer Chazelle's version of Luhrmann than Luhrmann's version, so.... That said, "Babylon" is a giant, overblown glorious pointless mess of a movie. I'm still recommending it, but mainly because I enjoy his vision of excess, especially 1920s Jazz Age excess, even though, this is more Hollywood than New York, than I do others. Also, I just buy that Chazelle has a greater emotional hold on his material than Luhrmann did. I know it's mean to compare them here, but they actually are quite similar. Their movies usually begin with some elaborate, over-the-top set pieces, there's lot of scenes of music and partying, and while Luhrmann is more pop music oriented, Chazelle is definitely more jazz inspired. His movies are strangely more free-form. Of course, this isn't an attempt to make a Luhrmann-esque film, like, at all. There's actually several films and filmmakers that you could easily point to that he's working on emulating here, he even brings up a couple of the more obvious ones during this film. In fact, this whole film is basically just cinephile nerdshit bait.</div><div><br /></div><div>"Babylon" is of course, Hollywood, not the first to make that comparison, but an apt one. Specifically, Hollywood during the end of the '20s and the beginning of the '30s. Now this is a long time ago, but it's not as long a time as you think. And it's more than fertile ground for films as well, 'cause-, well, the big transition at this time is of course, the transition from silent movies to sound films, but their were other things going on in Hollywood as well, and while there is definitely some, no pun intended, lip service to the sound transition, this movie is more about the shift from the excesses of Hollywood, or at least the perceived excesses of Hollywood, (And in many cases, actual excesses) to the early thirties, which, for several reasons became the start for a much more, for lack-of-a-better-word, conservative period in Hollywood. And that conservative era, while, to some degree, it itself was always a facade that wasn't real, it lasted quite a while. I don't think people realize now, just how genuinely new the phenomenon of California being a bastion of liberal hedonism actually is, and specifically Hollywood, like the modern take on it's it's not much older. Or for that matter do people realize just how nuts and vehemently unsafe Hollywood was for making movies, or for that matter, just how much extreme excess their was. Granted, this movie is going a little more over-the-top, the obvious inspiration is Kenneth Anger's infamously inaccurate book "Hollywood Babylon" about the excesses of the golden age. </div><div><br /></div><div>In fact, most of this movie, is essentially just, a giant game of early Hollywood "Where's Waldo", only the part after you find Waldo where you start looking around for the other stuff in the picture. In fact, I wonder how many would watch this movie and not know who or what people Chazelle is making reference to, or if he's making reference to someone at all? I mean, there are a couple characters who are specifically real people, Irving Thalberg, (Max Minghella) is probably the most notable one, but even he is barely in the movie. Most of the others are clearly inspired by people, for instance, the Troy Metcalfe character in the beginning, where he's being urinated on by a dancer, Jane Thornton (Phoebe Tonkin) in a private room in Don Wallach's (Jeff Garlin) ridiculously elaborate orgy, before she apparently accidentally OD's in the room, is very clearly a reference to Fatty Arbuckle, even if it beats a timeline of the movie with a stick a little, who, despite being one of the two or three biggest silent movie stars of his time, was arrested and bought to trial for rape and murder after a particularly leacherous night out ended in a girl being dead, (That he didn't kill or rape, and he was eventually acquitted in court for; that part of the story gets overlooked way-too-often.) But he's also a minor character in this movie. </div><div><br /></div><div>In terms of the actual main characters, well, the established movie star is Jack Conrad (Brad Pitt) a beloved heartthrob who's known for changing his wives as often as he changes his socks sometimes. He's in a lead in a-eh,- you know, I actually don't know what-the-hell movie they were making, but based on the number of stunt extras getting accidentally killed during the incredibly elaborate action scene, I'm assuming something like "Hell's Angels", I think... (Actually, a movie that I did think about with this was "Souls for Sale", one of the first and very best Hollywood satires that Hollywood made.) Anyway, Conrad, is inspired by a few people, most notably Jack Gilbert, especially how, despite technically succeeding in making the inevitable transfer over to talking pictures, it's a rough transition for him, and eventually the headlines about his excesses and well, just the general continuing lack of interest in his work, leads him down a wayward personal path. He remains friends with a title card writer, Lady Fay Zhu (Li Jun Li), who's also an actress, and a cabaret performer, but is limited to behind-the-scenes and one-shot roles in most films until finally the talkies basically ends her career in Hollywood and heads off to Europe. Okay, I'll get this obvious one out of the way, she's clearly intended to be Anna May Wong. </div><div><br /></div><div>Also in that movie, and bursting into the opening orgy with the same subtlety as the elephant does, (Yes, this orgy has an elephant) is Nellie Le Roy (Margot Robbie) a nymphet of a starlet who snakes her way into the movie, and absolutely takes over the scene, eventually becoming her own star, as Hollywood's new "It Girl". Okay, there's a few people she's being here, but mainly she's Clara Bow, who was literally the "It Girl" in her day and definitely had rather debaucherous sex life offscreen, but she also shined fast, before her career had a sudden end. She also had issues with the conversion to sound, and there's an incredible sequence in the movie where we see how many takes it takes her to get through one scene of a sound picture that's constantly interrupted by the sound engineer, Lloyd (Carson Higgins) and how stifling the new equipment and having to actually learn and memorize lines and spots is to her acting, as she vastly preferred when her and her director, Ruth Adler (Olivia Hamilton) worked on the silent movies. Adler is probably Dorothy Arzner, although it could be a couple other female directors at the turn of sound, most of whom faded away as the Hays Code and other standards of Hollywood swooped in. (Yeah, a weird side effect of the Hays Code was a sudden lack in female directors, who were actually much more prominent in the early days of Hollywood. Wasn't 'til like, maybe Ida Lupino did women get allowed to direct regularly again, and that took a couple decades.) She has a somewhat tenuous flirtation with Manny (Diego Calva) a Mexican immigrant who started out as a very undervalued gopher on the set, but eventually evolved into an early producer role, right as the modern producer, of the guy who keeps the directors and others on schedule was just getting understood, but he is more of an executive, until he has to bail out Nellie from one of her forays into gambling in a sequence that's both too out there to explain and also somewhat not out there enough for this film. </div><div><br /></div><div>The third storyline involves a jazz musician, Sidney (Jovan Adepo) who also, through his music, becomes a star in the films in the early days of talkies, which makes sense, while music was always accompanying film, (Which is one thing they weirdly get wrong here; when they screen a movie with no music at one point, that was weird.) popular music was one of the first things that got put onto film once the technology was adapted. I mean "The Jazz Singer" basically is just an Al Jolsen concert when you think of it. Also, like Jolson, Sidney's breaking point comes when he's asked to put on blackface in order for the lighting to be able to photograph him better. After doing that, he shortly leaves the industry and goes back to touring. (Camera lightings are indeed racist, and that would require blackface in some circumstances, that's true. And sometimes whiteface as well. The default standard for cameras are white so light-skin is easier to light than blackskin, so yeah, this was as much a practical thing as it was just, a fucking racist stupid thing at the time.) Sidney's probably a stand-in for Louis Armstrong, but you can literally name any African-American musician of the time and argue that was him. </div><div><br /></div><div>Okay, enough of the history lesson/translation of this film, let's look more at, what exactly is this film, as a film. So I'm mentioned and alluded to a few movies that "Babylon" are clearly inspired by, but based on the main plotlines and plot descriptions, it's very clear to me that there's is one movie that's the very biggest inspiration, and that's P.T. Anderson's "Boogie Nights", his masterful epic about the L.A. porn industry during the late '70s and early '80s, right as videotape was replacing film as the main product and distribution method for porn and how the art changed during that time. Okay, PTA and Chazelle also have a lot in common. They both love very elaborate epic stories, they both like to tell L.A. stories, they were both directing wunderkinds who were making big waves in Hollywood at very young ages, both of them like very long elaborate long takes, especially with lots of people and other moving parts and often music, both have used music extensively as well to varying degrees. And these two movies, they're both about Hollywood and the movies at a time of drastic transitions, both involve multiple narratives, involving a leading man, a female starlet, people of multiple races, genders, creeds, wealth. We watch them succeed, we watch them struggle to continue to succeed, and then we watch them fail as they can't adapt to changes in the industry. And both are inspired by real actors and events, or at least reported events, and to a degree, you can see those real stories adapted into their fictitious amalgam characters. </div><div><br /></div><div>So why does "Boogie Nights" work, but "Babylon", doesn't?</div><div> </div><div>And to clear, I am still recommending this film, despite it's issues, it's a mess frankly, but it's also just too much fun for me to ignore but it really doesn't work, I'll be frank, and I think I know why. "Boogie Nights" was more than just an attempt to document the time period of the porn industry. It wasn't just trying to show us how some things were, like how the movies were made back then, it was showing how everyone was effected by all the events and ordeals around the industry. And everyone was connected, they all worked together, they all loved each other, they hung out and hung on to each other, they cheered together, they cried together, they fought together and with each other and then made up together; the porn industry, at least in "Boogie Nights", was a family, and those multiple narratives, even though much of the film was centered around Dirk Diggler, there was more than enough time given to other characters and their own arcs and struggles, and yeah, they never felt separate from each other. You would never think of say, Amber Waves's struggles to get custody of her kid while working in porn, as something that itself could be it's own separate movie, even though, it absolutely could be. So could Buck and Jessie's struggles with being a couple, (An interracial couple at the time at that) raising a family and starting a business while working in porn to supplement the income, that could be it's own movie too, but we don't feel like it's separate from everything else. And that's helps make those parts feel like they reflects of the greater emotional narrative of the lives of these people that's P.T. Anderson's telling us about. </div><div><br /></div><div>"Babylon"'s greater emotional narrative feels like it's just, "Look at all these old stories of making movies back then, and aren't they fucking amazing!" (Shrugs) It has at least four main narratives, arguably more and they don't feel like they come together, or were ever even supposed to come together. Perhaps that's part of the point, filmmaking wasn't as collaborative a journey at the time, and in fact, the whole point of "Babylon" is kinda showing how disparate so much of it was, perhaps because of, or in spite of the excesses surrounding that world. It feels like the myths of Old Hollywood coming to life, but they also feel like I'm watching long dead ghosts, not people who were once alive and thriving in the industry we all love. By the end of the movie, it even feels like Chazelle is just struggling to make all this come together, like a multi-piece improv jazz jam sessions that's winding it's way into making all those freestylings feel like they add up to a full song or performance, as though a crescendo is automatically gonna make all this feel like a full experience. I mean, Chazelle likes jazz, so I'm not surprised that he takes that approach, but it's got it's drawbacks. I mean, we're seeing so many in-the-know references to people that it's hard to actually really feel for everybody as characters even. And as to their own narratives feeling so separate from each other,- I mean, I could argue that Michel Hazanavicious's Oscar-winning "The Artist" was a better telling of Brad Pitt's character's story, so yeah, these stories feel like they're either overtaking the film or we're not telling enough of them, depending on who we're focusing on. Maybe this should've been more of a miniseries akin to something like Steve McQueen's "Small Axe" series, and we see a lot of separate stories, each like a little over an hour long into each of the characters. </div><div><br /></div><div>There is a fuller greater tale of Old Hollywood somewhere in all this mess that is "Babylon", but it's not fully told right now. What's there is fun, but eh, perhaps, one day, Chazelle will revisit and find the better medium to shape this material. I do believe he is inspired by this material and passionate about it, but, eh, I think the approach was wrong. Making us feel like we're in "Babylon" is one thing, and it's fun, when you're here and not thinking too deeply about it but at the end of the night, sometimes we're left with just a hangover of a time that was. I guess I'm still smiling from the night before but a hangover is still a hangover. </div><div><br /></div></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>ALL THE BEAUTY AND THE BLOODSHED </b>(2022) Director: Laura Poitras</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div><div><div><br /></div><div>
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YD5pYQiT1D4" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe> </div><div><br /></div><div>I must confess that, personally, I don't really have any experience dealing with addiction. I mean, like real addiction, I'm sure I had a withdrawal symptom or two when I haven't had a diet coke in a couple days, but you know, addictions to stuff that's real. If I do have any secondhand experience, clearly I don't think I was much help. And me, not having experience with it, does make it harder for me to fully understand it. My mind does not work the way an addict's mind works to begin with and there isn't anything that I'm not constantly struggling to live without, much less something that could potentially be horrifying to be addicted to like OxyContin. </div><div><br /></div><div>"All the Beauty and the Bloodshed" is a fascinating biodocumentary about the photographer Nan Goldin. In recent years, she's been a confessed opioid addict who had to go through rehab to recover and has become a major protestor of the Sackler Family, who owned Purdue Pharmaceutical, who created and distributed Oxy on the American public under the claim that it was safe and non-addictive. With a lot of the money they've accumulated over the years, the Sackler have donated tons to money and have their name on several museums, many of which have displayed Nan Goldin's art over the years in their collections. The movie's kinda fascinations, instead of it drifting into the past, as we see her and her team orchestrate and plan out their protests and litigation against the Sacklers, we kinda drift into the this present as the rest of the movie seems like it, well, it feels like it fits the aura of Goldin best. Goldin is one of those New York Underground artists from the early-to-mid '70s that really documented much of the gay and trans scenes of the time, as well as her own queer life and existence. Her subjects and friends are a who's who that druggie alternative Bowery subculture, people like doll artist Greer Lankton and John Waters-favorite Cookie Mueller, or fellow photographer David Armstrong. These are names that are much more romanticized now than they were then in the mainstream, but the in-the-know knew who they were. Also, most of them are long dead, many of them due to AIDS. </div><div><br /></div><div>Her work documented that too, but she also documented a lot of her own sexuality and experiences. Looking at a lot of her photographs, it's striking how much they seem and basically, like, home photos taken of the people she knew. That was striking at the time, you rarely saw such bare and brazenly crude and homemade photography taken seriously at the art world at the time. Honestly, she probably invented a lot of the home-style camgirl shots and images we see now. Her most famous work is a 45-minute picture visual picture book called "The Ballad of Sexual Dependency" a document of the No Wave Scene in New York gay and heroin districts, although I think she often sees just photos of her old friends when she observes them. </div><div><br /></div><div>I loved getting caught up in her descriptions and stories of the worlds and times she had experienced. She also talked about her upbringing, which also influenced her as she rebelled against her parents after they hid from her her sister's suicide. It's what originally led into her life in the drug-induced haze of the art world of the bowery. Yet, late in her life, it was her addiction to a pharmaceutical drug that shouldn't have been out on the market that really got her to begin using her organizing skills, to fight the Sackler's family influence on the art world. It's an odd dichotomy, and I don't entirely know what to make of it. I get the connections between the losses of her past and the losses she feels the Sackler's have cost today, (Which they have) but I think it's much more the lying for her that's really offended her. It's one thing to be an addict or to compromise oneself for their own benefit but, it's the lying and hiding the truth to the public that really disturbed her, especially having been lied to for years about her sister. </div><div><br /></div><div>I've struggled to describe this film but I like Rotten Tomatoes's description best, it's a movie about an artist fighting against addiction and the institution responsible for her pain. I think to some degree that's what all great artists are doing, but Nan is pretty literal about it. Thinking back, you almost feel like her becoming an artist like this was inevitable. </div><div><br /></div><div>I'm more of less on what to make of the movie and Goldin as a whole, but as a movie, it feels like I'm watching a great performer talking about her life for hours, like a one-woman show performance that you'd think somebody like Judy Garland would've done decades ago, but instead of the music and dancing, we get this lovely drone of living a life on the edges of society, until she portrayed it enough to become apart of an upper-crust world that she's actively rebelling against. "All the Beauty and the Bloodshed" indeed. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>TURNING RED </b>(2022) Director: Domee Shi</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2022/03/10/2022-03-10_wide-7cccdb006099b6ea4f2b4a19a24879429ca6e727.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2022/03/10/2022-03-10_wide-7cccdb006099b6ea4f2b4a19a24879429ca6e727.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>Okay, I swore I would start reading up more on movies before I watch them. So, let's see, I don't know anything about "Turning Red", so, let me read a little on this film. I mean, it's Disney/Pixar, so I'm not too concerned but, what is this? Okay, Disney+ description: </div><div><br /></div><div><i>"Meilin (Rosalie Chiang) tries to balance friends, family and an uncontrollable ability to poof into a....- </i>um,.... <i>a giant red panda. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>(Long thinking pause) <br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">Okay, maybe this is just me, but why does it feel like every other animated movie out there is about a character turning into or out of an animal? </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">I'm not saying it's bad, it's just,- I'm starting to feel like Arthur Sullivan whenever W.S. Gilbert pitched him a "Magic Lozenge" plot. I don't know, I guess it's an important thing in many cultures and that's why it seems to come up so often in animation, especially recently as some of the barriers for entry into animation at the major studios have come down in recent years and animation in America has become much more diverse and inclusive, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised, and I'm not really, I think I'm just tired of it. That said, most of those films, when they would have characters turn into animals, they would have different meanings and symbolic value, so let's see. Meilin is a precocious and confident 13-year-old, who acts and seems like she's self-assured but even her friends know that she's, basically brainwashed by her mother Ming (Sandra Oh). Not, horribly, I mean, but her devotion to her family, who runs the oldest ancient Chinese lineage temple in Toronto, at the turn of the Century, for some reason. Mostly because a boy band centers around a lot of the plot, which.... (Shrugs) I don't know, I guess this is partly autobiographical for Writer/Director Domee Shi; she's the filmmaker behind the Pixar's short "Bao" about the sapient dumpling. (Yeah, was anybody else just freaked out by that one? I liked it but..., I don't know, that one freaked me out. Maybe that's just me.) Anyway, Meilin keeps a lot of her personal thoughts and secrets away from her mother, her normal 13-year-old girl stuff, until her mother comes across some pictures she drew of a boy she liked, and then she freaks out and ultimately embarrasses Meilin, thinking the depictions were of something that the boy had actually done, as opposed to just Meilin's own imaginations and fantasies.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">Mei becomes so embarrassed, humiliated and angry at her mother, that, she turns into a,-eh, a giant, red, panda. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">(Long pause)</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">Oh-kay, um, so-eh,- boy, I normally try to stay away from using euphemisms but-eh,..., so is this like Pixar's version of "Are You There God, It's Me Margaret?" Kinda, not really-ish? I mean, it's the first thing the adults think it going on before they realize what's actually going on..., which is kinda weird now that I think about it since the mother knows damn well that Meilin can and will turn into a giant red panda. It turns out that this is a generation change dating back in their line centuries and that the reason the mother is so protective of Meilin is because of how terrifying and out-of-control her Panda was at her age. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">I mean, there's a lot more than the red and hairy obvious here, "Turning Red" is a classic tale of coming-of-age and a decent tale about the struggles between mother-and-daughter, especially at that age, as well as how those struggles at that age can effect that relationship for years to come. Honestly, looking back, it's striking how many Disney or Pixar films are about how parents screw up or almost screw up their kids so badly, often because they love them so much. I like how specific this film is too. The movie's set in Toronto for some reason, and also has notable Toronto landmarks play a major role in the story. I like the music, including the weird boy band stuff which, was not my cup of tea at the this movie takes place, early 2000s, but y'know, it fits. I also like how it gets the kids correct, not just Meilin, the groups of eclectic friends she has voiced by Ava Morse, Maitreyi Ramakrishnan and Hyein Park all have very distinct personalities that hit that weird middle school edge where some are still just a little bit awkward than others and some are slightly more mature as well; it reminded me of the young boys in the very underrated "Monster House". I like that kind of attention to detail. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">Part of me still thinks "Turning Red" just seems like another version of the same story that the Disney/Pixar group, and some of their competitors have been telling before and over-and-over again, and part of me just doesn't like that story. Maybe others think of humans turning into animals and can think of some of the better Studio Ghibli works first, but on some level, I'm always gonna think of like, "Teen Wolf" or something equally insipid and goofy first. When it's used well it's not bad though and this isn't bad; I probably would appreciate it more if I wasn't completely tired of the trope; I like it better than say, "Brave" or "Brother Bear" off-the-top-of-my-head, but symbolism aside, it's never been something that I inherently relate to. I do like that the message in this movie more than I like it when this changing into an animal thing is done in others, that changing isn't bad and that one should embraced their full self and repressing those emotional urges from oneself and others can be more damaging than it is helpful. If you're gonna do it, this is the right situation to use this device, so I kinda like that. That and all the personal touches make it more compelling too. I don't know if it's a great Disney/Pixar film, or simply a good one. A lot of the ending, when all the giant pandas started attacking the Sky Dome seemed a bit much for me. I can see how others might've appreciated it more though. </span></div></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>THE QUIET GIRL </b>(2022) Director: Colm Bairead</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.rogerebert.com/uploads/review/primary_image/reviews/the-quiet-girl-movie-review-2023/the-quiet-girl-movie-review-2023.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="333" data-original-width="800" height="266" src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.rogerebert.com/uploads/review/primary_image/reviews/the-quiet-girl-movie-review-2023/the-quiet-girl-movie-review-2023.jpeg" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><div>I have some distant relatives; I don't want to put out their names for fear of embarrassing them, but we're close to the same age and for a good part of our lives, we grew up together. They, unfortunately didn't have the best of parents. They weren't necessarily terrible people but they had some problems and demons and frankly they weren't really adept or capable of taking care of them the way that they should've been taken care; simply put, they deserved better. Again, I'm not gonna go into details, but they would occasionally come by and visit and hang out with us for awhile when we were young, and they, well, they always wanted to stay at our house a little longer, and hated to leave. (Or if we were at their place, they hated when we would leave.) I didn't really pick up on it or notice it as a kid, but my mother always did. She always felt heartbroken that she couldn't do more for them, and every once in a while, when they come up, she always talks about how she wanted to keep them here with us. The way they asked, the way that, she knew how difficult their lives actually were 'cause of their parents, she always felt like she couldn't do enough and felt sorry for them. </div><div><br /></div><div>They're fine by the way now; they've grown up, they have their own lives..., they're parents, well..., let's just say that, I'm happy that somehow, they didn't inherit their parents' worst demons, and we're all thankful for that. Maybe it was them seeing others' lives like my family that showed them that, things didn't have to be this way that helped them. (Shrugs) I don't know, but I know that-eh, I thought about them while watching "The Quiet Girl", especially at the end of the movie. </div><div>The movie takes place in 1981 Ireland and Cait (Catherine Clinch) is the quiet sibling in a group of-, wow, even the wikipedia page doesn't list how many siblings she has. (Sigh) I feel like this close to the start a racist Irish joke here...- uh, anyway, yeah, her family is pretty poor and has a lot of kids, and, frankly just, don't like they're the best of parents anyway. </div><div><br /></div><div>So naturally, they're having another kid, and for whatever reason, they decide to send Cait to a distant cousin of her mother. Anyway, her cousin Eibhlin (Carrie Crowley) has a pretty nice and kept-together bigger house, and... um, hmmm. I don't know quite how...- okay, so one of my favorite books/stories is actually "Heidi". Yes, seriously, I love "Heidi", and this story feels a lot like "Heidi"; it's kinda the opposite of "Heidi" to me actually, at least, the second part where she leaves the mountains and goes to the city. In this case, instead of an aging enigmatic grandfather, it's a crowded dilapidated rural Irish family and it's more of a transition story from somebody who wasn't being loved to actually feeling appreciation and love for the first time. At first, there's a lot of trepidation and struggles. Cait's so unaccustomed to, well, just being taken care of, that she's almost taken aback by it that she barely reacts to it. That's not-to-say that it's an easy transition on either side. Like how Cait doesn't have extra clothes with her when she leaves, but Eibhlin doesn't have girl clothes, so she gets put in hand-me-down boys clothes. This disturbs her at first, although eventually when she finds out, why there's boy clothes with no little boy in the house, she warms up a little.</div><div>The whole movie is essentially just Cait warming up to these warm people, family she didn't know she had before, family she didn't realize were much more capable of love than her parents. Like how, she eventually learns to like doing chores with Eibhlin and her husband Sean (Andrew Bennett) and they become personal endearing moments. And it makes all the more emotional when she has to return to her "home". </div><div><br /></div><div>The movie was directed by Colm Bairead, mostly known for his television work in Europe and the film represented a rare Ireland nomination for Best International Feature at the Oscars and I can see why. For one, it's barely in a foreign language, there's more than enough English to get by, but also, it's a very universal story full of empathy and pathos and it's done well-enough and in a way that makes it feel genuine. Heartbreaking in fact. I totally get why it got the attention of the Academy. I could pinpoint some issues, part of it is that I think the movie could actually be longer believe it or not; this movie could've stretched this out even more for emotional impact, but ultimately, I just like the movie because it effectively reminds me of how lucky I am and how unlucky some people were growing. We don't get to choose our parents don't we, but parents we can choose who we wish they were. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>MRS. HARRIS GOES TO PARIS </b>(2022) Director: Anthony Fabian</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://media.timeout.com/images/105909388/image.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="426" src="https://media.timeout.com/images/105909388/image.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div>"Mrs. Harris Goes to Paris" is a movie about a maid buying a dress. </div><div><br /></div><div>I hate to go all, "Describe a movie in the most uninteresting way possible" with you all, but, like, seriously, this movie is about how unbelievable it is that a British maid would be able to just go down to the Paris House of Dior and buy a haute couture dress. This might the single most British movie idea I've ever; this movie plot couldn't be more British if it was served with tea and crumpets. Which is a little funny because it's actually based on a book by an American author. </div><div><br /></div><div>Mrs. Harris (Lesley Manville) is a creation of Paul Gallico, who's probably most known for "The Poseidon Adventure", but his Mrs. Harris stories are quite popular and have been adapted on the screens, big and small, for years now. The most famous of them, "Mrs 'Arris Goes to Paris", (Okay, cute title; in French the letter H or hache, is always silent) which is apparently more comic in tone. This version, feels more sincere. Maybe too sincere.</div><div><br /></div><div>It also feels more slight. At least for me. This film takes place in the mid-50s and and Ava Harris has suddenly received widowers compensation after her husband's fighter plane from the war was finally found. She works as a cleaning lady and admires a young actress, Pamela's (Rose Williams) couture dress she has, she decides to seek out a dress for herself. So, with cash literally in purse, she goes to Paris and invades the House of Dior, who are all immediately baffled by her appearance and insistence on buying a dress, at least until she begins to pull out wads of pounds, and the House's director, Claudine (Isabelle Huppert) reluctantly relents, along with the insistence of Andre, (Lucas Bravo) who takes a liking to her. </div><div><br /></div><div>This is one of those...- hmm, I don't know if I've ever brought this up, but I fucking hate "Pretty Woman"; I don't know if that's a hugely controversial opinion these days, but I specifically hate that one scene that everybody else seems to like where Julia Roberts goes into the Rodeo Drive shop and gets tossed out because,- I don't know, she's somehow too low class-, I'm sorry, that's why I hate that scene! Like, really, you don't think a hooker, who happens to look like a young Julia Roberts wouldn't be shopping there?! Have you seen what high class hookers wear on the job? Like literally, my first guess for what that shops' clientele is, would've been, hookers who look like Julia Roberts. Even if somehow that wasn't the case, like, why would reject someone like that?! Like, this scene in "Mrs. Harris..." isn't that bad, but it did feel a little like, too much of a leap of realism. I would imagine haute couture would easily appeal to a lot of older women who came into money occasionally, especially around that time. I get it, this is a flight of whimsy and fantasy, but still, like, the joke of people selling the item don't believe that somebody wants the thing their buying, just feels awkward and unrealistic to me, simply because that person doesn't seem like the client they think they have. Even back then, I just don't get it. </div><div><br /></div><div>That said, House of Dior is apparently going through financial hardship and Mrs. Harris's pluck and vigor makes her friends with some of the seamstresses and ultimately helps Dior get out of this funk by convincing him to lean more into the brand and put out more affordable outfits for everyone and not just the uberwealthy and famous. </div><div><br /></div><div>That's not quite how it happens in the original story, but the original is basically just, when something happens to her original dress, Dior sends her a more lavish dress that a customer didn't complete the down-payment on because of how lovely she is. That happens here too, but...- I don't know, this Mrs. Harris character must be more interesting to some than she is to me. Like I said, this feels so British or European at least that watching this feels like what I imagine people who hated "Downton Abbey" must've felt like if they're snoody friends made them watch it. </div><div>"Mrs. Harris..." did get some acclaim, and an Oscar nomination naturally for the costume design, which, yeah, it's important and since it's important to the plot it gets the nomination. I don't know whether or not they actually went out of their way to fully replicate Dior's clothes and style from the time, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did. Ultimately though, this movie is so light as a feather that it feel like a burden to even try to take it seriously. I don't really know what to add to this, to explain why I don't care that this film exists. It shouldn't be this hard, there's plenty of movies about older women coming into a scene and interrupting the status quo and many, if not, most of them, are fairly enjoyable. Hell, it's a whole subgenre in Britain to some degree, and I can't claim Lesley Manville isn't inspiring, I know that's not true. Yeah, I honestly think this story or at least this telling of it, is just too dated and too generic. I think I would've liked it better, if it came from the point of view of the people working at Dior, and seeing how they get caught offguard by this crazy woman coming in, but from her perspective, it doesn't feel like it plays right. Like, I kept waiting for it to turn into a bad episode of "Keeping Up Appearances" or something. I guess, it was a nice attempt to kinda take the history of Dior and fictionalize it into Mrs. Harris being the catalyst for how the brand changed and became what it has become over the years, but I feel like there's gotta be a better way of telling that story too. Maybe Mrs. Harris could've found a nice dress in London. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>PUSS IN BOOTS: THE LAST WISH </b>(2022) Director: Anthony Fabian</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐</span></div><div><br /></div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.animationmagazine.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Puss-in-Boots-The-Last-Wish-5.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="800" height="384" src="https://www.animationmagazine.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Puss-in-Boots-The-Last-Wish-5.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div>You know, it might have been a strange choice at the time, but in hindsight, it was probably for the best to spinoff Puss in Boots (Antonio Banderas) into his own movie franchise. For one thing, the "Shrek" franchise was getting really boring and tiresome to begin with, and frankly it needed some new element to keep it interesting, and you weren't gonna get that with Shrek who, by the third movie, which is by far the most unwatchable of the group, he's a father raising a bunch of little ogres and the fourth "Shrek" movie was just a twist on "It's a Wonderful Life". So yeah, Puss in Boots's adventures seem way more interesting. And you could do a lot more with him, since he's always naturally seeking out adventure. </div><div><br /></div><div>Which to some extent does make this film seem, eh, somewhat, counterproductive, at least in theory. Puss in Boots is down to his last life and Death (Wagner Moura) is beginning to literally closing in on him. He finally decides to give up the legend of Puss in Boots up and try his paw and domesticity. Ultimately, she's unfulfilled with the experience, although he does reluctantly befriends an orphan dog, eh, Perrito (Harvey Guillen) who was disguising himself as a cat in order to eat with the other cats. </div><div><br /></div><div>Eventually, he ends up getting figured out by several other characters, bounty hunters mostly, although not all want him to collect. Goldilocks (Florence Pugh), the head of the Three Bears Crime Family, tried to find him believing that he could find the illustrious and elusive Wishing Star, which will supposedly give out one last wish to those who can find it. He also reconnects reluctantly with Kitty Southpaws (Salma Hayek Pinault...? Wait, when did she start start adding her husband's name? BTW, has that like, ever worked? I mean, personally it's fine, but like after you've been successful with your regular name/stage name, has anybody added their husband's name, to their name and then like, stay married and all? The only ones I can think of is Phylicia Ayers-Allen becoming Phylicia Rashad, but like, that was changing the last name, not adding a hyphen to their name? Oh, and Jada Pinkett-Smith, yeah, I guess she's the big exception, but anybody else? Also, did Salma just get married; I thought they'd been together for awhile? [Google Search] Yeah, '09 they've been married?! Oh, okay, she's insisting on it now since they've been forgetting to add it...? Huh... I mean, Salma Hayek is a great name, I wouldn't want to add something to it either. I'm overthinking this, right? Alright, I'll stop, she's Salma Hayek, I'll call her whatever the hell she wants to be called.) who we met in the last "Puss In Boots" film, Puss's love interest and rival, and together with Perrita they end up in the mysterious Dark Forest seeking out the Wishing Star as they each have to continue on the path battling their own demons, apparently? The Dark Forest is weird in this thing, it's basically an everchanging path that whomever's in charge of the magical map to the Star has to follow, so the Forest changes depending on who's got the map. </div><div><br /></div><div>The real big bad is Jack Horner (John Mulaney) the now-grown up Christmas pie boy who because his nursery rhyme was so terrible has just become evil incarnate and has begun collecting everything he can. And a talking (finger quotes) "Ethical Bug" (Kevin McCann doing a, let's call it a Jiminy Stewart impression) that he's gotten ahold of can't seem to get to him. It's a bit weird that we have two groups competing with Puss's gang for the Wishing Star, but I have to admit that I like Goldilocks and her adopted Bear family. I suspect part of this movie is, like they did with Puss in Boots in "Shrek 2" is to come up with other characters who could make good characters to spin-off into other films, and Goldilocks and Papa, Mama and Baby Bear (Ray Winstone, Olivia Colman and Samson Kayo) feel like they could have their own film. In fact, this movie partly feels like their film as much as Puss in Boots which I do think is a bit weird, and a little desperate honestly. Apparently, the film was trying to pay homage to "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" with this, which I got, and I guess as an attempt at extending the Shrekverse as far as it could, it's not terrible, but for me, I just kinda found it, just odd in general. </div><div><br /></div><div>"Puss in Boots: The Last Wish" has some good ideas, and a decent plot device, but it gets harder and harder to defend the more you strip the artifice from it. Still, I think I'll barely recommend it. It's got enough for me, but even at it's best, and there is some cool stylized animation here and the movie looks great, the movie feels like it's an epilogue to a franchise that's on it's last legs. If you like the franchise you'll enjoy the film, but that's about it. "Shrek" started off as a sharp, witty fractured fairy tale that took real backhanded shots at Disney, but still had a heart at it's core. And the original film still does that, and you know, "Ethical Bug" parody aside, "Shrek" seems to be stuck in it's own conceit of a fairy tale world and mostly just struggles to figure out what to make of it. It's not that it's doing the job badly, but you do get the sense that this was a film that was never really built or intended to have such an elaborate and extensive universe. Frankly I never thought it needed to have one and the fact that we're already at the point of a main character having to go toe-to-toe with literal Death, tells me that, despite the promise in the ending, they're probably tired of this franchise as well. </div><div><br /></div><div>But who knows, I can definitely see myself enjoying a Three Bears Crime Family film in the future. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>FOUR GOOD DAYS </b>(2021) Director: Rodrigo Garcia</span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/VV4V7XVD24I6XBP4AZTE75CITU.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="426" src="https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/VV4V7XVD24I6XBP4AZTE75CITU.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Good lord, they made Mila Kunis look like Hell? Jesus, why did they that? Why am I watching this one again? </div><div><br />(IMDB search)</div><div><br /></div><div>Oscar nomination? Oh, right, god damn Diane Warren! </div><div><br /></div><div>(Frustrated sigh, voice trails off)</div><div><br /></div><div>Actually, I'm being a little too mean here, 'cause "Four Good Days" actually has a really good filmmaker behind it, and one of the more underrated ones I would say, Rodrigo Garcia. He's not a name that pops up a lot, because he mostly worked in television over his career, sometimes really good television. I think of him as being one of the main cinematic voices behind such all-time great shows like "Six Feet Under" or "In Treatment", back when HBO really was peak HBO. He's worked on a lot of other shows too, but he broke out in 2000 with a multi-narrative feature called "Things You Can Tell Just By Looking at Her", which had several loosely-connected narratives surrounding women in upper class L.A. It's a bit episodic, but it doesn't feel that way too much. Neither does a similar feature he made a few years after called "Nine Lives" which showed nine different stories from nine different female characters in similar ways. He liked this approach to telling stories, and while it sounds episodic, these films actually played more like a great book of short stories or even a novel where all these tales come together in beautiful poetic ways. The best of his films is "Mother and Child" which, if it didn't make my Ten Best List the year it came out, it must've been my number 11, which several characters barely passing each other in through missed connections all surrounding a tales about adoptions and seeking out the child/parent that each they never knew growing up. In fact, it actually makes a lot of sense that his films and television shows are so novelistic, he's actually the son of Gabriel Garcia Marquez, the Nobel Prize winning Colombian author behind such books as "Love in the Time of Cholera" and "One Hundred Years of Solitude" among others, and much like his father's work, he is best when you can feel a greater worldly and empathetic undertone and meaning to his works. </div><div><br /></div><div>After that though, Rodrigo Garcia's probably best well-known for the last feature he made, "Albert Nobbs" which he also made with Glenn Close, and it even earned a couple Oscar nominations, and is a pretty good movie, based on a famous stage play that Close did decades earlier. It, however was a bit of a departure for Garcia, and while it's a good movie, I don't think of it as his film or one of his films even; that was much of more of a vehicle for Close than anything else. Maybe this is a vehicle for her as well, this film...?</div><div><br /></div><div>I don't know, maybe. Honestly, I don't have much to say about this film in general. Good or bad really. I like the idea of it in theory, but in practice,... eh.... Okay, Close is Deb, and Kunis is Molly, her daughter. Molly is a drug-addict and she looks it, but shows up on Deb's front door for help, not the first time, and Deb is not believing her, not allowing her in her house until she's clean. Molly's undeterred for whatever reason and eventually, after staying outside their house for awhile, Deb ends up agreeing to take her to detox, again, not for the first time. However, this time she seems to actually want to clean herself up. And, apparently, if she can stay clean for the next four days, enough to get the drugs out of her system, she can get a shot of naltrexone, which would repel any opiates from being able to go through her body. I looked it up, and yeah, this is a thing. So, she's staying with her mother now, and both of them are trying, struggling to both deal with each other and keep Molly off any other drugs until they're out of her system entirely. It's an interesting premise and we do get to see these four days of struggle, and a lot of baggage to unpack. Just allowing Molly out of the house is basically a no-go ordeal. She's caused so much chaos and frustration over the years that everything in the house is automated, so that everyone can know where everyone is at all times. </div><div><br /></div><div>On paper, this feels like a good premise, and it's a realistic one; it's actually based on a true story, about a mother-daughter team of drug abuse activists. And yet, this movie, gets- well, there's a scene at some point in the movie, where, for very contrived reasons, Molly is speaking in front of a class at her old school, she's still not entirely clean, and she's talking about her struggles. I get why this speech is there, but I don't get why it's here. Like, why would you let somebody speak about that when they were so clearly nowhere near in the clear. It felt and was contrived.</div><div>I do think this was an accurate portrayal of an addict in withdrawal, and a relationship between and unconvinced mother and a troubled addict who always seems to have an ulterior motive and a lie, even when she doesn't. </div><div><br /></div><div>Maybe this was the wrong medium for such a story, or maybe such a story, shouldn't been so happy. I can easily see a modern Sam Shepherd take this idea and turn it into a dynamic three-person play on stage. Yeah, three persons, I didn't mention Stephen Root's wonderful performance as Close's husband who has his own kind of quiet dignity about him and has seen this relationship deteriorate over the years. There's a good play, somewhere here, but this uplifting tale isn't it. There's nothing wrong with film, and I get why all these actors would be interested in these roles, but eh, especially from somebody like Rodrigo Garcia who I always used to think of as somebody with a lot more ambition, this story just feels too thin. There's a difference between the kind of story that a lot of people might relate to as realistic experiences, and then taking those experiences and making them transcendent, and he used to be able to take things like that and make them transcendent. Here, it's just a single story between a mother and daughter and not much more. There's some commentary I guess on the opiate epidemic in the country, and how drugs like Vicodin were prescribed way too liberally and got people addicted, there's definitely stories about those who are suffering from these kinds of addictions, but this story could've easily occurred at any particular point with nearly any particular narcotic. </div><div><br /></div><div>I don't know, the word that keeps popping through my head is "thin". This movie is thin, it's a simple told tale simply and nothing more and that's incredibly disappointing from the people involved in making it. I want and expect more from these people and they're capable of it, and it feels like they found the flimsiest interesting tale they could come up with and did as minimum amount to make it good enough and you can't knock it for being bad, but they don't go any further. Nothing in the movie feels like it exists outside of the paper it's script was written on; it's that thin. </div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>THE WHITE TIGER </b>(2020) Director: Ramin Bahrani </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.dmcityview.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/film-review.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://www.dmcityview.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/film-review.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>Ramin Bahrani has been one of the best and most underrated filmmakers for awhile. I've been a huge fan since his breakout feature "Man Push Cart". He can make some more introspective pieces like the wonderful, "Goodbye, Solo", about a friendship between a Senegalese cab driver and a suicide old southern white man, but most of the time, his films are often about those struggling on the fringes of society and fighting uphill against, or within, a corrupt capitalist system that's seemingly out of their control. Or maybe, not capitalism always, apparently his last directorial achievement was a TV movie version of "Fahrenheit 451", which, I didn't watch, but eh, I wasn't looking forward to that one; even as that text is more relevant than ever, unfortunately, that's also one that I don't necessarily think adapts well to the film. (I have seen Truffaut's version, it's, ehhh.) However, this time his latest got released on Netflix, "The White Tiger" and it's his most ambitious and arguably his best film yet. </div><div><br /></div><div>Like most of his other work, he's telling a story of the struggles of economics situation, but this one deals with India, which even extra layers of economics and sociological layers to it. At one point, it's mentioned that there are over a 1000 castes in India, but that only rich castes and poor castes matter, but not everybody obviously knows which is which. Balram (Adash Gourav) is from a poor class, and he's the one telling his own story, strangely, in an email to Chinese Premiere WEN Jiabao.... One of the more unique framing devices I've seen, but don't let that fool you, he's an entrepreneur. However, he doesn't start that way. </div><div><br /></div><div>At first, he's shown skill in school in one of the poor outskirts in India, which, honestly is most of India. Eventually, he's taken out of school and forced to work in the village tea stall by the village landlord until his father passes away. Yeah, I-, villages have landlords still in India, I guess. He's called "The Stork" (Mahesh Manjraker) and basically, whoever, or whatever crosses him, he takes out them, and their whole family, and anybody and everything else that they care for or about. </div><div><br /></div><div>He gets sponsored to get driving lessons and inevitably ends up talking his way into being an occasional driver to the Stork's son Ashok (Rajkummar Rao), the Stork's middle son, with the American-raised girlfriend Pinky (Priyanka Chopra Jonas) both of whom are constantly at odds with Ashok's older brother Mukesh (Vijay Maurya) who is quite dismissive of Balram and others of lower castes, and higher castes as well. He's just a murderous asshole, the Joe Pesci character in "Goodfellas" in this family. And this family is quite well off. They try to buy off both sides of the political spectrum as an important race is coming up. Mostly though, we follow Balram as he takes their friendship and observes the lessons of the elite, and how they see the world, or rather not see the ills they're apart of, or caused. </div><div><br /></div><div>The movie begins for instance, with a death caused by Ashok, (Well, actually, it's caused by Pinky) and inevitably, they all insist that Balram be the one to take responsibility. This give him personal hardship and of course, the possibility of going to jail for life and the harms that would cause his family, who he is sending money to. Oddly this'll inevitably blow over, but it gives him the encourage to figure out how to get out. </div><div><br /></div><div>The big metaphor that the movie uses is the chicken coop, which the movie notes as India's greatest invention to the world. The chickens stay in the coop, they see what happens to them when they're taken out, they know it'll happen to them, and yet, they don't try to get out or leave, and that most of India, is indeed stuck in that coop. You could easily make the same arguments for a lot of the other major superpowers of the world, and most of them aren't not as complex and elaborate as India's history, which has so many extra layers to it's struggles towards a more democratic and socialist union that while you see the horrors of the chicken coop, you're terrified more that if you let the chickens out, the chickens will start attacking each other long before they go after the real people they all should be after. </div><div><br /></div><div>Adash Gourav gives an amazing performance, one of my favorites in recent years. The film earned Ramin Bahrani his first Oscar nomination for Adapted Screenplay; the movie was based on a best-selling book from a friend of his that he was working on adapting even before it was published. Ironically, I could argue it's the movie where his characters end up being the most successful to come out of their economic turmoil, and normally I'd say, "At what cost?", and yes, there was a cost, but the movie also indicates how it was strangely worth it. In fact, the more I think about it, the more the "Goodfellas" comparison makes sense. The breaking of the fourth wall at times, the voiceover, the story of coming up from the streets to rise in a world that they would normally never be apart of. Balram calls himself a white tiger, for how rare and beautiful they are, how they only come around once in a generation, the idyllic entrepreneur who actually does treat his employees well and takes full responsibility for the errs of his employees and makes up for his mistakes. I've seen white tigers before. I mean, I live in Vegas, it wasn't hard, just used to see them at the Mirage reserve whenever I had to take a visitor somewhere, but they are startingly rare and beautiful. With every film, I feel like Bahrani's get more of an opportunity to show off more and more of what he can do, and much as I miss some of the more neorealistic in tone films he's made in the past, he amazing manages to stick to that ideal on a bigger budget and more elaborate stories. He's a son of Iranian immigrants who grew up in Winston-Salem, North Carolina of all places, but with his talent and skillset, along with that viewpoint on the world, you can make a real argument that he might be one of the most worldly or world-conscious filmmakers America's got. "The White Tiger" is the best example of that yet. </div><div><br /></div></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>THE DISSIDENT </b>(2020) Director: Bryan Fogel</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐⭐</span></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://d1nslcd7m2225b.cloudfront.net/Pictures/1024x536/6/9/0/1317690_thedissident_604117.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="419" data-original-width="800" height="335" src="https://d1nslcd7m2225b.cloudfront.net/Pictures/1024x536/6/9/0/1317690_thedissident_604117.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div>This is one of those honest political questions that, I do know the answer to, but feel like I should ask it anyway, if for no other reason than because it should be out in the ether somewhere..., so, serious question, why does the U.S. not have an embargo on Saudi Arabia? I'm dead serious; this is one of those, if I was President thing, I think I might make that an early declaration. Or at least, look into the possibility. And I know the answer is oil, but I also know that we produce enough oil as it is, and we get enough oil from other country who aren't so down on the human rights meter, so I know that's the answer, but I don't think that's a good argument or even a good enough financial reason. In fact, we actually get a lot less oil from Saudi Arabia than I think most people on both sides of the oil debate realize.</div><div><br /></div><div>Maybe this is different for others, or maybe most people aren't there yet, but for me, the breaking point was the murder of Washington Post journalist and reporter Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate. I don't care how progressive a society is or is becoming, as admittedly some of the current Saudi leaders of the Saud Kingdom are making the country more progressive than many ever really thought possible, if you're killing and going after reporters, as far as I'm concerned, we don't need to be doing business with you. (Yes, I have similar thoughts on Russia at the moment.) Perhaps it's naïve of me to have even thought that Saudi Arabia was still worth being somewhat reluctant trade partners before then, but there's no other way to put it, they're run a gang of thugs. And I'm not saying Saudi Arabia needs to become a full-fledge American-style democracy, or that they should even give up their monarch system, what's "right" for us, might not be for other countries, yada, yada, yada, I'm not even saying whenever, if they're ever, replaced that who comes in next will be better. I'm saying, we should just be out, and then after their gone, we re-evaluate our relationship then. In this case, I don't care if they were going after frickin' Tucker Carlson, you don't go after reporters, period. If you can't stand up to the simplest and weakest criticism, than you're power is paper thin at best, and cowardice at worst. </div><div><br /></div><div>And if you don't think Khashoggi's murder was the result of cowardly thugs, than I would highly recommend watching "The Dissident" a documentary that traces Khashoggi's role in the political circles around the country at the time, and details the actual details about his death, many of which I'm only learning now. For instance, the disturbing insinuation of how they got rid of his body in the Embassy. Well, there were a couple ways, one was in a well, and the other, ugh, well, if you know what a Tandoori oven is, um,... Anyway, I don't want to think about it. Or that their was a body double that didn't look much like him, that supposedly walked out of the Consulate, although Khashoggi's fiance was outside and apparently she wasn't fooled, and nobody else was either. </div><div><br /></div><div>The movie also details some of Saudi Arabia's online tactics, including how the country is basically a Twitter farm to push Saudi propaganda and that Khashoggi was basically trying to help fund an anti-farm to combat that, and getting more populist ideas trending in the country. For most of us, Khashoggi might've just been another random reporter, but this was a Saudi reporter who worked for the Washington Post; the guy's importance and influence can't be overstated, and thankfully his influence isn't being overlooked and ignored in Saudi Arabia. We get interviews with those who investigated the crime, as well as others like those high up in the intelligence agencies who perhaps should've made it far more well-known just what they were doing and pursuing their more criminal actions a lot earlier before something like this happened. </div><div><br /></div><div>"The Dissident" is a good outline of the status of the Saudi Arabia fringe of the political discussion, but it is a far cry from being a repeal of the current regime. It's basically a documentation of how these gangster thugs remain in power. This basically is just a very wealthy crime family, and should be thought about that way. They're still trying to throw their money around believing their wealth and influence will simply overtake and overwhelm all their little minor violations of human rights and freedom of speech, and it does work. They had a huge influence on Trump, the President who probably gave them way more legitimacy than anyone else. And recently they bought the PGA Tour of all things; not that I'm surprised or care that much that a bunch of golfers could be bought out, but it does show their power and might. The failings of the capitalist society being taken advantage of by a authoritative state. </div><div><br /></div><div>Of course, it hasn't completely worked. Jeff Bezos, who owned the Post cut all ties after the death of his reporter and the Saudis were apparently offended that the Post continued to run print opposing them afterwards, feeling like such an ant that stops moving shouldn't be enough to stop everything. Harry Lime was wrong about that, and hopefully others in power and influence like Bezos will follow suit in the future. </div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>A SECRET LOVE </b>(2020) Director: Chris Bolan</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/netflix-a-secret-love.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/netflix-a-secret-love.png" width="640" /></a></div></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div>I had a hard time watching this film, and on paper, this story should be far more captivating, and instead of thinking about the enduring love and struggles that Pat Henschel and the now-late Terry Donahue had/have for each other, I spent most of my time after and while watching the movie, focusing on a baseball statistics I learned in the film that utterly blew me away. See, at one point, Terry Donahue, who played professional in the AAGPBL, yes, the pro league that "A League of Their Own" was indeed based on, she was one of them, and she's at some museum exhibit, I think at Cooperstown talking and somebody's trying to talk up and prop up her accomplishments there, and that's absolutely true btw, people who don't understand the history and evolution of women sports in America might think they were just a fluke, but leagues like that incorporated a lot of the best female athletes of the time, and not just the ones who happened to be decent at baseball,...- anyway, I could write a dissertation there, but she oft-handedly mentioned that one of the players, stole 201 bases in a season and that that's still the professional record. My eyes lit up at that, because all my life, I've thought Rickey Henderson's 130 in 1982 was the record, so I went on a search, and sure as shit, she's right. Her name was Dorothy Kuras and that record is even more impressive than it sounds, like, somebody needs to get "Foolish Baseball" onto that, I think I found a perfect subject for his next Youtube video. </div><div><br /></div><div>Both Donahue and Henschel were amazing athletes. Both were Canadian and they met at a hockey rink, which was Henschel's sport. But yeah, we get photos and a little bit of them through the years, dealing with having to hide their homosexuality, especially during the days when the gay bars were regularly raided by police for sport. </div><div><br /></div><div>The thing with Keating's article is that, you know, they weren't like, hiding their relationship from everybody. Most of the gay friends and people I've known over the years, they may not be out to everybody, but they're always out to some certain close people in their lives. Sometimes they're out to everybody and certain close people in their lives are just completely oblivious to it. I've heard of a few people like that, they'll talk about being amazed when they find out, having not realized that why their co-workers of there's always brings her "friend" to office get-togethers and wondering why she can't find a boyfriend. (The female co-worker with the crew cut and the Melissa Etheridge t-shirt, I may add. [True story]) But yeah, we do meet their gay friends in the beginning. We also see and hear about their coming out, particular to Diana, Terry's beloved niece. Yeah, that's another thing, the family's basically been there all along, but wasn't particularly, aware...? </div><div>I doubt it. For a couple who kept their relationship secret for so long, even long after it was generally more accepted, it's kinda disturbing to think about how long they had to keep their sexuality secret from their family, and how little the movie actually focuses on it. </div><div><br /></div><div>The biggest crux of the movie really surrounds Pat's declining health and what if anything everybody wants to do about it. Whether their house should be sold, where they should move to, etc. etc. Everybody has an opinion, and nobody's exactly sure what's the best thing for everybody. It's often through Diana that we really get a slight sense of the trepidation everybody has about their sexuality. We get a little sense with some tales about how their parents, the father in particular, wouldn't have been accepting of Pat being a lesbian, although there's some dispute over what he actually said at one point, and I won't go into it here. </div><div><br /></div><div>There is a wedding, inevitably, but it sorta just comes about, and it feels more like a detail moreso than an achievement. I almost get the sense that the story is more about the end of this couple's lives than this couples' lives together. Perhaps the filmmakers weren't ready to tell that story through their eyes. The director is Chris Bolan, and these are his two great aunts he's documenting, so perhaps this is about him understanding how blindsided he might've been by their revelation as well? I don't know; this might not be the best possible story or documentation of Pat and Terry, but I'm glad we got what we got, and for I'm recommending the film. Perhaps I am chickening out on here, and should be more critical, but these two wonderful ladies have had a wonderfully long life and a long life together, and whatever stresses they had keeping their lives a secret all this time, that alone deserves a positive response to their life. </div><div><br /></div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div><br /><b><br /></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><br /></div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><br /></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696790060036702346.post-83045222292223792442023-07-29T05:10:00.000-07:002023-07-29T05:10:37.616-07:0075th ANNUAL PRIMETIME EMMY AWARDS NOMINATIONS ANALYSES! LATE FOR THE ANALYSES, EARLY FOR THE SHOW THIS YEAR! THANKS STRIKING WRITERS AND ACTORS! <div style="text-align: left;">For years, basically since this blog began, when the Primetime Emmy nominations come out, I'd rush to my computer and start typing away. I swore that I'd go down through every Emmy category there was, at least the ones that I felt could matter to most of the television watchers out there and go through and give full analysis on all those categories. Part of the reason I did that, was for the public, to have an outlet to really look at all the nominees, and hopefully find something for the most jaded of television viewers to seek out or cheer for their favorite series. Whenever I used to talk about the Emmys, I would get plenty of messages and comments of how irrelevant they were and how they never nominated the shows they watched, and frankly I wanted to show them that often, that was a misnomer at worst and an outright lie at best. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">That said, that's not the real reason I continue that exercise. The main reason was my own selfishness; I wanted to go through the list of nominees and find out what show(s) I needed to watch and see what I'm missing from television, and for years I felt the Primetime Emmys were a good barometer of that. Lately, I haven't felt that way. In fact, the Emmys used to be the major award show I cared about the most, but in recent years, I've cared about the results and the nominees less and less. Part of it is that my viewing habits have changed and I just am unable to watch television as often as I would like and the way I would like. Television will be a weekly constitution for me and frankly it's become frustrating to have to be constantly streaming and searching for shows. More importantly than that though, I just flat don't like how the Emmys vote anymore. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I've brought it up many times before, but since they totally got rid of viewing panels, and left it up to the members to go by the honor system when they vote, I've hated it for years now, and frankly I just don't take the results seriously anymore, whether I agree with them or not. They're a popularity contest, in the sense that, whatever show is the most popular, they'll win, and frankly, that's not consistent with the past history of the Emmys, and I don't like that. I know people hate the Oscars for the exact reason that they never award the big blockbuster film, but frankly I like the Oscars because they don't do that anymore; ideally it would make the times that they would be more special. I'm looking for the best in quality in award shows like these and frankly, or at least, what I honestly believe the Academy voters actually think is the best in quality, but frankly I haven't believed that that's how or who've they voted for in a long time now. Until they change to different voting system, this will be my stance. I've recommend ways they could/should change it over the years, you can find some of those ideas, <a href="https://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2019/08/proposition-for-new-emmy-voting-system.html">here</a>. Until then, and/or until my current television viewing patters change, looking over these Emmy nominations, is much more of a selfish ritual for myself, to see what shows I have to get around to watching, moreso than the shows I actually watch or wanna watch. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">And that's fine, that's another reason I always posted these things anyway, to show some who might not be aware that certain shows exist and these nominations are often a great way to find out about and find your new favorite series. Just because this is a selfish act on my part, going through the nominees and putting them together, doesn't mean you can't get anything out of it. And hey, you know what, if you're able to catch up on these series in the meantime, by all means, go for it. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">In fact, this might be your chance, considering that, with basically all of Hollywood on strike right now, the word is that this Emmys show is going to be delayed, so, maybe there's time for you, or even me to catch up. And hell, maybe everybody who's actually voting will have the time to actually watch all the shows too?! </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Okay, that probably won't happen 'til we make it happen. But, if I have any thoughts on any of the categories that I think is worth discussing, I'll mention it here. Let's see what they picked this year.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u><i><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></i></u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span> <span style="font-size: medium; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;"><i><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/shV9zspcTWU" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe></i></span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u><i><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></i></u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u><i><span style="font-size: medium;">COMEDY SERIES</span></i></u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u><br /></u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u>BEST COMEDY SERIES</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Abbott Elementary-</b>ABC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Barry-</b>HBO</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Bear-</b>FX</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Jury Duty-</b>Amazon Freevee</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel-</b>Prime Video</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Only Murders in the Building-</b>Hulu</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Ted Lasso-</b>Apple TV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Wednesday-</b>Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">What the hell is "Jury Duty"? What the hell is "Amazon Freevee"? Also, is this the first time there's been, technically eight different networks getting a nomination here? I think so. I don't know what to make of that, per se, but it does feel a little odd. You would naturally think one network at least, would have a second nominee out there, but it seems like every network has just decided to push the single show they want this year, and naturally, the voters, only watched about one show per network or streaming service. Anyway, next year will be different. These are the last seasons for "Barry", "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel" and "Ted Lasso", all three of which are probably the favorites, although I wouldn't count out "The Bear" to play spoiler here. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u>OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTOR IN A COMEDY SERIES</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Bill Hader-</b>"Barry"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Jason Segel-</b>"Shrinking"-Apple TV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Martin Short-</b>"Only Murders in the Building"-Hulu</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Jason Sudeikis-</b>"Ted Lasso"-Apple TV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Jeremy Allen White-</b>"The Bear"-FX</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Okay, while I think the voting is the big change the Emmys need to make, there are other rules and changes that need to be made, and this is a big one. Currently the rule state that for every category, the number of submissions determines how many nominees there are in the category. The only exceptions are Comedy and Drama Series categories, they are currently guaranteed to have eight nominations. For instance, there were 163 submissions in Drama Series this year. Normally, under the regular rules that would mean that there's seven nominations in the category, but since this is a category people care about, they make it eight. Comedy Series is the same thing, based on the number of submissions, which was 95 submissions, there should only be six nominees. I'm okay with this, the number of programs you want to nominate, I'm fine with, as long as you're not just nominating everybody, I think it's no harm no foul, however, the rule I would make here: I would say that, with certain exceptions made in certain lower tier categories for technical reasons, every category under those program should have the same amount of nominees! Now, in the lead categories, "Well, wait a minute, most shows have only one lead and there's not necessarily a lead male and lead female in all of them?" Yeah, you can justify the lead categories that way, but what happens when you get to the Supporting performer categories. Or better yet, the writing and directing categories, especially when their are some shows that had several writers writing different episodes. If you do the math, this can add up a lot. I think it's unfair and confusing personally. (Plus, there's also just the dumbness of it. There's eight shows up for Series, why wouldn't there be eight shows or episodes up for writer, actor, etc. etc.) Whether you agree with the Series category automatically getting eight or not, (And there used to be a minimum rule, where their be eight and then if somebody was within a certain percentage point of getting nominated, they would be nominated too; it seems they got rid of that... I honestly liked that rule, but under the proviso that the number of Series nominees, constitutes the minimum number for the category....) Anyway, this is why I think seeing five nominees in Lead Actor in a Comedy Series, just feels stupid when there's eight nominees for Series. Just throw the next three names in there; what difference does it make? Anyway, two newcomers here, Jeremy Allen White for "The Bear" and Jason Segel for "Shrinking". Hader and Sudeikis have won before, those shows along with "The Bear" are favorites in comedy series. No Steve Martin here, but Martin Short got in alone, and y'know it's been awhile since he's won, despite constantly giving wonderful performances. He does have two Emmys but none of them are for performing. He won one as a producer on an AFI Special, and another early in his career as a writer for "SCTV", way early in his career; in fact he won that Emmy in a weird year where "SCTV" literally took every nomination in the category, something that I don't think is allowed now in the category, not the way it used to be anyway. So, yeah, he's the sentimental vote for me, even if I really have a hard time sitting through that show, he's the best part of it. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u>OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTRESS IN A COMEDY SERIES</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Christina Applegate-</b>"Dead to Me"-Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Rachel Brosnahan-</b>"The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel"-Prime Video</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Quinta Brunson-</b>"Abbott Elementary"</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Natasha Lyonne-</b>"Poker Face"-Peacock</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Jenna Ortega-</b>"Wednesday"</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Same with this category. By the way, did you know, "Dead to Me" was back? Man, I gotta catch up on stuff. Brosnahan's the only past winner in this category and I do hope she wins again. Honestly, I don't know why she hasn't won for every season of "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel", or why that show just hasn't won everything for every season it's been on. Easily been the best show on TV, literally since it hit Amazon. "Poker Face", I imagine might've been on the bubble of getting a series nomination, so I wouldn't count out Natasha Lyonne who hasn't won yet. Jenna Ortega might be the popular choice though. In fact, she would easily be the youngest person to ever win the award. She's only the second-youngest to ever be nominated in the category, behind,... holy Christ, PATTY DUKE?!?!?!? Sorry, I'm- half-stunned that she got nominated, and twice-stunned that that show got nominated for anything. I mean, if anything was ever gonna be nominated for the show, it absolutely had to be her, but like, really? Boy, there's a few exceptions of course, but on the hole, television in the '60s in America, was not great, even at the top a lot of the times. Also, how strange is it that we've gone so long between people nominated in this category for playing teenage girls? I mean, there's been plenty of comedy series just in my lifetime where a teenage boy character is the lead and gotten nominated, Frankie Muniz, Fred Savage, hell, Michael J. Fox, won one year in Lead, but nah, I guess, they never did nominate anybody for playing a teenage girl in Lead before. Man, I would've thought Mayim Bialik would've snuck in one year, but maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part. (Although in '92, for some reason Tyne Daly got in for literally the one episode of "Wings" she was on. How did that keep happening to "Wings", the only people ever nominated for that show were one-time guests, but in Lead categories, how did that keep happening? [Emmy rules have changed so that that could never happen now, but still, how was that allowed then?! And for a lot longer than you think]) </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u>OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A COMEDY SERIES</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Anthony Carrigan-</b>"Barry"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Phil Dunster-</b>"Ted Lasso"-Apple TV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Brett Goldstein-</b>"Ted Lasso"-Apple TV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>James Marsden-</b>"Jury Duty"-Amazon Freevee</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Ebon Moss-Bachrach-</b>"The Bear"-FX</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Tyler James Williams-</b>"Abbott Elementary"-ABC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Henry Winkler-</b>"Barry"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Brett Goldstein's won the category twice in a row; three in a row is hard, but not impossible. I believe the last person to do it in this category was Jeremy Piven for "Entourage". The all-time record for consecutive wins in the category is John Larroquette who won four in a row for "Night Court", before he took his name out of consideration. Piven also took his name out of consideration after his three consecutive wins, but Goldstein will not need to worry about that, as "Ted Lasso" is in it's final year. The only other winner in the category is Henry Winkler who won for "Barry" a few years ago, and admittedly, that was part-lifetime achievement honor. Nothing else that inherently looks like a spoiler off hand. All the nominees are from Best Series nominees with "Ted Lasso" and "Barry", the two presumptive frontrunners, tied with the most. I really hope "Jury Duty" has nothing to do with that old Pauly Shore movie from the '90s. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u>OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTRESS FOR A COMEDY SERIES</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Alex Borstein-</b>"The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel"-Prime Video</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Ayo Edebiri-</b>"The Bear"-FX</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Janelle James-</b>"Abbott Elementary"-ABC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Sheryl Lee Ralph-</b>"Abbott Elementary"-ABC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Juno Temple-</b>"Ted Lasso"-Apple TV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Hannah Waddingham-</b>"Ted Lasso"-AppleTV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Jessica Williams-</b>"Shrinking"-AppleTV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I guess "Shrinking" might've also been close to a Series nomination. Getting two nominations in this actor field, that's heavily weighted towards the three shows that people actually watched is impressive. Sheryl Lee Ralph won last year, and Alex Borstein has won in the past. This years marks the first time since 2013 that no one from "SNL" got into the supporting category, that's an impressive streak, granted this has been a weird Variety year; we'll get to all that. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u>OUTSTANDING DIRECTOR FOR A COMEDY SERIES</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Barry-</b><i style="font-weight: bold;">"wow"-</i>Bill Hader-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Bear-</b><i style="font-weight: bold;">"Review"-</i>Christopher Storer-FX</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel-</b><i style="font-weight: bold;">"Four Minutes"-</i>Amy Sherman-Palladino-Prime Video</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Ms. Pat Show-</b><i style="font-weight: bold;">"Don't Touch My Hair"-</i>Mary Lou Belli-BET+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Ted Lasso-</b><i style="font-weight: bold;">"So Long, Farewell"-</i>Declan Lowney-Apple TV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Wednesday-</b><i style="font-weight: bold;">"Wednesday's Child is Full of Woe"-</i>Tim Burton-Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Bill Hader, once again, pulls off the weird triple nomination, as he got Acting, Directing and Writing nominations, all for "Barry". "The Ms. Pat Show" got the obligatory directing nomination for a multicam series, but other than that, the rest of the nominees are from Series nominees. This could be the most likely spot to see "Wednesday" win something, especially with the biggest-name director being attached. I never really thought about Tim Burton for a Comedy Series before, but I guess when the right project comes around. Still though, we got series finales in the category, and comedy doesn't always give the award to the most well-known person behind the camera. Also, somebody who knows, can you tell what's the difference between BET and BET+?</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u>OUTSTANDING WRITING FOR A COMEDY SERIES</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Barry-</b><i style="font-weight: bold;">"wow"-</i>Bill Hader-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Bear-</b><i style="font-weight: bold;">"System"-</i>Christopher Storer</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Jury Duty-</b><i style="font-weight: bold;">"Ineffective Assistance"-</i>Makki Leeper-Amazon Freevee</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Only Murders in the Building-</b><i style="font-weight: bold;">"I Know Who Did It"-</i>John Hoffman, Matteo Borghese and Rob Turbovsky-Hulu</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Other Two-</b><i style="font-weight: bold;">"Cary & Brooke Go To An AIDS Play"-</i>Chris Kelly and Sarah Schneider-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Ted Lasso-</b><i style="font-weight: bold;">"So Long, Farewell"-</i>Brendan Hunt, Joe Kelly and Jason Sudeikis</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">There's always one weird one in the Writing category, and this one goes to "The Other Two", which, um... okay. I know nothing about that one. What is that? (Google search) "The Other Two",... Wikipedia... millenial siblings, thirteen-year-old brother's overnight fame..., originally aired on Comedy Central....?!!!! Oh, WAIT A MINUTE, I do remember this show! I think I watched an episode or two when it first aired! I didn't know it was still around? It moved to HBO? That's weird, usually shows start on HBO and then end up on Comedy Central. Huh? Is this, the finale episode...- (Google search) Nope. Huh. Alright, congrats on a weird, single Emmy nomination for this. Can't remember the last time a show in it's final season got it's first ever nomination, in Writing. I guess, if you don't count "Lucky", which was a one-season wonder in '03, a pretty decent one at that, than I guess, it would've been the year before for "Andy Richter Controls the Universe", which got a writing nomination in it's 2nd and final season. (Another underrated show I might add) Other than that, I don't think a show's ever won in this situation, so, definitely looking towards the other nominees for the winner. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u>OUTSTANDING GUEST ACTOR IN A COMEDY SERIES</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Joe Bernthal-</b>"The Bear"-FX</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Luke Kirby-</b>"The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel"-Prime Video</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Nathan Lane-</b>"Only Murders in the Building"-Hulu</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Pedro Pascal-</b>"Saturday Night Live"-NBC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Oliver Platt-</b>"The Bear"-FX</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Sam Richardson-</b>"Ted Lasso"-Apple TV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I'm happy to see Luke Kirby pop back up again; he's won this category before and he's really amazing; I thought he was a shoe-in last year to win, and somehow he wasn't nominated. The award, instead went to Nathan Lane, who is also back. (Lane was really good in the episodes of "Only Murders....") The only other one back is Sam Richardson. The other two nominees went to "The Bear", and one for Pedro Pascal, for "Saturday Night Live", which hasn't done that well in this category in recent years and with this being an already weaker year, which got ended early 'cause of the strikes, I'm thinking Pascal partly got in because he's big on a drama series that's one of the shows everybody watches, or at least Emmy voters do. (Although, he probably was one of the few memorable bright spots for "SNL" this year.) </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u>OUTSTANDING GUEST ACTRESS IN A COMEDY SERIES</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Becky Ann Baker-</b>"Ted Lasso"-Apple TV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Quinta Brunson-</b>"Saturday Night Live"-NBC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Taraji P. Henson-</b>"Abbott Elementary"-ABC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Judith Light-</b>"Poker Face"-Peacock</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Sarah Niles-</b>"Ted Lasso"-Apple TV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Harriet Walter-</b>"Ted Lasso"-Applet TV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Well, this is the clearest sign of "Ted Lasso" being the favorite. in series, getting so many Guest Actors into the categories. Altogether, that's nine actors they got nominated, and that's arguably a weak year for the series. After that, eh, it would be nice to see Judith Light finally win an Emmy. Harriet Walter is the only returning nominee from last year, so she might be a slight favorite at the moment. Other than that, the only previous winner in the group is Quinta Brunson who won for Writing last year. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>DRAMA SERIES</i></span></u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u>BEST DRAMA SERIES</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Andor-</b>Disney+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Better Call Saul-</b>AMC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Crown-</b>Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>House of the Dragon-</b>HBO</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Last of Us-</b>HBO</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Succession-</b>HBO</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The White Lotus-</b>HBO</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Yellowjackets-</b>Showtime</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Apparently it's not TV, it's just drama series TV now on HBO. "House of the Dragon", I believe is the "Game of Thrones" prequel? I- I'm kinda amazed people cared enough still about "Game of Thrones" to be honest. "The Last of Us", is I think the first time a series based on a video game has been nominated. "The White Lotus" goes for that "Downton Abbey" jump from miniseries to regular series. After that, I guess "Andor" takes "The Mandalorian" spot, and "The Crown" and "Better Call Saul" as well as "Succession", the favorite, get in for their final seasons. And I guess, somebody actually still watches Showtime. I didn't even know "The Crown"'s last season was on, but I'm not looking forward to it; I absolutely hated the last season, the one it won the Emmy for, naturally. That seems to be how it goes now. Anyway, I think "Succession" is the heavy favorite, which, honestly, I struggle to get through. I'm still on the first season, and I'm, usually just annoyed at it. I finally finished "This is Us" recently, I know I'm late, but you try binging that through tears, and, yeah, looking at this list, in that light, I find it very underwhelming. Even "Better Call Saul" my favorite of these, eh, I've been tired of it for a few years. Why are so many of these continuations of an old franchise? Maybe I am cheering for "Yellowjackets" after all? </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u>OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTOR IN A DRAMA SERIES</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Jeff Bridges-</b>"The Old Man"-FX</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Brian Cox-</b>"Succession"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Kieran Culkin-</b>"Succession"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Bob Odenkirk-</b>"Better Call Saul"-AMC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Pedro Pascal-</b>"The Last of Us"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Jeremy Strong-</b>"Succession"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Three actors from the same series in the category, that is a record. There's been plenty of shows with two, but three sneaking in incredibly rare. This is partly Kieran Culkin switching categories to Lead though. Jeremy Strong last won this category three years ago, but that makes him the only past winner oddly enough. This category has been weird lately anyway, often with winners for flash-in-the-pan series that only capture Emmys and audiences attention for very brief runs. The category will be really different next year with "Succession" and "Better Call Saul" ending this year. Oddly, "Better Call Saul" has mimicked "Mad Men" with their ridiculous 0 for the World streak at the Emmys in acting categories. Strong has won against Brian Cox a couple times, but three from the same show could split the vote if there's a legit option out there, and Odenkirk makes a little more sense to get the sympathy vote. Pascal has time, and Jeff Bridges, um, good for him to getting in here. Actually FX, has done remarkedly well in recent years at the Emmys, basically they've done well for every noteworthy show they've had, not named "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" at the Emmys, which is weirdly still the most mind-boggling to me, but.... (Shrugs)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u>OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTRESS IN A DRAMA SERIES</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Sharon Horgan-</b>"Bad Sisters"-Apple TV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Melanie Lynskey-</b>"Yellowjackets"-SHOWTIME</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Elisabeth Moss-</b>"The Handmaid's Tale"-Hulu</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Bella Ramsey-</b>"The Last of Us"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Keri Russell-</b>"The Diplomat"-Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Sarah Snook-</b>"Succession"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">A little more all over the map here. Oddly the only previous winner is Elisabeth Moss, and also weirdly "The Handmaid's Tale" kinda got shafted this season. This wasn't even an eligibility technicality this time, they just have fallen. HBO Max has taken the ball, but this category could go in any way. The only series nominees in it are "Yellowjackets", "The Last of Us" and the heavy favorite "Succession", but this is a category that has a lot of history of not remotely matching up with the Series noms, and while I do see Melanie Lynskey's back for "Yellowjackets", and she's definitely one of those great actresses who's been long overlooked for awhile, speaking of long-running TV actresses who's never been awarded, Netflix got Keri Russell back into this category. She hasn't been nominated since "The Americans" and she might take the sentimental vote for those wanting to honor TV's past and present. And, I have no idea what "Bad Sisters" is. I really gotta catch up on Apple TV+; I'm still struggling with season one of "The Morning Show", which, ehhhhh....- you know I actually have a lot of thoughts on that show, but dissecting that show could be like, doing the autopsy on television itself, ugh. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u>OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A DRAMA SERIES</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>F. Murray Abraham-</b>"The White Lotus"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Nicholas Braun-</b>"Succession"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Michael Imperioli-</b>"The White Lotus"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Theo James-</b>"The White Lotus"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Matthew Macfadyan-</b>"Succession"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Alan Ruck-</b>"Succession"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Will Sharpe-</b>"The White Lotus"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Alexander Skarsgard-</b>"Succession"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">So, the last time a television show had four nominees in this category was in 2002 when "The West Wing" has four. Both "The White Lotus" and "Succession" have four this year, and no other series got nominated. In the current iteration of the Emmys this is about as singular as unusual as this category gets. There was the one year in '82 infamously, where all the nominees in this category came from "Hill Street Blues", but that was back when there only five nominees, and large ensemble dramas were actually still pretty rare back then, so the novelty makes that particular year a bit of an exception. You have an incredibly large cast series with "Succession" and a former miniseries with a multi-narrative which doesn't have a lead, so the supporting categories are essentially acting as lead nominations. This means they're by far the biggest favorites this year, and while I think "Succession" has a slight advantage, this is a potentially real race for Series this year.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u>OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A DRAMA SERIES</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Jennifer Coolidge-</b>"The White Lotus"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Elizabeth Debicki-</b>"The Crown"-Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Meghann Fahy-</b>"The White Lotus"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Sabrina Impacciatore-</b>"The White Lotus"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Aubrey Plaza-</b>"The White Lotus"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Rhea Seehorn-</b>"Better Call Saul"-AMC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>J. Smith-Cameron-</b>"Succession"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Simona Tabsco-</b>"The White Lotus"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Jennifer Coolidge won last year for Limited Series last year, and was the only person to come back to "The White Lotus" for season two, which is the reason it's in the Drama Series category and not in Limited or Anthology Series. And five nominees in this category, that, I think that's the record. Yeah, that's easily the record, I'm double-checking, but I don't think any other show has had more than three in a year in this category. Although, keep in mind Sarah Snook submitted in Lead this year and she was nominated in this category last year, so there's a chance somebody snuck in here 'cause of that, and "Succession" still got one in from last year, along with the returning Rhea Seehorn, who, again, "Better Call Saul" never winning feels just annoying now, and I don't even like the show much at this point, and I'm annoyed, and they got the girl who plays Princess Di for "The Crown" this year. (Shrugs) I hated "The Crown" the year it won and that was a Diana year, so maybe it's just, I'm sick of reliving Princess Di's all-too short life but maybe I'm in the minority on that. Also, now you nominate Aubrey Plaza? I swear to Christ, this is why we need to redo how the voting works!!!!</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u>OUTSTANDING DIRECTING FOR A DRAMA SERIES</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Andor-</b><i>"Rix Road"-</i>Benjamin Caron-Disney+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Bad Sisters-</b><i>"The Prick"-</i>Dearbhla Walsh-Apple TV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Last of Us-</b><i>"Long Long Time"-</i>Peter Hoar-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Succession-</b><i>"America Decides"-</i>Andrij Parekh-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Succession-</b><i>"Connor's Wedding"-</i>Mark Mylod-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Succession-</b><i>"Living"-</i>Lorene Scafaria-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The White Lotus-</b><i>"Arrivederci'"-</i>Mike White-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I wouldn't immediately just think "Succession" will take this offhand, I mean, if they weren't just check-marking the same show for everything, at least with some adventurous directing work like "Andor" and "The Last of Us" out there. Other than that, no other real thoughts. Lorene Scafaria is probably the biggest name of this group, so I'd list her as an early favorite.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u>OUTSTANDING WRITING FOR A DRAMA SERIES</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Andor-</b><i>"One Way Out"-</i>Beau Willimon-Disney+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Bad Sisters-</b><i>"The Prick"-</i>Sharon Horgan, Dave Finkel and Brett Baer-Apple TV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Better Call Saul-</b><i>"Point and Shoot"-</i>Gordon Smith-AMC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Better Call Saul-</b><i>"Saul Gone"-</i>Peter Gould-AMC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Last of Us-</b><i>"Long, Long Time"-</i>Craig Mazin-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Succession-</b><i>"Connor's Wedding"-</i>Jesse Armstrong-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The White Lotus-</b><i>"Arrivederci"-</i>Mike White-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">"Better Call Saul" has two shots at winning Writing here, including for the series finale, and I just looked it up, "Better Call Saul" has 53 career Emmy nominations, and it has not a single one yet. It if doesn't go to Odenkirk, then it really should go here. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u>OUTSTANDING GUEST ACTOR IN A DRAMA SERIES</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Murray Bartlett-</b>"The Last of Us"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>James Cromwell-</b>"Succession"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Lamar Johnson-</b>"The Last of Us"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Arian Moayed-</b>"Succession"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Nick Offerman-</b>"The Last of Us"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Keivonn Montreal Woodard-</b>"The Last of Us"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Another "Parks and Recreation" cast member who never got nominated suddenly showing up here. Kind of a startling amount of "The Last of Us" nominees, in fact, there's been a little lack of variety in particular in these guest categories. All of them in the Drama Series categories are from "Succession" and "The Last of Us". God, you know, I used to be annoyed when some random "Law & Order: SVU" or 'Scandal" episode would get a Guest Actor or Actress nomination and you're like, "What, people were watching that?", but now, I'm kinda like, "You know what, at least they were watching those shows enough to nominate a good Guest Actor." You see, it's not that I agreed with their choices in the past, it's that I could respect them. These performances might be great and well-deserved nominees, but it sure does feel like they only watched a few of these shows and nominated everybody from the ones they liked the most.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u>OUTSTANDING GUEST ACTRESS IN A DRAMA SERIES</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Hiam Abbass-</b>"Succession"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Cherry Jones-</b>"Succession"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Melanie Lynskey-</b>"The Last of Us"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Storm Reid-</b>"The Last of Us"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Anna Torv-</b>"The Last of Us"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Harriet Walker-</b>"Succession"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I don't have anything else to add to this category that I didn't say for the male side of it, but since I got another chance to talk about Melanie Lynskey, possible apocryphal opinion here, but how did she never get nominated for "Two and a Half Men"? She was by far, the best part of that show, and no, I never cared for the series much myself; I thought it was good for like, three or four years, and then lasted way too long without changing enough things permanently until it was way too late to do so, but she was always good. She really should've got more credit for that. She's also just, always great in general and has been forever! </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>VARIETY</i></span></u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING TALK SERIES</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Daily Show with Trevor Noah-</b>Comedy Central</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Jimmy Kimmel Live!-</b>ABC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Late Night with Seth Meyers-</b>NBC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Late Show with Stephen Colbert-</b>CBS</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Problem with Jon Stewart-</b>Apple TV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Okay...- first of all, thank goodness, Seth Meyers finally got in and James Corden is no longer in. Second though, and more importantly, so... years ago, they separated the Variety Series category into two different categories, Variety-Talk and Variety-Sketch series. I, did not like that change at the time, but I kinda got why they did it. Mainly they did it because there was a greater number of Sketch Comedy Series out there, enough to have a category, and there had been a dominance in recent years from traditional Variety Talk Series. And I had heard a lot of people at the time talk about how great shows like "Key & Peele" and "Drunk History", "Portlandia" and "Inside Amy Schumer" were much more advance and that "Saturday Night Live" in particular wasn't funny and was on it's dying days as a new breed of sketch comedy series were coming in. I know it was a fad and a trend and that "SNL" would always bounce back, but nobody took me seriously. So, yeah, now that there's only a couple other sketch shows, and "Last Week Tonight" was just winning the Talk category outright, and "SNL" was basically a de facto winner, they made a new switch to the categories. Now, we have Talk Series, against Scripted Variety Series. Which means, "Last Week Tonight", gets kicked out, and that leaves room for, the late night talk series, that are more improvised and off-the-cuff, especially in their interview segments to qualify here. I don't think this makes much sense either to be honest, but...- the problem with the Variety Series categories is that, there used to be a lot more variety, and now it's just forms of comedy that aren't sitcoms. There just aren't like traditional, like, Ed Sullivan-type variety shows anymore, and frankly half-the-time, when you do see those kinds of acts, they more-or-less shove those acts into Reality programs now where they have to compete. So, anyway, this change, (Shrugs) it's not the worst, but it's still kinda stupid. I really think they should shove these categories back together into one Variety Series category, and if you think for some reason that I'm being a little too picky. Like, "Dave, I mean, yeah, but there's still just the two kinds of variety series now," okay then, if that's the case, tell me, what category would "Who's Line Is It Anyway?" submit under? Yeah,.... if that, or any other improv sketch show makes a comeback, we're gonna have a very tricky discussion of what the category(ies) should be. Oh, also Jon Stewart. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING SCRIPTED VARIETY SERIES</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>A Black Lady Sketch Show-</b>HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Last Week Tonight with John Oliver-</b>HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Saturday Night Live-</b>NBC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Y'know, before the category standards switched, I would've taken "A Black Lady Sketch Show" to pull off the win over "SNL", but throw in John Oliver in there, and now it just feels like we're being particularly mean to them. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING VARIETY SPECIAL (LIVE)</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Apple Music Super Bowl LVII Halftime Show Starring Rihanna-</b>FOX</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Chris Rock: Selective Outrage-</b>Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Elton John Live: Farewell from Dodger Stadium-</b>Disney+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Oscars-</b>ABC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>75th Annual Tony Awards-</b>CBS</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I might be a little bias, this year's Super Bowl is not a highlight, it drew a loud a frustration for me, frankly, but-eh, I thought the Halftime show sucked this year, sorry Rihanna. I mean, congratulations, but still, you couldn't even do one costume change? Or, just have colors other than red and white? Anyway, the other four nominees are pretty cool though. I don't think anything's Elton's done ever got him Emmy consideration before, this is cool. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING VARIETY SPECIAL (PRE-RECORDED)</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Carol Burnett: 90 Years of Laughter + Love-</b>NBC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>John Mulaney: Baby J-</b>Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Lizzo: Live in Concert-</b>HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Norman Lear: 100 Years of Music & Laughter-</b>ABC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Trevor Noah: I Wish You Would-</b>Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Wanda Sykes: I'm An Entertainer-</b>Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Well, it's only half-stand-ups this years. Stand-ups, and TV legends celebrating their years of work, both of which are amazing, and Lizzo. Lizzo's back here. Well, she's not eligible for reality program so, yeah, put her in for her concert here instead. Sounds good to me. (Tugs ear)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING DIRECTING FOR A VARIETY SERIES</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Jimmy Kimmel Live!-</b><i>"20th Anniversary Special"-</i>Andy Fisher-ABC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Last Week Tonight with John Oliver-</b><i>"Afghanistan"-</i>Paul Pennolino-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Late Show with Stephen Colbert-</b><i>"John Oliver, Broadway cast of The Lion King"-</i>Jim Hoskinson-CBS</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Problem with Jon Stewart-</b><i>"Chaos, Law and Order"-</i>Andre Allen-Apple TV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Saturday Night Live-</b><i>"Co-Hosts: Steve Martin & Martin Short"-</i>Liz Patrick-NBC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">It'll be interesting to see if "SNL" can take this category without Don Roy King at the helm. Still though, the fact that Colbert's nomination here is for the episode with John Oliver, tells me that John Oliver is safe to win again in the new category. Not sure who's the favorite in that Talk Series category though, although the fact that Jon Stewart got in here is kinda interesting. Also, Kimmel's been on for twenty years now, Christ! I still think of him as the new guy on the block, although I guess he is the old man now.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING DIRECTING FOR A VARIETY SPECIAL</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Apple Music Super Bowl LVII Halftime Show Starring Rihanna-</b>Hamish Hamilton, Shawn Carter-FOX</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Carol Burnett: 90 Years of Laughter + Love-</b>Paul Miller-NBC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Chris Rock: Selective Outrage-</b>Joel Gallen-Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Oscars-</b>Glenn Weiss-ABC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Wanda Sykes: I'm an Entertainer-</b>Linda Mendoza-Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I can never remember if this is a year where they show this category on the main show or not. Maybe when the DGA joins the strike later on, they'll go over the details about this for the Emmys and make sure the strange guidelines regarding these awards get updated. Leaning towards Glenn Weiss taking it again.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING WIRTING FOR A VARIETY SERIES</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Daily Show with Trevor Noah-</b>Head Writer: Dan Amira; Senior Writers: Lauren Sarver Means, Daniel Radosh; Writers: Trevor Noah, David Angelo, et. al.-Comedy Central </div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Last Week Tonight with John Oliver-</b>Senior Writers: Daniel O'Brien, Owen Parsons, Charlie Redd, Joanna Rothkoph, Seena Valli; Writers: John Oliver, Johnathan Appel, et. al.-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Late Night with Seth Meyers-</b>Head Writers: Alex Baze; Writing Supervisors: Seth Reiss, Mike Scollins; Closer Look Writing Supervisor: Sal Gentile, Writers: Seth Meyers, Jermaine Alfonso, et. al.-NBC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Last Show with Stephen Colbert-</b>Head Writers: Ariel Dumas, Jay Katsir; Writers: Stephen Colbert, Delmonte Bent, et. al. -CBS</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Saturday Night Live-</b>Head Writers: Alison Gates, Streeter Seidell, Kent Sublette; Writing Supervisors: Gary Richardson, Will Stephen, Celeste Yum; Senior Writer: Bryan Tucker; Weekend Update Head Writers: Pete Schultz, Megan Callahan-Shah, Dennis McNicholas, Josh Patten, KC Shornima, Writers: Lorne Michaels, Rosebud Baker, et. al....-NBC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Boy, these shows have a lot of writers. No Jon Stewart here is interesting. I think it's still John Oliver's crew here to lose. Nice to see Trevor Noah get in for his last season, I think they could honor him here if they really wanted to. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING WRITING FOR A VARIETY SPECIAL</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Carol Burnett: 90 Years of Laughter + Love-</b>Jon Macks and Carol Leifer-NBC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Chris Rock: Selective Outrage-</b>Chris Rock</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>John Mulaney: Baby J-</b>John Mulaney-Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Wanda Sykes: I'm An Entertainer-</b>Wanda Sykes-Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Would It Kill You to Laugh? Starring Kate Berlant & John Early-</b>Kate Berlant, Andrew DeYoung, John Early-Peacock</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Wait-, what the hell is that last nominee? "Would It Kill You to Laugh?" (Google search) Huh. I guess this is, like, the "Bo Burnham: Burning" entry for the year in this category, which I seem to be the only one who thought that was overrated as Hell, but whatever, it's the stand-up category. And your yearly reminder that they gotta really figure out a way to honor Variety performers in their own categories. Perhaps, separate them into Performer/Host/Comedian and Performer/Music categories? It's been way too long since that category went away, it should be brought back again. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><u><i>REALITY</i></u></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><u><i><br /></i></u></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING REALITY OR COMPETITION PROGRAM</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Amazing Race-</b>CBS</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>RuPaul's Drag Race-</b>MTV</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Survivor-</b>CBS</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Top Chef-</b>Bravo</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Voice-</b>NBC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">This is the first time "Survivor"s been nominated in the category since 2006; I imagine that's gotta be some kind of record. That said, I know some people who really are quite devoted to "Survivor" and they are very happy about this, and- I gotta be honest here, I have no idea why it's still on the air, 'cause it has not been watchable since it's groundbreaking first season. I don't get how it's still a thing, but the fact that it is, and it's back here, reveals a deeper truth about this category, Reality Competition Shows are dying. It's about time to some degree, but eh..., I'm a little more torn up about this than I thought I would be. For one thing, there's been some good shows that popped up in this genre, and some of them are nominated and have been consistently nominated over the years. "The Amazing Race" is still good, "Top Chef" is still must-see television every year, I don't really get "RuPaul's Drag Race", but, there's a lot of good profiles and aspects to the show I do enjoy about the show. Hell, even the first few years of "The Voice" were really good and the frankly even as it's become particularly unwatchable in recent years, I'll always take it at it's worst over "American Idol" at it's best. I can always finds ways to defend reality when it's good and you know what, for the most part, the Emmys have managed to find and seek out those shows. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u>OUTSTANDING STRUCTURED REALITY PROGRAM</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Antiques Roadshow-</b>PBS</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives-</b>Food Network</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Love is Blind-</b>Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Queer Eye-</b>Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Shark Tank-</b>ABC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">All repeat nominees, some coming back into the category like "Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives" and just another sign that Reality programming is dying. "Queer Eye" and "Shark Tank" are the only past winners though, but I personally am cheering for "Antiques Roadshow". This is their twenty-first nomination in a Reality Program category and somehow they've never won! You'd think just on a lark in a bad year for the category they would've taken it once. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u>OUTSTANDING UNSTRUCTURED REALITY PROGRAM</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Indian Matchmaking-</b>Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>RuPaul's Drag Race: Untucked-</b>MTV</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Selling Sunset-</b>Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Vanderpump Rules-</b>Bravo</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Welcome to Wrexham-</b>FX</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">(Eye roll) Okay, I guess this is the closest were getting to "It's Always Sunny..." nominations, so I'll take it. I don't have much to say about this category, but who the hell is "Vanderpump" and why I do know this person exists? I've seen her name pop up, and I keep feeling like it's somebody making fun of Diane Von Furstenberg when it's not...- It's about time I figured this shit out... (Wikipedia search) Okay, Lisa Vanderpump, she was a failed child actress from the '70s what the hell.... Minor "Silk Stalkings" and "Baywatch Nights".... What the...- Okay, so from what I can tell, she ended up as a cast member on the series of "Real Housewives...",- am I the only one who actually remembers why those shows exist? Like, they were a joke, to make light of "Desperate Housewives" which was the biggest show on TV at the time. I don't know why exactly they're still around, whether it's Andy Cohen's insistence or they're actually popular but I don't get it either way. Anyway, apparently she runs restaurants now, I don't know why? I can't find like a legitimate reason why I'm supposed to think, this Real Housewife and connect her for food and drink enough to have restaurants in Vegas hotels. Or, Stateline hotels, which is not a Las Vegas venture, Wikipedia, Stateline; that's not even the same County. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING HOST FOR A REALITY OR COMPETITION PROGRAM</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Bobby Berk, Karamo Brown, Tan France, Antoni Porowski, Jonathan Van Ness-</b>"Queer Eye"-Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Nicole Byer-</b>"Nailed It!"-Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Padma Lakshmi-</b>"Top Chef"-Bravo</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Amy Poehler, Maya Rudolph-</b>"Baking It"-Peacock</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>RuPaul-</b>"RuPaul's Drag Race"-MTV</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">BTW, when did RuPaul's Drag Race switch from VH-1 to MTV? Is that the first time a show's done that? (Google search) Okay, so apparently, there's some business ownership stuff, and technically VH-1 is under the BET Media brand that Paramount is considering a sale of, so they're moving their shows to MTV.... Anyway, congrats to Amy Poehler, for her 26th career Emmy nomination, of which she's won, once. And as she and Tina Fey once pointed out, since they shared that Emmy, that really only counted for half a win. So if she wins here teaming with Emmy-winning machine Maya Rudolph, she'll have a full Emmy. (Sigh) This might be a harsh thing to say, and I'll listen to arguments for other people, but I swear to God, nobody's gotten screwed over more by the Emmys than Amy Poehler has. Next time somebody's in Julia Louis-Dreyfus's mansion, can you just steal a few of her Emmys and give them to Amy; I think that's just fair! And right! Anyway, if I'm cheering for anybody this is Padma Lakshmi's last seasons hosting "Top Chef", so I'm rooting for her. She's never won, this time not nominated with Tom Colicchio. Kristen Kish will replace her, who's become quite the host herself on top of being a world renowned chef herself, and a former winner from season 10. I'm looking forward to that. I don't think that'll ruin a show like the way Heidi and Tim leaving "Project Runway" did. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><i><u><span style="font-size: medium;">LIMITED SERIES</span></u></i></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><i><u><br /></u></i></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u>OUTSTANDING LIMITED OR ANTHOLOGY SERIES</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Beef-</b>Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Dahmer-Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story-</b>Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Daisy Jones & The Six-</b>Prime Video</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Fleischman Is in Trouble-</b>FX</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Obi-Wan Kenobi-</b>Disney+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Is that the full title of that Jeffrey Dahmer thing? "Dahmer, Hyphen, Monster, Colon: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story", Jesus that's awkward. Honestly, that and the "Obi-Wan Kenobi" one is the only one I've heard of. Well, maybe I heard of "Beef" and then forgot about it. During Covid year, this was the main category at the Emmys, and frankly it deserved to be. I think we're done with that now though. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u>OUTSTANDING TELEVISION MOVIE</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Dolly Parton's Mountain Magic Christmas-</b>NBC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Fire Island-</b>Hulu</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Hocus Pocus 2-</b>Disney+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Prey-</b>Hulu</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Weird: The Al Yankovich Story-</b>The Roku Channel</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I think this marks the first time The Roku Channel has gotten an Emmy nomination, and yeah, the Weird Al movie is probably a good pick. Well, they do have the backlog of Quibi technically, but yeah, I'm counting this for Roku. Also, when the hell did "Hocus Pocus" became like, a movie people were reminiscent for enough that they made a sequel decades later? Why? Sorry, I never got the appeal of that one; like I get the appeal of Bette Midler, Sarah Jessica Parker and Kathy Najimy being witches, like, nothing else in that movie worked, like, at all!</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTOR IN A LIMITED OR ANTHOLOGY SERIES OR MOVIE</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Taron Egerton-</b>"Black Bird"-Apple TV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Kumail Nanjani-</b>"Welcome to Chippendales"-Hulu</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Evan Peters-</b>"Dahmer-Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story"-Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Daniel Radcliffe-</b>"Weird: The Al Yankovic Story"-The Roku Channel</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Michael Shannon-</b>"George & Tammy"-Showtime</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Steven YEUN-</b>"BEEF"-Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I'm not gonna have a lot to say about these miniseries categories; I haven't seen most or any of these categories, but everyone else cares about them.... It's a good list of nominated actors, I apparently have to know what "BEEF" is, other than what's for dinner. Would like to see Daniel Radcliffe take this.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTRESS IN A LIMITED OR ANTHOLOGY SERIES OR MOVIE</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Lizzy Caplan-</b>"Fleischman Is In Trouble"-FX</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Jessica Chastain-</b>"George & Tammy"-Showtime</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Dominique Fishback-</b>"Swarm"-Prime Video</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Kathryn Hahn-</b>"Tiny Beautiful Things"-Hulu</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Riley Keough-</b>"Daisy Jones & The Six"-Prime Video</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Ali Wong-</b>"BEEF"-Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I will say that I do like how these categories are indeed spread out among all the major streaming and premium networks. Again, great actors here, I'll look up these titles later. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A LIMITED OR ANTHOLOGY SERIES OR MOVIE</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Murray Bartlett-</b>"Welcome to Chippendales"-Hulu</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Paul Walter Hauser-</b>"Black Bird"-Apple TV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Richard Jenkins-</b>"Dahmer-Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story"-Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Joseph Lee-</b>"BEEF"-Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Ray Liotta-</b>"Black Bird"-Apple TV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Young Mazino-</b>"BEEF"-Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Jesse Plemons-</b>"Love & Death"-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Awwww. (Sad sigh) Ray Liotta. Damn, I'm gonna miss him. I hope he can end his career with a win, for those morbidly curious, he actually does have an Emmy; he won a Supporting Actor Emmy for "ER" years ago. There's not much else to say, great actor, who never awarded enough for his work when he was alive, and he is now and will forever be sorely missed. That said, Emmys are not usually sentimental, there's very few posthumous winners. By my count, it's only happened five times in an acting category of any kind, the only time someone won the award posthumously and was nominated posthumously was back in '94 when Raul Julia won for the miniseries "The Burning Season". Emmy voters tend not to be sentimental, but I wouldn't be too surprised if they are for him. I doubt it, but I wouldn't mind seeing it. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A LIMITED OR ANTHOLOGY SERIES OR MOVIE</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Annaleigh Ashford-</b>"Welcome to Chippendales"-Hulu</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Maria Bello-</b>"BEEF"-Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Claire Danes-</b>"Fleischman Is In Trouble"-FX</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Juliette Lewis-</b>"Welcome to Chippendales"-Hulu</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Camile Morrone-</b>"Daisy Jones & The Six"-Prime Video</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Niecy Nash-Betts-</b>"Dahmer - Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story"-Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Merritt Wever-</b>"Tiny Beautiful Things"-Hulu</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Hmm, Juliette Lewis is in a movie about Chippendales; I think I might actually watch that one now. I might have to see that. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><i><u><br /></u></i></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING DIRECTING FOR A LIMITED OR ANTHOLOGY SERIES OR MOVIE</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>BEEF</b>-<i>"Figures of Light"-</i>LEE Sung-jin-Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>BEEF</b>-<i>"The Great Fabricator"-</i>Jake Schreier-Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Dahmer - Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story-</b><i>"Bad Meat"-</i>Carl Franklin-Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Dahmer - Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story-</b><i>"Silenced"-</i>Paris Barclay-Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Fleischman Is In Trouble-</b><i>"Me-Time"-</i>Valerie Faris & Jonathan Dayton-FX</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Prey-</b>Dan Trachtenberg-Hulu</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Kind of an interesting category to see exactly where the shows might be in the running for Series. Probably the biggest names here are Faris & Dayton, they're the filmmakers behind "Little Miss Sunshine" among other beloved indy hits. Dan Trachtenberg's an interesting name here too; he's a horror director most known for "10 Cloverfield Lane" and he's only one nominated for a full movie. All the others are nominated for episodes of a miniseries. Occasionally, if somebody directs the entirety of a miniseries for instance, they could sneak in here and steal a Directing Emmy in this category. A TV movie is a little trickier; the last time somebody won this category for just a movie was ten years ago when Steven Soderbergh won for "Behind the Candelabra". Vote splitting though between the favorites could help it out.... </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING WRITING FOR A LIMITED OR ANTHOLOGY SERIES OR MOVIE</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>BEEF-</b><i>"The Birds Don't Sing, They Screech in Pain"-</i>LEE Sung Jin<b>-</b>Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Fire Island-</b>Joel Kim Booster-Hulu</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Fleischman Is In Trouble-</b><i>"Me-Time"-</i>FX</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Prey-</b>Story/Screenplay: Patrick Aison; Story: Dan Trachtenberg</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Swarn-</b><i>"Stung"-</i>Teleplay/Story: Janine Nabers; Story: Donald Glover</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Weird: The Al Yankovic Story-</b>Al Yankovic and Eric Appel-The Roku Channel</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Relax, Weird Al also got nominated for Original Song, but yeah, three TV movies in here. For all the dominance of limited series lately, TV movies are slowly making a comeback into these categories, and there's a lot more of them than you'd think. If networks promote them right, they can pick up a film that was meant to be theatrical and just move them to streaming. Some of them ever start picking up and get pushed into TV categories, this could be competitive and interesting again. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><i><u>ANIMATION</u></i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><i><u><br /></u></i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING ANIMATED PROGRAM</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Bob's Burgers-</b><i>"The Plight of Christmas"-</i>FOX</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Entergalactic</b><i>-</i>Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Gennedy Tartakovsky's Primal-</b><i>"Shadow of Fate"-</i>Adult Swim</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Rick & Morty-</b><i>"Night Family"-</i>Adult Swim</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Simpsons-</b><i>"Treehouse of Horror XXXIII"-</i>FOX</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Boy, looking it up, "Entergalactic" almost sounds pre-designed to just win this Emmy. It's an hour and a half long television movie/pilot based off and inspired by Kid Cudi's new album, working as sort of a companion visual album similar to say, Beyonce's "Lemonade", kinda. I still have it on my queue so I'll get to it, eventually, but it does bring up an interesting question of whether this should be in this category, or whether it should be in the TV movie category. It's seem to be a little unfair to compare an hour and a half concept movie to an episode of "Rick & Morty". Usually when a one-off enters this category it's still rarely more than an hour long. Perhaps the Emmys will have an animated feature category later. Hell, they didn't have a Short-Form Animated Program category this year due to none of the prescreen entries received enough votes of approval, so this might be a sign of the future here.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING CHARACTER VOICE-OVER PERFORMANCE</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Julie Andrews-</b>"Queen Charlotte: A Bridgerton Story"-Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Alex Borstein-</b>"Family Guy"-<i>"A Bottle Episode"-</i>FOX</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Mel Brooks-</b>"History of the World, Part II"-<i>"VIII"-</i>Hulu</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Maya Rudolph-</b>"Big Mouth"-<i>"Asexual Healing"-</i>Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Wanda Sykes-</b>"Crank Yankers"-<i>"Wanda Sykes, JB Smoove & Adam Carolla"-</i>Comedy Central</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Ali Wong-</b>"Tuca & Bertie"-<i>"Fledging Day"-</i>Adult Swim</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Did anybody know "Bridgerton" was still a thing? Do we just make Shondra Rhimes shows last forever no matter what? Actually, that would explain a lot, wouldn't it? Also, how is this "Tuca & Bertie"'s first ever nomination?! Anyway, we got five really talented women here, and Mel Brooks, who's still frickin' making material this late into his career, and getting awards considerations. I don't know if he's gonna pull this off. It is kinda interesting that this category in particular is so flooded with character performances that aren't animated, only half are from animated series and of those three, none of them are up for Animated Program. That's so weird. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><i><u>DOCUMENTARY/NON-FICTION</u></i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><i><u><br /></u></i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING DOCUMENTARY OR NON-FICTION SERIES</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>100 Foot Wave-</b>HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The 1619 Project-</b>Hulu</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Dear Mama-</b>FX</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Secrets of the Elephants-</b>National Geographic</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The U.S. and the Holocaust-</b>PBS</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Part of the reason I usually include these programs is because of people out there who speak out loud about how their shows are never the ones honored at the Emmys, when, often in reality, many of the shows they do care about are. Also, because they have a point, we often do just ignore all of television when frankly, sometimes the best and most important television are in these categories. Okay maybe finding "The Secrets of the Elephants" aren't the most important television, but it's probably still good and worth honoring. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING DOCUMENTARY OR NONFICTION SPECIAL</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Being Mary Tyler Moore-</b>HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Judy Blume Forever-</b>Prime Video</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>My Transparent Life-</b>Prime Video</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Pamela, A Love Story-</b>Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Still: A Michael J. Fox Movie-</b>Apple TV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Good lord. See, this is why I showcase these categories, look at this! Mary Tyler Moore, Michael J. Fox, Judy Blume, Pamela Anders-, HOLY CHRIST, is that what she looks like now, without makeup! I mean, she still looks pretty, she's not a trainwreck or anything, but Jees! All that focus on her plastic surgeries, we should've been asking who her makeup people were. You could've given me100 guesses..., wow! Anyway, and a story about two people going through the process of gender reassignment surgery. This category's filled with interesting stuff.... Seriously, I could've walked by her and never noticed it was her when she's like that! Sorry, I must sound weird to everybody who lived through, but you have no idea how ubiquitous she was for a shockingly long time when I was growing up. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING HOSTING NONFICTION SERIES OR SPECIAL</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Light We Carry: Michelle Obama & Oprah Winfrey-</b>Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>My Next Guest Needs No Introduction with David Letterman and Volodymyr Zelenskyy-</b>Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Stanley Tucci: Searching for Italy-</b>CNN</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Taste the Nation with Padma Lakshmi-</b>Hulu</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>United Shades of America with W. Kamau Bell-</b>CNN</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Nice to see Padma Lakshmi's new travel series on here; makes me feel like her decision to exit "Top Chef" isn't completely in vain. Good luck in this category though. I mean, Stanley Tucci could pull off a small upset here after his Italy series was cancelled but W. Kamau Bell's show is a past winner that's much more of a favorite, but then you're up against, Letterman and Volodymyr, and Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey!? Good luck winning against either of those duos in this year. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>EXCEPTIONAL MERIT IN DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKING</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Accused: Damned or Devoted?-</b>PBS</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Aftershock-</b>Hulu</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Last Flight Home-</b>Paramount+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Territory-</b>National Geographic</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">About time Paramount+ showed up somewhere here.... This category is always a little weird. I'm not gonna go into every detail, but basically this is the Emmys category for films that are documentary features that were technically released in theaters for limited runs, before becoming finding their true home on the television screens. There's a lot of other hoops to go through to be eligible here, you can be eligible, like they had to not be nominated for an Oscar, the film had to have a social impact of some profound, technical skill involved in making the film, etc. etc. but if a program meets these requirements and can be submitted here, they can placed to a jury to determine filmmaking quality, as both Producers and Directors are actually nominated in this category, and this is usually a good group. Checking my Netflix queue, I already had many of these films listed under films I was gonna watch as theatrical releases, the only exception was "The Accused...", but a lot of documentaries especially that make theaters do start out or are at least funding by television networks or associated companies and subsidiaries with the intent to be on television, so, basically this is a category that honors great documentaries that television produced that they felt were quality enough to be in theaters. And there's some big names attached to some of these, the biggest this year is Darren Aronofsky, who's a producer on "The Territory", so yeah, I like this category overall. A lot of the complications with this category would probably be alleviated if the Television and Motion Picture Academies would ever just come together and be one singular group like BAFTA is for instance, but that's a problem to solve for another day. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING NARRATOR</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Mahershala Ali-</b>"Chimp Empire"-<i>"Reckoning"</i>-Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Angela Bassett-</b>"Good Night Oppy"-Prime Video</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Morgan Freeman-</b>"Our Universe"-<i>"Chasing Starlight"-</i>Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Barack Obama-</b>"Working: What We Do All Day"-<i>"The Middle"-</i>Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Pedro Pascal-</b>"Patagonia: Life On The Edge of The World"-<i>"Mountains"-</i>CNN</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">For the first time ever in the category, there's not a single Caucasian or white person in the category. And it's a tough category. Barack Obama actually won this category last year for "Our Great National Parks". Angela Bassett is the only female nominee and she happens to be from probably the biggest film of the group, "Good Night Oppy". The only female to win this category was Meryl Streep a few years ago. Morgan Freeman shockingly hadn't been nominated 'til now also. Tough category. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING DIRECTING FOR A DOCUMENTARY/NONFICTION PROGRAM</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Judy Blume Forever-</b>Davina Pardo & Leah Wolchok-Prime Video</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Moonage Daydream-</b>Brett Morgen-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Pretty Baby: Brooke Shields-</b>Lana Wilson-Hulu</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Still: A Michael J. Fox Movie-</b>Davis Guggenheim-Apple TV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Territory-</b>Alex Pritz-National Geographic</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The U.S. And The Holocaust-</b><i>"Episode 3: The Homeless, Tempest-tossed (1942-)"</i>-Ken Burns, Lynn Novick and Sarah Botstein-PBS</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Some pretty big films, and pretty big names in front of and behind the camera. Brett Morgen and Davis Guggenheim are past Oscar winners for Best Documentary and Ken Burns and Lynn Novick are pretty big names in the documentary field as well. Judy Blume and Michael J. Fox are joined by Brooke Shields, David Bowie and The Holocaust as subject matter, so this is a loaded field; you rarely find that many big celebrities in the same category. Also, that National Geographic thing about the rainforest. Interesting how every channel gets something here. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING WRITING FOR A NONFICTION PROGRAM</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>100 Foot Wave-</b><i>"Chapter V - Lost at Sea"-</i>Zach Rothfeld-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Dear Mama-</b><i>"Panther Power"-</i>Allen Hughes and Lasse Jarvi-FX</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Moonage Daydream-</b>Brett Morgen-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Selena Gomez: My Mind & Me-</b>Alek Keshishian and Paul Marchand-Apple TV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The U.S. And The Holocaust-</b><i>"Episode 2: Yearning to Breathe Free (1938-1942)-</i>Geoffrey C. Ward-PBS</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I get how this sounds counter-intuitive but a lot of nonfiction is written. This category used to be perennially won by Anthony Bourdain for awhile there for instance; there's skill in taking several various elements and constructing them into a coherent written idea. Not everything nonfiction is written so, which is why, while we get a few repeats, we also get, Selena Gomez sneaking in here somehow for her profile documentary. Not complaining or anything, just explaining how it works. Also, is that Allen Hughes, of The Hughes Brothers? (IMDB search) Yeah, it is, huh. I was wondering what he's been up. Not Sure what Albert's been up to. Man, they haven't made a feature film together in almost a decade and a half!? Man, that feels like a lot of lost opportunities there. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><i><u>GAME SHOWS</u></i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><i><u><br /></u></i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING GAME SHOW</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Family Feud-</b>ABC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Jeopardy!-</b>ABC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Price is Right-</b>CBS</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>That's My Jam-</b>NBC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Wheel of Fortune-</b>ABC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Ummm- what,- I'm sorry, I think accidentally, copied from the Daytime Emmys nomination sheet, let me- correct that...- Wait, no, this is the Primetime Emmys? What the hell?! I know there's been more game shows on Primetime in recent years, but...- hold on, time for research.... Okay, here's the <a href="https://www.emmys.com/news/awards-news/game-shows-220810">Emmy announcement</a>....</div><div style="text-align: left;">Wait, decision is the result of an <a href="https://www.emmys.com/news/awards-news/awards-211214">Agreement....!</a> What the- Holy Crap, why was this not a bigger story!?</div><div style="text-align: left;">Okay, backstory...! Um, for those who don't quite know this, if you've ever wondered why there were two different Emmy broadcasts, one for Primetime and one for Daytime shows over the years, it's not simply that they wanted to separate the time and periods, there's actually history here. And there's actually two separate Television Academies! They both award the Emmy, but the Television Academy of Arts and Science gives out the Primetime Emmys, as well as the local L.A. Emmys, but NATAS, they give out all the other Emmy awards. The Daytime, the Local Emmys, the Sports Emmys, the news Emmys, which are separated nowadays into their own broadcasts. And the reason this happened, is partially because of game shows by the way. Before these groups split into two separate groups, the Emmys would only have one award to honor the best in Daytime programming, and the award was juried and one year they just didn't give it out. They did nominate both Peter Marshall and Paul Lynde for "Hollywood Squares" that year, but at that point, the Daytime brethren had had enough, so the more East Coast branch of the Emmys, which did mostly focus on daytime shows at that time, formed NATAS and led by Agnes Nixon, the legendary soap opera creator behind "One Life to Live" and "All My Children" among others, formed the daytime Emmys, and up until now, there's been very few intersections between these properties. </div><div style="text-align: left;">However, streaming has changed a lot of things, as had, the availability and prominence of certain shows, and eh, I kinda get what's happened here. Last year, the 1st annual Family and Children's Programming Emmys happened, which separated family and children's shows, which their are a lot more of than you realize, into their own Emmys show, and that seems to be the direction of the majority of future Emmys, the NATAS Emmys are going to be more separated into genres in the future, with the major exception being daytime dramas, for tradition, mostly, and so they came together to figure out how to separate some of this, and this lead to the Game Show category, at the Primetime Emmys, for the first time, since well, they separated. (And Primetime game shows also had this issue, before reality programming categories, they famously had to enter in the daytime categories previously; the big example is when "Who Wants to Be A Millionaire?" won in it's first season, along with Regis Philbin winning for Game Show Host that year.) That doesn't mean that game shows haven't been more of a primetime staple lately though, "That's My Jam" showing up here is a good clue, and the fact that all the shows are listed with broadcast networks and not under the Syndicated banner, means that they've all had Primetime specials in recent years, and that is true as well. Still, except for "That's My Jam", this is a fairly innocuous list of game shows. I'd give the slight edge to "Jeopardy!" who by the way, holds the record for the most Daytime Emmys in this category with, 19 wins over it's run, and that's more than double the second place winner, which, believe-it-or-not is "Pyramid". I like most versions of "Pyramid" but I wouldn't have guessed that one. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING HOST FOR A GAME SHOW</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Mayim Bialik-</b>"Jeopardy!"-ABC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Steve Harvey-</b>"Family Feud"-ABC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Ken Jennings-</b>"Jeopardy!"-ABC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Keke Palmer-</b>"Password"-NBC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Pat Sajak-</b>"Wheel of Fortune"-ABC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Well, I guess I better look up the history of this category at the Daytime as well. Most recently, Steve Harvey won last year, his third win for "Family Feud". It's also, technically the first time there's been two separate nominees for hosting the same program, although last year Pat Sajak was actually nominated twice in the category for both "Wheel of Fortune" and "Celebrity Wheel of Fortune". I'm actually surprised that historically, that hasn't happened more often; it didn't used to be that uncommon for some hosts to have two or even more shows at once. (Previously, only the late great Alex Trebek was ever nominated against himself, a couple years when he hosted both "Jeopardy!" and "Classic Concentration".) Speaking of "Jeopardy!", Mayim Bialik and Ken Jennings have split time hosting for the last couple years and I'm not gonna go over that whole ; could be interesting if one of them wins and the other doesn't. Bialik and Keke Palmer could become only the third women to ever win the award as well, only after Betty White won in '82 for "Just Men" and Meredith Viera who won twice for history the syndicated "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?", last time in 2009. I watched little of the NBC "Password" that Keke Palmer's hosted, and-eh, eh, I think she's a good host, but maybe not for "Password", she can be a bit boisterous and I think that show is best when it's muted down. Maybe I'm just a traditionalist though. I mean, she's still better than when Bert Convy hosted it, but I get why it didn't sneak into Series. (HOT TAKE: I never thought Bert Convy was a good host of anything.) I would've put Elizabeth Banks in here for "Press Your Luck" or Wayne Brady for "Let's Make a Deal" but what do I know. Also, this is officially Pat Sajak's final season, Ryan Seacrest will be taking over, and you know what, that weirdly feels like a very appropriate final stop for both of their careers. I hope they both remain happy and that neither one of them tries to host a talk show again. Anyway, Sajak's won, I think three times, and has a lifetime achievement Emmy already, but those are daytime and if people care about sentimental stuff like that.... I suspect Steve Harvey is the slight favorite, wouldn't be surprised Pat Sajak won though. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><i><u>SHORT FORM</u></i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING SHORT FORM COMEDY, DRAMA OR VARIETY SERIES</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Awkwafina is Hangin' With Grandma-</b>Comedy Central</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Better Call Saul Filmmaker Training-</b>AMC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Carpool Karaoke: The Series-</b>Apple TV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>I Think You Should Leave With Tim Robinson-</b>Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Only Murders in the Building: One Killer Question-</b>Hulu</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Is "Carpool Kareoke" really still a thing? Nice to finally see Awkwafina show up somewhere. "Better Call Saul" gets in for their annual short. The only series that's it own thing and not a spinoff of a major show is "I Think You Should Leave With Tim Robinson"; I wouldn't be surprise if that wins, but I'm not as big on that show as others are but I suspect it could win. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING SHORT FORM NONFICTION OR REALITY SERIES</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>House of the dragon: Inside the Episode-</b>HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Last of Us: Inside the Episode-</b>HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Saturday Night Live Presents: Behind the Sketch-</b>NBC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Succession: Controlling the Narrative-</b>HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The White Lotus: Unpacking the Episode-</b>HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Okay, this category is officially ridiculous now. We literally have five behind-the-scenes of other shows categories, and four of them are those post-episode little blips they show after shows on HBO. Just for that reason I'm cheering for "Behind the Sketch", which is basically just NBC's version of that, but man, this short form genre is slowly being whittled away. Remember, they didn't have enough entries in animation to deem the category qualifiable this year, and it looks like the live-action series are falling to the side as well. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING ACTOR IN A SHORT FORM COMEDY OR DRAMA SERIES</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Kevin Hart-</b>"Die Hart 2: Die Harter"-The Roku Channel</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Tim Robinson-</b>"I Think You Should Leave With Tim Robinson"-Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Ben Schwartz-</b>"Die Hart 2: Die Harter"-The Roku Channel</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Only three nominees are two of them are from "Die Hart 2". Same as the Actress category I might add, despite the show not getting into series. I guess congrats on The Roku Channel for continuing to hold the banner for Quibi. Not much else to add, I think Tim Robinson has this.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING ACTRESS IN A SHORT FORM COMEDY OR DRAMA SERIES</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Nathalie Emmanuel-</b>"Die Hart 2: Die Harter"-The Roku Channel</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Jasmine Guy-</b>"Chronicles of Jessica Wu"-Prime Video</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Paula Pell-</b>"Die Hart 2: Die Harter"-The Roku Channel</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Hold on, is this the first time Jasmine Guy has ever been nominated for an Emmy?! Holy God, it is!? How is that possible? (Sigh) Oh, Emmys. Alright, well, it might be in a backdoor Amazon short, but at least you finally corrected that egregious error. Hope she wins this. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><i><u>MUSIC</u></i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><i><u><br /></u></i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING MUSIC COMPOSITION FOR A SERIES (ORIGINAL DRAMATIC SCORE)</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Andor-</b><i>"Rix Road"-</i>Nicholas Britell-Disney+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Last of Us-</b><i>"Long, Long Time"-</i>Gustavo Santaolalla-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Succession-</b><i>"Connor's Wedding"-</i>Nicholas Britell-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Wednesday-</b><i>"Woe Is The Loneliest Number"-</i>Danny Elfman, Chris Bacon-Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The White Lotus-</b><i>"In the Sandbox"-</i>Cristobal Tapia de Veer-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">This is actually a fascinating category this year with several Oscar winners against each other, Nicholas Britell against himself as well. Mostly I include the music categories for those keeping track of EGOT Awards, but you never know. There's several other categories that might fascinate others; I know some people care about some of the crafts, makeup, editing, casting, costumes, etc. I'll invite you guys to look those up for those who are interested. In this category, I think "Wednesday"'s got the edge though. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING MUSIC COMPOSITION FOR A LIMITED OR ANTHOLOGY SERIES, MOVIE OR SPECIAL (ORIGINAL DRAMATIC SCORE)</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Hocus Pocus 2-</b>John Debney-Disney+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Ms. Marvel-</b><i>"Time And Again"-</i>Laura Karpman-Disney+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Prey-</b>Sarah Schachner-Hulu</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>A Small Light-</b><i>"What Can Be Saved"-</i>Ariel Marx-National Geographic</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Weird: The Al Yankovic Story-</b>Leo Birenberg, Zach Robinson-The Roku Channel</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Nothing to add on this one. Couldn't come up with a shorter category name though? Jesus!</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING MUSIC COMPOSITION FOR A DOCUMENTARY SERIES OR SPECIAL (ORIGINAL DRAMATIC SCORE)</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Eva Longoria: Searching for Mexico-</b><i>"Veracruz"-</i>Tony Morales-CNN</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Light & Magic-</b><i>"Gang of Outsiders"-</i>James Newton Howard-Disney+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Pamela, A Love Story-</b>Blake Neely-Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Prehistoric Planet-</b><i>"Badlands"-</i>Hans Zimmer, Anze Rozman, Kara Talve-Apple TV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Still: A Michael J. Fox Movie-</b>John Powell-Apple TV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Huh, I guess CNN couldn't afford to keep having Stanley Tucci go searching for Italy, but they could afford for Eva Longoria to go and find Mexico. I actually like a lot of those docuseries, but they really do feel off with everything else...- Just in general, CNN really has to get their shit together, make it less Jeff Zucker-fied. I would've thought Hans Zimmer was a lot closer to an EGOT than he is, but apparently he's got a lot farther to go. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING MUSIC DIRECTION</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>2022 Rock And Roll Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony-</b>Adam Blackstone-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Apple Music Super Bowl LVII Halftime Show Starring Rihanna-</b>Adam Blackstone, Omar Edwards-FOX</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Library of Congress Gershwin Prize for Popular Song: Joni Mitchell-</b>Greg Phillinganes-PBS</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Oscars-</b>Rickey Minor-ABC</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Saturday Night Live-</b><i>"Host: Austin Butler"-</i>Lenny Pickett, Leon Pendarvis and Eli Brueggemann</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I'm glad to know that they're still giving out that Gershwin Prize and Joni Mitchell of course, an absolute great recipient. Music Directing is kind of a fun category, it's for Music directing for live music on programs. Adam Blackstone's competing against himself, although this category was basically invented for Rickey Minor. Personally, I like to think of this category as the Doc Severinson or Paul Schaffer category. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING ORIGINAL MUSIC AND LYRICS</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i>"Marriage is A Dungeon"-</i><b>Ginny & Georgia-</b>Music & Lyrics: Lili Haydn and Ben Bromfield-Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><i>"All About Me"-</i><b>The L Word: Generation Q-</b>Music & Lyrics: Heather McIntosh, Taura Stinson and Allyson Newman-Showtime</div><div style="text-align: left;"><i>"Your Personal Trash Man Can"-</i><b>The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel-</b>Music & Lyrics: Curtis Moore and Thomas Mizer-Prime Video</div><div style="text-align: left;"><i>"Fought & Lost"-</i><b>Ted Lasso-</b>Music & Lyrics: Tom Howe, Jamie Hartman and Sam Ryder-Apple TV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><i>"A Beautiful Game"-</i><b>Ted Lasso-</b>Music & Lyrics: Ed Sheeran, Foy Vance and Max Martin-Apple TV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><i>"Now You Know"-</i><b>Weird; The Al Yankovic Story-</b>Music & Lyrics: Al Yankovic-The Roku Channel</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Another category I love because I can just look up all the songs. For instance, what the hell is "Ginny & Georgia"? Never heard of that one, but looks fun based off this one song. Also, what the hell is going on on that new "The L Word" reboot, it's- looking odd. Nice song. Would've thought if anybody got a songwriting nomination for that show it would've been Leisha Hailey, but I guess no one else is a big Uh Huh Her fan. (To be fair, the original show, got really out there and weird late, so I imagine this newer version is just an even bigger mess.) Anyway, the big names here are Ed Sheeran who wrote one of the "Ted Lasso" nominees, although I think the other one is better, and Weird Al who wrote the ending credits song for his biopic movie. I like it, even though it is a little long. Personally I like "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel" song the best though. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING ORIGINAL MAIN TITLE THEME MUSIC</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Andor-</b>Nicholas Britell-Disney+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Guillermo Del Toro's Cabinet of Curiousities-</b>Holly Amber Church-Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power-</b>Howard Shore-Prime Video</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Ms. Marvel-</b>Laura Karpman-Disney+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Wednesday-</b>Danny Elfman-Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Is this the first that "Lord of the Rings" show has been mentioned? Wow, that did not catch on; I'm a little surprised on that one. Anyway, I listened to all of these as well, and the only ones I could pick out of a lineup are "Ms. Marvel" and "Wednesday", and I think they're both pretty good. I'm a little more partial to "Wednesday" since that's a show I actually watch and like, but I wouldn't mind "Ms. Marvel" winning here. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING MUSIC SUPERVISION</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Daisy Jones & The Six-</b><i>"Track 8: Looks Like We Made It"-</i>Frankie Pine-Prime Video</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel-</b><i>"Four Minutes"-</i>Robin Urdang-Prime Video</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Stranger Things-</b><i>"Chapter Nine: The Piggyback"-</i>Nora Felder-Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Ted Lasso-</b><i>"So Long, Farewell"-</i>Tony Von Pervieux, Christa Miller-Apple TV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The White Lotus-</b><i>"Bull Elephants"-</i>Gabe Hilfer-HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Eh, Music Supervisor, is basically Music Director, but overseeing a soundtrack. It's not as important EGOT-wise, but since I'm doing the music...- wait... CHRISTA MILLER? Why do I know that...- oh, wait a minute, that's Jordan from "Scrubs", right? Yeah, she was on "The Drew Carey Show" and "Cougar Town" too! She's a music supervisor? I mean, I know she's married to Bill Lawrence who created "Scrubs", "Cougar Town" and "Ted Lasso", but I-eh-, okay. Little annoyed this is the first time she's been nominated, but-eh, okay. I mean, they have a daughter who's a singer, so yeah, she's probably a little knowledgeable when it comes to music. (Shrugs) About time she got nominated for something....? I guess</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><i><u><br /></u></i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><i><u>MISCELLANEOUS</u></i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><i><u><br /></u></i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><i><u><br /></u></i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING EMERGING MEDIA PROGRAM</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>For All Mankind: Season 3 Experience-</b>Apple TV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Gorillaz Presents-</b>Google</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>MLK: Now It The Time-</b>Oculus</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Notorious B.I.G. Sky's The Limit: A VR Concert Experience-</b>Facebook & Meta Horizon Worlds</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>You Destroy, We Create: The War on Ukraine's Culture-</b>Meta Quest TV</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Facebook & Meta Horizon Worlds?! Can somebody please beat Mark Zuckerberg upside the head with a 7-iron. It's not as bad as trying to turn Twitter into X, but (Sigh). (NOTE: Remind me to join Threads later). Anyway, what the hell is this category? I think this is another rebranding of the Interactive Media awards. I'm not sure of the difference. Basically, it's any television or stream media that isn't a video game, that has an interactive element to it. It could also be like media that's made with a 360* camera approach. Eh, it's always been an odd category, but there's stuff here worth noting. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING COMMERCIAL</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>AirPods-</b><i>"Quiet the Noise"</i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Apple-</b><i>"The Greatest-Accessibility"</i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Apple-</b><i>"R.I.P. Leon"</i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Apple TV+-</b><i>"Call Me With Timothee Chalamet"</i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Dove-</b><i>"Cost of Beauty"</i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Farmer's Dog-</b><i>"Forever"</i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Squarespace-</b><i>"The Singularity"</i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: left;">Since these are commercials, I decided to just watch all these. Eh, the only one I really didn't care for was "The Farmer's Dog" which I think is a dogfood company, and their commercial which was okay.... I don't know, commercials about how great and long a life you can have with a dog just seem unnecessarily sad to me. The Dove commercial is also a bit heavy-handed to me, too. It's good, but.... Eh.... Also, doesn't Dove sell like, soap or something, why is this a commercial about social media causing eating disorders? I would think "The Greatest-Accessibility" is the favorite and my favorite. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>OUTSTANDING MAIN TITLE DESIGN</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Guillermo Del Toro's Cabinet of Curiosities-</b>Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Hello Tomorrow!-</b>Apple TV+</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Last of Us-</b>HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power-</b>Prime Video</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Wednesday-</b>Netflix</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The White Lotus-</b>HBO Max</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Anyway, always a fun category, my favorite of the bunch is "Wednesday", the only one whose inclusion I kinda question is "The White Lotus"; that one didn't seem particularly creative to me, but the rest of the category looks fun. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Alright, I think that's enough for this year. I don't think I'll do a predictions blog again this year, I'm sure I'll fill out my Gold Derby ballot at some point, but yeah, despite everything it's good to go over with a fine tooth comb the full <a href="https://www.emmys.com/sites/default/files/Downloads/75th-nominations-list-v1.pdf?q=2023&q1=">nominees</a> if you want. You never know, you might find that your favorite show did get something, or find something new you've never heard of that you see gets something and find out you want to watch. Anyway, I got a couple months to forget to catch up on all these, maybe more after. Who knows. I'm hoping for a quiet ceremony this year, with all the awards getting tossed from the balcony and caught by the winners on the picket lines. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Actually, in case you were wondering, there was an Emmy awards during a strike once before. in 1980, when SAG was on strike. Of the 52 acting nominees for the show, all but one, actually boycotted the event. Powers Boothe, who was nominated and subsequently won for Lead Actor in a Limited Series or Movie for "Guyana Tragedy: The Jim Jones Story". He said that it was either the most courageous thing he's ever done, or the stupidest. He later regretted that decision. Let's hope nobody crosses that picket line again. Don't be like Powers Boothe. Let's make this Diamond edition of the Emmys, as lousy and uninspiring as the current Emmys voting process. (Assuming of course, the Actors and Writers are still on strike. Actually, let's make it boring and uninspiring even if they end the strike.)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div>
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ILyfs1aRHxk" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696790060036702346.post-27854170837326756322023-05-29T12:16:00.005-07:002023-06-21T14:42:50.374-07:00MOVIE REVIEWS #202: "WOMEN TALKING", "RRR", "THE FABELMANS", "LIVING", "GLASS ONION: A KNIVES OUT MYSTERY", "MARCEL THE SHELL WITH SHOES ON", "FIRE OF LOVE" and "THE FIRE WITHIN: A REQUIEM FOR KATIA AND MAURICE KRAFFT"!<div style="text-align: left;">I'm debating how much I should or shouldn't say about some of the recent changes many of out favorite entertainment distributors have made in recent months. Part of me wants to bitch and complain about Netflix getting rid of DVDs, right as every other streaming service is starting to get rid of half their streaming content every so often whenever they seem to feel like it, and whatever show we lost in the last ten minutes from some streaming site that just changed it's name to something far stupider than it was before, but honestly, I've lost a lot of the will to fight this fight anymore. I'm warned and complained about stuff like this happening literally since the beginning of this blog well over a decade ago and people thought I was overreacting and nuts then. Well, I could say I told you all so, but I don't even want to give that out. This fight was lost long ago and I've long since adapted to accept changes and stuff like this. I mean, I'll still make fun of HBO or Max, as they've rebranded their streaming service again, mainly because of how stupid their whole thing has been for like the last year, but in terms of this trend towards streaming the monopolization of the material, eh, I'm not surprise and I don't know what you all expect me to add. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Other than to say that, not much is actually getting added that's new onto streaming at the moment anyway. The Writer's Strike is in full effect, and honestly I don't think this one's gonna end any time soon. I'm starting to get a little worried. A lot of the details of streaming especially, are what the writers are fighting for, and let's hope they get it all, 'cause if not, they're not gonna be the only ones fighting in the near future, and don't think that a lot of these recent moves by streaming services to gut a lot of their programming is unrelated. This is a tactic they surely will plan to use in the future and I don't think the Writers can control that ultimately, but while they are streaming the stuff they create, we do have to make sure that while those favorite movies and shows and content are streaming, that the writers of them eventually get paid. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Anyway, let's jus get to the reviews this time; we got a lot to get through.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>WOMEN TALKING </b>(2022) Director: Sarah Polley</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/12/23/multimedia/22women-talking-review/22women-talking-review-videoSixteenByNine3000.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/12/23/multimedia/22women-talking-review/22women-talking-review-videoSixteenByNine3000.jpg" width="640" /></a></div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;">Before I started writing movie reviews, I used to read movie reviews, a lot of movie reviews. By my estimate I don't think I ever watched a movie without reading, at least, three, minimum reviews of that movie, and usually it was closer to about eight or nine, especially for the bigger features. I know there's a sense nowadays among critics and fans that critical opinions and analyses is a secondary opinion to the film, by that I mean, first you see the movie and then you go and check the reviews of the film to see what the critical consensus is. I tend to disagree with that, entirely, I think the point of film criticism is that the critics job is to inform and possibly protect the public from wasting their valuable time and perhaps more importantly their money on sub-par entertainment. Also, I think good criticism is informative, not just on the quality of the film but whether or not it's a film that you might enjoy even if se critic doesn't and, it gives an idea on what the film is ultimately about so that the subject matter itself doesn't upend you entirely. I bring this up because in recent years, basically since I started this blog, I haven't done this; I felt for some reason that I should not look into a film before writing a review, and you know what, lately, especially with better movies, I feel like that might've been the incorrect approach to writing reviews. I don't think I necessarily should read as much critical reviews per movie I watch as I once did, but lately, I've been lazier than I should and haven't even particularly bothered looking at trailers, or even reading up on movies before I watch them, and-eh, yeah, uh, this is the movie that is going to be the tipping point of changing that strategy for me. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;">I clearly knew about "Women Talking", it was widely acclaimed, won Sarah Polley a writing Oscar, and got nominated for Best Picture, and I heard it was based on a novel, and it looked kinda like it took place in the same universe as M. Night Shaymalan's "The Village", which, for the record, is definitely where he started to go downhill. And the title, indicated to me that their would be, well, "Women Talking". But yeah, a few minutes into the film, I decided to check out the film's wikipedia page to get of what exactly this film is about that I'm watching, and-eh,</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;"><i>"<b>Women Talking" </b>is a 2022 drama film written and directed by Sarah Polley. Based on the 2018 Canadian novel of the same name by Miriam Toews, itself inspired by the-..." </i>THE WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div><i><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 17.5px;">...Based on the Canadian </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_Talking_(novel)" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #3366cc; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 17.5px; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Women Talking (novel)">2018 novel of the same name</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 17.5px;"> by </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miriam_Toews" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #3366cc; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 17.5px; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Miriam Toews">Miriam Toews</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 17.5px;">, itself inspired by the </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivian_Mennonite_gas-facilitated_rapes" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #3366cc; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 17.5px; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Bolivian Mennonite gas-facilitated rapes">gas-facilitated rapes</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 17.5px;"> that occurred at the </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manitoba_Colony,_Bolivia" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #3366cc; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 17.5px; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Manitoba Colony, Bolivia">Manitoba Colony</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 17.5px;">, a remote and isolated </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mennonites" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #3366cc; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 17.5px; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Mennonites">Mennonite</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 17.5px;"> community in </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivia" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #3366cc; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 17.5px; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Bolivia">Bolivia</a><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 17.5px;">,</span><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-4" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_Talking_(film)#cite_note-4" style="background: none; color: #3366cc; overflow-wrap: break-word; text-decoration-line: none;">[4]</a></sup><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 17.5px;"> the film follows a group of American Mennonite women who discuss their future, following their....</span></i></div><div><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 17.5px;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;">(Eyes widened)</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;">GAS-FACILITATED RAPES!!!!!! </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;">Yeah, this is a fact I wish I had known before starting this film, a review might have been a good informative tool for that! Yeah, I gotta get back to reading reviews, at least before I watch a movie. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;">So, I know about some Mennonite Communities in America and Canada, but I didn't realize that they were way more common throughout and that their were some that went all the way south to places like Bolivia. That colony also originated in Canada and Mexico and only recently moved down to Bolivia, which seems very sketchy to me to begin with, but apparently in this community, some men in the colony began a practice of constantly sedating and raping the females, for years, by sedating their entire household using a veterinarian anesthetic. Looking into it further...- actually you don't want to look into it further; it just gets more disturbing than you can imagine. Much more disturbing.... </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div>The movie, "Women Talking", thankfully, evades outright depicting these incidents explicitly, although they show enough of the effects. It instead, takes place, after the reveal of such events, after two young men were caught in the act and eventually several of the men have been arrested and sent away, however, a bail hearing is about to happen and the men of the community have left for a couple days in order to oversee it, and perhaps return the men to the community. With the women split on what to do now, "Women Talking" is about the more outspoken women in the community discussing what exactly they should do now. Some want to forgive the attackers, as their teachings have generally taught, others want to fight the leaders, some even insisting on fighting them and possibly somehow evoking an entirely new power structure to the community, full revolution in fact. Others are simply believing that they must leave the community and try their luck on the outside world. That idea might seem the most logical on the surface, but this is a Menonite community and the women aren't taught to read or write, only the men have that privilege, and one of the few men in the community that's remained, a schoolteacher named August (Ben Whishaw) is kept around to record the minutes for prosperity, is from an excommunicated family and is often noted as being a failed farmer before being noted as a teacher. Being the only person who can read or write, he also has a college degree and is therefore the only person with some knowledge of the outside world. </div><div><br /></div><div>There are some really strong performances here. Ironically, most of the awards for the acting, outside of Ensemble awards went to the one prominent male actor in the film, Ben Whishaw and he is good here, but I'd single out Jessie Buckley in particular. Rooney Mara and Claire Foy, the second and third best actors to portray Lisbeth Salander, are also really strong here. August Winter as the trans Melvin, who helps with the children, but because of his trans status is still ostracized from the meeting is also a pretty interesting performance here in a limited role, but honestly, I don't want to go too much into the details of the discussions and revelations that are revealed through the meetings. For one thing, the revelations are the movie essentially, this is a story that gets told through the discussions and those are best left secret, but also, The more interesting aspects of the meeting and discussion, isn't as much the literal as it is the metaphorical. </div><div><br /></div><div>That's fairly obvious as well, but you could also look as the film not so much as a women deciding to leave a literal repressive community as it is a commentary on women's role in society at large and how honestly difficult and indecisive the struggles and choices made to progress actually are. History's often written with the broad strokes, but it's also reductive and a lot of times those broad strokes get written or told as though the events were inevitable, when in reality, not only were they usually not, but they were also heavily debated and argued about, even within the groups that are doing the progressive act. The obvious example that most Americans learn about is the American Revolution, even with as much as we have probably incorrectly idolized and deified our founding fathers, we still discuss and analyze just how much they disagreed and argued on almost every detail about the founding of our country, but similar frustrating arguments and disagreements happened throughout the advancements of all the major women's rights and feminism movements. And modern society, for all-intensive purposes is male-centric and male-dominant and there are people who do not like or accept the notion that it's a problem that should be alleviated. </div><div><br /></div><div>I'll be blunt, if you look more into these Menonite societies, and some of the very disturbing events like the ones that happen in "Women Talking", especially the ones that have migrated over-the-years down to places like South America, it becomes more and more clear that these communities exist almost for the sole reason for the men to exert dominance and control over women, for whatever gains that involves. Keep them uneducated, keep them subservient, make them believe that men, males are the leaders and the holy ones who speak for God,... like, it's a practice that in the old days, it might've been actually beneficial but to then reject progressive technology, even modern languages, in order to keep that order, that's just exercising and keeping dominance and control. Frankly, I'm now skeptical of all of them after watching this movie and looking more into them with what little I can find; peoples who insist on hiding their lives from the rest of the world in such a way, definitely makes you wonder what ills they're actually hiding. </div><div><br /></div><div>Perhaps that's why I'd prefer to read the film metaphorically; the movie is more interesting and inspirational when you take the synecdoche of the situation and look at it as, the struggle and ultimate victory of females breaking the walls of a society that has essentially just ostracized them. The movie is based on a novel from Canadian author Miriam Toews and she's written about her Menonite upbringing and past before, and some of her work's been adapted into features before. Sarah Polley started as an actress before switching over to directing but hasn't made a feature since her autobiographical documentary "Stories We Tell". I've liked all her features and while she's been politically active for years this is definitely her most political and darkest film by a mile. "Women Talking" is a movie that shows how and why sticking to the old constructs of society at a modern age is both foolhardy, horrifying and can become a breeding ground for all the worst of male actors to use their supposedly god-given preference over females. Breaking through the patriarchal pasts and traditions can be difficult and shouldn't be forgotten, and the struggles of coming to that realization are difficult no matter the circumstance and "Women Talking" shows that better than most. It shows both it's difficulties, but also how, it can indeed become a birth of a better future. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>RRR </b>(2022) Director: S.S. Rajamouli </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/f01/86f/f5898337458bce035eca556e8d231921d4-rrr--.2x.rsocial.w600.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="420" data-original-width="800" height="336" src="https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/f01/86f/f5898337458bce035eca556e8d231921d4-rrr--.2x.rsocial.w600.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /></div><div><div>I don't think I get "RRR". That's okay, and I wasn't expecting to fully get it. Indian cinema and history, is definitely my absolute biggest blind spot. Every time I watch an Indian film, I feel like I need like, half a degree in Indian History and Culture just to fully get it. In this case, I actually do need a partial history lesson, but then again maybe that's 'cause this film is actually one of the trickier literary genres to turn into a film, historical-fiction.</div><div><br /></div><div>Historical-fiction is a strange genre. In my mind, I think of the genre as more of a narrative that takes place during and is about some famous historical events but it's usually from the perspective of fictional characters who are more often than not portrayed as minor players or even sidelines players to the more larger historical conflict. Which makes sense, if you're going for historical accuracy, we know certain things that did indeed happen and trying to stray too much from that can be daunting if not counterproductive. In my mind, at least with American literature, and relating to American history, the big examples I think of are "Johnny Tremain" about a teenager in the colonies during the early years of the Revolutionary War, and the novels of John Jakes, particularly his "North and South" series, which spreads over three books dealing with events before, during and after the Civil War. They're more straight-forward historical-fiction, and like most historical fiction, they work better in books than in movies. </div><div><br /></div><div>There's exceptions though. Although, they're usually more cerebral. I had a professor who once made a short film that was just Charles Darwin having a conversation with Sigmund Freud. That's historical-fiction as well technically, and that's the kind of historical fiction I like to think of, but there has a been trend of taking that simple idea, and expanding it to, well, not essentially reinvent or reinterpret history, although, yeah, sometimes they do that, Quentin Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds" and "Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood" are probably the most noteworthy examples, especially in film, but from what I understand "RRR" also fits in this mold. </div><div><br /></div><div>Essentially "RRR" which stands for "Rise Roar Revolt", takes two important figures from India's revolutionary past, and imagines a scenario where they meet and eventually combine their skills and talents to fight off the British Raj and sustain India's Independence. I think. Okay, maybe not win all of independence, but they definitely won this battle. The first figure is, Komaram Bheem (NTR) lionized symbol of the Gond Rebellion, and revolutionary leader of the Hyderabad State of British India, and his actions and leadership eventually lead to Indian independence. He also coined the phrase, "Jal, Jangal, Zameen" which, translated from Telugu means, "Water, Forest, Land", which explains why parts of "RRR" are separated into similarly named sections. The second figure is Alluri Sitarama Raju (Ram Charan Teja), sannyasin to the Tribal Peoples of Madras, and leader of the Rampa Rebellion of 1922, where he raided several police stations to acquire firearms for the Rebellion, which lasted three years until he was killed during the battle. </div><div><br /></div><div>Now, these two revolutionaries never met in real life, but "RRR" imagines a scenario where they do. So, I guess, this is kinda like...- honestly, I don't know what to compare this too in America; the nearest I can imagine is if they made a movie where Martin Luther King and Malcolm X came together to eliminate J. Edgar Hoover's FBI, but I doubt that's truly an apt comparison, but it's the closest I can think of. Not that it matters, 'cause while this movie also starts in historical-fantasy, it also doesn't pretend to exist in the real world. </div><div><br /></div><div>The actions sequences in this movie,- well, the only way I can describe them is that they seem like they're from a video game. The opening scene show Raju, working as a pseudo-sorta double-agent for the Crown, is able to single-handedly able to hold off an entire rebellion on the Crown, which in this film is most represented by Governor Scott Buxton (Ray Stevenson) and his wife Catherine (Alison Doody). Catherine, while travelling through the forest, kidnaps/buys a child from a local tribe, and has her mother killed. Bheem, acting as the Tribe's guardian, is the one lead to the search and army to retrieve the girl and bring her back to their Tribe. He also, has video game like action powers, although he also is slightly more romantic as he's able to get into the Crown through wooing Scott's niece, Jenny (Olivia Morris). </div><div><br /></div><div>Raju and Bheem meet during a revolutionary meeting, Raja is undercover, but they come together to save a child from a train, disaster I think...- Honestly, most of the action sequence I really kinda just tuned out on. I know this style is popular in Indian cinema, and particularly with this director, S.S. Rajamouli. I have heard of him, his "Baahubali" films have been stuck on my Netflix DVD queue, which is probably gonna turn into my GameFly DVD queue in a few months.... (Ahem, NETFLIX! [Double middle finger] You better at least start doubling and tripling your streaming options, and soon!) and, yeah, he seems to love these large, massive, action period epics. He reminds me of Cecil B. DeMille in his exuberance and bombast, but his action style is, just a little over-the-top too often for me. I enjoy it enough though. I liked how during the climatic battle sequence at the end, one of their tactics was to shoot bow-and-arrows with triggered hand grenades on them; I have no idea whether that's an accurate tactic or not, but I thought that was cool and clever. </div><div><br /></div><div>I still feel like I'm missing a lot of the context though. You see, the point of historical-fiction like this, is to take a piece of history and recontextualize it. That's why "Inglorious Basterds" works so well, it's playing against dozens of other similar true stories and fictional tales about World War II and the history of what happens to the Nazi leaders and regime; Tarantino's breaking of that history is a personalization of the narrative as much as a recapturing of it. I don't know if this film is recapturing a narrative or breaking with a history though. From what I can tell and read, I feel like, this movie is like a fun adventure video game where two of the main characters happen to be these important figures in the Indian Revolution. It's almost like that example of MLK and Malcolm X I gave earlier, but they're also both superheroes, and you probably know already on how much I'm not big on superheroes coming together.... That said, this isn't that atrocious. This isn't a terrible movie; it's a long and inconsistent epic, but honestly that's most of the most popular Indian films from what I can tell. This isn't a Bollywood movie, since it's based in the Tulugu Province, it's actually a Tollywood film, but you can definitely see the inspiration of the traditional Bollywood narratives all over it. I did like the musical numbers, especially that Oscar-winning "Naatu Naatu"; that damn song is catchy. And, I don't think the songs stopped that action like other Bollywood songs can do, but I do think the action sequences were the least interesting part and did stop a lot of the forward momentum. </div><div><br /></div><div>I also just, don't know what exactly I'm supposed to take out of it. It's clearly not for me, and not just because the British villain characters are stunningly one-note and mind-numbingly vicious to the point of exaggeration, although I do appreciate how the bullet motif eventually comes around. I don't think that portrayal is entirely inaccurate, but it does make this film just seem simple. Everything about this seems simple in fact. Children are the MaGuffin and what brings these characters together, The Crown are just violent, pompous colonialist overthrowers, and the Indian character heroes are just better at kicking ass than everyone else, so they win. After looking up a few interviews with Rajamouli, I'm wondering if I want to fully understand the meanings and purposes of this film, I suspect that not all the symbolism is as well-meaning and intended as it may seem on the surface. Wouldn't you think though that, bringing together two important figures in the Indian Revolution like this, from different areas and regions and whatnot, would lead to, some-, maybe not as deep as say, what we get in a movie like Regina King's "One Night in Miami...", but something a little more nuanced, philosophical, depthful....? I feel like bringing characters like these figures together, would make the conversations between them the most interesting parts of the movie, not the parts that are the most glossed over and simplified.</div><div><br /></div><div>Still though, as entertainment it's harmless enough. I enjoyed it for what I got out of it, and I suspect that's what most people are getting out of it. I can appreciate the craft and skill it clearly took to make this film. I doubt it's power, but it's fine. </div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>THE FABELMANS </b>(2022) Director: Steven Spielberg</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div><div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/D1G2iLSzOe8" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe> </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">(Imitating the late, great James Lipton)</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">And once again, we have come to the predominant theme of our series, family dysfunction, and parental separation.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">Actually that's something that we probably don't give Steven Spielberg nearly enough credit for. It's a bit of a running gag now through his films, but how often did we actually have stories, in any media really, and especially film, where parental separation was a major theme, prior to him? I'm sure it'd come up occasionally for a film here-or-there, but in terms of it being something of a common theme of the filmmaker, the only filmmaker before him that comes to my mind that's somewhat regularly analyzed through the lens of parental separation is Walt Disney, and even then I'd be stretching it; Disney talked about parental separation, mostly through death, and even then, it was stories painted in the lights and colors of a fairy tale the majority of the time. Of course, divorce wasn't nearly as common as it is now, or even frankly back in Spielberg's youth, and the fact that he became such an established filmmaker at such a young age, meant that not only was it fresh on his mind, but he was unusually talented technically and acute enough mentally to actually dive into it, accurately. He really was the filmmaker who brought out these ideas of having to be an emotional and literal witness to seeing your family falling apart, and still having to go out and struggle to live your own life, and he did a lot of this, right at the time when many kids and families were themselves starting to go through divorces. Perhaps it's less of a coincidence that Spielberg's peaks of stories like "The Sugarland Express", "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", "E.T....", and others, was also the peak of all those damn after-school special programs that almost all seemed to be about the struggle of kids going through a divorce. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">BTW, out of curiosity, after watching "The Fabelmans", Spielberg's most personal and autobiographical, apparently, story to date, I actually did go back and watch his episode of "Inside the Actors' Studio"; it was difficult to find, so I won't say how I found a copy, (And somebody ought to find a way to make more episodes of that series available everywhere, btw, we're really missing a huge treasure trove of material, and even then, I could only find half the episode) but I actually didn't realize until now, just how coy he was on the exact details of his parents' divorce. I guess most people aren't specific-specific in interview situations like those, especially ones taped for two-hour TV broadcasts and all, but I guess since it has become such a huge part of Spielberg's mythos over the decade, it's actually kinda surprising how little he's actually gone into exact details about it, at least until now. </span><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">So, in that sense, this movie was inevitable. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">It's so inevitable and the Spielberg narrative and mythos is so infamous, that part of me is trying desperately to not point out all the obvious details that I've known for years and/or to discuss or debunk some of the stories and their accuracies. Interestingly, probably the most infamous origin story of Spielberg that's still constantly debated is whether or not young 19-year-old Spielberg actually did jump off a Universal tour bus, talked his way into getting a 3-day pass, and then kept showing up on Day 4 onward without the pass, and took an empty office and just acted like he worked there and had a job as he kept himself around the lot until he got actual work. I've spent film classes where we actually debated over whether or not it actually happened or could've happened back in those days. If anybody's ever seen the Dutch documentary, "Climbing Spielberg", you'll see an experiment of a few people trying to do this now, and obviously failing as security details and technology make attempting such an act on Universal's lots impossible now. I do like the story he instead replaces with it, another true story that happened to him when he was 15, where he got to meet John Ford (I'm not revealing who played him, but it's genius casting). This story gets shifted up to when he's nineteen, as the horizon line falls pushes downframe. It's a cool ending.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">The rest of the movie, is also, just great. I don't know quite how great it is within Spielberg's filmography; I mean, everything he makes is at least competently made and almost all of it is watchable, even his worst film "Ready Player One", is about a good a film as anybody could've made out of that material. And it's hard to even discuss it within his oeuvre, 'cause on some level, it feels like a lot of his greatest hits. Go down the list of the things you expect in a Spielberg movie and you'll find almost all of them here except for maybe aliens. And actually even then, you can argue a few of the side characters do indeed feel like aliens. Judd Hirsch got an Oscar nomination for Uncle Boris, in what's essentially a cameo, but like Spielberg's real uncle, who he only met twice in his life, he was this bull of a man who toured with Ringling Brothers as a lion tamer. He was the black sheep of the family, and seems like a complete stop to the movie, but must've also been like a strange diversion to a young Steven as well, like someone coming from another world. Or, the first girlfriend character, Monica (Chloe Webb) in the film, a Catholic at his California high school, where he is the only Jewish kid, and apparently is infatuated with Steven, Jews and Jesus, not in that order, but also, weirdly together.... There's a lot weird with this that,- I've tweeted and discussed it on FB a bit, already with others, but it's probably better to just see it for yourself, and the only other thing I'll add is that, the relationship occurs when he's in the middle of his parents, divorce.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">I really shouldn't be using Steven's name so much, even though "Fabelmans" is basically another word for "Spielberg", and I mean literally, Spielberg means "Play Mountain", play as in speech, performance, storyteller, oddly enough, also just play, but yeah, "Story Mountain" or "Story Man", while it's definitely an adaptation of his life, it's not hiding it's inspiration. The film also marks the first time he got an Oscar nomination as a screenwriter along with his friend and Pulitzer Prize winning playwright Tony Kushner, which is one of those weird Spielberg facts that both makes sense and yet still sounds wrong. (Like, I know he doesn't usually write but like, how did he not get nominated for writing "Close Encounters..." at least?) But yeah, "The Fabelmans" is technically the story of Sammy (Gabriel LaBelle) and about him growing up and getting swept up in the world of moviemaking, and as a happy youth, and then getting swept down to Earth after his parents, Burt and Mitzi (Paul Dano and Oscar-nominee Michelle Williams) marriage begins and continues to devolve. Steven does talk about a critical year and a half of his life where he struggled to make movies in high school after moving to California, but even before then, he realized that his father's best friend and co-worker Benny (Seth Rogen) and his friend were a little closer than they should've been. If you know that's coming up, which, honestly I wouldn't have if it wasn't spoiled for me (Not because I didn't know this about Spielberg's background, but mainly because I forgot about it; like I said, he's not always talked explicitly about the details of this period of his life), than you'll start seeing the clues a mile away. Of course, I'm not a kid, or somebody in denial, or both. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">Other than that, what I'm basically grading this film on is how good a telling of someone's own life is told by them. I mean, what am I gonna say, somehow wish Spielberg's childhood and experiences were different than mine? I could dwell on just how lucky his upbringing was, a son of an eccentric artistic concert pianist who once bought a monkey and a groundbreaking computer electronics engineer who patented and influenced top-of-the-line technology for decades who naturally happened to be able to get ahold of an 8mm camera and get him a state-of-the-art Lionel train set. No, that'd be dumb. And it'd just be as dumb to dismiss the film as a therapy movie from him, on that basis, like half his films could be some kind of therapy movies for him since he's never been subtle with his themes and motifs and his upbringing has always been apart of his motifs. So, yeah, how good is Spielberg telling his own life story? Well, it's Spielberg, so he gets an A+. Spielberg could tell the life story of an amoeba and get an Oscar nomination for Best Director for it, and he would be deserving of it. It's by far, from here on in, gonna be listed now as his most personal film; now where's it gonna rank or get placed within his oeuvre, how's it ultimately gonna rank among his films...? That, I have no idea. I almost wonder if the movie's gonna get separated out from his works, like the way "A.I. Artificial Intelligence" is generally separated out as nobody can figure out if it fits better in Spielberg's works or if it's an extension of Kubrick's message from the beyond. "The Fabelmans" feels that different, just in the, too personal direction. I almost feel bad trying to catalog it; hell, it makes me feel bad for trying to catalog and compartmentalize any of Spielberg's works. How do you determine that something like, separate the more action/sci-fi stuff with the more emotional personal stuff, with the more historical and often Jewish background stuff,...- all this tells us is that Spielberg's been around long enough and made enough movies, and great movies at that, that we are able to make so many distinguishes between them. "The Fabelmans" biggest legacy is probably as a reminder that so many different eye-opening ideas and visions can indeed come from the same source and this film is just, him showing us why and how. Of course, while doing so, baring his soul, which he's really always done, but probably never as much as with this film. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; font-size: large;"><b>LIVING </b>(2022) Director: Oliver Hermanus</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2</b></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://britishperioddramas.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/765.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://britishperioddramas.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/765.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">I'm honestly surprised that this hasn't been done before. I'm also surprised that it works this well, although honestly that shouldn't surprise me. "Living" startled me at first, just with it's opening sequence. It's hard to fully explain but it feels like an opening out of some older movie, like one from the forties or fifties, but I can't pinpoint exactly what film that reminds me of. Although I certainly know the movie that it's based on. </div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">Perhaps that was to it's detriment though. "Living" is a remake of Akira Kurosawa's film "Ikiru", and for the most part, if you've seen the original film, than the beats of the movie won't be surprising to you. Also, if you've seen the film, you know how much of a large and difficult shadow that is to overcome. "Ikiru", which translates to "To Live" is a goddamn masterpiece, arguably the Japanese master's best film; recently when I decided to publish what would've been my picks for the <a href="https://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2022/08/some-thoughts-on-sight-and-sounds.html">Ten Best Films</a> ever, in accordance with "Sight & Sound"'s recent poll, "Ikiru" made my list. I didn't talk much about it then, but I later posted a Canon of Film blog on <a href="https://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2023/05/canon-of-film-ikiru.html">"Ikiru"</a> earlier, but to paraphrase, it's just this beautiful, haunting poetic film about dealing with one's inevitable and upcoming mortality. Anyway, the point I'm making is that, this movie will inevitably get compared to "Ikiru", and frankly, well,- well, while I'm surprised there hasn't been too many western remakes, I kinda get why there haven't been; it's just one of those movies that's just too good to remake. It's too sad, beautiful, perfect. I can't think of it without crying. I doubted whether I would cry for this film. </div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">Well, eventually I did. Bill Nighy, in an Oscar-nominated role, shockingly, his first, plays a sly, drab Public Works employee who mostly pushes paper around and sends them off from one department to another as oppose to helping to get things done. Then, he finds out that he's dying, and only has a few months to live. At first, he tries to tell his son Michael (Barney Fishwick) but he's busy with his life with his wife Fiona (Patsy Ferran) and realizes he's become more of a burden on them than anything else. One change is that, we get to see occasional flashbacks and glimpses from the Williams's (Nighy) past. Like, how he hears a call for him from his son, and gets up startled, not realizing he's just being asked to lock the door for them. </div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">He also considers suicide, even buying sleeping pills and pulling out much of his life savings, which isn't in the original. He ends up going against that idea, but realizing how little of life's more exuberances he's had, he does take up an amnesiac writer's, Mr. Sutherland (Tom Burke) offer on spending a night on the town with him. It at first seems awkward for him, but he appreciates it ultimately.</div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">He does end up connecting with a much younger woman, in this case a former employee of his, Margaret (Aimee Lou Wood), who left working at the Public Works to take a supposedly promising waitressing job. They spend some time together, and while their relationship is nowhere near romantic, sometimes it does take the inspiration of youth to realize and inspire a next move. </div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">Eventually, he comes around to getting that playground request through, although it's sorta indicated early on that he must've felt somewhat inspired in that respect beforehand, as per this film's version that famous montage of the women going from department-to-department all through the government, he insists on a newcomer to the office, Mr. Wakeling (Alex Sharp) accompany them through the process until it ends up back in front of his desk, to eventually put to the side. That's a new addition, but it might actually be an improvement. Without giving too much away, it's Wakeling who is eventually inspired, somewhat from Williams's inevitable passing, and is ultimately the one who pieces together the secret of his changes in his last few months, but also finds out about Williams's own path of discovery and happiness, ending with, yes, that final image of a story of our late hero, singing joyously late at night, swinging in the snow, staring up into the stars. </div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">That's when "Living" really got me. It's hard to be shocked by a story so heartbreakingly sad that it's made even the most harshest of filmgoers cry their eyes out for 70 years, but I'll be damn, at the end, I was indeed tearing up. Don't think it's just the fact that this is a remake of a universal tale, it's a damn great interpretation, filled with first-class acting, especially by Nighy, and gorgeous, period filmmaking. "Living" takes place in an older time period, but it also aims to feel like an older film, one that's been around as long as the original has, and yet, seems just as unique to the United Kingdom and the Western world as "Ikiru" feels to Japan and the East.</div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">The film was directed by Oliver Hermanus, who made a powerful gay romance feature, "Moffie" about two apartheid-era white South African soldiers who discover their feelings for each other in probably the worst time and place they could. That movie kinda got buried in the pandemic, even after it got loads of acclaim on the indy circuits, but it definitely shows how capable he is of telling interesting emotionally-complex tales with complex characters struggling to handle their feelings. "Living" fits right in his alley, and the Japanese-born British Nobel Laureate Kazuo Ishiguro is a perfect choice to make this wonderful adaptation. He's the writer behind such works as "The Remains of the Day", which he wrote the screenplay for the wonderful and severely underrated Merchant-Ivory film. He was familiar with the original, and clearly had the instincts of Kurosawa, but he used his sensibilities to make the movie quintessentially low-key and British in it's approach. Most western adaptations of Eastern cinemas try to play everything up, it's almost like he knew how to play everything down, but kept in the emotional subtle details that give the story power. </div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">It's hard for me to put "Living" right up their next to the film it was inspired by in terms of greatness, but it achieves it's own kind of splendid greatness. It knew not to try to mimic the beauty of the original so much as to find it's own kind of beauty and lean into that. It's makes the story almost feel more awe-inspiring in that way. It's easy to get those to remember you who are most devoted to you, but "Living" ends with a note of how Williams was inspiring to one who wasn't inherently devoted to him and his work, and that's arguably a preferable ending in my mind. Hell, that's just art really, getting those to feel for that which has no direct personal connection to them? Is that all that we want to leave the Earth on, knowing that something we create and exist, will inevitably be remembered for their contribution to it? No wonder he's singing at the end.</div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>GLASS ONION: A KNIVES OUT MYSTERY </b>(2022) Director: Rian Johnson</span></div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gj5ibYSz8C0" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe> </div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">Oh, I don't normally look forward to sequels, but I was looking forward to this one. "Knives Out" made my Ten Best List when it came out and frankly it's the most fun movie I've seen in recent years; I fucking loved it. Not just because I love a great murder mystery story and "Knives Out" licked the scenery which so much absurd, audachuberance that I couldn't help but just sink my teeth into it, but also because I finally felt like I was back to getting Rian Johnson in the genre that he loved. </div><div style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></div></span><div>Whenever I hear Rian Johnson's name brought up these days, most everybody seemed to associate him with the fact that he made a "Star Wars" movie. I've seen stuff like that happen to a lot of good and great directors recently, as though you're only judged by the big franchise blockbuster you made as oppose to everything else they made. But I remember when Rian Johnson first broke out and he didn't break out with a "Star Wars" movie. He broke out with a film noir mystery, a little independent film called "Brick". It took place and surrounded a world of high school kids, but it was a cool little film noir, was one of Joseph Gordon-Levitt's first big leading roles before he really started to break out. And he followed up with a couple other movies that were essentially homages to older-style classic genres. "The Brothers Bloom" never impressed me much, but it was a classic con movie. Even "Looper" was a clever sci-fi film that felt more like a sci-fi film from decades earlier, and they were smart movies too; they weren't just films full of idiots playing out the conventions of the genre. Clearly though, I thought he loved the film noir mystery aesthetic the best, and he's been proving that recently.</div><div><br /></div><div>"Knives Out" felt like, he wasn't just going back to his roots, but that he had enough clout and money to make the film he really wanted to make and go all out with it. The best murder mysteries are never about who the killer(s) are anyway, they're always about the process and journey through the worlds the characters have to go through to get to the solution. </div><div><br /></div><div>So, now we have a sequel to "Knives Out",- well, not so much a "sequel" per se, it's just another Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) mystery. Blanc was the wonderful detective in the first film, and now, him, and a strangely eclectic bunch of, well, they call themselves "Disrupters" are invited to the Mediterranean island home of crypto tech billionaire influencer Miles Bron (Edward Norton, in a role that I have to imagine had to be a little inspired by Elon Musk). His island home which is guarded by Banksy statues at low tide, run on Hydrogen energy and has a giant mansion filled with a giant "Glass Onion" structure in the middle. Why a "Glass Onion"? Well, it was the name of the bar that he and the group of disruptors used to meet at before they all made in big in their respective fields. Each of them has arrived by invitation from Bron for an elaborate murder-mystery plot. </div><div><br /></div><div>I don't care how stupid it is or how it's always stupid, I love the murder-mystery game night actually turning into a murder-mystery plotline. And yes, eccentric island filled with the absurdly rich and elite that's blocked off from society and no one outside can reach it for hours, all it's missing is an Agatha Christie detective. (Well, there is a cameo from the late great Angela Lansbury, so I guess that could do. Steven Sondheim is there in both their in their last films. Actually, there's a lot of subtle great cameos in this film.)</div><div><br /></div><div>I don't think most people understand how genuinely hard it is to write these kinds of murder-mysteries; I'd tried to do this genre a few times, and you really have to write it out ahead of time and get everything prepared. I think modern audiences have mostly been spoiled with such an abundance of cops and detective shows that have littered the television airways for decades. Hell, I just saw a trailer for a new "Matlock" lawyer series that weirdly makes note of how little it actually has to do with "Matlock" other than it being a show with lawyers and having the same name as the old show.... (Sidenote: As somebody who actually has seen and knows everything about the original "Matlock", I am fascinated and utterly confused by that trailer and that series) That said, this is not an easy genre to write, and this one is by far, one of the absolute best and genuinely one of the dumbest ones I've ever seen; I love it all! </div><div><br /></div><div>It's even weird enough to take place during the pandemic and pulls that off brilliantly. I love that the dimwitted Kate Hudson, a trust-fund baby fashion model who's remade her career making a killing on sweatpants, character wears one of those masks that's made of mesh so people can see her face, that she only wears outside and not inside during her party. Hudson and Norton are great, so is Kathryn Hahn as a rebellious Connecticut Governor running for Senate. Dave Bautista's got a nice role here as a Twitch streamer who's trying to morph into a Men's Rights activist as well. The real standout and I won't give away why is Janelle Monae and a former partner of Miles who's sudden appearance on the island stuns everybody as she normally doesn't go on these regular Bron retreats of his. I'll admit, for about the half the movie I was wondering why everybody was giving her so much credit for her work in the film, but kinda just like how unassuming Ana De Armas's role in "Knives Out" only becomes more fulfilling as the movie continues on, Monae's work gets better the more the mystery gets revealed. </div><div><br /></div><div>I also have to say, I like how Johnson reveals these stories. There's a few different ways that these kinda murder-mysteries can be told, although usually the best and most simplest way to tell them is to have the detective summation of the killer at the end, but in both these films, Johnson has found ways of both subverting that trend and also completely twisting the storytelling; these films are not linear, but they're not linear storytelling for a reason. We don't get all the information to solve the case ourselves at first, we get the information at the best moment it matters for us to have that information revealed to us, and it often means that we're often way more out of the loop than we are for even the best and most normal whodunit mysteries. I like how that keeps you us on our toes, and it often allows us to buy into, some of the more outlandish developments. Like how, and I won't give it away, a hot sauce owned by Jeremy Renner becomes a key factor in helping to solve the mystery. </div><div><br /></div><div>"Glass Onion..." is probably not technically as good as "Knives Out", but it's still just too much fun to dismiss. I love these twists and turns, acerbic wit and details. I think sometimes even the best detective stories in recent years, forget just how much fun they can be and how the genre is often so much better when it is fun. I think we forget that, and I'm glad Rian Johnson doesn't. Definitely the two most fun movie experiences I've had in the last years, are the two Benoit Blanc movies.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>MARCEL THE SHELL WITH SHOES ON </b>(2022) Director: Dean Fleischer-Camp</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://images.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/07052022_TZR-Marcel-the-Shell-with-Shoes-On-Movie_t.jpg?d=1200x630" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="420" data-original-width="800" height="336" src="https://images.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/07052022_TZR-Marcel-the-Shell-with-Shoes-On-Movie_t.jpg?d=1200x630" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>(Startled look on dumb face)</div><div><br /></div><div>What in the hell, am I watching?</div><div><br /></div><div>Okay, I don't know what I expected with a film called "Marcel the Shell with Shoes On", but-eh,... um...-</div><div><br /></div><div>I'm kinda at a lost for words here. Normally I like it when I see things onscreen or in movies that, I haven't seen before and are really new and original, but this is-eh,- wow, this might be a little too out there for me. At least, me personally, I'll analyze the film itself in a minute. </div><div><br /></div><div>Actually, real talk right now, it's not just the, no pun intended, the eye-opening nature of the film, the-eh, story's kinda getting to me a bit at the moment, 'cause frankly, it's-eh,... well, I hate to say that a movie about a talking, um, shell, is literally hitting a little too close to home for me but it actually is, so part of me just, doesn't even want to review this film because I fear diving into certain raw feelings and emotions that this film triggers in me. Then again, it's a movie about a talking shell, that, is-, like, it's definitely an animated film, but the way it's mixing media is striking. Like, clearly this is stop-motion but even most stop-motion movies exist an a world that also is clearly animated, and "Marcel the Shell with Shoes On" exists,- like, seemingly in a contemporary modern world. Honestly, that's kinda more frightening; this might be one time where I'm wishing that the movie created more of a fantasy world for this character to exist in. Actually, what is this character,- I need to google search this. </div><div><br /></div><div>(Google search)</div><div><br /></div><div>Huh, from 2014...? Alright Ellen, help me out.</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IIP-3AEYLj8" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe> </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">Oh, I think I do remember hearing about this before, but I don't think I watched any of those shorts. That's probably why this is so surreal to me. Having now gone back to watch them, they're kinda cute. And I definitely get that feeling, of, just seeming so small; I like that thought thought and trying to survive in that world. I don't think I ever thought of myself as a tiny shell, but- y'know what, maybe I have, metaphorically. Something that covers you up to protect you, that does feel like something I would've done. Still, these feel like, very small, quaint little shorts; I could easily imagine Marcel, as like, some kind of character you'd find in like a commercial for some kind of insurance company or something. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">A feature-length film though, that's a trickier proposition. Marcel, (Jenny Slate, who created the character) is a shell, with shoes on. Not in a shell world, in our world, and living in a house that turns out to be a big AirBnB house, means that, on top of some of the regular struggles of, just surviving as a one-inch shell in a world full of full-grown humans, they also have to survive in a world where they don't have humans around, and are all alone. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">Well, when I say "They", it's mostly Marcel, although he does have his grandma, Connie (Isabella Rossellini), an old shell that Marcel helps take care of in her old age. There used to be more of them, but right now it's just Marcel and Connie.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">And Dean (Dean Fleishcer-Camp, the film's director and Slate's real-life husband) who, I guess, discovered Marcel while staying at the AirBnB house and decided to pull out his camera and make Marcel the subject of his videos. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">Yeah, "Marcel the Shell with Shoes On" is that rare mixed media mockumentary feature. I honestly can't think of too many other films that fit this description. As to the story the film tells, well, I guess I enjoy it, but I kinda think it was a little inevitable, which I ultimately find disappointing. I mean, there's only so much you can do with a tale of a lonely shell. I didn't think Lesley Stahl would come into play, but other than that, it was told about what you'd expect, and that for me, made it difficult to watch. I want to be clear, it's not because of the execution, the movie does this as well as it could, it's the way that, I found, hard-to-deal with and frankly that's more of a personal thing than an issue with the film itself. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">Other than that, I do like using animation like this, to see the worlds of people, or in this case, shells, and how different they are from us, and I like that contrast between the two worlds and to the film's credit, they do find a lot of good ways to examine that as much as they could. I'm not entirely crazy about it all, because some of it's just irksome to me, but Marcel does make a lot of the cringy parts more tolerable. Also, I'm a sucker for a great use of an Eagles song, and there's a wonderfully sad moment where Marcel sings "Peaceful Easy Feeling" at the end. Yeah, I can't help it, this movie works. It's quirky and weird, and I think I prefer the shorts for this character, but yeah, I still like how I get taken in by "Marcel...". Can't help it; I know what it's like to feel small and alone sometimes, whether you're actually alone or you're surrounded by your loving community of shells. </span></div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>FIRE OF LOVE </b>(2022) Director: Sara Dosa</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div><div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://lumiere-a.akamaihd.net/v1/images/ng_fol_desktop_1920x792_e1f116a6.jpeg?region=0,0,1920,792" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="330" data-original-width="800" height="264" src="https://lumiere-a.akamaihd.net/v1/images/ng_fol_desktop_1920x792_e1f116a6.jpeg?region=0,0,1920,792" width="640" /></a></div></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">"Fire of Love" is a meditative journey through the lives of the volcanologist couple Maurice, Katia and Maurice Krafft. They were freelance volcanologists who traveled the world studying the most active volcanoes they could, and tended to fund their studies through filmmaking, often grabbing some of the most shocking and harrowing images of volcanic imagery. They funded their studies through their films and Maurice's books and speaking tours in particular. The movie focuses mainly on their love story, although it does go into some details of their adventures, like how Maurice was annoyed at missing Mt. St. Helen's implosion, but also how they constantly campaigned in Columbia to evacuate the area surrounding the Nevada Del Ruiz explosion, and how when they didn't, it lead to one of the most catastrophic death tolls a volcano's ever produced. Katia barely survived that one. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;">Now, my initial instincts watching this film is that, it's okay, but it's basically a Werner Herzog documentary. In fact, the film I was most thinking of watching this film was "Grizzly Man", the great Herzog documentary about Timothy Treadwell activist who went on to live amongst the grizzly bears until he and his girlfriend were killed by them. This movie isn't so fascinated with the man vs. nature fascination and dynamics, but yeah, essentially this film is just a Herzog film; even Miranda July, her narrating is basically doing her best Herzog impression. It kinda makes sense, July and Herzog are actually kinda similar kinds of weirdos. Still, I'm a little surprised Herzog didn't make a movie first.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;">(Google search)</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;">Except he did.... </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;">Huh...</span><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"> Is this film streaming anywhere.... </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">(Google search)</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;">Okay, you know what, change-of-plans, this is gonna be a double review. I don't think I've done one of these in a while, and usually it's because I have to suddenly have to watch a movie before I watch some sequel that got huge, but why not do it this way, let's compare these films.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif; font-size: large;"><b>THE FIRE WITHIN: A REQUIEM FOR KATIA AND MAURICE KRAFFT </b>(2022) Director: Werner Herzog</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif; font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif; font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐1/2 </b></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/fnCZJCFJ4Ts/maxresdefault.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/fnCZJCFJ4Ts/maxresdefault.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;">Herzog's film's better. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;">Well, I could end both reviews here honestly, but it's not like I think either film is great per se, but I personally just found Herzog's telling of the story more compelling. It focuses much more on, what you would expect, the power and destructiveness of the volcanoes they "researched". That's the thing that's kinda alluded to in "Fire of Love", but not entirely explicit but at a certain point, they basically weren't scientists anymore, they were just filmmakers. Herzog even makes the obvious comparison to Jacques Cousteau, which is what Maurice thought of himself as. Both Herzog and "Fire of Love"'s director Sara Dosa had rights to the Kraffts' footage, although apparently she had more, although some footage is used in both, and I do like how both of them used it. Dosa's a little better in some respects here, 'cause she actually does shows some of the more obviously contrived and arbitrary footage of the Kraffts basically just shooting home movie stuff that happens to be around a volcano. Even their official stuff is kinda odd. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;">Werner makes a proper declaration about how ridiculous some of the "protective" outfits that they wore were. I also like how his narration is more able to emphasize and add to the footage in ways that July's more-or-less, floats over most of the footage. It's a preference thing, July's tone is slightly more cerebral and elegiac, I guess if you prefer that than "Fire of Love" might be more preferable. Personally, I like Herzog's film better. It feels like Herzog gets the full scope of the Kraffts and their accomplishments and legacy while "Fire of Love" struggles to bring them up to some higher plain, and frankly I just don't think they rise to that level. I get why they're fascinating to both of these filmmakers, especially for Herzog whose whole career is seeing the constant fight between man and nature, and I kinda get Sosa's desire to take a Herzog-like subject and style and try to tell a different kind of tale. Again, I'm not either of these are great, but I definitely liked one more than the other. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;">Little surprised so many people have drifted more towards Sosa's film though; granted the Academy has always kinda dismissed Herzog, but I don't know how they thought enough of this film to nominate it for Documentary Feature. Honestly, the one other film I thought a bit about watching "Fire of Love" was Jim Jarmusch's "Only Lovers Left Alive" a romance about vampire lovers who struggle to keep their identity hidden and romance together through centuries. I've seen some people list that film as one of the most romantic of all-time; I don't know if I agree with that analysis either, but I think that same instinct is what propelled people to enjoy "Fire of Love" more. I didn't really get that instinct in "Only Lovers Left Alive" though, and I don't really get it here. </span></div></div><div><br /></div></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696790060036702346.post-57260418942115950272023-05-09T21:01:00.001-07:002023-05-12T09:58:46.149-07:00CANON OF FILM: "IKIRU" <div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">IKIRU (1952)<br /></b></span><div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: times;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p> <br /></o:p></b></span><span style="font-family: times;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Director: </b>Akira Kurosawa<br /></span><span style="font-family: times;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Screenplay:</b>Akira Kurosawa, Shinobu Hashimoto &
Hideo Oguni</span></div><div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" iframe="" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2VeLN3IDjzQ" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" title="YouTube video player" width="640"> <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2VeLN3IDjzQ" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe>
</span></div></div><div><br /></div><div>An old man,
Watanabe-san (Takashi Shimura), we are informed will die soon, unaware at the
time, he has stomach cancer. He works as the Chief of Public Affairs at City
Hall. His job is to stamp paper, and inform the public who comes to the
department with a complaint, which department to go see about their complaint.
In one amazing sequence, we see one such complaint go through dozens of
sections of the government until it ends up back at the Public Affairs desk,
which naturally sends the complaint over again. Eventually, to the surprise of
everybody, especially his co-workers, he’s not in work one day. He’s in the
hospital and he finds out about his illness and that he has less than a year to
live. (Not from the Doctor curiously enough, which was actually customary in Japan not
to inform people of terminal illnesses.) </div><div><br /></div><div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">I've been thinking a lot about "Ikiru" lately. It's probably the Kurosawa movie that I think about the most in fact. Recently, when Sight & Sound completed their decennial Top Ten Poll of the Best Films of All-time, I decided to re-publish my own <a href="https://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2022/08/some-thoughts-on-sight-and-sounds.html">personal list</a>, and I put "Ikiru" on it. I didn't give much of an explanation as to why, only that I thought I needed a Kurosawa and that "<a href="http://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2012/12/canon-of-film-rashomon.html">Rashomon</a>" and "Ikiru" were tied for his best and I decided to switch them up this year. And that's true, they both hit different parts of my brain, when I'm more cerebral and intellectual in my thoughts, I tend to like "Rashomon" more, but I don't know, lately the emotional side has been much more dominant in my thoughts. Personally, death has been on my mind, or how fleeting and limited life is if I should be more specific. I'm not the only one though, it was remade recently into the British film "Living," from director Oliver Hermanus. That movie is incredibly powerful in it's own right and got two Oscar nominations, and personally I'm kinda surprised the film hasn't been remade more often. I think most people just would rather leave it be, not because it couldn't be translated to other cultures easily, in fact, it's an incredibly universal story, but they just don't want to think about the implications in the film. About how fleeting life is and how sudden it could end, and how suddenly you can be face-to-face with one's own end, what would we actually do if faced with that situation.<br /><br /></span></div><div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">“Ikiru,” translates in Japanese to “To Live”. Watanabe-san hasn’t lived, and
now he’s about to die. He tries to tell his son about his illness, but he’s too
concerned about the father’s upcoming pension which he wants to use to get him
and his wife a place of their own. He doesn’t tell them. He doesn’t tell his
family, his co-workers, except for one, and the only other person he tells is a
drunk novelist. (Yunosuke Ito) He has wasted his life pushing around paperwork
and hasn’t done anything substantial with his life. The novelist, finding the
notion romantic, decides to take the old man everywhere on the town that he
can. Pachinko parlors, dance halls, even a strip club. Has he now lived? Does
it make much difference? He still has the cancer, and he will still die, and
the night doesn’t seem to have affected him much. </span></div><div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Yet</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> it has. So has
the few nights out he spends with Toyo (Miki Odagiri) a young former co-worker for a few nights
out, and he takes her to some of the same places, surprising the hell out of
her, who has nicknamed the old man “The Mummy”. She nicknamed all his
co-workers at the Public Affairs Department. There’s a lot of symbolism in the
movie retaining the post-war Japanese culture, and everything from Tchaikovsky
references to Buddhism, but most of that I only learned after listening to the
DVD commentary. Not sure how I would’ve learned it any other way. Kurosawa’s
films are probably the most western of all the older great Japanese filmmakers. Many of his Samurai films were remade as American Westerns, most notable
“Seven Samurai,” which became “The Magnificent Seven”. His films range of
influence range from Shakespeare (“Ran,” “Throne of Blood”) to American mystery/film
noir. (“High and Low.”) Probably his best film is “Rashomon,” which is famous now for being the first film to have and be about multiple perspectives
of the same event.</span></div><div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">That said, I
consider “Ikiru,” my favorite film of his. It’s not simply a movie about death
and living, but of a single man, who’s faced with death and finally decides to
live. This isn’t a melodramatic feel-good “Bucket List,” type movie that
pretends it’s about the things “Ikiru,” is actually about, those people in those
films are just, doing things, Watanabe-san is striving, making the decision to actually live life in the face of
his mortality. When he returns to work, Watanabe picks up a complaint about
mothers wanting a park in a dangerous area and begins putting in actual motion the park's approval. </span></div><div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Curiously, </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">the movie suddenly jumps to his funeral. It’s months later and we’re at a wake with a bunch of
bureaucrats drinking around a photo of Watanabe. A park has been built, and the
public thinks Watanabe, who apparently died in the park on a snowy night,
hasn’t gotten credit for building it. The parks department designed it, the
deputy mayor approved it, at first it seemed unfathomable to them to simply
give him credit, they curmudgeon, and it’s true, a bunch of people were
involved.</span></div><div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">It is in this long sequence that takes up the rest of the movie
through recall and flashback does it suddenly become clear what Kurosawa, and
Watanabe was doing. </span></div></div><div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><br /></span></div><div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">I always thought that this was simply the best way to tell the rest of the story, to have it told back in flashback, with all their bureaucrats not realizing how insignificant their contributions are to the project they took so much credit for and love basking in the glow of their accomplishments, but it's not just that though. Once Watanabe-san decides to make the decision to build the park, his arc has ended, he has changed. He's made the decision to live life, and there's no need to keep seeing him pursue that in real time. It's better to see this through the eyes and mind of</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> the bureaucrats’ selective memories beginning to fall apart, as they slowly realize several simple truths about their co-worker. Not only, that it was
indeed him that got the park made, but also why he suddenly had such a change-of-heart
and change-of-action, and his suddenly ballsy and changed behavior and
dedication could be only be explained one way. That change of action is the key; the decision to live, and movie shows disturbingly, just how difficult that decision actually is to make. How we secretly wish more people would make that decision. How we wish we would make that decision. </span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696790060036702346.post-50028636920103737402023-04-24T04:37:00.000-07:002023-04-24T04:37:05.190-07:00 "POD MEETS WORLD" and why it's different than all the other WATCH-ALONG PODCASTS. <div style="text-align: left;">So a few months back, as per usual, I fell out of bed and stumbled to my computer, and checked my Youtube. I remember thinking how annoyed I was getting at my algorithm giving me too much of the same boring videos, but then, like, four or five rows I saw something different.... </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">("Pod Meets World." TGI-The Happening. Five hours ago.)<br /><br />Huh...</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div>
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/q6eSl5jQzOE" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe><div><br /></div><div>Well, I guess I am more of a Podcast guy than I think I am, but I don't normally listen to a lot of podcasts. And when I do, they're usually, not the full podcast, they're usually just clips. I like clips of podcasts more than I like most podcasts. I even go to sleep a lot of the time to Youtube clips of Jim Cornette's podcasts. I've occasionally listened to a podcast episode or two from some widely varied people from Bret Easton Ellis to Penn Jillette to Richard Blais to Kevin Smith. Most of them were good, even though sometimes I feel like listening to full podcasts is like listening to a bunch of random ads spliced before, in the middle of and after the actual interview/parts of the show that you're actually trying to listen to, so mostly, I prefer to catch podcast material through, like Youtube or Tiktok clicks, like the "New Heights" podcast clips, that podcast from NFL brothers Jason Kelce and Travis Kelce. I never listen to a full episode of it, but I love checking for clips of it. Same with those animated clips from "Office Ladies", which is one of many Watchalong podcasts that have come around in recent years. These are podcasts where, the hosts, usually including at least one or two people who hopefully were somehow involved with the television show that they're talking about, and then they go, literally, episode by episode through a TV series talking about a specific TV show, and often offering some insight into the show, and often involve having interviews and guest co-hosts with people associated with the show. Some of the good ones have some reasonable critical analyses of episodes as well. I have listened to the majority of one of them, "The West Wing Weekly", which is a pretty damn good podcast. Still, my initial instinct is that, A. We just have way too many podcasts, in general, and B. Watchalongs in particular, and kinda,- they're interesting in concept, but I already feel like we have way too many aftershow programs for TV shows. I maybe watched one or two for a few shows I like, if they might have somebody interesting on, but mostly I've got negative thoughts on the subgenre. If it's a show I like I either feel like I'm being preached to by the choir, never mind how annoying it is if it's a show I don't like, but it's either feel like I'm being preached to, or annoyed by people who are technically preaching to me but are also critically nitpicking to the point of obnoxiousness over a show they supposed love. (I mean, I could be that way too, but, eh..., do you really want that, on things you like? That's fun when you want to bash something, not when you want to praise something.) These aren't bad these things, but most of the time I feel like they're for, and often by, the extreme superfans and so even when it's for a show I know exceptionally well, I don't dive too deep into those podcasts, "The West Wing" exception, but-eh, obviously and apparently I clicked on this when I saw it. </div><div><br /></div><div>"Pod Meets World" stars Danielle Fishel, Rider Strong and Will Friedle, three of the stars of "Boy Meets World" the '90s sitcom, that, I have had some very complex feelings about over the years. Now, back when it was on the air, I felt very alone in praising how good the show was. It's hard to explain entirely, if you didn't grow up with it, how separate the TGIF block of television was to the rest of television, especially for kids and teenagers at the time. I knew kids growing up who basically were only allowed to watch "TGIF" because their parents worried about television that potentially wasn't as family-friendly or family-concerned, at least in terms of primetime television, but even still, if you were a kid, you always watched "TGIF", and "Boy Meets World" was,-, um, not the beloved series that it is now. I distinctly remember conversations of everybody talking about the lineup and the conversations were mostly about "Full House" or "Family Matters" or "Sabrina, the Teenage Witch" as being the more compelling series on the block at various times, and I felt very alone in- not-so-much in defending "Boy Meets World", 'cause most everybody liked the show, but nobody thought it was, like the greatest show, so I was usually the only one around who really praised it. And to be honest, I didn't necessarily think it was great either, but I think it was very good, maybe one step below it great, very good (Shrugs), and I often called it the most underrated show on television at the time, which mean, that, to me, it was above-and-beyond, for a TGIF show.</div><div><br /></div><div>After it ended, I saw the show appear in syndication and I thought I was vindicated by seeing how well the show actually fit next to other recently rerun shows of the time that were much more acclaimed, but then, it actually started to get really popular through those reruns. I even once saw it pop up on a Top 100 Television shows list, and it was in the Top 50, and- that's when I started to think, "Okay, back up a bit, this was a good show, it was not a great show!" I participated in one of those polls, and I not only didn't put it on my Top 100, I don't even think I seriously considered it. I was kinda stunned how overly-praised it was getting, then, and then it got a sequel series on Disney Channel, and that show was pretty well-acclaimed as well, people were even pissed when that got canceled. All this really just felt so bizarre to me, all this praise for a series that used to be the show I was technically championing back in the day,- well, it took me aback. I thought it shifted too far in the other direction and passed me even. </div><div><br /></div><div>People might wonder a bit how I'd think it went from underrated to overrated like that, but you gotta realize, even at the time the show was on the air, in my mind, and a lot of other peoples in fact, there was really only one, really great, child-centered coming-of-age sitcom, and one of the biggest drawbacks to "Boy Meets World" is that it was also the obvious show to compare it to, and that's really unfortunate, 'cause, well.... <br /><br /></div>
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/csVaRY1ptZ0" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe><div><br /></div><div>(Chuckle under breath)</div><div><br /></div><div>Okay, there was a recent episode of this podcast, where they discuss how people still somewhat struggle getting the title of the show correct. "Boys Meet World", would get mentioned something, freudian-like. I kinda get why, "Boy Meets World" is a weird, generic title to begin with, but also because, most people if they ever actually did talk about the show, the didn't call it "Boy Meets World", they actually called it, "That Show with Fred Savage's younger brother". </div><div><br /></div><div>It's hard to remember how big "The Wonder Years" was at the time, and how long after it ended it still lingered. Hell, it was the inspiration for a new series recently. And why not? It's the quintessential dramedy that perfectly encapsulates those coming-of-age teen years, and also remains one of the most groundbreaking shows of our time, arguably, with it's voiceover monologue and single-camera film style, it was way ahead of it's time. I'm not at all surprised that Fred Savage, who while still occasionally did some acting, even starring in a TV show that was a surreal parody of those kind of "Talking Dead"-like aftershow series that I don't care for at all, called "What Just Happened", (That was something, wasn't it? I'm not sure what, but it was something) but has mostly become a prominent TV director and producer and would be one of the main people behind that new reboot of "The Wonder Years". Yeah, there's no way, I could consider "Boy Meets World" an all-time great series, when compared to a classic like Ben's older brother's series. </div><div><br /></div><div>Except, lately, I've been totally starting to rethink that analysis.</div><div><br /></div><div>Yeah, y'know, maybe I actually have always been underrating "Boy Meets World", in some ways, all this time and also, simultaneously overrating "The Wonder Years", 'cause, while it's still a great classic, it's a lot cringier than I think people remember. Sometimes in good ways, but other times, it did kinda take a left turn into fields that were a bit too weird. Especially in the later seasons when Kevin Arnold really did kinda become too much of a stick-in-the-mud hypocrite. And it also took itself to a few weird places, literally. Like, a few years ago, I did a Top Ten List of <a href="http://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-top-ten-good-tv-shows-that-were.html">Good TV Shows That Ended at the Right Time</a> and "The Wonder Years" was pretty high on that list, and I found a small clip of that show's finale episode that I think got copyrighted or something, but..., anyway- I mentioned that I was surprised when I originally researched that episode that it wasn't supposed to be the finale, mainly cause of how well it wrapped everything up, but in hindsight, it was a weird finale. Like, why was he chasing Winnie to her summer job?! WTF! You know what, I'm glad Winnie didn't end up with him at the end; they weren't meant for each other. Also, half the appeal of the show was how nostalgic it was for the time period, which, admittedly, I like the time period, even if it was a bit sanitized and whitewashed, so I didn't have an issue with it, but it is a very white-bread innocent-seeming look at the time period, I'm glad Lee Daniels worked on an African-American remake of it, to put a new spin on the late '60s-early '70s. (Not that "Boy Meets World" doesn't have racial issues, but they definitely were done better.)</div><div><br /></div><div>Yeah, in hindsight, I feel like there was a lot more in "Boy Meets World" that holds up over time, and it does hold up better than most other shows you could compare it to. It got the idea of the troubles of youth, especially for the time period it was made and existed in, a lot more than "The Wonder Years". </div><div><br /></div><div>Also, though, there was a reason that I didn't make note of at the time, when I talked about it why the original "The Wonder Years" ended so suddenly and abruptly, and...- well..., um, it turns out Fred Savage is a fucking creep! <br /><br /><a href="https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2022-08-10/fred-savage-allegations-misconduct">https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2022-08-10/fred-savage-allegations-misconduct</a></div><div><br /></div><div>Yeah, I don't know if anybody caught this one, he got #MeToo'd pretty hard, and this transcended to "Wonder Years" now only to the new one where he got fired from, but also, apparently him and Jason Hervey, who btw, there's a guy with a weird career and a pretty good-sized list of questionable people he works or hangs around with, on the set of their original show, they apparently harassed a female employee back then, and after she got fired after complaining, ABC suddenly ended the series after a short settlement, and no, these aren't the only incidents. Apparently he's gotten in trouble on more than a few television series lately.</div><div><br /></div><div>So yeah, with that information, "The Wonder Years", suddenly gets a little more icky, especially in those aforementioned the later seasons. Now it makes a lot more sense why he would lie about Winnie sleeping going all the way with her that time. </div><div><br /></div><div>OMG, I just realized "Boy Meets World", actually did that storyline better, didn't they?! Yeah, maybe "Boy Meets World" is a better show that I always gave it credit and even though I was ahead of the curve, I didn't realize how ahead I was until everybody else caught up and passed me. And maybe "The Wonders Years", might be a little creepier than it should've been. </div><div><br /></div><div>I should note that Ben Savage, is conspicuously absent from this podcast, which, well, considering, that his brother, was just getting caught up in his troubles right around when the podcast first started, that makes sense. Although I don't know if you've heard his news lately....</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/07/boy-meets-world-actor-ben-savage-california-election">https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/07/boy-meets-world-actor-ben-savage-california-election</a></div><div><br /></div><div>Um, yeah, he's running for Congress right now. Um, okay. Good luck with that. </div><div><br /></div><div>Actually, this isn't out of nowhere, while he still has been busy acting pretty regularly, he's also been heavily involved in politics for years. He has a Political Science degree from Stanford and he worked as a congressional aide for Sen. Arlen Specter,- who, was a Republican at the time, but Ben's a registered Democrat, so... (Shrugs) and he's run for local political office before and it's something that he's been passionate about for years. I'd hate to have answer questions about his brother if I were him right now..., but while there's been a lot of stories of Fred Savage's disturbing side out there, I should note that I haven't heard anything bad about Ben Savage personally so far. (Although, now that I'm thinking about it, that makes that episode of "Boy Meets World" where Fred guest stars, umm,- oh boy, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, that is going to be a very troubling podcast episode when they get to that one. Man, I wondered how he seemed so good at playing a creep, now I know.) </div><div><br /></div><div>So, yeah, I started listening to "Pod Meets World", not so much because I am a huge fan of the show, but originally because of, well-, how vehemently my thoughts and perception on the show, as well as the public-at-large have, really shifted over the years for me. And yeah, sure, I thought this would be an interesting way to revisit and remember the show, kinda in the same ways that many of those other podcasts for shows like "The Office" or "The West Wing" or "Scrubs" or whatever other ones out there do....</div><div><br /></div><div>(Very long pause, deep breathes) </div><div><br /></div><div>Okay, um, this is the part, where I start trying to explain, specifically why this version of all those other shows is different, and, it is. It is, it very much is. Trying to explain it, though.... </div><div><br /></div><div>Okay, so most of those other shows that have relatively big new watchalong podcast followings, they're mostly run by people who, sure, mostly had a connection to the show, but, also, really know the shows pretty well, for the most part. The thing here is that, even if they hadn't per se, watched the shows in a while, they were mostly adults when they did those shows. And, these actors in particular, um, they were not at the time. "Boy Meets World". and this is something that I never really thought about at the time, or until now honestly, but it was one of the few primetime sitcoms that really did focus around kids. Like, the main actors were all child actors. There were of course plenty of other, family sitcoms, but mostly the kids were secondary characters, and the ones that weren't, the adults were still, the more prominent figures in their lives. In that respect, while there's definitely some prominent adult roles and characters on the show, "Boy Meets World" seems like a huge exception nowadays. </div><div><br /></div><div>I mean, I guess there's some older sitcoms that kind fit this. "Leave It to Beaver" comes to my mind right away, But that, and some of the other kid-centered sitcoms of that era like, "Dennis the Menace" or "The Patty Duke Show", most of them seemed to have some kind of weird gimmick, or was about how much the actions of the kids were perilous to the adults around. But still, like, even "The Wonder Years" has a lot fewer episodes focusing mainly on Kevin and the trials and tribulations he has with his fellow teenagers than most people might remember, hell I'd argue most of that show's best episodes in hindsight focused more on the older characters like Kevin's parents or even his older siblings. There were shows were you saw kids grow up from kids to adults obviously, but usually the main characters were already well into their teens like, "Happy Days" or "The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis", either that, or you had shows where, while the kids might've been the most common focus of the show, they weren't the show's protagonist. Like, you might remember the kids on "Full House" more, but the "stars," were the three adult men raising those girls. Nowadays, there's a bunch of shows that are more kid-focused like that on Nickelodeon and Disney Channel, but y'know, even something like "Saved By the Bell" at the time, really wouldn't fit this description. I guess, stretching, maybe something like "Family Ties" when the focus shifted more towards Alex as oppose to the parents, but honestly, even that feels like I'm pushing it. Neither of those were inherently coming-of-age series, and all those older shows seem mostly like whitewashed artificial idealize visions of what people thought the '50s was that even if they more appropriately would fit as a comp for how "Boy Meets World" structured, they wouldn't seem modern enough to really count. Beaver's best friend never ended up homeless for an episode because his mother left and took the house that him and his father lived in with her. </div><div><br /></div><div>"Boy Meets World" was a sitcom about teenagers coming-of-age and learning life lessons, and it focused more than any previous show, on those teenagers, at least the main ones that we most focus on and those teenagers were played by, often, very young teenagers themselves. (Not always..., but mostly they were. [Little advice: Don't try to do math using Rider Strong and Trina McGee's ages])</div><div><br /></div><div>And as it turns out, none of them seemed to have ever watched the damn thing. </div><div><br /></div><div>Yeah, that's not necessarily a thing for all actors, or even all child actors, but a lot of actors don't watch their own work and that is part of the appeal of a lot of watchalongs how the stars hadn't seen the shows they were on. It's a nice hook, and these actors, they didn't watch the show originally, or watch it as much. It was work, it was a job, and while the fact that it's survived and remains beloved is a blessing, they didn't watch the series much when they were making it. It basically was a show, and honestly, since they were kids and their lives were so filled with schoolwork outside of this job, I doubt most of them wanted to bother with watching their own work on their free time. Most other similar podcasts they're usually either run by fans who are uber-familiar with the show, or adults who either had better memories or were just more involved and had more influence on the actual series. </div><div><br /></div><div>And, that's another thing about "Boy Meets World", actually a couple things, to be honest. Firstly, "Boy Meets World",- how do I put this..., this show, went through a ton of changes during it's run. Like, a weird amount of changes, not necessarily the most natural ones either. It's not that unusual for older sitcoms, a lot of shows add or drop characters as a series continues for one reason or another, but few shows this memorable and good were as jarring with it. That's one reason I always struggled listing it among the all-time greats, 'cause this show, while it did evolve and grow, like, if you came onto the series late, and then watched a first season episode, you could easily think you were watching two different series. Hell, arguably "Boy Meets World" had many multiple series within it. Trying to narrow it down, or even explain it all can be daunting.</div><div><br /></div><div>Like, the first season, Stuart Minkus, a main character who was played by one of the more well-known actors coming into the show, he was written off after the first season. Then, the second season added, three bully characters that seemed to come out of "Happy Days", as well as a cool young teacher character. One of the bullies would eventually leave, and then come back later, after being replaced by another bully, Jason Marsden played, essentially himself, or a character with his full name, sporadically over the first couple seasons before moving to "Step By Step", Danielle Fishel's Topanga wasn't an official regular 'til like, season three, somehow. The young teacher, eventually got dropped, the bullies got dropped, Shawn suddenly had a brother, although trying to keep track of his family gets harder the more you pay attention.... (I don't think this show wrote a Bible 'til like season five) Essentially, the show changed from like, IDK, "Leave It to Beaver", to "Party of Five" to by the end, seeming like..., man, I don't even know what. I haven't even gotten to the added pregnancy from the mother, the missing sister character who just didn't exist for a season before suddenly coming back. People who actually have sat through the show will get this, but-, okay a good comparison show that came after "Boy Meets World" is "Malcolm in the Middle". Now, that show, had a lot of changes over it's run too. People having kids, characters becoming regulars, characters leaving and coming home with wives and kids of their own, and it was centered around a middle child's experience, yada, yada, yada, but at no point during the run of that series, would you ever look at that show, and say that, the show wasn't "Malcolm in the Middle". "Boy Meets World", you cannot say that about. Fewer sitcoms that lasted this long and remain this beloved and acclaimed have this many complete tonal shifts. I remember it being confusing and jarring at the time, and it must've been even nuttier for the kids who were on it. </div><div><br /></div><div>And that's the other thing.... See, when you listen to some of the other similar podcasts out there, most of the people are telling behind-the-scenes stories or going into more detail of how these shows got to be what they were, etc. etc. And "Boy Meets World" is already a strange amalgam of a show. It's the kind of series that could have years-long believable romantic arcs that goes from middle school to college and also dive deep into the soul of troubled youths and really lay out just how easy and protected some kid's path to adulthood is, while showing how jagged, troubled and strained that kid's best friend could be, and yet, it's also the show, that for some frickin' reason, has a random Monkees reunion in it!? </div><div><br /></div><div>No seriously, that happened! </div><div><br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UIJpnQGfQ9Q" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe></div><div><br /></div><div>There's even a pseudo-sorta "The Partridge Family" crossover, in the middle of this? (Also, holy christ, did Topanga just call Ethan Suplee's character a "Mallrat"? Man, they were way more inside jokes on this show than people realized.)</div><div><br /></div><div>The thing is, as out-of-fucking nowhere as that was, and believe it or not, stuff like that wasn't as unusual on certain sitcoms in the day, and I can still list like, five or ten stranger things that happened, just on "Boy Meets World", but usually the actors on the show will know a little bit about how stuff like that happens. But, what happens when, the majority of your shows cast, are still not old enough to drive, much less, have like a real producers-like say in what happens in the show?</div><div><br /></div><div>Yeah, they were very much in the dark on, a lot of stuff. Basically everything. They weren't in the writer's room, they were never producers on the show. Two of them became television directors, but when they weren't on set learning their lines and performing, they were busy with schoolwork or occasionally playing with some of the other kids on the ABC lots at that time. They show up, and basically be handed scripts and told to do the work </div><div><br /></div><div>"Boy Meets World" was a show, about and starring young kids, but was created and run by a bunch of adults..., and the show is about thirty years old now.... What I'm saying is, it didn't take too long for this podcast to start to get, um, somewhat uncomfortable....</div><div><br /></div><div>I mean, there's nothing here on the likes of a Dan Schneider series, thank god, and it certainly was worst in the past for child actors,- you don't have to dig too far deep to find some really troubling horror stories that thankfully the kids of "Boy..." didn't have to go through, but-eh, yeah, how exactly, did these kids pull this show off? Not that they aren't capable, clearly they were, but like, what exactly was the process of, how, they pulled the show off?</div><div><br /></div><div>I should stress that this podcast, there's a lot here for people, not just people who are fans of the "Boy Meets World", there's a lot of great behind-the-scenes details of working on a nineties network sitcom and how all that worked and some Disney lot stories and tales, some cool fan theories and details and some other fun details, and a lot of really great, eclectic interviews, but it didn't take long for some of these anecdotes to get a little, cringy.... So, other than Ben Savage, the next person who, has been the most conspicuously absent from the podcast, so far, is series creator Michael Jacobs. (Co-creator, actually, but that's a whole other mystery the podcast has searched through.) Jacobs is a very recognizable name in television, especially if you're my age and his shows were all over the television landscape in the '90s. At his best, which, I would argue are "Boy Meets World" and "Dinosaurs" he's created some of the best and most long-lasting television around. It's possible he's just, been busy; he's apparently been shooting a movie, but eh, it's never been explicitly said on the podcast yet, and I don't think it's a true claim I'm about to make here, but it certainly feels like he's being excluded, despite him working with every host on this podcast recently on "Girl Meets World", the aforementioned sequel series. It seems that while he was incredibly talented, and everybody who's on the show, hosts and guests alike, praises him for that, he also, had a bit of a controlling personality at times. One of their early episodes is with David Trainer, who is a longtime legendary television director, who's worked on basically almost every multicam sitcom you could think of in the last forty years, most notably, he directed every episode of "That '70s Show", but he also directed the first two seasons of "Boy Meets World". Anyway, their talking about the show and Danielle Fishel's talking about getting the part of Topanga, and eventually appearing in her first episode of the series, and like, up until, like the twenty minute mark, at least of this Youtube video on their page, it's all really fun reminiscing and storytelling about television's past. And then at around the 23 minute mark, this podcast goes from fun reminiscing to incredibly dark really fast.</div><div><br /></div>
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/77wUIsao-vg" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe>
<div><br /></div><div>Holy Christ! That is, some terrifying shit, if you're an adult to hear! Like, note sessions are common, run-throughs of the episode are common, but apparently Michael Jacobs of all showrunners might've been the most intense of all of them! (At least, I hope he was...!) He's telling this, to a brand new-to-the-show, possibly for only the one episode for-all-anybody-knows-at-that-point, 12-year-old girl! And if you keep listening, don't worry, it's not that he's just an eccentric control freak to little kids, he would tell grown-ass adults just as many obnoxious things too! (Seriously, why in the fuck would you ever tell Betty White to be more like Florence Stanley?! Like, good god, he was still the guy who only did "Charles in Charge" and "My Two Dads" at that point, and even if that wasn't the case, that's like a 12/10 on the "What-the-hell-is-wrong-with-you scale! Yikes!) And like, Trainer, to his credit, acts appropriately to that story, and then you can kinda just see everybody else like, trying desperately to come to grips with that kind of realization and get back on track with the podcast, it's is surreal. </div><div><br /></div><div>They joke about it at times how going through the show is almost like, therapy, since they do have only scattered recollections and memories, some of them, of the show, but like, "Pod Meets World" is part looking into a therapy session at times. Hell, the latest episode of "Pod Meets World" that posted, as I was typing this, is called "Group Therapy Meets World". It's also part mystery, 'cause since these kids were so in their own world, segregated from all the other goings-on on the set, things that would happen between the adults or that the adults would have to taken care of, they were mostly kept out the loop on them. Sometimes, for good reason, other times, maybe not so much. So, not only are they just looking back in general, they're kinda just piecing together a bunch of stuff that, well, might not technically be mysteries, but y'know, were mysteries to them. They didn't know what was going on. They were protected and kept out of some of this, and for all we know, it might've been for the best, but also, for them, things would suddenly just happen and they'd just have to go with it. Why the show would change so much? Why some people were there one day, and not the next and never again? They didn't know, and if they asked, they always get, like, a real satisfactory answer.</div><div><br /></div><div>It's kinda like-, well, scratch that, it's exactly like when you're a kid and something's going on, and all the adults are acting weird and then, every time you ask for, exact details of what's going on, you don't get anything, and it's now, years later and you're going, "Wait, what the hell was all that about?" and now you're kinda finding out the information, 'cause you're older now, but you're still quite getting it entirely... This can be especially daunting for a TV series, where their actually can be a lot of turnover, and "Boy Meets World" in particular, was not necessarily a show that was considered a premiere series to be working on at the time, so, especially in places like the writer's room, grownups were coming in and coming out all the time. And "Boy Meets World" had a bunch of actors coming in and then suddenly leaving as well. Even if, more often than not, it's something benign, it's still, just, like, from their perspective, "WTF, where'd did person go? They're gone now?" </div><div><br /></div><div>Most every other podcast like these, even the ones I like, are basically just, analyzing the episode, maybe an interview or two with people from the show or associated with the show, and then, just everybody sharing their same old stories with old friends and all of whom are sharing interesting stories within themselves, at least, for us who hasn't heard most of them, but I'm sure if it wasn't from these particular people, these tales would mostly be just, stuff they lived through and remember and all already know. It's interesting to us, and occasionally there's a slight deviation, but it's mostly their boring stories of glory days. "Pod Meets World", by sheer circumstance of the podcasters being, really too young and out of the loop at the time, happen to be on a show that's stood the test of time, and was more groundbreaking and influential than it seemed to most at the time, and that show, just happens to have a very chaotic and complex behind-the-scenes world that made it at times seem, quite elaborate and complex on the screen as well, and these three just happen to have the willingness to be as out in the open with as much as they can, and be willing to find out and search for the answers to things that, they just missed when they were around, all this, and more, really makes this the most compelling and interesting podcast of the bunch. It's part therapy session, part investigation, part rewriting of history, part look at the '90s sitcom and child actor world, especially a look at the ABC lot, and yeah, you do get the occasional boring story and inside jokes between friends, but like, even those seem to come off and feel more like sudden repressed memories being unleashed to the forefront of their mind as they watch the show, either for the first time in years, or for the first time ever. It's way more compelling, and I hope other podcasts start popping up with similar vibes.</div><div><br /></div><div>I mean, there's going to be lots of discussion and analysis on those most beloved, remembered and acclaimed shows and a lot of those shows, were so good and popular at the time and remain so now, that people who started with the show just stayed with the show for most of their run, and again, they were all adults, and were kept in the loop and well aware of everything going on, and frankly for some of the great shows, there isn't a lot of real drama, and even the stuff that was, can be pretty easily downplayed. But, the shows that weren't sure they were gonna survive the next year but somehow did and kept struggling to figure out what they had to do to stay on the air, and maybe had lots of tension in writer's room, lots of rotating producers, showrunners, cast, directors, etc.; they might not be the most beloved series, but they probably have way more interesting tales of the struggles of television back in the day, both the struggles of being apart of it, and the struggles with the actual progress of making it. Maybe those are the podcasts we can really use the most, and can learn and be inspired by more. </div><div><br /></div><div>(He writes before he actually starts thinking about some of those shows and some of the stories about and surrounding him.) </div><div><br /></div><div>But, then again...,- ugh... Yeah, actually strike that. After thinking about it, I totally get why, nobody would want to do a watchalong podcast, on eh-hmm, let's say for example, "Suddenly Susan" or "Cybill" or "Grace Under Fire", at least nobody with too much direct involvement with those or other shows, but I'm definitely glad we're getting "Boy Meets World" told this way. And they're not even done with season 2 yet. If you know the show, you know there's a lot coming up, and even if you don't know it like the back of your hand or don't feel like seeking out the episodes on Disney+ or elsewhere, there's still a lot to like and learn, fascinate and possibly terrify you on this podcast. anyway. </div><div><br /></div><div>Yeah, if there's one of these podcasts who I'm gonna recommend to someone who isn't intimately familiar with the show and doesn't necessarily want/need to go through the episodes with them to find the podcast fascinating, it's definitely "Pod Meets World". It might not be the most likely show that you'd think would lead to that great of a watchalong podcast, but that's perhaps exactly why it is.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696790060036702346.post-17224635982946395232023-04-14T12:12:00.001-07:002023-04-14T12:38:06.435-07:00MOVIE REVIEWS #201: "TOP GUN: MAVERICK", "GUILLERMO DEL TORO'S PINOCCHIO", "THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN", "TAR", "AFTERSUN", "THE WOMAN KING", "TILL", "LUZZU" and "WHITE LIE"!<div style="text-align: left;">(Sigh)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">So, I'm sorry I've been so delayed in getting out blogs lately. I genuinely didn't plan on that, but.... I've been going through a few sudden changes with my life and family at home. Honestly, it's- it's been pretty scary, and it's not going to get any easier anytime soon.... I've been devoting more and more of my time to that than watching movies and television. It's probably, affected my personality more than I wish to admit. I haven't been watching as much newer stuff as I should, it's actually been a struggle to do so to a degree. I'll continue to do so, but yeah, it's taken me longer to write, longer to edit.... It's not that I don't have a lot to say still, I certainly do, but it's become more of a struggle for me to actually get all my thoughts out there, and especially when I have other obligations, I'd rather take those precious moments when I'm focused enough to say what I want in the best ways I can than to simply let all my thoughts and emotions get jumbled together. If there are times in the present or near future where I'm unable to do that, I apologize, but when it comes to this, I'm always doing my best. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">So yeah, these blogs have become sporadic lately, and unfortunately, I'm not preparing for them to come out more thoroughly anytime soon. I wish I was, but don't confuse that for me not writing and posting, 'cause I do have a lot to say about a lot of things.... I'm not biding my time so much as I am, preserving it as much as possible. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">With that in mine, I've got a lot of films to catch on, and were gonna start now with a lot of the big award winners and players from this past year, and trust me, I ain't taking this much time to hold anything back. So, let's get to this latest batch of reviews. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>TOP GUN: MAVERICK </b>(2022) Director: Joseph Kosinski</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.joblo.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/top-gun-maverick-new-trailer-tom-cruise-1280x720.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://www.joblo.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/top-gun-maverick-new-trailer-tom-cruise-1280x720.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;">Oh, I have been dreading having to watch this film and reviewing it. Not because I don't like it, which, yeah, I don't, spoiler, but also, for why I don't like it. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;">Yes, it's another edition of my least favorite kind of review: "David has to watch a goddamn sequel to a movie he hated in the first place, because of all the damn awards attention it gets!" Spoilers again, btw, this will unfortunately not be the last of these, but that's not for a bit, hopefully. And you might be thinking, "Okay, so you don't like 'Top Gun', no big deal right? </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;">(Long frustrated sigh)</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div>Look, I've been holding back for awhile on, mostly out of respect and good taste, but- look, it had been a long while since I actually saw the first "Top Gun", and so before I dived into this remake proper, I did my due diligence, and rewatched it for the first time in a long time. I thought, "Maybe I missed something?" "Maybe I didn't get it?" It wasn't a movie that was immediately clear in my memory,...- look, I'm just gonna say it, I'm sorry if this sounds insensitive, and I, in no way, mean any disrespect to the person's life and his family when I say this, I'm only talking about the person as an artist..., but I FUCKING HATE TONY SCOTT's FILMS!</div><div><br /></div><div>All of them!</div><div><br />I haven't seen all of them admittedly, but every one I've ever seen I've hated. "Days of Thunder", terrible movie, fine, the racecar action stuff's okay, but the Tom Cruise plot was bad at that point, and the story is cliched and boring. "Unstoppable", his last film, "Speed" on a train? It's one of those movie's so structure-screenplay wise to death, that it just becomes nauseating. Like, god forbid we don't cutaway to a news footage scene then the audience wouldn't get how big it was. That's an issue with a lot of his films, if he doesn't have a particularly good writer, than he doesn't really know what to do other than to go by the book, whether it makes emotional or realistic sense or not. Not that he's any good with a good writer either, 'cause "True Romance" also sucks! How do you take a Tarantino screenplay, and make it a forgettable mess! He's the reason why the music in that film, which includes a character who's an Elvis impersonator, fucking sucks, which is stunning 'cause "Top Gun" is basically just a soundtrack in search of a movie. An overrated one at that I might add. </div><div><br /></div><div>(Also, can we talk about how "The Hunger" sucks real quick! How do you make a vampire movie with David Bowie, Catherine Deneuve and Susan Sarandon in a love triangle, fucking boring!? Oh yes, shots of lace floating over a bed, that's- look I don't like Ridley either, but he can kinda get away with that sometimes, Tony wasn't that talented to pull that off. If you want to say it's sexy btw..., go rewatch it and convince me that, say an Adrian Lyne, or a Lawrence Kasdan or Brian De Palma, or even a David Lynch, wouldn't have taken those elements and made it sexier than he did. [Oh, David Lynch doing a vampire movie, somebody's gotta start a kickstarter for that.]) </div><div><br /></div><div>I don't know if "Top Gun" is the worst of the ones I've seen, and maybe he did make better films, that I just haven't gotten to. Some of them sound intriguing. I might get to "Domino" one day, that sounds interesting. I hear his films with Denzel are still popular. Maybe they're good too. But so far, I've just been annoyed at him. It's not like he's incompetent and doesn't have talent or know what he's doing, he's not that. He's had ideas, and he had certain skills, but it just has always seemed like his ideas are never placed in the best spots in any of his films. It's not always the same thing that annoys me with his films, but there's always something that annoys, and yes, "Top Gun" was no exception to me then, and it's no exception to me now. </div><div><br /></div><div>Looking back on it, it does bug me how much it seems like a music video than a film, especially in that opening montage. I never got the big appeal of fighter pilots to begin with, so if you don't care about fighter pilots, it feels very frustrating to be force-fed just how apparently great it is to be a fighter pilot. Especially in the middle of '80s, when we weren't even in the middle of any war or anything. BTW, our '80s obsession with fighter pilots was just really bizarre in general. "Top Gun" wasn't the only one, or the best of them even, (I'd argue "Iron Eagle II", yes, the sequel, was actually the best of the bunch) but none of them were actually good. I never did understand this obsession, but looking back on "Top Gun", I think it must've been video games that really got us obsessed with it. If you think back to how many early Atari and arcade games that were just basically a flying object shooting at stuff, then it starts to actually make a little sense, 'cause so many of the fighting scenes in "Top Gun" just feel like I'm watching somebody else play a video game. </div><div><br /></div><div>Yeah, watching "Top Gun" just made me want to play "1942" again, especially since most of the flying scenes are just, practice, literally pretending to shoot down other planes instead of actually shooting down other planes, it feels more like the pretend fighting of a video game and if I'm not the one playing the game, than I'm just not interest in what's onscreen. </div><div><br /></div><div>These issues might be mitigated a bit, if I thought I bought more of the personal relationship in the film, but I never really did that either. It's an '80s Tom Cruise plot, he starts out as an arrogant, talented prick, and then shit happens, and then the movie ends with him being less of an arrogant prick. Some of these movies are better than others, and this pattern extended long beyond the '80s too, but this is not one of the more endearing ones, in hindsight. It's not "Cocktail" unwatchable, but it's got moments where it's closer to that than it thinks it is. I never bought the relationship he had with Kelly McGillis, it never felt really romantic the way other Cruise relationships in movies like these feel, and frankly it feels completely arbitrary and unnecessary, I literally think you could take it out and the movie would improve. (For the record, I believe the same thing about Ben Affleck and Liv Tyler in "Armageddon", not that that would've made that movie good) I don't like how we basically get to learn the most about Goose right before he dies; it feels exactly like that scene in "Hot Shots" where Jon Cryer's Dead Meat is about to die. (BTW, I definitely think "Hot Shots" and "Hot Shots Part Deux" don't get nearly enough appreciation for killing this genre.) </div><div><br />Also, now looking back on it, it's so filled with that really icky '80s jingoism cheese, and especially so for what's essentially just...- "An Officer and a Gentleman" only way worst. Yeah, I said it, and I stand by it, "Top Gun" is a third-rate "An Officer and a Gentleman"-ripoff, and I'll take Richard Gere, Debra Winger, and Louis Gossett, Jr. any day. Same plot, same plotpoints, done 100x times better. </div><div><br /></div><div>I'm sorry for being so mean, but I've held back a lot of my Tony Scott thoughts in recent years, but it's been over a decade since his, very tragic and horrifying suicide, that honestly still haunts me a bit, but apparently it doesn't haunt people enough to not do sequels to his films that are almost forty years old. But he's also, not around, so maybe I'll like this sequel a little bit better. I recognize the names of some of those writers, Christopher McQuarrie, Eric Warren Singer, they're talented. Tom Cruise is still a good actor and there's other talent behind the scenes here, Clauido Miranda's a great cinematographer. Eh, Joseph Kosinski-, actually I don't know his work at all, what's he done? "Oblivion", oh yeah, I saw that. That, existed. He directed that "Tron" sequel I never got around to, another sequel to a movie I didn't like to begin with. "Only the Brave" is somewhere on the Netflix queue,... okay, so maybe not my favorite director, but he's still young and can surprise me. It can't be impossible to make a good "Top Gun" movie, right?</div><div><br /></div><div>Well, I don't know, 'cause "Top Gun: Maverick" isn't a "Top Gun" movie. It's a "Mission: Impossible" movie. It's still got the form, structure and veneer of "Top Gun" and that is all annoying and in that sense, that said, I really don't get why they held so close to the original movie, 'cause the first movie, was nothing. It's was just a bunch of fighter pilots in a fighter pilot school. There were no real stakes for most of the films. That's why it doesn't work, nothing occurs that's meaningful enough to matter until it's way too late, and frankly the characters aren't developed enough past archetypes to care about them when something does happen. </div><div><br /></div><div>So, at least this time, when Capt. Mitchell (Tom Cruise) is sent back to Top Gun, there's an actual goal. There's an actual mission that needs to be done, and he has to go through the Academy's best really quick and figure out which of the main recruits are actually talented enough to pull off this difficult mission. Naturally, he's annoyed, mostly because he just wanted to do the mission himself, but there's a "Mission: Impossible" task, and even if he can't take to the air himself, he knows he still needs a few wingmen. It's "Mission: Impossible" just through a "Top Gun" filter, and... </div><div><br /></div><div>(Sigh) </div><div><br /></div><div>So, Tom Cruise. I've alluded already to the Tom Cruise archetype that he kinda boxed himself into in his early years as a superstar, and on the one hand you can make an argument that he never really got out of those roles, but I don't think that's fair. There was a long period of time from the late '80s on, up until the mid-2000s, where Tom Cruise played against his type and beyond his type in a lot of really challenging and intriguing roles. But we're well into late stage Tom Cruise era, where he's generally just a Hollywood societal pariah, for various reasons, and he has all-in-all just stop giving a damn about actually being the actor that he really could be, and he's really just trying to keep "Tom Cruise Industries" alive. That's not to say that he's not capable of a good film or a good performance, "Edge of Tomorrow" came out of this period for instance, and that's probably the second-best film to figure out how to do a "Groundhog Day" plot ever, but even that film is just another in a long line of action star vehicles for Cruise, that frankly, have become interchangeable from each other, whether they're good or bad. Whether he's Jack Reacher, or Ethan Hunt, or now, Maverick, they're not-so-much movies as they are multi-million dollar promotions to remind everybody that Tom Cruise, is indeed still, Tom Cruise and he is indeed the greatest movie star actor in Hollywood.</div><div><br /></div><div>And now, with this "Top Gun" sequel, it's maybe his most desperate multi-million dollar reminder yet. Cause he is going into the past to make a film that's about how big he is and was. "Top Gun"'s other biggest flaw...- (God's the original movie really did suck) was that Maverick was simply just too good of a fighter pilot, and unfortunately that's one flaw that "Top Gun: Maverick" didn't alleviate. He's still Maverick, he's still the best, and even as he's seemingly over-the-hill for all of his new ace students, he's still the one who's the most talented. So, he comes in and is usually right about everything, there's a Jon Hamm character who's his antagonist at the flight school who's job is to oversee the mission, and essentially just be and look authoritative and be wrong all the time. </div><div><br /></div><div>There's other actors here, Miles Teller is Rooster, he is Goose's son who's joined the Navy to become a fighter pilot, and there's a subplot between them as Maverick pulled Rooster's file and stalled his fighter pilot career for a few years, which is a bit of a dick move. We do get to see Val Kilmer reprise his role as Iceman, and that was nice to see. Val lost his voice due to throat cancer a few years ago, he's occasionally taken a few minor roles, but he mostly doesn't act anymore, and it was nice to see him in a small cameo. </div><div><br /></div><div>I did think the romance subplot, this time, was a little better. I think it grounded the movie a bit, whereas, it just felt arbitrary in the original. This time, Maverick's dating the owner of the local bar, Penny (Jennifer Connolly-, wait, really!? That was Jennifer Connolly! I didn't recognize her? Why does she look so different and yet still hotter than ever!? What the-! Why haven't we looked more into that sorcery.) Anyway, this is a better relationship and has more of a point too, I like how he's still a kid with her, especially with Penny hiding her relationship from her kid, Amelia (Lyliana Wray), and with a name like that, I get why she wouldn't want her daughter knowing she's dating a fighter pilot. That's like tempting fate twice. Still, I like that this relationship not only feels more realistic, but is more relevant to the plot too, as Penny is kinda the only adult in the movie that Maverick can really talk to and discuss his own issues with. It's an evolved relationship, and it feels like it's spread over time and not just, a fling with an instructor while the real romance is between the fellow fighter pilots. (Yeah, I also don't like how bro-y the original is either; military-approved masculinity [jerk off motion with hand])</div><div><br /></div><div>Look, this isn't terrible, I don't want to sound like I'm just here to bash "Top Gun: Maverick". I'm here to bash "Top Gun" mostly, but "Top Gun: Maverick" isn't a good movie either. It's a better movie than "Top Gun" so, I'll give it that, and if you have fond memories of the original, memories that I don't have, than I'm not gonna say don't watch it. I am kinda flabbergasted though at how beloved this film is; it's legitimately winning some of the bigger critical awards out there, and frankly, it's much more by-the-numbers than I think people recognize. I mean, yeah, they're playing football on the beach but not volleyball, but maybe people just haven't seen "Top Gun" in a while and don't realize how close the two films are in their formulas, but watching them back-to-back really does reveal how close they really are structurally. I felt like I was beaten over-the-head with a giant three-act structure book. Maybe it is more artistically appealing and critically interesting, in enough places, but I think that has more to do with Tom Cruise just being a more interesting artist than Tony Scott was, so much so that even his giant ego-filling nostalgia-ladened blockbuster action films are just a little more interesting, butI'm actually shocked that more people aren't calling it out as being another in Cruise's long line of these late period Cruise action blockbusters, 'cause to me, this was very much, just a "Mission: Impossible" movie dressed up in "Top Gun" clothing.</div><div><br /></div><div> It's not new, it's not unique, it's admittedly better than the original, but not significantly so,- in fact, with this movie, more than any other recent Cruise film is-, excuse the horrible pun, but comparatively, feels like it's on cruise control. I might have liked some "Mission: Impossible" or "Jack Reacher" films and hated others, but they definitely felt more like Cruise was trying his damnedest to make them as big and important as possible, and "Top Gun: Maverick" feels like he's finally just decided to give up and take the easy way out. He's stopped trying to make new music; he's just gonna play the hits now. </div><div><br /></div><div>Maybe I wouldn't even mind if he picked a better hit, or at least a more interesting one to follow up on. Off the top of my head, I wonder if he should've tried a sequel to "The Color of Money"; that was a sequel to a film that was decades old at the time, and that was the one '80s Tom Cruise film that didn't follow the Tom Cruise movie formula. He started off as an attractive and likeable prick, but by the end of the movie, he was just a different attractive prick. Maybe there, his character's redemption arc wouldn't feel so much like he was just learning the same lesson twice. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>GUILLERMO DEL TORO'S PINOCCHIO </b>(2022) Directors: Guillermo Del Toro and Mark Gustafson </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://media2.fdncms.com/ntslo/imager/u/original/13289584/musicartsculture_movies1-1-ea72902b27a583f5.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="800" height="320" src="https://media2.fdncms.com/ntslo/imager/u/original/13289584/musicartsculture_movies1-1-ea72902b27a583f5.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>I think after all these years, Walt Disney might've had the right idea with Pinocchio. I don't really know who was asking for so many Pinocchio adaptations in a row, but it's definitely made me think about the story a lot in recent years. As an Italian-American, I'm somewhat close to it. It's Italy's main gift to the world of Children's Literature, and I don't think people know just how big the story is. Carlo Collodi's original book is one of the most translated books in the world. I've heard some reports list it as high as the third most sold book of all-time worldwide. I'm not surprised that, even today, many of the biggest artists of our time, like Guillermo Del Toro, have decided to retell the story. Hell, Roberto Benigni's worked on two versions, one as "Pinocchio" he directed himself and another where he played Gepetto. I liked the one he didn't direct more, although ironically, the one he directed, is probably the closest to accurate to the actual book. </div><div><br /></div><div>That's the thing, while "Pinocchio" is, technically a children's story, it's a pretty dark one, with a lot of disturbing and sometimes horrifying imagery. Even the classic Disney version can often show up on scariest film moments lists, with some sudden and scary body dysmorphia and all the main characters, inevitably getting swallowed and eaten by a whale, that they have to escape. </div><div><br /></div><div>Yeah, reading "Pinocchio" is also one of those weird times, where you suddenly realize just how influential Dante Alighieri's is over the whole of Italian literature. It is not as inaccurate comparison as one may think to consider "Pinocchio" as a journey into Hell narrative. That said, it also means that their actually is quite a lot of leeway into adapting the material. Like I said, Disney, probably found the best way to aim it more towards younger kids, took out most of the surreal aspects, and focus in on the most simple moral lessons, with just enough frightening imagery to scare little kids, but not enough to haunt most of their nightmares for years to come. I also, in hindsight, think the 2-D animation helps to the story's advantage. One of the big issues with other versions is how, the more realistic the stories appears, physically, the harder it becomes to buy. Somehow, Disney's original 2-D animation, makes the story more palatable. And that makes sense, because Pinocchio, in that classic version, I mean, he is technically a wooden boy for most of the film, but he's always more boy than wood in appearance. Even as his nose is growing and becomes more treelike as he continues to tell a tall tale, it still seems like a nose that you could easily see on some other animated character of the time. If a dog popped up on "Tom & Jerry" with that little stub of a nose, nobody would think otherwise. </div><div><br /></div><div>So, what happens when that character, becomes more 3-dimensional, and not only does that nose, seem wooden, but Pinocchio (Gregory Mann) seems more like a marionette than a boy, to the point where he can easily accidentally set his shoes and feet on fire. Well, for me, I think it kinda means the story's real metaphor is gone. Despite everything, "Pinocchio" is at it's heart a story of, coming-of-age, growing up narrative. We start out young and fragile and unknowing of the world around us, then we venture out into the world, and have some pretty distressful misadventures, but you eventually, survive, and become, a real boy, or a man, essentially. I feel like the more literal that becomes, the less metaphor works, but you can still take the elements and come up with your own story and interpretation. For instance, Del Toro adds a more tragic backstory to Geppetto (David Bradley), instead of the lonely woodcarver designing a doll that he wishes would come to life, he actually has a son in the beginning, appropriately named Carlo (Alfie Tempest), but he passes away as a church that he was working on carving out a crucifix for, is accidentally bombed during the war. </div><div><br /></div><div>That's another thing, Del Toro decides to set the story in the early days of World War II, and the rise of Mussolini fascism in Italy. Now, he still has the subplot of Pinocchio, skipping school and running off to become the reluctant star of a circus, run by Count Volpe (Christoph Waltz) and his monkey Spazzatura (Cate Blanchett, weirdly, okay), obviously his version of the Fox and the Cat, but there's also an attempt to turn Pinocchio into a soldier by Podesta (Ron Perlman), who in this version is the father of Candlewick (Finn Wolfhard), who doesn't become a donkey in this version, but is a shy bully who struggles to get his father's affection and approval as acts more aggressively and combatively than he actually is. Podesta thinks that, because Pinocchio is a wooden boy, this makes him unkillable and therefore, the potential perfect soldier, while Volpe, is obviously more interested in the novelty of Pinocchio. </div><div><br /></div><div>It's not that Pinocchio can't die, he dies a few times actually, but after the Blue Fairy, or in this version she's called the Wood Sprite (Tilda Swinton) gives him life, and when he does die or is killed, he goes up to Death, who happens to be the Sprite's sister (Also, Swinton) who allows for a brief discussion before an hourglass runs out and Pinocchio returns to the living. It these characters in particular to me that really show Del Toro's stylistic touches, 'cause if you didn't realize that these character were from Pinocchio, they could easily fit into "Pan's Labyrinth". In fact, if you really think about it, there's a lot of "Pan's Labyrinth" in this film. The childhood story about war, the fascist military impeding upon the main child protagonist, the family combating against that state.... And yeah, the Faun-like magical creatures. I've always been a little more hesitant towards Del Toro's more eccentric art designs for his more fantastical characters; it's one of the reasons I've never been as big on "Pan's Labyrinth", I'm generally just not as intrigued by his magical worlds of characters than I usually am the more human stories. That's probably also why I think of "The Shape of Water" as his best film, as it doesn't just have parallel worlds but actually combines them elegantly into each other and into a lovely modern telling of a Kong-esque romance. This also explains why Pinocchio would obviously appeal to him; it's a great combination of the fantasy with the humanity. And for the most part it works. </div><div><br /></div><div>I perhaps would enjoy it more, if this was, like the 2nd version of "Pinocchio" I ever saw; sometimes seeing the same story told a lot of different ways can get you kinda jaded about the story itself, and I'm probably just there with "Pinocchio" 'cause there were points where I was mostly just waiting around for the inevitable as opposed to appreciating these changes and alterations and what they meant. It's a good version if nothing else I'll give it that. I think if you like Del Toro's work, then you'll like his "Pinocchio". I do like how the two groups of Pinocchio's antagonists are essentially the two sides of Del Toro's own conflicts between his disdain for a right-wing autocracy which I assume comes from his Spanish ancestry, but also how the circus world's express his work as an artist and performer. I'd bet his favorite scene was when Pinocchio, while performing on stage decides to change up his routine and turns it into a humiliating comedy piece on Mussolini. </div><div><br /></div><div>I suspect he probably see a little of himself in Sebastien Cricket (Ewan McGregor) as well. That's the name for the Cricket who acts, eh, mainly as Pinocchio's conscience in this one, but he also has a deal with the Wood Sprite too and he has an evolving personal arc as well. Personally, I didn't think his character was as necessary here, as it would be in other version, but it all works well enough. I don't expect this "Pinocchio" to be the new popular version that most relate to or think of as the definitive version, but it's a solid version. And the animation is spectacular; it's the first stop-motion animation to win the Oscars since "Wallace & Gromit"'s movie, and it deserves it's spot in that place.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN </b>(2022) Director: Martin McDonagh</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div></div><div><br /></div><div><div>
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uRu3zLOJN2c" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe> </div><div><br /></div><div>I didn't really know what to expect with a film called "The Banshees of Inisherin", although I presumed I would get some kind of return-to-form for writer/director Martin McDonagh, but I was still taken a bit surprised and aback at exactly what I got. It begins with a friendship being broken up. Padraic (Oscar-nominee Colin Farrell) wonders why his friend Colm (Oscar-nominee Brendan Gleeson) doesn't want to go out to the pub like they always do. He wonders what he said or did, and finally, Colm eventually admits simply, "I just don't like you anymore." </div><div>Nothing comes up from it, nothing started from it, just he liked hanging around the person before, and now he doesn't. </div><div><br /></div><div>(Shrugs)</div><div><br /></div><div>This confuses Padraic to no end, but honestly, I love this. I mean, don't we all have a few people who we simply used to like being around, and then, we suddenly just don't want to be around them? Perhaps they changed, perhaps we changed. Perhaps no one changed, but you just get sick of them. Colm thinks Padraic is just too boring to be around, and you know what, some people are genuinely boring to be around. They might be good people, but eventually you get tired of them. I wonder if sometimes we just don't say that out right enough and just create some kind of dramas in order to come up with reasons to not have them apart of our lives instead of just being more straight up about it. Of course, Padraic, who very much valued his friendship, doesn't appreciate this bluntness and wants to greater answers, or just wants to go back to being friends with Colm, but Colm is insistent on it. There's another level to this conflict though. And it's an interesting conflict symbolically that I appreciate here and it's the conflict between artist and fan. Or artist and the audience really. </div><div><br /></div><div>It's a subject I have a lot of thoughts on myself. You see, Colm, isn't just stopping being friends with Padraic because he's boring, it's because he's an artist, a musician specifically, and he's writing a song and he feels that his art is more important than his friendships. Meanwhile, Padraic, who tries to understand Colm's feelings but doesn't really get them, think that his soliloquys on the power of music aren't as compelling as just being a good person. Essentially this film is a fable about the conflict between the snob of being an artist and those who think art is more important than anything, and the general niceness of the so-called common man, who cares more about the regular day-to-day activities of their life. And it's interesting to me, 'cause I kinda do see Colm's side here. And I get how much he's devoted to that perspective, and for that matter how shallow that perspective is. There's this old saying about how moralists don't belong in an art gallery, I think it's a Han Suyin quote, and yeah, I can see that train of thought; somebody who is good and gentle and friendly, and doesn't want anything but the best, or do anything but be nice, can seem like the exact opposite of an artistic perspective who's constantly looking for all the colors of life. </div><div><br /></div><div>For instance, Colm starts befriending more the local police chief Peader (Gary Lydon), meanwhile Lydon is a shit cop who's constantly on Padraic's ass, and his son Dominic (Oscar-nominee Barry Keoghan) who is slightly simpleminded and annoying enough in his own way that he even gets under Padraic's nerves, but he takes him in anyway to get away from his father. This does inspire Colm momentarily as Padraic actually standing up to him actually impresses him, but this still only goes so far. </div><div><br /></div><div>Eventually, Padraic's niceness causes Colm to begin uh, how should I put this, sacrificing himself as punishment for Padraic's constant pursuing. Padraic's sister Siobhan (Oscar-nominee Kerry Condon) who Colm recognizes as being more cultured and knowledgeable than Padraic, tries to help pause this strange war of words, and even put Colm in his place a bit, but she can only go so far. She's an interesting character too, because she seems like she would be better off on her own, but stays in order to help take care of Padraic, even though he's a grown man, but he can easily be taken in by the world around him. And somebody has to make sure he doesn't just leave his favorite donkey inside with him all day. </div><div><br /></div><div>Oh yeah, Padraic has a donkey, who he keeps inside sometimes when he's feeling sad, Padraic feels sad, not the donkey feeling sad. It'll come up later....</div><div><br /></div><div>There's a real sense of ennui in "The Banshees of Inisherin", not just in the characters, but the world itself. I think this movie could take place at any time, but it's actually in the early 1920s, at the tail end of the Irish Civil War, although that always seems to be, somewhere over there, on some other island where the two sides are still going at it. They can hear the gunshots sometimes. That war was brief, but still remains very influential in much of Irish politics, and this little war of words that evolves into war of injuries, personal and otherwise, can probably be looked upon as a symbolic representation of the divide in the country. Personally, I prefer what it says about the artist and the audience myself. How an artist's singleminded, tunnel-visioned insistence on perfection in their world can lead, hypothetically to some great art that stands the test of time, but can also make him blinded by the real emotional struggles of those close to them. It even makes sense how they can only feel their own pain being suffered so much that it barely occurs to them to inflict pain on anybody except themselves, that's how insular they are. </div><div><br /></div><div>McDonagh's been an amazing playwright for years now, and since he's gone into filmmakers he's had some ups and downs. His debut feature "In Bruges" feels more masterful with each passing year for instance, although I've been more underwhelmed by his more recent efforts. "Seven Psychopaths" I find fun, but not essential, and while I think "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri" is made well, the perspective of the film seems more wrong-minded for McDonagh. He's an British filmmaker, although with a name like McDonagh, I'm sure there's some Irish in him as well, and either way his best films focus on these distinctly local characters of his. Farrell and Gleeson are one of the best pairings I can think of for onscreen actors; these two have such great chemistry that I almost don't want to see one of them without seeing the other, and these are two of their very best performances. I'm actually surprised the film has caught on so much as I can easily see people being underwhelmed by this strange film. It's a tragicomedy that plays out like it's entire purpose is to just undermine all the conventions of the narrative genre it feels like it should be bathing itself in. In a way, this movie feels more like one of his plays than any other feature he's done before, and frankly I like him best when his films feels like he plays. I don't know if it's very best film, "In Bruges" is a comedy masterpiece that's hard to top, but it's my favorite of his films since, and and is probably the film that has the most depth of his recent films. There's a lot more to get out of "The Banshees of Inisherin" than any of his other films, and that's the most inspiring part of it to me. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>TAR </b>(2022) Director: Todd Field</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2</b></span></div></div><div><div><br /></div><div>
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Na6gA1RehsU" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe> </div><div><br /></div><div>Todd Field's hasn't made a movie in a while, a long while; I hadn't realized exactly how long until I looked it up. It's been sixteen years since his second feature "Little Children", a movie that I recalled liking a lot more than most did. I don't know how it would play today though; it's one of the last of the great dark indy films that were made between the late '90s and through to the early 2000s about all the cynicism and dark behaviors and corners of those suburban types. You know, how the picket fence neighborhoods hide the darkest secrets of America, "American Beauty", "Happiness", those kinds of films. This trends sound weird now, but honestly, many of these were films that needed to be made at the time, and I think more than a few of them hold up pretty well, and probably helped lead to the current movement of challenging the systemic patriarchies of today. There were quite a few of them, and he made two good ones. His previous feature before that was "In the Bedroom" which I think is probably more appreciated now than it was at the time, probably a little overrated now, but I remember being, intrigued by it, but not finding it particularly beloved. "Little Children", I liked more for it's excessiveness but it was a bit of messy multi-narrative, honestly, and in hindsight, maybe has a few too many conveniences, but the performances, especially Oscar-nominated work from Kate Winslet and Jackie Earle Haley really pulled the movie through. "In the Bedroom", was also an adaptation, but it was of a short story though, and it was expanded greatly, and again, the performances were the main appeal, and was mainly carried by the film's barrage of incredible performances. It wasn't multi-narrative, but it changed it's perspective quite a few times, and some people thought the movie itself changed it's genre and intention too many times to count. First it was the story of a May-December romance, then it was a family drama, then it family a disturbing family tragedy and seemed to evolve to a healing from grief story, only to then evolve even further into darker nightmare territory, before it's disturbing final strokes at the end. Both those movies dealt with very adult themes, sex, lust, attraction, lost, revenge, in "Little Children"'s case pedophilia, and what I'm gonna gently call "self-harm", grief especially as well, but especially after watching "Tar", this sprawling epic character piece of his that's also basically, it seems that one major theme in his work, and that's perception. His movies are essentially about how the world can see people, or the places they live and inhabit, or the way they live and seem, and then, just get inside just enough to show how that perception is just a bit a facade. A bit off, a bit different than we would ever suspect if we only just seem them in their apparent day-to-day lives. </div><div><br /></div><div>Looking at "Tar", a movie that feels like it was designed for Cate Blanchett to simply exude all of her acting skills all over the screen, we get a lot of seeing the perception of who Lydia Tar (Blanchett) is, and quite little of who it turns out she really is. And even then, there's questions. We know Lydia is a bad person, but she's also a talented conductor, apparently one of the best of our time, and we know she's done some bad things to people, it's happened so often apparently that even before we really see supposed bad things she's done, she's confronted about her reputation at one point by someone who is supposedly her superior. We're not questioning whether she's a bad person, but we are questioning how bad is she, exactly? Is she bad enough that people are protesting her appearance at a book signing, that she has to give court depositions in what was otherwise a suicide case of a former student of hers? Is she bad enough to have her wife Sharon (Nina Hoss) prevent her from seeing her kid Petra (Mila Bogojevic). </div><div><br /></div><div>Honestly, I have another question though? Why did Todd Field, make this? I feel like it has something to do with the perception vs. the behind-the-curtain reality, but I understood why "In the Bedroom" and "Little Children" existed; I felt like they had something to say about the subjects they tackles and how they tackled them. I've having a harder time trying to explain or justify "Tar" in that matter. </div><div>So, Lydia Tar is a master composer, often considered the best in the world. The first half hour of the movie seems to just be a long list of her accomplishments and interviews, before we first get a few faint words about Krista Taylor (Sylvia Flote), a former student who's since become an obsessive e-mailer. She tries to pawn off the issue to her assistant Francesca (Noemie Merlant) but her claims keep getting more obsessive. Eventually, while she's working with the Berlin Symphony, we find out that Sylvia has killed herself, and Lydia's being asked questions periodically. Eventually, she gets accused of practices like grooming and trading sexual favors for preference. It doesn't help that she fixed the scorecards on one cellist, Olga's (Sophia Kauer) score during an audition and she begins becoming her pseudo pet project. </div><div><br /></div><div>Yet, we don't really see her do anything explicit, but after Krista's suicide, she instructs that all her emails be deleted, which of course, wouldn't do anything as e-mails go two ways. Basically, we see a downfall story of an incredibly talented woman go down in the #MeToo movement, and for the most part, she seems confused and baffled by it. We only see one classroom scene with her, and it's kinda interesting because she does go after a student who refuses to appreciate Bach because of his past behaviors and opinions, and for being a white cis male who's music's been stuffed down our throats for decades. And it's a weird scene, but I also kinda remember siding with her argument.... Of course, eventually a tape of that scene, which shouldn't have been shot, gets heavily edited and posted on Youtube to make her look much worst than she was, although you could argue that she was pretty lousy. I mean, that kid is obnoxious, but,- I guess the point of that scene, is to show her trying to defend her own behavior by defending the controversial actions of others in her field. </div><div><br /></div><div>The thing that keeps bothering me is that, there are plenty of people who did get caught up in the #MeToo movement and have their careers ended, and somehow have to find a way back, or take less stressful work on the other side of the world, but Lydia Tar, is a completely made up character. And I can't tell if we're supposed to feel sympathy for her, because this incredible talent now has to take, supposedly demeaning work towards a lower-crust audience to keep working by the end after losing everything else in her life, or if we're supposed to be mocking her. </div><div><br /></div><div>Personally, I wouldn't even let her have that redemption in the end; she still gets to work and perform in front of a crowd and continues to be creative in her field; is this his way of showing that behavior like hers doesn't matter if you're talented enough, or is this supposed to be some kind of cosmic joke that it's her punishment for her behavior. I really can't tell, and I'm a little scared of finding out the answer. Or what Field thinks is the answer. </div><div><br /></div><div>Don't get me wrong with this line of criticism, "Tar" is an amazing movie. The acting of course is top notch, and the filmmaking is stellar; there's a lot of scenes in this movie where there's not a lot in particular going on, but you're constantly entranced, that's great filmmaking, especially for a movie that's well over the 2 1/2 hour mark, but by the end, I also felt like I had more questions than answers. This movie deserves and in some ways insists on being criticized on the highest levels possible, and I think I'm doing that by calling out the artificiality of the premise, which yes, does indeed feel artificial, when compared to the real stories of the groomers and sexual predators. I'm not saying it's a bad idea to creating somebody else out of whole cloth to put through a similar life arc as those who were taken down by #MeToo, I'm just trying to figure out why? Why this character? Why this arc? Why this path? Why these details of se path? I always felt like there was deeper and more complex insinuations and meanings in Field's previous feature films, but with "Tar" either I feel like I need to dive much further into Field's personal life and work to figure out what I'm missing from it, or "Tar" really is as simple as, "Let's just create this immensely great character for Cate Blanchett to win an Oscar at, and we'll use the #MeToo tragedy arc to put her through it." If it is the former, I hope I do find out what it is one day to make this film work better for me, but if it's the latter, we'll I'm still gonna take it, 'cause of course I will, but it's one of those rare instances where I feel giving a 4 1/2 STARS rating still constitutes a huge disappointment. </div><div><br /></div><div>NOTE: After I did finish writing this review I did look up more analyses of the film online, and I think I'm sold enough that Field's reasoning for creating this film is deeper and more depth-filled than I originally thought. I particularly was inspired by Maggie Mae Fish's Youtube essay on how time is regarded as an important aspect to "Tar", both the film and the character. It hasn't changed my rating of the film, and I still feel like I have some conflicting thoughts on the film itself though. I wonder what'll happen once we start making a lot more movies about real life subjects of those predators caught up in the #MeToo movement, how well "Tar" will hold up. Perhaps it'll hold up better than more ripped from the headlines tales, perhaps it'll seem more arbitrary and symbolic rather than a deep look inside the institutional and systemic parts of society that eventually lead to the #MeToo backlash, but either way, I'm more convinced in terms of that movement, "Tar" is the movie we need right now, as oppose to some of those other tales that are still permeating the entertainment worlds and other such institutions. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>AFTERSUN </b>(2022) Director: Charlotte Wells</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/1660130607587-still02.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/1660130607587-still02.png" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>A fellow critic that I follow on Facebook posted that she was watching "Aftersun" shortly after I had finished watching it. She mentioned liking the film a lot and had her fair reasons and arguments and others talking about it as well.... I tried to participate as well, but I was still mulling my thoughts on this one myself. </div><div><br /></div><div>In fact, I kinda still am. I did like it, I think it is one of those films where perhaps some are putting more into it than might be on the actual screen, but.... </div><div><br /></div><div>Well, on the surface, it's one of those movies that seems like it was made as an excuse to take a vacation. This time, it's between a father and a daughter. The father, Calum (Paul Mescal) is a Scottish farmer, who's divorced from his wife, and is struggling elsewise, emotionally and financially, but he's trying to keep that hidden from his twelve-year-old daughter, Sophie (Frankie Corio) while they're on vacation in Turkey. </div><div><br /></div><div>It's not hard to describe what goes on in the film, but it is difficult to explain the tone of the film itself. The movie is actually shown mostly in flashbacks from a perspective of an adult Sophie (Celia Rowlson-Hall) looking back on video footage of the vacation that her father shot and reflecting on the footage, as wella s the vacation itself. There's also sequences too, that may be memories she's reliving, maybe made up images that she's adapted, they might be combinations of several memories or ideas ramming into her conscious or subconscious thoughts. The fact that the main one of these takes place at a rave doesn't detract from the mind-altering nature some of this has either. </div><div><br /></div><div>This is one of those movies I can totally see people hating because it seems like it's just being too artsy for it's own good, but I've seen people recommend this as emotional storytelling as opposed to literal storytelling, and I tend to agree, but I do question just how powerful and emotional the story is. </div><div><br /></div><div>What I got out of it was that she was looking back at like, the last time she had any real emotional time with her father, before he falls off and out of her life. I think that's symbolized by them meeting back up at that rave, which is depicted, not as her younger self, but as her older self reflecting on her still young father. He's still there, and she's been living her whole life without him. They're only 20 years apart, so he had her young, perhaps too young. He's going through a divorce, so, he's going through the mid-life crisis and meanwhile she's starting to go out into the world; even on this vacation she not only remembers the time with her father but also making friends with other kids, some her age, although most of them older. And yeah, he might be suicidal, there's talk of him expecting to die younger, so it could be death literal or figurative.... I got it, I just am not sure just how powerful it was. </div><div><br /></div><div>I feel like I wanna say there's better versions of this; my favorite, and one I usually go-to for my comparison is "What Maisie Knew" from a few years ago, where we see a child's perspective as both her parents get divorce and she eventually ends up being raised by her nanny-turned stepmom and her mother's new husband. It's not a fair comparison though, there's a lot more going on in that film, and the main character is much younger, I think she was like, five or six, not a preteen 12, but it's also more clear to us, the audience, what's happening even if it's only vaguely understandable to the girl, and with "Aftersun", it's not as clear-cut to either us or to the girl. That's purposeful though, it is an older person reflecting on her vacation and trying to piece together what she then, didn't know. However, doing that, also means that it kinda comes off to me like a reflection of a reflection, and I'm still not sure how good or bad that is. Another film it kinda reminds me of "The Souvenir" as well, which I didn't like oddly enough; I actually liked the sequel to that film a lot better, kinda for the same reason I'm not entirely sure I like this film. I feel like I wish I knew more of what how the girl ends up reacting to this experience with her father. We see her experiencing them, and we see her reminiscing about them..., we get a few glimpses, of what she's become and how it's effected her now, but it's not as concrete. It doesn't have to be like, "Oh, because he was like that, she's now like that...", but I wish that part of the story was a little stronger. I guess you could argue this film itself is that response, the movie is at least semi-autobiographical, first-time feature writer/director Charlotte Wells has admitted this, even calling it emotionally autobiographical, if not a literal story, and that's fine, and interesting,... You could argue that this film is a therapy movie, just her finally getting her own memories and thoughts out of her head, and is just her way of depicting that strained and fractured relationship she had with her father, or some father-figure at least. I think stretching that far has it's own issues, but I will say this, if it a therapy script, then she found, probably the best angle to take on it. </div><div><br /></div><div>It's a movie about how difficult it is to connect to a beloved relative who just wasn't apart of your life long enough or close enough to actually really truly know him. You hang on to those small memories, whatever they were, whether they be him being angry at losing a SCUBA mask, or him paying for a rug you like even though it's too expensive just to surprise you, and then you end up looking back and wondering, what exactly were they going through, and what were they actually feeling? In some ways, this is hard to do even for those who we actually are genuinely really close to. It's like trying to put the jigsaw puzzle together even when you know that it's missing too many pieces, you're just trying to get the best picture you can with the pieces you do have. </div><div><br /></div><div>I think that's what puts it slightly over for me; it's one of those films that's more profound in idea and concept than it is entertaining, but it's profound enough to recommend. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>THE WOMAN KING </b>(2022) Director: Gina Prince-Blythewood</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/107120708-1663605936404-The_WOman_King_Cropped.jpg?v=1664122106&w=1920&h=1080" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/107120708-1663605936404-The_WOman_King_Cropped.jpg?v=1664122106&w=1920&h=1080" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>There's a weird line of cultural appreciation and adoption that I always feel that's the hardest one to judge. It's when I hear cries, or outright see a film that's clearly from a minority perspective but the story they tell is very western in narrative. It's tricky, 'cause usually the West, and usually, white people, have this tradition and history, of dominating and enslaving and otherwise destroying a lot of these other cultures, but also taking their culture and adopting it into their own. Sometimes it's acceptable and creates amazing art, and other times it's just downright offensive. Sometimes it can be both, but usually it's pretty easy to judge them for doing it, mainly 'cause they're western white people, they're usually in the wrong, so it's easy. But what about if the story, is very western and it's trying to be adapted through a minority culture's lens. Or not even the story, just the arc of that story, the narrative arc that is undeniably western, is that a good idea? Like the most common one I can think of bouncing around in film circles is that their should be a black James Bond. Idris Elba's name was brought up for years regarding this. My reaction wasn't so much that, it was offensive to white people, or British people, I always felt it was more perplexing than anything else. Like, "Why do you want a black James Bond?" Couldn't black people create their own more interesting version of that character. I mean, they did in the past; there were plenty of blaxploitation characters who you can easily compare to James Bond. Shaft, Foxy Brown, etc. I'm not saying we don't deserve to have own culture appropriated too, we totally do, that's not even a discussion, I'm just baffled as to why others would want to. And this discussion gets even more complicated when you throw gender into it. Why not a female James Bond, some would say, and again, I'd ask, "Do you really want that?" </div><div><br /></div><div>And again, I'm not saying that this conundrum is good or bad, or right or wrong, I'm saying it's hard to determine from where this is copying or this is creative. And again, there's a lot of reasons historical and otherwise for this. Let's take "The Woman King" which feels like this issue on hard mode. On the one hand, it's a historical war drama that Hollywood's making about an ancient culture, hardly a new topic. I can easily see this film as something like, IDK "Troy" or look at it and see something much older and low-rent, like a lot of those old public domain Hercules movies that show up on every Roku streaming channels you tried to watch once, and then never again. You know, those old ones with the laughably bad costumes, and the obvious fake sets and the completely illogical and historically inaccurate hair and makeup styles. Which, actually, come to think about it, are cornrows older than I think they are? Actually, they just might be, now that I think about it....- Anyway, in structure, those old-styles period swashbuckling Hollywood epics, that's the kind of movie we get here. </div><div><br /></div><div>In narrative structure anyway, and to be perfectly honestly, I don't like most of those films. They're not necessarily bad entertainment if you don't take them too seriously, but they're usually so grandiose in scale, and to me, that makes them feel much more like folklore than history, or even historical fiction. I'm much more of a "Johnny Tremain" guy than a "Last of the Mohicans" guy. But, either way, in those instances, I also know the history pretty well. This is a case where I don't, and I suspect a lot of people don't. And that's concerning, 'cause now we have a very African story, being told by Hollywood, and even when it's told well, eh, you're gonna run into some issues. </div><div><br /></div><div>For one, what is the history we're being introduced to here? </div><div><br /></div><div>Okay, so in West Africa, in what we now think of as Southern Benin area, there ruled the Kingdom of Dahomey. The Dahomey were in constant conflict with several nearby tribes, but most notably, the Oyo Empire, which was a larger and much bigger Kingdom than than the Dahomey; they took up a pretty big chunk of West Africa for a time. But, the Dahomey survived, in part because of a group of female soldiers called- well, the French called them the Dahomey Amazons, but the term they used for themselves was the Agojie. These were an elite military force who mastered swordplay and were known for their intensive training and physical prowess. They also lived almost samurai-like lives. They're training was intensive, they couldn't get married or have kids, I'd say most of the movie's more interesting parts were just seeing the training and the action scenes of the women approaching the battles. Not necessarily the action themselves, which were fine, but the strategizing and game-planning, the reveals of how they end up attacking. Well, I don't really know if they were interesting in of themselves, but I think the filmmakers were most interested in them. </div><div><br /></div><div>That, and there is one other interesting aspect, in what/who/why these women are fighting the Oyo and other tribes. So, the movie takes place,- well, I'm not exactly sure of when the film takes place, but it still takes place during the slave trade, and something that's kinda forgotten or underwritten about is how often, the African nations leaders would indeed help acquire slaves to the traders, and work with them. So, the deal is that, the Oyo are kidnapping members of the Dahomey and capturing them as prisoners of war, and those prisoners are the ones that get traded to slavers from the West in exchange for other goods. Now in the movie, the Dahomey, refuse to adopt this practice and hence, the rising of this Agojie to protect the Dahomey from capture and inevitable enslavement, in this case, the representative here is a Portogeuse trader, Santo Ferreira (Hero Fiennes Tiffin), which yes, we forget how big Portugal's Empire once was, but yeah, they had a big claim to Africa once upon a time, he's working with the Oyo's leading general Oba Ade (Jimmy Odukoya) in this respect. </div><div><br /></div><div>In terms historical accuracy, eh, the capturing from other tribes to sell to the West as slaves, that's very accurate and highly underreported. I know, in the U.S. at least, and there was some of this too, we tend to think of, especially Americans just walking onto the continents and trapping and kidnapping African-Americans like they were hunting them for sport, but it was actually much more formal trading than this, at least it started to become in most of the Western world. That said, the idea that the Dahomey were not apart of the slave trade and actively fought against it, um, that's not remotely true. They also kidnapped from other nations and traded with the West, especially King Ghezo (John Boyega) who was a real king, and he did this practice for decades, even after he claimed he stopped. I get why they changed that here, it's a tale of a great African female fighting troop, it's better for them to be fighting the injustice of slavery than being apart of it, and they did fight those who kidnapped members of their Nation to sell for slavery. So, it's intent is true and showcasing the soldiers themselves is the objective and goal, and in that respect, I think it works. </div><div><br /></div><div>You'll notice that I've gone a long way before revealing much of the main narrative story or even some of the main characters though, and honestly, that's the part that's kinda tripping me up, and I don't really know what to make of it. To me, it's the most soap opera-y section of the film and it's-, eh, ughhhh. </div><div><br /></div><div>Okay, so the main general for the Agojie is Nanisca (Viola Davis) and she's very intense and seemingly by the book, sort-of-speak. She definitely leads by her own example, and she's training a next generation of recruits, and a new recruit, Nawi (Thuso Mbedu) who was sent, originally offered up as a bride to the King, becomes a recruit in the Agojie, and this is the thing that disturbs Nanisca. I don't want to get into why, and what inevitably gets reveal, and how, which,... (Eye roll) really.... Mostly, details aside, what really upset me was just how Hollywood and traditional the main plot of the film was. </div><div><br /></div><div>It's difficult to judge, 'cause the movie's not really about the plot, as it is, it's just there to have a real narrative plot, but I really kinda just hated how by the numbers it was. This was an amazing story that, I don't think it really needed the melodrama at the center of it. I don't want to give it away, but you can erase a major detail that connects a couple characters, and keep literally everything else, and I think the movie would've been stronger. It would've kept the focus on the lives and struggles of the soldiers, and the conflicting nature of their lives, and still showed their incredible skills and talents and showcase just how amazing the Agojie soldiers were and details the intriguing politics of the world they exist in, and I think it wouldn't been more powerful. I think I've used the term "Relative Overwriting" before, and I really hate to put that on this film, but the more I think about it, the more it qualifies. It feels like a soap opera plot was needed to add interest to the film, and unfortunately I don't think it works at all, and I don't think it was needed at all. </div><div><br /></div><div>It's a shame too, 'cause some really good performances in this film. Ironically, I think Viola Davis gives the least interesting performance here; she's got all her typical intensity and chutzpah in the role that was basically made for her, but I thought some of the actresses playing the other soldiers, like Thuso Mbedu and Lashana Lynch and even John Boyega as the King, were more interesting to watch. Davis is strong here, but except for the physical aspects of the film, this character is one she could play in her sleep. I think the technical aspects, like the choreography, costumes, makeup, stunt coordination, that stuff was really impressive. It also a bit of a shame that Gina Prince-Bythewood couldn't stop the narrative in it's tracks and trust that the situation and scenario were inspiring enough. She's a good filmmaker, most known for the indie classic "Love & Basketball", and I've mostly liked her work until now, but she's never made anything on this big a scale and also nothing that was so based in this much action. It's not that she's bad at either one, but I don't think the script allows her to connect the two sides as well as they should. The script is by Dana Stevens, not my favorite screenwriter to begin with, but the idea for the film was by, believe it or not, Maria Bello of all people. No shade, she's one of my very favorite actresses and I'm glad she wanted to tell about these warriors, but yeah, I can't help feeling like this movie needed like, one more draft or two, just to figure out how to lean into the film's strengths and limit when it leans into it's weaknesses. </div><div><br /></div><div>I'm really torn on this one. I think the movie deserves to exist, but the more I think about the movie's relative overwriting, it really drags it down for me. You know, I'm not gonna stop anybody from seeing the film, but I think I have to pan "The Woman King". It's not because there's not enough plot or story here for a good film, I think their actually is, too much in fact, but what I really can't get past is how what's there feels both flimsy and cliched in one hand, but more importantly, it doesn't match up to the more interesting details about the world itself that we're seeing on screen. Sometimes creating, or in this recreating, a fascinating world to explore and experience is enough, but sometimes when the story starts taking away from what makes that world fascinating, it can really bog a film down, and this film is too bogged down for. It feels like it's too split to make a real choice on whether it wants to go headlong into the soap opera narrative, which I wouldn't like, but I would respect more as a decision, or stay focused in on admiration and recreation for these peoples. As it stands, I feel like it played it safe and split the difference too much, and we got not enough of either. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>TILL </b>(2022) Director: Chinonye Chukwu </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/69f/e1d/64cec7f42578f6c125b6a7aec0f08f4542-till-.2x.rsocial.w600.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="420" data-original-width="800" height="336" src="https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/69f/e1d/64cec7f42578f6c125b6a7aec0f08f4542-till-.2x.rsocial.w600.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>This is one of the hardest movies I've ever had to review. Frankly, I just outright thought about not doing it, but that would be a disservice, but how do you write a review of this film. If you're at all familiar with the story of Emmett Louis Till (Jalyn Hall), then it should really irk you just to bring up the name. For those unfamiliar, the "story" goes that he was a Northern kid who went down for work in the Summer to family in Money, Mississippi. When he was there, he apparently whistled at a white girl, Carolyn Bryant (Haley Bennett). A couple days later, two men, her husband Roy (Sean Michael Weber) and her brother JW Milam (Eric Whitten) kidnapped him, and brutally murdered and lynched him before abandoning his body in the Tallahatchie River in 1955. It's one of the first and most gruesome incidents that really spawned the modern first wave Civil Rights Movements. It wasn't even the lynching itself though that really caught the media attention, the big action was that Emmitt's mother Mamie Till-Mobley (Danielle Deadwyler, in a star-making performance) once her son was returned north to Chicago, she insisted on, um, an open casket, and invited the public in to take photos. I've seen the photos, I'm gonna let you guys look them up, and just imagine and remember that this was on the front page of every newspaper at the time, and the coverage of the trial was top news in the country afterwards. The story actually gets even more sadder and more frustrating from there, and even to this day. A couple years ago, Carolyn Bryant, who is still alive by the way, confessed that she lied about Emmitt whistling, and recently, an arrest warrant from 1955 was unearthed that was never presented to her, and still hasn't.... </div><div><br /></div><div>(Sigh)</div><div><br /></div><div>One of the controversies about the film was that the film, and especially Danielle Deadwyler didn't get any nominations for Oscars. Honestly, though, I get why. This one's friggin' hard-to-watch, and it's not even that I'm a sis-white male, it's just painfully hard to watch, especially knowing the story. Honestly, I was skeptical going in that a movie could even be made about Till and be watchable. But, I gotta give credit to director/co-writer Chinonye Chukwu, they made this story much more entertaining than it could've been, and they found the narrative that mattered. She was the filmmaker behind "Clemency", which had Alfre Woodard giving an amazing performance as a state executioner who struggled with having to kill another inmate while her life turns into shambles. So, it makes perfect sense that she would see the story of Emmitt Louis Till and focus in on Mamie Till-Mobley, and not just her most famous act of the open casket, but her trip down to Mississippi to testify at the trial and see her get a real sense of the dichotomy of worlds that separate the White and Black people in the state. She also met those who would become some of the biggest and in some cases most tragic names of the Civil Rights Movement and we see her deal with the emotional and physical truths about the struggle, as well as the political side.</div><div><br /></div><div>A lot of the movie is actually Mamie being confronted, not by the White people but by other African-American community leaders about what it is that she should be doing. She's caring only and more about her lost son and justice and understandably so, but there is a long game that has to be played. One leader lays it to her straight in the beginning rather prophetically that the fight for equality, nor the treatment of African-Americans nor the systemic issues of racism will end because of one solitary verdict in one case. Eventually, the movie is about Mamie and her realization about this, and even leaves the trial before the verdict realizing the pointlessness and charade that it is, although I actually think they made the trial in the movie seem more benign and reasonable than it probably was. </div><div><br /></div><div>Mamie became an activist for the rest of her life, and was a successful public speaker, got several degrees, including in teaching, and even developed a traveling theater program in her son's name to help educate people on her son and other major Civil Rights leaders, and "Till" is the story of how she went from grieving mother to undaunted activist. It's not the most entertaining or happiest character arc, but it's hers and it's told about as entertainingly as it could be. </div></div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>LUZZO </b>(2021) Director: Alex Camilleri</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.moviemaker.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Luzzu.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="650" height="443" src="https://www.moviemaker.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Luzzu.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>I guess logically if there's Italian Neorealism, than there also probably existed Maltese Neorealism, but admittedly, it's not something I ever seriously thought about before. </div><div><br /></div><div>A "Luzzo" is, well, basically a boat. A small fishing boat that many of the local fisherman on the resort island used to fish, or at least, used to use. "Luzzo" tells the story of how that industry is dying out and what's happening to the Maltese fisherman who are still practicing the multi-generational skill. Jesmark (Jesmark Scicula) fishes all day and night to care for his family on the same luzzo that his father and his father before him would use. It's old, but filled with color and tradition. It even bares his old footprint from when he was a baby. However, with a more legitimate bigger fishing industry taking over the Mediterranean, his kind of fishing is getting outlawed. And as he now has a kid, and wife, Denise (Michele Farrugia) to take care of, he ends spending nights working for the underworld fishing industry, when he makes himself useful there able to make "scallops" out of some discarded whitefish. </div><div><br /></div><div>"Luzzo" is about as close as you can get to Neorealism today. The actors in the movie are local non-actors, many of whom are involved in the fishing industry on Malta, that is indeed dying. It's a haunting first-time effort from director Alex Camilleri, it's his first feature, although he's directed some shorts before, and he worked as an editor for America's great modern-day neorealist Ramin Bahrani, who's a producer on this film. The movie isn't as emotional as the classic of Italian neorealism that the film is most emulating, but that's not a bad thing either. It's bare bones and to the point. And it is hopeful. </div><div><br /></div><div>Eventually, he has to sell his luzzo, and with the money he can start to find a new career and help raise his family; it's not bad, in a vacuum, that society and life is moving on, but those for whom it effects the most intimately, to be blunt, it just sucks. The life you've been taught for, been built for, been honing to master all your life is being taken away, and not because of anything you did wrong, but because of decisions made by many other people, elsewhere, that you had little-to-no control of, that they often had little-to-no control of, and now everybody has to figure out how to adjust and react to the new conditions. "Luzzo" doesn't do much more than show this at it's barest, but that's all it's really going for and it succeeds at that. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>WHITE LIE </b>(2021) Directors: Yonah Lewis & Calvin Thomas</span></div></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div><div><b><br /></b></div></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/S/pv-target-images/7c77452028449370b6ff0b3f6a05a6100046383e6ac81be303010ca2e4e0f1d6._RI_.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/S/pv-target-images/7c77452028449370b6ff0b3f6a05a6100046383e6ac81be303010ca2e4e0f1d6._RI_.png" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>"White Lie" is one of those kind of indy films that ran the festival circuit for a couple years before it finally got a proper release, or, in this case, as with a lot of these kind of titles these days, ends up on some streaming service, and, yeah, there's not too much else to say about it. It's fine. Probably better than fine, but still nothing particularly special. The reason it was on my radar is because it's a Canadian film, and therefore got recognition from some of the critics group up north there and some awards consideration. Sometimes, even countries as big as Canada, which does have a big film industry, but only a few big local names and otherwise courts Hollywood moreso than typically promotes and produces it's own work, but it's still a nice little film, with some solid main performances in the middle. </div><div><br /></div><div>It's a character piece mostly, following Katie (Kacey Rohl), who's a struggle post-grad student who's claiming that she's suffering from cancer, when in actuality, she's lying about that in order to gain support and money. She's a bit of a local celebrity, she has a social media presence where people donate to her, and potentially, she's moved up in the ranks for a scholarship, if she can somehow get her medical records to the Board. Obviously, lying about her condition, means that, she has no real medical records to show, so she has to figure something out, and that's gonna cost a little more money than she has at the moment. She does the love and support of her girlfriend Jennifer (Amber Anderson), who she didn't have before she began telling this particular white lie about her health and isn't in on the rouse. She's also comes from a fairly rich family, so she hypothetically could help her out on some of this money, but instead, the main crux scene shows her going to her father Doug (Martin Donovan) for help. He suspects correctly the scam and won't help her out, but thankfully, if he does say anything he's got credibility concerns, and we learn a little bit more about the strained relationship between them, and more about Katie's past and current behaviors and where exactly this kind of scheme sorta comes from. </div><div><br /></div><div>Honestly, the biggest problem with this film is that there just isn't a lot to talk about. I've spent like, six days trying to write a review of this film, and I got nothing. That doesn't make it bad, or that it doesn't do things well, but it doesn't really show us anything either. There's no real tension, there's just waiting for the eventual revelation. Well, I guess that's not quite all that there. I thought of a bunch of other random indy films while thinking of this film, but there's one movie I did keep thinking about. I don't know if anybody remembers, "Sorry, Haters", it was a bit of a weird and somewhat controversial film when it came out, in '05. It starred Robin Wright as this enigmatic character who starts trying to date this Muslim cab driver, strangely played by a young Abdellatif Kechiche, before he became more known for directing "Blue is the Warmest Color", and basically she's somebody who, was weirdly inspired by 9/11, and was somewhat striving to recreate the sense of comradery that that moment inspired in the American public. She played somewhat of a mousey character who also lies about herself to others in order to seem more important and get more sympathy and recognition. "Sorry, Haters" was a weird movie and actually split a lot of critics, I think it's overall a better movie than "White Lie", but both Robin Wright's character in "Sorry, Haters" and Kacey Rohl's here are basically seeking that same kind of love and acceptance, for whatever reason they find the world more tolerable towards them, in different conditions. She's found that people around her, appreciate her more when they think that she's sick, so she's taking advantage of that, and that's basically what the movie is. </div><div><br /></div><div>I just there was something more to it than that. I want to be more appalled at her, but it's not surprising or anything. "Sorry, Haters" had more to add and say, it said something about the distressing and sometimes calming power of mass grief and how it brought people together and the, albeit ridiculous lengths, some might go in order to regain that feeling. "White Lie", is not that deep, it's just a very well-done profile of a modern-day liar. She wants the attention and benefits of somebody who's sick gets and none of the drawbacks. Even when portraying a sociopath who you're not supposed to be cheering for, you still want to empathize or understand her inspiration and motivations, and frankly there's just nothing of that here. </div><div>I should mention that I don't know writer/directors Yonah Lewin & Calvin Thomas's previous work, this isn't their debut, this is their fourth feature and they do seem skilled and talented, but y'know, I've been waddling on this movie for awhile now, and the more I think the less there is to add here. I was gonna give this a pass because of how much their is to like, but it's not like, say "The Wrestler", where you're genuinely concern and heartbroken over the main character making a wrong, bad decision at the end. I didn't want to see her loving and caring girlfriend, finally realize way-too-late what Katie was, I just wanted to see her put away in handcuffs and arrested for massive fraud. Maybe I'd prefer this movie, if we see Katie years after that, actually having to get on with her life and struggle to not fall into this pattern of behavior, or her actually getting sick and nobody believing her, or her trying to make amends genuinely, or even just her evolving into a new kind of fraudster. (Or several of those in fact) However, in terms of this movie, there's just not enough to really appreciate. It's a profile of a shallow, narcissitic sociopath, and we're following her inevitable shallow, minor downfall. </div></div><div><br /><b><br /></b></div></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696790060036702346.post-69774727928609682372023-03-19T09:04:00.000-07:002023-03-19T09:04:27.292-07:00MY LONG-DELAYED OSCARS POST-MORTEM: THOUGHTS ON THE SHOW, AND ALL THE WINNER! <div style="text-align: left;">So, I didn't watch the Oscars live this year.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I mentioned that I wouldn't, and I have good reasons. Admittedly, this wasn't a year that I found myself particularly enthralled to watch them, but that's not the reason I skipped it. I just had other things happening that I had to get to. I figured it would be a fine show and from all accounts, it seems like it was, fine. Maybe better than fine. I mean, Jimmy Kimmel's always gonna be solid, and watching the replay on Hulu, he was solid. Not his best, actually this probably was his,- well, I don't want to say his worst, 'cause that implies bad, but it was his least. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">He kept it low-key, and didn't do too much to get in the way of the show, and it was nice. Comfortable, nice, entertaining. Eh, probably, shouldn't have dwelled on Malala as much as he did, and I don't know,- he wasn't at his top form, with some of his jokes, but he was consistent and he was solid. Although he went back to the Matt Damon gag, and somehow, there wasn't a reveal at the end that Matt Damon was in the Cocaine Bear suit, feels like a giant missed opportunity, but I kinda get it wanting to go light and simple. Stick to the classics. Besides, last year's show has become so thoroughly overshadowed, it feels like everybody now thinks Chris Rock hosted the show. Which, eh, he did not. He did not. He just presented Best Documentary to Questlove. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">You're trying to remember who actually hosted the show last year, aren't you? (It was Wanda Sykes, Regina Hall and Amy Schumer, there, call yourselves down)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I also liked that the show did the clever thing of showing how every category matters and just give a glimpse of how important they are to the finished product in each category. Like when they showed an example of Gregg Toland's famous under-the-floor high hat shot with the Cinematography award, why the sound of a door matters as much as the sound of fighter jet, how bad "Cocaine Bear" would've looked without special effects, all this stuff was really good. It kept me interested and I think it engaged the viewers. It's not new, but I like it when they do that. It shows how each award is important and matters. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">And I thought some of the performances were good. I liked the "RRR" performance, as well as Lady Gaga's in particular. I was a little perturbed at Sofia Carlson announcing Diane Warren during their performance; I mean, girl, I don't know who the hell you are, and you're gonna introduce Diane Warren?! That one was boring to me. David Byrne sparking hot dog finger hands was definitely a site to see though. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Yeah, overall, it's a good back-to-basics return to what the Oscars can and should be. If it's underwhelming, and I do think it was, it's mainly due to this year's crop of films, just also being very underwhelming. Don't confuse that for being disappointed in any of the winners, although I don't know why everybody loves that damn 'The Elephant Whisperers" documentary short subject so much. People must like elephants more than I do, 'cause I was just bored. Maybe I just don't like animals; I didn't think too much of that, "The Boy, The Mole, The Fox and the Horse" short either that won for Animated Short either. (Yeah, this is a year, where winners-wise I'm mostly angry at the short awards. I mean, it's not as bad as when "Dear Basketball" won, which, I still can't believe won a few years ago, but eh...)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Anyway, while it didn't feel like it for much of the show, what we got was a huge sweep for "Everything Everywhere All at Once". The final count was seven, the most a single film has won since "Gravity" in 2013, and the most a Best Picture winner has won since "Slumdog Millionaire"'s eight in 2008, and they tied a record with three Oscars for acting. Only "A Streetcar Named Desire" and "Network" had previously won that many, and neither of those film won Best Picture. (Wait, I know "Network" lost to "Rocky", what did "Streetcar..." lost too. [Google search] oh yeah, "An American in Paris"; people really thought that was good once upon a time, didn't they...) Ke Huy Quan and Jamie Lee Curtis both gave very emotional and wonderful speeches to start off this show. Ke's win was basically was ordained for months, which makes him the second person of Asian descent to win the Supporting Actor Oscar, after Dr. Haing S. Ngor's win in '84 for "The Killing Fields", but Jamie Lee's win was a bit of a surprise. Not just because Angela Bassett was considered the favorite, but also because she won against a co-star, as Stephanie Hsu was also nominated, and I thought she had a better shot at winning originally, but I guess if there's anybody who really deserves a career-Oscar, it's probably her. It is the first time someone's beaten a castmate in this category since Olivia Spencer's win in "The Help" where she beat Jessica Chastain. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Michelle Yeoh became the first Asian actress to win Best Actress, and her speech was a highlight for me. I always thought the presumptiveness of Cate Blanchett's win was way too ordained, and besides Michelle Yeoh's career is arguably more important and influential and it's about time she got her recognition. I love "Tar", but when Cate Blanchett starts dancing her way through a barrage of deadly martial artists, then maybe we'll talk. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">If there was an Oscar nominee in Best Actor, I'm sure "Everything Everywhere All at Once" would've probably won that too, but instead, Brendan Fraser, got the heartfelt win for his work in "The Whale". First time in a long time that the Best Actor winner didn't come from a Best Picture nominee; you gotta go back to Jeff Bridges's win for "Crazy Heart" in '09 to see that. The movie also won for Makeup, which made it one of the rare films to win multiple Oscars this year. The only other one was "All Quiet on the Western Front" which did shockingly well in the craft categories. On top of winning International Feature, the film won arguably surprise wins for Cinematography, Score and Production Design, the latter being the biggest so-called upset of the night if you check Gold Derby's rankings before the show. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Guillermo Del Toro increased his career Oscar total as his "Pinocchio" won Animated Feature, this marks his third win in three different categories. Sarah Polley won the Adapted Screenplay Oscar for "Women Talking", which to a degree, feels a bit like the arbitrary win for the Best Picture nominee that probably had the most frustration from people for getting snubbed. (and along with films like "Everything Everywhere...." and "The Banshees of Inisherin" make great arguments for why the Oscars should adopt an Ensemble category, as well as a Casting category, hint, hint...) The only other nomination that film got was in Best Picture, and thank goodness that streak continues. The last time a film won this category without a BP nomination was 1998's "Gods and Monsters" but winning this category with only two nominations, total, the first time that's happened since Billy Bob Thornton won for "Sling Blade" in '96. Huh, both times, they're actors who win it in writing. That's weird. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">"Top Gun: Maverick" and "Avatar: The Way of Water" won their arbitrary awards for being big Hollywood blockbusters the Academy feels required to honor every year, winning in Sound and Visual Effects respectively. The Visual Effects crew were the only ones for whom their mike got cut off this year, despite earlier threats from Kimmel that "Naatu Naatu" dancers would dance them off if they ran long. That's not good; if you know the history, you get why that stings </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Speaking of, "RRR"'s popular "Naatu Naatu" song win, not only marks Diane Warren's fifteen loss in the category, but it also marks the first time an Indian film has ever won at the Oscars, which, is, on one hand, is one of those facts that's mind-blowing at first, but then you think about it, and it kinda makes sense. I'm told "RRR" is a, Tollywood movie, which..., okay, man, India's cinema is weak,- Google help me out here....</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">(Google search)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Okay, so Tollywood or Tulugu Cinema- okay, actually I might already be wrong on that, 'cause apparently those are two completely different streams of Indian cinema that work in two different languages altogether. Except maybe it's not, I'm seeing it both ways...- Oh man, why is Indian cinema so freaking complicated to sort though...? (Don't answer that in the comments!!!! I'm just annoyed at it, and annoyed at it and venting frustration; I know enough of the history to get why [aka, I'm sure it's like 90% England's fault] and I'm too tired for the anthropology lessons to learn the rest right now),- basically, Tollywood is the West Bengali of Indian Cinema, so, northeastern part of the country, near Bangladesh, and it's the subset of Indian cinema that gave us Satyajit Ray. So, there. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">A loaded Documentary Feature category ended with "Navalny" winning this year's top honor, a documentary about the Russian opposition and protest leader Alexei Navalny, who Putin has reportedly tried to poison, so this was our reminder about how bad it is there. The Ukrainian President didn't make an appearance, which, honestly is probably for the best. I did catch a couple of the headlines of Zelensky trying/wanting to be on the show, um- I get where he's coming from; he wants to do anything and everything to remind people that the war is still going on and that it matters, blah, blah, blah, America can have a short attention span.... I don't know, I got be honest, that felt a little, weird. I'm glad we didn't go through with that. Maybe it wouldn't have felt so awkward if Zelensky wasn't originally a performer as well. I assume that he's trying to get involved with anything and everywhere and we're just not hearing about it, because y'know, his country's getting invaded, but it does seem a little too weird to keep hearing about him trying to show up at the Oscars. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Ruth Carter won her second Oscar for Costume Design for the "Black Panther" films, which, on top of her being a legendary costume designer, the first and now, second African-American to win the Oscar, that's the first time somebody's won for the same franchise of films, twice, in this category. Yeah,- it's not the first sequel to win, "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" won this category years ago, but the original film didn't win, and if you want to count the first "Fantastic Beasts..." film as apart of the Harry Potter universe, then,- yeah, that's the first time that's happened, but no "Harry Potter" movie won a Costume Design, or for that matter, any Oscars. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The Daniels, as expected, pulled off the triple wins for Picture, Writing and Directing, the latest in what once was an Oscars rarity that's quickly turning into a regular norm, and they're only the third duo to win Best Director, the first since the Coen Brothers for "No Country for Old Men", they were fun and ecstatic every time. I do like, that for a duo directing team, you can tell the differences between them, and their movies make sense when you see their vastly different influences and how they constantly collide in their work. Also, "Everything Everywhere..." won for Editing, the first time in a long time you can argue that a comedy won this category. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Overall, I think the only people who really found the show ecstatic were those who were just super in the "Everything Everywhere..." camp, which, stop, it's a movie. Like, a good movie, but eh,- IDK, you know my thoughts on fans by now, I'm against them. That said there is a long list of firsts with this Picture win. First sci-fi film to technically win, that one shocked me a bit, first film with a predominantly Asian-American cast to win Best Picture, as well as an Asian-American creator. I saw a lot of people happy about the film's win, and a lot of people upset about it as well. Honestly, to those upset, I kinda want to know what you wanted to happen, or who you hoped would win, 'cause like I said, I've been underwhelmed by most of the nominees, including "Everything Everywhere..." to an extent, but like, it's also the only film I get the passion for, so, yeah. IDK, I know I had a very difficult time cheering for Spielberg's childhood story, or an Aussie's biopic about Elvis, or sequels/remakes to movies I didn't like to begin with, (Okay, that's not entirely fair, I do like the original "All Quiet on the Western Front", but it's not like a favorite or anything.) I know I had a very hard time finding inspiration out of this year's batch of Oscar films, and perhaps there's other films out there that the Academy and others missed; when I eventually sort through all the films of the year, I'll let you guys know, but yeah, mostly this was an award show that had worthy winners that all felt like worthy winners and this was a worthy award show representing that. <br /><br />Okay, the "In Memoriam", was ehhh.... I get why opinions are split on Kimmel's Robert Blake joke, but I'm just happy that somebody did finally recognize the show actually recognized the controversies with this segment. As for me, um, I thought the actual Memoriam...-, eh, again, I hate the guest performers for these, but it wasn't overdone and I could read and see all the names, so if you're gonna do it, this wasn't terrible, and Lenny Kravitz was fine, although it's weird for me to think of him playing a piano. (Also, is he, like, still a thing? Like, last year with H.E.R. I remember thinking of how modern a name they got, but has Kravitz had a hit song in a while; I don't even know. Like, did they get him to do it, 'cause he's kinda mostly an actor now, knows how to sing and basically is a Hollywood nepo baby?) Also, the editing of the montage itself was very blah, especially compared to say SAG's In Memoriam. It was very disappointing in general; they could've done more there.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Also, disappointing, how they instructed me here, and all over the show to download a QR code! I hope this isn't a continuing Oscar trend. I like the fact that there's a webpage with a more elaborate list of people who've past, as well as some very elaborate backstories on their lives and careers, that is a nice touch, and about the only website that they advertised and promoted that I would remotely ever go back to. But, just say the website; I'm not a QR code guy in general; I'm terrible at taking photos on my phones to begin with, and even if I wasn't I would still hate QR codes taking me to websites on my phone, and as much as I appreciate the Sound nominees or whomever, I don't need to be advertised about them through a QR code. IDK, maybe I'll give the benefit of the doubt that they're promoting to younger views and whatnot, future filmmakers who may potential find material like that interesting but, eh.... I think I'd rather just see the donkey one more time. Or just give me the website next time. Or maybe give me the website, on the donkey, there we go. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Oh well, is their anything else to really add here? </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">(Yawn) </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I guess not. It was back to basics, and not a lot memorable moments outside of the awards. No pizza getting ordered, no group selfies, no bringing in a touring crowd of random people. They did everything you want, when you just want a safe entertaining Oscars and honestly, that's fine. Maybe in another year, I would criticize it more for being bland, but you know what, this was a bland year at the movies, so I'm okay with a bland Oscars, or at least one, where the show is in the background and the foreground is the celebration of the movies that they do celebrate, especially with most of the main results were so predestined that I don't think their were any serious prognosticators out their even trying to indicate that some other movie might win. It felt right for the show to just stay out of it's own way and let go of everything, everywhere, and all-, all at the same time. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Oh, I don't see any of the Red Carpet stuff either, I heard about a little of it, and frankly, most of what I saw shows that, eh, the Red Carpet has also too much of it's luster for me to care about it much anymore. Maybe if Joan Rivers was still here, but frankly I've found myself far less intrigued by Red Carpet coverage over the years. Also, the interviewers, they seem to be constantly getting worst. I know who I'd bring in and how I'd have them approach and question celebs, but my objective would be very different from some of the networks, but eh, I wise their were more interviewers who were more intriguing by the technical aspects of the filmmaking crafts, and not-so-much the "glamour" aspects, of award shows, which, ehh,... or have more people who can do both. I don't mind caring a little about who's wearing who, but eh, if an interviewer can't go further than that, what are they doing there? </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Anyway, hope you all enjoy this year's Oscars. Can't wait for next year's, in the meantime, I'm gonna to get ready to be heavily disappointed by the Emmys later this year. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div>
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/n-It_HUw8iI" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696790060036702346.post-11051173962991513132023-03-08T23:07:00.003-08:002023-03-08T23:11:59.414-08:002023 OSCAR NOMINATIONS ANALYSES AND PREDICTIONS! (Yeah, sorry, for all the delays.) <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dhdaLnKMJHA" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe>
<div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Well, I really did intend to push out a real Oscar nominations blog before the nominations came out. I think I knew it was in vain, but I did try for awhile. I had everything against me, I was behind on the other awards and struggling to keep up, I hadn't seen most of the films, (As per usual) my schedule had given me less time than ever to work on such projects, etc. etc. I'll admit a little apathy towards these awards in particular since nothing looked particularly inspiring to me on the film side. A lot of sequels to films I didn't like the first time, that now I have to revisit, directors who's works I haven't always been a fan of, subject matters that raise a lot of skeptical eye brows and red flags to me.... Mostly, I've just been sick as a dog doing this and couldn't keep focused enough when I did have the time and energy to work on the blogpost to actually do it. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">So, yeah, no Oscar nominations blog this year. I did end up posting my Gold Derby ballot on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/david.baruffi/posts/pfbid02xGWvTZb6ygmpA4ETpKwUvYajFkqbCXxxxD6wsquYmmgpPQY1XKcW9TerU5nFkyF9l">Facebook</a>, like twenty minutes or so before the announcements started. I wasn't going to refer to it when doing my analyses of the actual nominees, I mean I didn't even get in the Top 50% this year, and frankly I wasn't trying that hard anyway, not that I ever do great when I do, but enough people cared that I was noticeably absent this Oscar season until now, so as I go through the nominees this year, I'm going to refer to my predictions anyway. I'll let you guys know what I got in and what I didn't, I'll use a star to denote a correct prediction and discuss the ones I'm proud of, and once I get those two out of the way, I'll talk about where I screwed up and a look at the category and nominees, like I always do. And try to- make sense of what the hell these nominees mean, and whatever other controversies or notes come up regarding the nominees. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>Okay, so all that, was written shortly after the original Oscar nominees came out, and I'm obviously even more behind than normal. I didn't get this, or a lot finished in the last couple months in fact. I don't want to dwell on any excuses I have, and yes, I do in fact have a lot of good ones, and a few stupid ones, but basically, this blog that was originally going to be a very belated analysis of the Oscar nominations, eventually became so belated that it eventually has evolved into an analyses and now, a predictions blog. I've gone from what normally would've been two,- no, three separate blogs, that I would've normally had planned out better, is now getting combined into this one giant blog. </i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>So, in order to separate timelines a bit here, I'm going to be writing my Predictions and everything written later, in this italicized Helvetica font, that frankly I don't care much for, but I think it'll work here, and everything else unless I note otherwise will be the stuff written in my more typical Times New Roman font. So, prediction thoughts in italicized Helvetica, original thoughts on the nominees, in Times New Roman. Hopefully next year, I'll start being more timely again, but... well, we'll see.... Anyway, let's get to predictions, analyses and all that other jazz. </i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>BEST PICTURE</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*All Quiet on the Western Front</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*The Banshees of Inisherin</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Elvis</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Everything Everywhere All at Once</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*The Fabelmans</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*TAR</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Top Gun: Maverick</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Triangle of Sadness</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Women Talking</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />At the last second I put in, "All Quiet on the Western Front"; it way overperformed at the BAFTAs, and my initial instinct was to dismiss it as a Europe thing, there's always like one film that might do really well at BAFTA but not translate at all in America, I call it the "Burn After Reading" spot, but "All Quiet..." showed up on a lot of the Oscar shortlists, and that was kinda my clue to put it in here, eventually. I left in "The Whale", and I didn't want to, I just couldn't figure out what else to put in. "Triangle of Sadness" had mostly underperformed everywhere else, even where it should've done well, and I had intended to have it miss everything, until for some reason I threw it into Supporting Actress in my prediction, the one category it didn't get. Normally, I'd pick the Aronofsky film to miss out too, but it was overperforming. I also had "RRR" in, mainly just out of passion, I thought it could get the Top Ten; I didn't realize "Triangle of Sadness" was going to be big, I left it in cause I couldn't figure out the last film. This is just an odd group. Like, "Elvis" is one of those clear frontrunners that would miss out; I feel like it's got "Dreamgirls" vibes all over it, but it seems to be more "Bohemian Rhapsody" this year. I also tried leaving out "Top Gun..." for a while, but it kept popping up, it's DGA nod really threw me. "Knives Out" didn't get into Picture last time, even though it should've, and the sequel isn't as beloved, meanwhile "Top Gun" seems to be overly beloved. "The Woman King" underperformed and missed everything.... This is a weird year, that's basically all that needs to be mentioned. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>Right now, it seems like the only group of people that seemed to not be falling head over heels for "Everything Everywhere All at Once", is curiously BAFTA. They seemed to be much more in love with "All Quiet on the Western Front". I'm honestly not sure what to make of that, but that said I'm not putting too weight into them. BAFTAs, while always interesting, have had less and less influence on the Oscars in recent years and every other award that matters has firmly and convincingly gone towards "Everything Everywhere All at Once", that, I don't think there's much choice than to look at that win as an anomaly. It took PGA, DGA, and SAG, and overperformed at the latter. Something weird would have to really happen right now for it not to win. </i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>PREDICTION: "Everything Everywhere All at Once"</i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>BEST DIRECTOR</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Todd Field-</b>"TAR"</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Daniel Kwan & Daniel Scheinert-</b>"Everything Everywhere All at Once"</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Martin McDonagh-</b>"The Banshees of Inisherin"</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Ruben Ostlund-</b>"Triangle of Sadness"</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Steven Spielberg-</b>"The Fabelmans"</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I had Sarah Polley in at the last spot, I switched her and Edward Berger for "All Quiet..." a couple times; doesn't matter I got it wrong anyway, but I got it wrong either way. Yeah, "Triangle of Sadness' getting in suddenly just threw me completely. The rest of the nominees were consistent with DGA, the only one they went with instead was Joseph Kosinski for "Top Gun: Maverick", which, yeah, definitely felt like the one that was going to miss. Nothing shocking here, I think it's between Spielberg and the Daniels, depending on whether or not Spielberg's overdue for another one or not.... (Shrugs) I also had S.S. Rajamouli in for awhile before I got off the "RRR" bandwagon.<br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>Only twice has the directing award gone to a pair of filmmakers. 1st in 1961 when Jerome Robbins & Robert Wise won for "West Side Story", and then in the mid-2000s when the Coen Brothers won it. It sure looks like the up-and-coming directing duo, of The Daniels are going to take it this year. They won DGA and Critics Choice, and there's no real number two option that's popped up. BAFTA went with Edward Berger for "All Quiet..." and he didn't get in. I knew a few people were holding out hope for this being another Spielberg year; I honestly didn't buy much into that, mainly just that I had a hard time believing "The Fabelmans" would capture the public at large and it really hasn't. McDonagh I think is looked at more as a writer than a director, Ostlund was lucky to get the fifth slot, Todd Field, I think if "TAR" was bigger might've had a shot, but other than Cate Blanchett nobody's talking about that film, and I'm not sure she's winning.... Yeah,....</i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>PREDICTION: Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert-"Everything Everywhere All at Once". </i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Austin Butler-</b>"Elvis"</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Colin Farrell-</b>"The Banshees of Inisherin"</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Brendan Fraser-</b>"The Whale"</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Paul Mescal-</b>"Aftersun"</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Bill Nighy-</b>"Living"</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Well, I got that one right. Eh, I know there was a couple other names out there, Adam Sandler got into SAG, I know there's was a little bit of push in the Academy for that, but it seemed far-fetched even with some annoyed he missed for "Uncut Gems". Tom Cruise had a little bit of a push, I think we all knew that wasn't gonna happen. We knew Farrell, Butler, Fraser, and Nighy once he got in for SAG and BAFTA, was a sure thing. After that, Mescal made the most sense even if nobody had seen it. Fraser seems to be the favorite here, I-, I 'm a little surprised by that honestly; I think Colin Farrell is the early favorite myself. The actor who's never been honored or even recalled for the first time in decades suddenly winning the Actor Oscar, for a feature that wasn't up for Picture..., yeah, I've heard this one before.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>I've seen Farrell's and Mescal's performance so far, so I can judge them. Personally I preferred Colin Farrell's but I don't think either of them are really in the running. BAFTA here went to Austin Butler for "Elvis", but SAG went to Brendan Fraser. I would've thought that would've pushed Gold Derby odds in Fraser's favor, but at the moment, Butler is the slight favorite. Honestly, I'm leaning more towards Butler as well. Nighy and Mescal couldn't win at BAFTA, so I think they're out for sure. Farrell did win the Golden Globe, but so did Butler, and I would've thought Farrell's best shot was winning BAFTA. Also, "The Whale" didn't get into Best Picture, which is really rare in this category. You gotta go back to Jeff Bridges winning for "Crazy Heart" in '09 to find a performance that won in this category, that wasn't from a BP nominee, and was competing against two other BP nominees, and wasn't a part where the actor played a real person. IDK, Brendan Fraser playing a whale, but Austin Butler is playing Elvis, and Elvis is pretty damn beloved. Also, "The Whale" is an Aronofsky film, I can't help but think about Mickey Rourke's work in "The Wrestler" getting similarly passed over for Sean Penn's work for "Milk" in '08. But Rourke didn't win SAG, Fraser did.... Man this is one of the harder to predict categories this year; I might be going back-and-forth on this one a few times.</i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>PREDICTION: Austin Butler-"Elvis"</i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Cate Blanchett-</b>"TAR"</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Ana de Armas-</b>"Blonde"</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Andrea Riseborough-</b>"To Leslie"</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Michelle Williams-</b>"The Fabelmans"</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Michelle YEOH-</b>"Everything Everywhere All at Once"</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">A couple big snubs here in Danielle Deadwyler, who I had in for "Till" as well as Viola Davis for "The Woman King", which means no African-American in either Lead acting categories. Although for a second it looked like they might still be in the running. Andrea Riseborough's nomination for "To Leslie" has suddenly become the most controversial acting nomination in years, and only recently has the Academy stated that they will not rescind it. If you're wondering why, here's a link to one of the <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/andrea-riseborough-what-is-the-controversy-surrounding-british-stars-oscar-nomination-12799655">articles</a>, on it, to go over the details. It's really a campaign technicality thing, that, itself, is a whole can or worms that I would rather not get into, thank you very much. I will say that, the nomination, it could win. It's been tainted, outside of the Academy, and with some of the bigger names in the Academy who seemed to be the ones pushing the nomination, I-, I wouldn't underestimate it quite yet. Even Cate Blanchett, the presumed favorite, apparently pushed for it. There is some progressiveness in the category, Michelle YEOH, did become the first Asian woman nominated in the Lead Actress category, and right now I have it a three-way race between YEOH, Riseborough and Blanchett, with de Armas sneaking in despite nobody liking her movie, but she's playing Marilyn Monroe, and Michelle Williams, becoming more of the bridesmaids as she succeeded in getting into Lead, (There were some awards and talk of putting her into Supporting Actress) but yeah, is probably a longshot here.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i><span style="font-family: helvetica;">We're getting more splits between the awards this year. SAG went with Michelle Yeoh, BAFTA and Critics Choice went with Cate Blanchett, which would give her her third Oscar for acting, which is a lot, that's puts her in very rare company. The wild card is Andrea Riseborough, who's nomination is by far the most controversial of this award season. I'm not gonna say the nomination's undeserved but, if you went better and sometimes a more frustrating look at how she snuck into the nomination field, I'd highly recommend <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJHYu9edsfk">Be Kind Rewind</a>'s video essay, it shows how she managed to get this nomination, through word-of-mouth, that was itself kinda astroturfed by certain prominent members of the Actors Branch of the Academy, and other prominent figures in the acting community in ways that, reflect, criticize and undermined the modern Oscar Campaign industry. I think most of that is now gone, and Riseborough is, at most running a distant third in this race. To me, the SAG wins for "Everything Everywhere All at Once" were very daunting, and the thing is Cate Blanchett has already been honored several times already, and I think the Academy might be well aware of just how much Michelle Yeoh's been overlooked over the years. There's also historical precedent, there's never been an Asian actress in the Lead Actress category before.... I'm going with the momentum.</span></i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i><span style="font-family: helvetica;">PREDICTION: Michelle Yeoh-"Everything Everywhere All at Once".</span></i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Brendan Gleeson-</b>"The Banshees of Inisherin"</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Brian Tyree Henry-</b>"Causeway"</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Judd Hirsch-</b>"The Fabelmans"</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Barry Keoghan-</b>"The Banshees of Inisherin"</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Ke Huy QUAN-</b>"Everything Everywhere All at Once"</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I was gonna put in Brian Tyree Henry, in, but I saw that Eddie Redmayne got the SAG nomination instead, and up until now when they seem to like Redmayne, it seems they really like Redmayne, so I through him in for "The Good Nurse", instead, but nice to see I was wrong on that one. I did call, Judd Hirsch in and not his co-star Paul Dano. I know Dano got nominated at SAG, but he had been overlooked before, plus...- look I respect the guy, great actor, but nobody likes Paul Dano. Good guy, weird actor, talented as Hell, but yeah, I totally get why he was overlooked for Alex Reiger. He's just one of those actors who gives off those weird vibes that make you just not like him, whether that's deserved or not, and it's not, I'm sure it's not, but he's got like, anti-Adam Driver energy, so.... BTW, Hirsch, at age 87, is now the second oldest Oscar nominee in the category ever, right behind Christopher Plummer who was 88 when he got his last nomination for "All the Money in the World". This is most likely going to Ke Huy QUAN.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>Ke Hey QUAN has so far won most of the precursors, including SAG. The only real exception so far was BAFTA who went with Barry Keoghan, which kinda shocked me, I would've thought Brendan Gleeson gave the better performance in "The Banshees of Inisherin" but still that's pretty much his only loss, to a British film at the British Oscars. Can anybody believe that QUAN played Shortround in "...Temple of Doom"? I know, I'm taken aback by that fact. Anyway, this is probably the easiest of the acting wins to predict; Hirsch and Henry's nominations are their awards, and even with Keoghan leading over Gleeson, combining vote-splitting and all other signs leaning towards "Everything....". Quan would become the second Asian-born actor to win this category, and the first Dr. Haing S. Ngor won for "The Killing Fields" in '84. </i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>PREDICTION: Ke Huy QUAN-"Everything Everywhere All at Once". </i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Angela Bassett-</b>"Black Panther: Wakanda Forever"</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Hong CHAU-</b>"The Whale"</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Kerry Condon-</b>"The Banshees of Inisherin"</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Jamie Lee Curtis-</b>"Everything Everywhere All at Once"</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Stephanie Hsu-</b>"Everything Everywhere All at Once"</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Eh, this one's my fault for just not trusting SAG, as this was the category they went paint on. I'm also not sure why I thought Dolly De Leon would get in here, and "Triangle of Sadness" not getting anything else. I-eh-, I don't what I was thinking...- I think I just didn't trust Hong Chau in the category, especially with at least one other Asian-American actress almost guaranteed to be in it. This is the acting category the most up-in-the-air, right now, I'd say Angela Bassett is the slight favorite, partially as a veteran make-good for her having not won before, although she is the only one here who was ever nominated before this year, and yes, that includes Jamie Lee Curtis. I could see Condon or Hsu winning too though.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>This category has been playing out fascinatingly. For awhile, Angela Bassett seemed to be ordained for the category, taking some early precursors like the Golden Globe and Critics Choice, but after that,.... BAFTA went with Kerry Condon, which makes sense, that's for the one British film in the group. SAG in a big upset went with Jamie Lee Curtis, which really through me a bit, 'cause I would've thought that if somebody from "Everything Everywhere All at Once" was gonna win, it would've been Stephanie Hsu. Gold Derby still lists Bassett as the favorite but, hmmm, I'm feeling iffy on that right now. That SAG lost scares me, but I could justify it though. One of the quirks of SAG is just how they're much more of a general populace group than the Academy, so perhaps all those sentimental older voters who spent decades doing radio voiceovers and whatnot, probably see Jamie Lee Curtis as the sentimental pick. She basically does have the same argument for a career win as Bassett does, and she's in the movie with the most nominations and has been overperforming everywhere but BAFTA. It also would be rare for the same movie to win so many acting prizes though. If Quan and Yeoh's both win as well, that would put "Everything Everywhere..." in a tie with "A Streetcar Named Desire" and "Network" as the only films to win three acting Oscars. Alright, "Network" was a bit of a fluke, Peter Finch won posthumously and Beatrice Straight won for like, a four minute performance, which I think is still the record for shortest on-screen time for a nomination, but still..... I don't know, if they really saw "Everything Everywhere...", than I gotta think Stephanie Hsu would get as many, if not more votes than Jamie Lee, and if that's the case, then when the nominees are split within the same film, go with the alternative.</i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>PREDICTION: Angela Bassett-"Black Panther: Wakanda Forever"</i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>ADAPTED SCREENPLAY</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*All Quiet on the Western Front-</b>Edward Berger, Lesley Paterson & Ian Stokell</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery-</b>Rian Johnson</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Living-</b>Kazuo Ishiguro</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Top Gun: Maverick-</b>Ehren Kruger and Eric Warren Singer and Christopher McQuarrie; Story by Peter Craig and Justin Marks</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Women Talking-</b>Sarah Polley</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">WGA was more annoying this year than normal in that they didn't put out their nominees until after the Oscars did, but this was a pretty weak year in the category, and also the WGA awards aren't the most reliable predictor anyway. They didn't have "All Quiet..." or "Living" and I'm presuming most likely because they weren't eligible for WGA. (They had "Black Panther..." and "She Said" in instead) Kazuo Ishiguro makes a rare list here by being one of only six people who's been both an Oscar nominee and a Nobel Laureate. It's not looking great for him, only two have ever won an Oscar, George Bernard Shaw in 1939 for adapting his own play "Pygmalion", and the other is-eh, Bob Dylan, for the song "Things Have Changed" from "Wonder Boys". (Yeah, I totally forgot he has a Nobel Prize in Literature as well.) Anyway, the movie only got two nominations, and the second one is in Best Actor, and no film has won this category without a BP nomination since 1999's "Gods and Monsters". It is weird how we have two movie sequels and a story that's been remade in film many times before in the mix. My gut tells me it's between "All Quiet..." or "Women Talking", and I'm giving a slight edge to "Women Talking" for the moment. By the way, I think "Glass Onion" is only the second time a sequel to a film got nominated for Adapted Screenplay, after the original feature film got nominated for Original Screenplay, after the writing nomination for "Toy Story 3", so kudos on that. (Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on that btw) </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>A strange year in this category. Yeah, there's three Best Picture nominees, but none of them seem particularly like they're in the running for winning, except for maybe "All Quiet on the Western Front", which did win the BAFTA, but it wasn't up against "Women Talking", which is currently the odds-on favorite at Gold Derby. In turn, "All Quiet..." isn't up for WGA due to it not being eligible, so "Women Talking" has to win there. I think the only real competition between these three is "Top Gun: Maverick" possibly pulling off a surprise upset. Everybody's had a little difficulty trying to figure out exactly how strong is "Top Gun..." and where it's strong this Oscar cycle. It's the movie everyone's praising for (finger quotes) "Saving the Industry" 'cause it was a big theatrical hit, but I have a really hard time buying it being good enough to run through the Awards. If it wins WGA, then I think "All Quiet..." will take it easily, but if "Women Talking" wins it, then it's a race. I'm a little weary though. Sarah Polley is an actor-turned director, so she's got that advantage, plus she's an industry life who's been around for decades now. But, I can't help but remember how Greta Gerwig's "Little Women" script got overlooked under similar circumstance and had more awards buzz. It's up against two much more masculine films. It's also been a long time since a film has won Writing, especially Adapted Screenplay, with so few nominations, you gotta go back to Billy Bob Thornton winning for "Sling Blade". It's happened in Original Screenplay a little more recently, Pedro Almodovar winning in 2002 for "Talk to Her". Feels unlikely, but I don't think it's impossible.... I might switching back and forth on this one for a bit.</i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>PREDICTION: "Women Talking"-Sarah Polley</i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*The Banshees of Inisherin-</b>Martin McDonagh</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Everything Everywhere All at Once-</b>Daniel Kwan & Daniel Scheinert</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*The Fabelmans-</b>Steven Spielberg & Tony Kushner</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Tar-</b>Todd Field</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Triangle of Sadness-</b>Ruben Ostlund</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I didn't see "Triangle of Sadness" coming, so I put in "Aftersun", but actually this category is stranger than normal, 'cause not only did this category, for the first time in, a long time, match up with all of them being Best Picture nominee, but they all also match up exactly, with the Best Director nominees! In fact, all five of the Best Director nominees are also nominated for Best Screenplay at the same Oscars for their film! And not just the films, the actual directors are all also writers of their films. This have never happened, definitely not in the same category at least, but I'm fairly certain this has never happened, even with two writing categories. This is honestly something that I have been keeping an eye on for awhile. For years, when I was young, one of the big Oscar stats was that only one person, Billy Wilder for "The Apartment" won the Oscar for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Screenplay, (And that wasn't even right, James L. Brooks for "Terms of Endearment" did it as well, as did Francis Ford Coppola for "The Godfather Part II) but it was an exceptionally rare feat at the time, but now, it's become so common that I've lost track of the people who've pulled off this triple crown. I know Inarritu did it for "Birdman...", the Coens did it for "No Country for Old Men", Peter Jackson, I keep forgetting did it for "...The Return of the King", BONG Joon-ho did it for "Parasite" most recently. For those curious, the Daniels, Spielberg, McDonagh and Field could pull off the triple win here, only Ruben Ostlund is not listed as a producer for their film, but either way I've always thought that this was a very underrated trend, in that, perhaps while in the populace the big studio mega-production still rules the most, (Although, even those films that got nominated, are clearly the vision of a select amount of people and many of them have multiple credits and not just producer on their films), but within the industry, the huge distrust of quality of the big budget productions has led to more belief and interest in the smaller, more personal projects that an artist would partake in, even if that artist, may be named Spielberg and literally runs the entire town. BTW, this is Spielberg's first ever Writing nomination, and the first time he's had a real proper film writing credit, not counting that "Poltergeist" remake nobody remembers existed, since "A.I.: Artificial Intelligence" and not I'm even that one seems slightly debatable since he was adapting Stanley Kubrick's original work. Wow, he wasn't even nominated for writing "Close Encounters....", how weird.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i><span style="font-family: helvetica;">I'm probably gonna just defer to WGA for this one. Gold Derby has "The Banshees of Inisherin" as the favorite, which is kinda weird to me. It did win BAFTA and the Golden Globe, but it's also up against four other writer/directors, all of which are up for Picture, and Director, and- I just kinda think it's gonna be weird or odd that any of these categories are gonna split. I've been damned more than a few times predicting a split between Writing, Directing and Picture, and frankly, especially with Writing, it just doesn't happen nearly as often. If "Banshees..." win at WGA then perhaps I'll buy it. </span></i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i><span style="font-family: helvetica;">PREDICTION: "Everything Everywhere All at Once"-Daniel Kwan & Daniel Scheinert</span></i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>BEST ANIMATED FEATURE</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Guillermo Del Toro's Pinocchio</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Marcel the Shell with Shoes On</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Puss in Boots: The Last Wish</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Sea Beast</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Turning Red</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Kind of a tricky category to get a real read on. I had "Wendell & Wild" instead of "The Sea Beast"; it was one or the other; they both were nominated for Annies for Best Picture, and I knew "Marcel the Shell..." was getting in, which the Annies had separated as an Independent Feature, so it was a matter of which one they would pick. None of the animated features got in anywhere else though, although "Pinocchio" made a few of the shortlists, and honestly, none of these films really feel like they have winner buzz around them. "...Pinocchio" I think is in the lead, mainly because of Del Toro as well as the film being the most publicized and ambitious of the choices. It was a weird year for Pinocchio; it wasn't even the only animated Pinocchio film this year, but that Robert Zemeckis one, didn't exactly get the acclaim. (Boy Robert Zemeckis, there's a filmmaker who's decline probably needs more analysis they people want to admit.) Only one sequel, thankfully and that's for the "Puss in Boots" movie. So, we got Pinocchio, Shrek, eh, "The Sea Beast" is a Netflix film, so good for them, Disney's selection this year was "Turning Red", is another one of their transformation movies, which is starting to feel like a little ridiculous with animated films btw. Starting to feel like every other animated film is just a discarded Gilbert & Sullivan plot, where someone takes a magic lozenge or something and turns into something. "Marcel..." is A24's entry, which is interesting in of itself, and it's stop-motion, along with "Pinocchio" which is interesting, I don't remember the last stop-motion animated film to win this category. Not since "Wallace & Gromit: in the Curse of the Were-Rabbit", and those two could potentially be the favorites; I wouldn't discard "Turning Red" either, but it's an overall uninspiring year in the category, which does make this difficult to predict.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>I don't have much to add to this category at the moment. Nothing seems to be sticking out too much, "...PInocchio" won the most Annies, only "Marcel the Shell..." really has any other chance, and I just don't think it's got "Spirited Away"-like dominance to pull off the upset win here. I don't really see anything else winning. This is one of the least interesting years in the categories history, at least in terms of the actual awards. I guess it also kinda feels right that Guillermo Del Toro get an animated award as well. (Shrugs) </i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>PREDICTION: Guillermo Del Toro's Pinocchio</i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>DOCUMENTARY FEATURE</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*All That Breathes</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*All the Beauty and the Bloodshed</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Fire of Love</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>A House Made of Splinters</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Navalny</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">This category's been a bit all over the map awards-wise. I had "Moonage Daydream" in, which was on other shortlists, so a bit of an upset not popping up here, but there was about ten films that had a shot at showing up and the Documentary Branch will do whatever the hell they want anyway half the time anyway. Even still, this is kind of a loaded category, there's not an obvious weak one in the bunch and all the films are fairly different. I think "All the Beauty..." is the slight favorite at the moment, because it has the biggest names behind it, that's Laura Poitras's film, they she filmmaker behind "Citizenfour" that won the category a few years ago, but I think this can go any way. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Gold Derby has "Navalny" in the lead at the moment but the entire category is close. "Navalny" is about the Russian opposition leader who survived an assassination attack. There's "All the Beauty and the Bloodshed" which is about the fight to hold Purdue-Pharma responsible for the Opioid epidemic, "Fire of Love" is about volcanologist couple who died while researching Mr. Unzen when it imploded in 1991. "A House Made of Splinters" is about Ukranian teachers trying to teach during the Russian Invasion. "All That Breathes" is about brothers in India who start a bird sanctuary. Okay, I kinda think it'd be weird if that one won, but other than that, this can go a lot of places. "All the Beauty..." is the big name in documentary filmmaking; that might give it a slight advantage, but the two movies about Russia and Ukraine, make it really difficult to predict it for me. This is the most difficult category to predict this, I really don't think there's an obvious favorite and there's a plausible argument for all of these. Documentary Branch is weird too to begin with.... I can easily see "Eenie Meanie Miney Mo" being as good of a prognosticator strategy as anyone/anything else this year.</span></i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i><span style="font-family: helvetica;">PREDICTION: "Navalny"</span></i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>INTERNATIONAL FEATURE</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*All Quiet on the Western Front </b>[Germany]</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Argentina, 1985 </b>[Argentina]</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Close </b>[Belgium]</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Eo </b>[Poland]</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Quiet Girl </b>[Ireland]</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">A rare nomination for Ireland in the category with "The Quiet Girl", which was a bit of a surprise nomination. This marks four films from Europe and only "Argentina, 1985" representing another continent. "All Quiet..." obviously getting into several other categories, including Best Picture makes it the heavy favorite. I missed "Eo" which I had like, 7th, and put in "Decision to Leave" from South Korea, which a lot of people had as a spoiler for other categories as well, but eh, except for "Parasite" it seems the Academy is still slightly anti-South Korea despite them being in a golden age of cinema and being the movie that broke through the BP stranglehold on English language films winning. I also through in "Bardo..." which I probably should've knocked out for something else, but I didn't want to be caught offguard by the Inarritu film again, 'cause I remember not predicting "Biutiful" when that movie got a couple nominations. Um, I can't imagine a scenario where "All Quiet..." doesn't win here, even in a perceived loaded field. When a foreign film pops up this much elsewhere and nothing else does....?</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>At some point there's going to be a big foreign language Best Picture nominee that will somehow get a bunch of other nominations and then lost International Feature, and it's gonna be incredibly controversial when it does happen, but this isn't the year. </i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>PREDICTION: "All Quiet on the Western Front"</i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>CINEMATOGRAPHY</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>All Quiet on the Western Front-</b>James Friend</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Bardo, False Chronicle of a Handful of Truths-</b>Darius Khondji</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Elvis-</b>Mandy Walker</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Empire of Light-</b>Roger Deakins</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Tar-</b>Florian Hoffmeister</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">You know, we don't talk as much about how the Cinematographer's Guild will tend to occasionally go completely off the board and have a rebellious streak, but y'know, we really should, 'cause it does happen more often than we realize. First off, only three of the nominees this year matched the ASC Awards, "Bardo..." "Elvis" and "Empire of Light". BTW, Mandy Walker, becomes only the second female ever nominated in the category, congrats to her for that. However, the presumed favorite, Claudio Miranda for "Top Gun: Maverick", didn't even get nominated. Honestly, I myself kinda thought something like this would happen, since I had "Avatar", and "The Fabelmans" which weren't on the ASC's list either in, but yeah, weird list here. "Bardo..." missed out on International Feature but does pop up hear, and it's the film's only nomination, and "Empire of Light" also got it's singular nomination. Honestly, I think "Empire of Light" is the favorite, if for no other reason than Roger Deakins, but we'll see what the Guild eventually picks, but weird category this year. Not the first time recently that the category has multiple foreign language nominees in recent years too. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>I don't like to spoil my reviews before I post them, but I didn't like "Top Gun: Maverick," like, at all, but the cinematography by Claudio Miranda was top notch, so yeah, I get why everybody was stunned when he wasn't nominated. But what does win now? Well, "All Quiet on the Western Front" is the Gold Derby favorite, and that has a shot. It's the one outlier of the nominees that didn't get into ASC, along with "Tar", but eh.... well, I guess this makes sense, but I'm skeptical. Honestly, the big problem here is that there isn't a real obvious winner here than in recent years; I can't remember the last year where there wasn't a very obvious winner. Maybe in 2015, with "The Revenant" and "Mad Max: Fury Road" being neck-in-neck, at least in my mind, but I might even be stretching it with that; I think "The Revenant" won a far majority of the precursors. Maybe "Hugo" upsetting "The Tree of Life" is probably the last time, and maybe that year was a clue. "The Tree of Life" only got a few nominations while "Hugo" ended up winning multiple awards. "All Quiet..." got nine total nominations, almost all of them in technical categories, while "Tar"'s only two below-the-line nominations are here and for Editing. "Elvis" got almost as many though, and they played the big spoiler winning at ASC Awards, even over "Top Gun" and Mandy Walker, if she wins, would be the first female to win this category, and that is something that the Academy is looking into. I think some might throw "Empire of Light" into the mix but this is the only nomination this film, and "Bardo..." received, and you gotta go a long time before you last see somebody win this category with Cinematography being that film's only nomination. The last time it happened, they were still separation between color and black & white cinematography. (1950's "She World a Yellow Ribbon", for those curious) I think it's between "All Quiet..." and "Elvis". I think this'll be close, but I'm gonna give the slight edge to the war movie. </i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>PREDICTION: "All Quiet on the Western Front"-James Friend</i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>COSTUME DESIGN</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Babylon-</b>Mary Zophres</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Black Panther: Wakanda Forever-</b>Ruth Carter</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Elvis-</b>Catherine Martin</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Everything Everywhere All at Once-</b>Shirley Kurata</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Mrs. Harris Goes to Paris-</b>Jenny Beavan</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Boy they just won't nominated any of the "Knives Out" films for anything technical will they? I had that in there, longshot-at-best, but I took a shot, but, instead, they put in "Everything Everywhere All at Once" which is the first really big clue that it's Best Picture. It was a Costume Designers Guild nominee, but the CDG separates their awards by genre, and it got into Sci-Fi/Fantasy category along with "Black Panther", but like, boy if you've seen the movie, that's a technicality distinction if I've ever seen one. I don't think it's a bad nomination, in fact, I like a lot of the costumes in that film, and there's a good mixture of varied costumes, but still, kind of a curious pick, expect for the fact that it's the presumptive Best Picture favorite, and it overperformed. They like that film. Meanwhile, only "Elvis" is the other BP nominee and that's probably only because of Catherine Martin who almost always wins this category when she's nominated. She's Baz Luhrmann's wife and she's often the person responsible for the looks of all his films, 'cause she also does the film's production designs as well. She's also listed as a producer this time, and deservedly so, she's talented-as-hell. This is actually a tough category, Ruth Carter won for the last "Black Panther", Jenny Beavan also usually wins when she gets in, including last year for "Cruella", Mary Zophres is one of my favorite and one of the most underrated costume designers, most notably for working with the Coen Brothers, but her work with Damian Chazelle is great too. Loaded category, don't underestimated Jenny Beavan winning again, "Mrs. Harris..." is a film about fashion, those films do well in these categories in recent years. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>Just to be clear, the CDG Awards did give "Glass Onion...", their Contemporary Film award, so I wasn't that far out here. (Also, the Costume Designers Branch of the Oscars should be honoring more Contemporary films anyway....) That said, they did give us the two major winners, with "Everything Everywhere All at Once" winning in Fantasy/Science Fiction feature, and "Elvis" winning in Period feature. So, unless the Academy goes way off the rails this year, it's between one of them. The costumes in "Everything Everywhere..." are more complex and varied than it seems at first, and I do like how their are good contemporary costumes, mixed with a lot of the fantastical costumes.... Eh, I think it's still just hard to go against Catherine Martin working on a Baz Luhrmann film. I'd think she also had more difficult costumes, in terms of quantity, to create as well. </i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>PREDICTION: "Elvis"-Catherine Martin </i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>FILM EDITING</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Banshees of Inisherin-</b>Mikkel E.G. Nielsen</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Elvis-</b>Matt Villa and Jonathan Redmond</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Everything Everywhere All at Once-</b>Paul Rogers</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Tar-</b>Monika Willi</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Top Gun: Maverick-</b>Eddie Hamilton</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The A.C.E. Eddie Awards, for some reason chose to conspicuously not put their Guild's nominations out before the Oscars either, just like the WGA this year, so this category became a little trickier to predict than normal. That said, there wasn't anything particularly unexpected here, although the nomination for "The Banshees of Inisherin" was a shock, and I must say, the lack of "All Quiet on the Western Front" here gives me some pause. Once I figured that was a serious BP contender, and it being a war movie, I naturally thought it would easily pop up here. Instead, "The Banshees of Inisherin" and "Tar" took over the spots. "All Quiet..." also missing Director, is a bad sign, these two categories have historically been the most accurate BP prognosticators. It's very difficult to win Best Picture without getting nominated in at least one of these categories, and it's especially hard to win without getting into either of them. Probably bad news for "Elvis" and "Top Gun..." but they got in because they note two exceptions to those rules, musicals, and especially, action movies. Action movies especially are huge wild cards, ask any editor and they will tell you, the most difficult thing to edit by far are chase scenes. (Oh, for those curious, what else I missed in this category, I had "The Fabelmans", mainly 'cause it's a contender, Spielberg and because it's a Walter Murch film, which sometimes gets John Williams-willed into nominations as well, but I guess who wrote the book on editing has enough accomplishments)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>The A.C.E. Eddie Awards didn't have too many surprises, with "Top Gun: Maverick" taking Dramatic film and "Everything Everywhere All at Once" taking Comedy or Musical feature. I'm trying to talk myself into "Everything Everywhere...", but it's hard to win that Comedy/Musical Eddie Award and then win Best Editing. The last time it happened was "Chicago" back in 2002, and that was a musical. There's musical elements to "Everything Everywhere", but that's not musical. Although, "comedy" is also a weird designation for it too. It's also one of those movies where I definitely think about the film's editing. "Top Gun: Maverick" admittedly also lives and dies by it's editing as well, both in not only trying to tell it's own story, but also in trying to emulate the editing style of it's original film. But man, "Everything Everywhere..." is just one of those movies that you think about the editing after you watch it. </i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>PREDICTION: "Everything Everywhere All at Once"-Paul Rogers</i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*All Quiet on the Western Front-</b>Heike Merker and Linda Eisenhamerova</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Batman-</b>Naomi Donne, Mike Marino and Mike Fontaine</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Black Panther: Wakanda Forever-</b>Camille Friend and Joel Harlow</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Elvis-</b>Mark Coulier, Jason Baird and Aldo Signoretti</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*The Whale-</b>Adrien Morot, Judy Chin and Annemarie Bradley</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Unusually for the category, there wasn't anything too out there on the shortlist, so there's no real, "Norbit" nomination in the category like usual. I took a shot on "Crimes of the Future" being the closest to that, but they instead went with "The Batman" which kinda underperformed overall, only popping up here as well as Sound and Visual Effect, the favorite action movie categories. Other than that, the only movie that really obviously sticks out is "The Whale", as it's basically nominated in the same way that say Steve Carell for "Foxcatcher" was up for the makeup as well as the performance. Just for that, I kinda want to think of them as the early favorite, but eh, as much as they might nominate one memorable makeup performance, they might more often than not go for more complete and elaborate makeup and hair performances over the years, so I'm thinking they might be the longshot in reality among the group.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>The MUAHs, the Make-Up and Hairstylists Guild Awards, were a bit all over the place and generally aren't the best judges of this category anyway. I haven't seen any of the movies here yet, so I'm mostly just gonna go off the film's trailers. "All Quiet..." had a lot of makeup which was good in that I didn't notice much of it. It wasn't nominated for any of the Makeup awards, but that's not an indicator; like I said, the MUAHs are a bit iffy as a prognosticator. "Elvis" did win two of the awards, and it won in both makeup and hairstyling, and there's definitely a lot there. Although, I think if they're going more towards hairstyling, "Black Panther..." probably has a bigger edge. Then there's "The Whale", which, I don't know, it's one very impressive makeup job, I don't know if that's enough. It's usually enough to get nominated, but not usually enough to win. "The Batman" didn't win any of their nominations at the HUAHs, and the movie's been underperforming all award season and frankly the makeup in the trailer looks, decent enough, but it didn't look special. I guess there's an upset possibility or two here, but I lean towards the more overall makeup as opposed to most elaborate project. </i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i><span style="font-family: helvetica;">PREDICTION: "Elvis"-Mark Coulier, Jason Baird and Aldo Signoretti</span></i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>ORIGINAL SCORE</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>All Quiet on the Western Front-</b>Volker Bertlelmann</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Babylon-</b>Justin Hurwitz</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*The Banshees of Inisherin-</b>Carter Burwell</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Everything Everywhere All at Once-</b>Son Lux</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*The Fabelmans-</b>John Williams</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">This puts John Williams's nomination count to 53, now! There's not too much to add to his Oscar legacy, but I'll say this, with only 5 wins, so far, this technically makes him, the Academy's all-time biggest Oscar loser. He's lost 48 times, only Walt Disney, who lost 38 Oscars in his life, is the only one who's close. (And Disney lost to himself a few times, so it's actually a lot shorter.) Alexandre Desplat got snubbed again for "...Pinocchio", which is what I had instead of "All Quiet...". Something kinda interesting here is that Ryan Lott is nominated as his band Son Lux. I've seen it both ways in the predecessors to the awards. Part of me is perplexed, but part of me is somewhat surprised that this hasn't happened earlier. Artists do have the options to be nominated either individually or as a group, it's happened in the Original Song category, but not in the Original Score category, at least not since The Beatles won for Original Song Score for "Let It Be". That's technically a different category, but that's about the closest that's happened in this category 'til now. That said, I don't really know who the favorite is right now. Carter Burwell hasn't won yet, I'd think he'd have a slight edge, but I could easily see this being "The Fabelmans" only real win as well. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>The SCL Awards, were so off on the nominations that I'm not even sure it's worth comparing here, although "Everything Everywhere All at Once" did win for Independent film, but "The Banshees of Inisherin", with no other Oscar nominees in the category, lost to "Nope". That's weird, 'cause I would've thought that film, might've had a slight edge considering how music plays, a little bit into the story. It shows how little they matter in that Gold Derby lists "Babylon" as the favorite and "Everything Everywhere..." and "Banshees..." tied for fourth in their odds. I'm not a good judge of musical scores myself, but Justin Hurwitz has won quite a lot already in his short career, if "Babylon" still a favorite, it's either still really good, or they're just giving it to him arbitrarily. I can see either one. Eh, I'm just gonna take a shot and go with the odds here. </i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>PREDICTION: "Babylon"-Justin Hurwitz</i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>ORIGINAL SONG</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i>"Lift Me Up"-</i><b>Black Panther: Wakanda Forever-</b>Music/Lyrics: Tems and Ryan Coogler; Music: Rihanna and Ludwig Goransson</div><div style="text-align: left;"><i>"This is a Life"-</i><b>Everything Everywhere All at Once-</b>Music/Lyric: Ryan Lott and David Byrne; Music: Mitski</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*</b><i>"Applause"-</i><b>Tell It Like a Woman-</b>Music/Lyrics: Diane Warren</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*</b><i>"Naatu Naatu"-</i><b>RRR-</b>Music: M.M. Keeravaani; Lyric: Chandrabose</div><div style="text-align: left;"><i>"Hold My Hand"</i>-<b>Top Gun: Maverick-</b>Music/Lyrics: Lady Gaga and Bloodpop</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">So, I actually did listen to all the shortlisted Best Songs, which, btw, is still bullshit, they should put out full lists of all the eligible songs and scores every year like they used to, and without too many really important predecessors, and because of the general unpredictability of the category, I just went with the five songs I liked the best, even though I probably knew that "My Mind and Me" from that Selena Gomez documentary and the even more obscure J. Ralph & Norah Jones track "Dust and Ash" from "The Voice of Dust and Ash" weren't getting in. Little surprised "Carolina" didn't get in, but y'know, the Oscars haven't been particularly kind to Taylor Swift. They have been ridiculously kind though to Diane Warren, who despite getting an Honorary Oscar earlier this year, once again gets nominated, and again for a movie that basically nobody has seen. That said, it's not one of her best songs, but it's not one or her worst either. And honestly, that was kind of the jist of most of the shortlist, There's not a bad song here either, but the only two that really stood out as memorable from this group for me, which was "Naatu Naatu" from "RRR", which is the only place the film showed up here and Lady Gaga's song from "Top Gun", which, eh,- I mean, it's Gaga, so like, even her on a bad day is like a B+, and eh, "Hold My Hand", is an A-, maybe an A if I'm feeling generous, but it's no "Shallow" or even a "Till It Happens to You". Nice to see David Byrne and Mitski sneak nominations in as well here; it's the first time he's been nominated since he won for co-writing the score to "The Last Emperor", that's 35 years ago, that's a long wait between nominations. Other than that, I think "Naatu Naatu" is the presumed favorite, I wouldn't be shocked by a "Top Gun" upset here. I actually do like Gaga's song better than the overrated "Take My Breath Away" that "Top Gun" originally won for. (Come at me, that song sucks!) Although "Lift Me Up" is nowhere near as good as "All the Stars" that "Black Panther" got nominated in this category before for. It's weird that I'm talking about so many sequel movies in this category and none of them are animated. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>The SCL Awards did have three of the nominees in the Song category compete with each other in one of their awards and the winner of that was..., "Applause" from "Tell It Like A Woman". Diane Warren. Huh. Really, over the Lady Gaga song even? Again, I don't trust this Guild, but could this be her "Monsters, Inc." year? That's the movie that finally earned Randy Newman his Oscar after fifteen nominations for "If I Didn't Have You". You know, the one thing I do remember from that year was that, he was not the favorite going in. Not even close; that was actually a pretty loaded field, that included Diane Warren, who was up for her song from "Pearl Harbor" that Faith Hill performed. Yeah, I don't think anybody liked that song even at the time, but the other nominees were Enya for her "The Lord of the Rings..." song, frickin' Sting, who I thought was gonna win for a beautiful song called "Until..." from "Kate & Leopold" and friggin' Paul McCartney for the title track from "Vanilla Sky". Yeah, he was the longest of longshot that year. But let's look at Warren's competition. She's up against one Rock & Roll Hall of Famer, David Byrne, but he's won before, although Mitski's pretty popular and she hasn't and that's for a bigger film. Lady Gaga's won before, in fact she's in third to Rihanna's song from "Black Panther" in the Gold Derby odds, that's two of the biggest pop star names in the last couple decades, and Rihanna just did that Halftime show, which I thought sucked but I'm in the minority. (Okay, you're pregnant, but you could still do one costume change? You're red and everything and everyone around you is in white, why was everything so monochromatic?! God, a purple scarf would've done wonders....- Sorry, I really hated that Halftime show.) Then there's the favorite, "RRR", which only got this nomination. The thing is that her film, also only got the one nominations but was seen by a lot fewer people. "Monsters, Inc." was a big popular film that had other nominations, so besides the story behind Randy Newman's losing streak, it had other momentum coming in. There's no momentum to "Tell It Like a Woman", this was the only shot it had at a nomination and it probably astroturfed it's way to that. Also, "Naatu Naatu" is so different that it stands out, something that Diane Warren's songs rarely do, and that's something that Randy Newman's song did. It is the Music Branch, so who the hell knows, they are among the most corrupt of the Branches, (Yeah, those complaining that Andrea Riseborough's nomination was Actors Branch corruption, which it was, at least that's a nomination that made sense and seems like it was legitimately deserving, the fact that "Alone Yet Not Alone"'s nomination got in here that time, before it's disqualifying is much more stunning, far less deserving, and was such a haphazard a corruption scandal I'm still stunned that the Branch was so easily corruptible that it somehow still actually worked!) Still though, eh, it's possible but I just can't see this song pulling it off for her, and I'm not sure there's passion for anything else. </i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>PREDICTION: "Naatu Naatu"-"RRR"-Music: M.M. Keeravaani; Lyric: Chandrabose</i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>PRODUCTION DESIGN</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>All Quiet on the Western Front-</b>Production Design: Christian M. Goldbeck; Set Decoration: Ernestine Hipper</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Avatar: The Way of Water-</b>Production Design: Dylan Cole and Ben Procter; Set Decoration: Vanessa Cole</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Babylon-</b>Production Design: Florencia Martin; Set Decoration: Anthony Carlino</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Elvis-</b>Production Design: Catherine Martin and Karen Murphy; Set Decoration: Bev Dunn</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Fabelmans-</b>Production Design: Rick Carter; Set Decoration: Karen O'Hara</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Really stunned that this is the category that "Everything Everywhere All at Once" got left out of. I had them in, and I had "Pinocchio" in there too.... I really should've known better than to jump on the "Pinocchio" bandwagon, but yeah, that one was weird. Nothing else unusual though. Competitive category though, I could see this being a spot "Elvis" could win, I could see "Avatar..." winning this category for a second time. It could be a spot where "The Fabelmans" pull it off. Weird spot here, it's like the category for all the secondary Best Picture nominees that don't really have a shot at Picture, but could get a conciliation prize here. Oh and "Babylon", which, Damien Chazelle movies do have really amazing and elaborate production design.... (Shrugs) </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>The Guilds are split here. The ADG Awards, the Art Directors Guild, took "Babylon", while the SDSA Awards, the Set Decorators, they took "Elvis". All the other nominees lost to "Everything Everywhere All at Once" or one of these two, so it's likely between these two. "Babylon" has a win at BAFTA over "Elvis", and for lack of a better tiebreaker that's what I'm leaning towards now. I'm not feeling great about it. This is the one weird category where "Everything Everywhere All at Once" kinda got screwed somehow; I think they might've won this easily if they got nominated. Looking at the full Academy, ugh, I don't know,- I'm trying to convince myself into "Elvis", but, eh, every time I can think of a slight edge, the more I think "Babylon" has a slightly bigger one to counteract it. Also, I think when pressed, the category is "Production Design" and that means the designs of the sets, moreso than the gathering/making/collecting of the props/objects in the room, at least to most people's idea..., fair or not.</i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>PREDICTION: "Babylon"-Pro.: Florencia Martin; Set: Anthony Carlino</i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>SOUND</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*All Quiet on the Western Front-</b>Viktor Prasil, Franke Kruse, Markus Stemler, Lars Ginzel and Stefan Korte</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Avatar: The Way of Water-</b>Julian Howarth, Gwendolyn Yates Whittle, Dick Bernstein, Christopher Boyes, Gary Summers, Michael Hedges</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Batman-</b>Stuart Wilson, William Files, Douglas Murray and Andy Nelson</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Elvis-</b>David Lee, Wayne Pashley, Andy Nelson and Michael Keller</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Top Gun: Maverick-</b>Mark Weingarten, James H. Mather, Al Nelson, Chris Burdon and Mark Taylor</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Another category that seems like it's the secondary BP Oscar. Only "The Batman" is not in Best Picture here, but none of these are favorites in that category. And again, another category where "Everything Everywhere All at Once" missed. I might've been the only one who actually thought it would over-perform apparently. Another tricky one though. "Avatar" actually lost both sound categories to "The Hurt Locker", so it's not impossible to look at a war movie like "All Quiet..." as the favorite, war movies tend to do great here. "Top Gun" is also a repeat nominee in the category, but it lost to "Aliens", so I can see that losing again to a sci-fi film, like "Avatar". However "Elvis" is a music film, and so far, the music nominees in the category, since they combined the Sound categories back to one category, are 1-1 with "Sound of Metal" winning in 2020, and "West Side Story" losing to "Dune" last year. But "Sound of Metal" was much more Mixing and Editing than just one of those skills. Just a reminder, sound editing is the recording and collecting of sounds to make, the sound mixing is taking those sounds and arranges them onto the film track, and that makes "Elvis" interesting, because Baz Luhrmann's films are highly edited, so it's probably a little more than the music, and yet, I don't know if the sound editing is gonna push those sounds over here. If they think the mixing is more important and impressive than "Elvis" could take it, if not, I'm leaning more towards "All Quiet...". This might be both film's best shots at winning. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>Well, first things first, I'm happy that for once, both Sound Guilds actually got their awards done well before the Oscars. That's actually rare, usually at least one of these groups will wait 'til literally the last day before giving out their awards. Anyway, of the nominees, "Top Gun..." and "All Quiet on the Western Front" each took a Golden Reel Award from the MPSE. "Top Gun..." also took the big prize at the CASs, the Cinema Audio Society Awards and that does include beating "All Quiet on the Western Front". Eh, I guess "Top Gun: Maverick" has to take something for supposedly (finger quotes) "saving the movie theater industry." (Eye roll)</i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>PREDICTION: "Top Gun: Maverick"-Mark Weingarten, James H. Mather, Al Nelson, Chris Burdon and Mark Taylor</i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>VISUAL EFFECTS</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>All Quiet on the Western Front-</b>Frank Petzold, Viktor Muller, Markus Frank and Kamil Jafar</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Avatar: The Way of Water-</b>Joe Letteri, Richard Baneham, Eric Caindon and Daniel Barrett</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*The Batman-</b>Dan Lemmon, Russell Earl, Anders Langlands and Dominic Tuohy</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Black Panther: Wakanda Forever-</b>Geoffrey Baumann, Craig hammack, R. Christopher White and Dan Sudick</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Top Gun: Maverick-</b>Ryan Tudhope, Seth Hill, Bryan Litson and Scott R. Fisher</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">A rare year where three BP nominees got into the category, along with the two superhero contingents, "The Batman" and "Black Panther". I was way off on this category, I threw in the "Jurassic Park" and the "Fantastic Beasts" sequels, mainly following the Visual Effects Society Awards. Curiously, "Black Panther" actually missed getting nominated in this category a few years ago, and so did "Top Gun" originally as well. Again, I missed on "All Quiet...", which I probably should've picked, 'cause they will usually put something in the category that shows up nowhere at the VESs, because it's either foreign or peaks too late, or whatever. I am a little surprised that they did go with the full reasonable list of the presumptive best movies they probably could've nominated. That said, eh, yeah, this is the category "Avatar" wins. I think even it's detractors will just automatically vote for it here. Anything else winning would be the most stunning upset in the category since "Ex Machina" won. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>I'll humor this by quickly looking through the VES Awards, the Visual Effects Society, but-eh, yeah, um, there's no chance in Hell this goes to anything other than "Avatar...". </i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>PREDICTION: "Avatar: The Way of Water"-Joe Letteri, Richard Baneham, Eric Caindon and Daniel Barrett</i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>ANIMATED SHORT FILM</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*The Boy, the Mole, the Fox and the Horse-</b>Charlie Mackesy and Matthew Freud</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Flying Sailor-</b>Amanda Forbis and Wendy Tilby</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Ice Merchants-</b>Joao Gonzalez and Bruno Caetano</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>My Year of Dicks-</b>Sara Gunnarsdottir and Pamela Ribon</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*An Ostrich Told Me the World is Fake and I Think I Believe It-</b>Lachlan Pendragon</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">And, this is what killed any shot I had remaining of doing good in my predictions. I didn't have the time to really investigate the shorts like I should've. I probably should've just taken "The Flying Sailor" and "My Year of Dicks", just based on the flying and the dicks, but I just didn't have time. I did get around to "Save Ralph", which I predicted, and I think really should've gotten in, but, eh.... Again, I just didn't have time for the shorts. Now that I do, I've caught up on the nominees and eh, in my mind, the only two really interesting nominees are "My Year of Dicks" and "An Ostrich Told Me the World is Fake and I think I Believe It", and not just because they're the best titles of the group, they're easily the best of the films. The two New Yorker nominees, "The Flying Sailor" and "Ice Merchants", I found really boring and kinda macabre; they both happen to have their main characters flying/falling through the air remembering their lives as they head possibly towards their deaths. Their animation was good, but the New Yorker showcased better shorts, even among the shortlist. "The Boy, the Mole, the Fox and the Horse" was okay, just way too long.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>I actually managed to watch all five of these nominees. The only one I genuinely didn't care for was "The Flying Sailor" which, I really hope doesn't win. Animation's pretty, but I found it pointless. "Ice Merchants" is the only silent one and it is quite beautiful and it's a touching tale of a father and son who live on the side of a snow-covered mountain who sell ice to the locals down in the town below. Right now, "The Boy, the Mole, the Fox and the Horse" is the favorite. It's an adaptation of a children's book and it's shown on Apple+ so it might be the easiest for the layman to see, and it's also got the biggest stars connected, but I thought it was okay, and not really something I'd consider special. It's well made though. The other two shorts were by far my favorites, and if they're basing the votes on the best in both quality of animation and of the shorts, then this is a tough vote between them. "An Ostrich Told Me the World is Fake and I think I Believe It", which just barely is a better title than "My Year of Dicks" is a brilliantly sardonic philosophical short about the fragility of existence and becomes fully fourth-fifth and sixth breaking the more aware the film's protagonist realized that he's a stop-motion animated character, he potentially thinks, anyway. "My Year of Dicks" would just slightly get my votes as it details it's writer/director autobiographical tale of struggling to lose her virginity in high school, and it's above all, the funniest of the shorts, and arguably film of any of the nominees, in any of the categories, plus the animation is spectacular using several forms and styles of animation depending on the part of the story she's telling, so depending on the literal dick, I guess, and it all works really well. I've been disappointed in this category several times before though, so I'm a little iffy of picking what is genuinely the best of the nominees..., personally I'm still baffled and somewhat angry that "Dear Basketball" won a couple years ago, (I know, I shouldn't say that with Kobe Bryant's passing, blah, blah, blah, like, he was great, RIP but all he did was wrote a poem, and someone else animated it; it wasn't special, I stand by it.) but eh, I can't imagine they're gonna ignore good titles though, that's usually the default, and I think I'll give the slight edge to the one that I think will be just a little more popular to the people who actually see all the shorts.</i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>PREDICTION: "My Year of Dicks"-Sara Gunnarsdottir and Pamela Ribon</i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>LIVE-ACTION SHORT FILM</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>An Irish Goodbye-</b>Tom Berkeley and Ross White</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Ivalu-</b>Anders Walter and Rebecca Pruzan</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*Le Pupille-</b>Alice Rohrwacher and Alfonso Cuaron</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Night Ride-</b>Eirik Tveiten and Gaute Lid Larssen</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*The Red Suitcase-</b>Cyrus Neshvad</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">(Blows raspberries) </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Yeah, I couldn't even tell you why I picked the ones I picked over the ones I didn't here. I imagine "Le Pupille" got in because of name recognition, although it's not like Alfonso Cuaron needed to win an Oscar in another category.... Seriously, he's got two for directing, one for editing, one for cinematography, he's won in three categories, and he's been nominated in seven categories, 'cause he's got Picture and Writing nominations for Original and Adapted.... that's seven. That ties him with Kenneth Branagh who has also been nominated in seven different categories. (BTW, that short, "La Pupille" is actually on Disney+, I mention that mainly because it's weird that the Disney entry is in Live-Action short and not animated short this year.) Anyway, I was able to watch "Le Pupille" which I think is the favorite, as well as "Night Ride", which I liked a lot too. The rest, I don't know, I suspect "An Irish Goodbye" might be the populist choice, I can see that playing spoiler. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i><span style="font-family: helvetica;">I managed to only see two of these, "Le Pupille" which has the biggest names involved, especially Alfonso Cuaron as a producer, and it's okay. The other was "Night Ride", I liked that one a little better, but I don't know if it's one I'm totally going to bat for. I think "An Irish Goodbye" or "The Red Suitcase" are the most likely ones to play spoiler to "Le Pupille" but, eh... it's always one of these categories where they'll overlook the big name and honor the best and the other where they go for the big name, I never feel like I get the right one, ever... but, let's see, I'm gonna say this is the category where they'll pick the big name. "Le Pupille" isn't terrible and it's got enough of a story and plot that I think it'll appeal to the Academy. And if they Cuaron's name, well, then yeah, they'll vote for him anyway.</span></i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i><span style="font-family: helvetica;">PREDICTION: "Le Pupille"-</span></i><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>Alice Rohrwacher and Alfonso Cuaron</i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>DOCUMENTARY SHORT SUBJECT</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*The Elephant Whisperers-</b>Kartiki Gonsalves and Guneet Monga</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Haulout-</b>Evgenia Arbugaeva and Maxim Arbugaev</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>*How Do You Measure a Year?-</b>Jay Rosenblatt</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Martha Mitchell Effect-</b>Anne Alvergue and Beth Levison</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Stranger at the Gate-</b>Joshua Seftel and Conall Jones</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Again, I didn't have time to look through these and I'm not sure why I picked others to get in as oppose to these, although I think I do remember thinking that "The Martha Mitchell Effect" seemed like it should've gotten in, but it kept placing like ninth or tenth in the odds. That's the other thing, when I actually do prepare for these things proper, and try to watch these films ahead of time, I usually more often than not, pick the movies that I think are the best of the bunch, especially for the documentary category. Well, occasionally if there's a Holocaust film I'll toss that one in whether or not it deserves it, 'cause it'll usually get nominated, but yeah, more or less that's a good call. No Holocaust material this year, but there's a few interesting titles here. A couple Netflix entries with "The Elephant Whisperers" and "The Martha Mitchell Effect" and a couple New Yorker entires with "Haulout" and "Stranger at the Gate". "How Do You Measure a Year?" is the only one I haven't gotten to, but it's a compelling long-term film idea, and Jay Rosenblatt's been a nominee before, and he's well-beloved with the Academy. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>I saw all of these, except for "How Do You Measure a Year?" which could win, for sure, but for some reason, "The Elephant Whisperers" is the favorite, which, I-eh, honestly that was my least favorite of the four I saw. I guess people like elephants way more than I do. That said, I like, and yet, didn't love any of these. I probably liked "The Martha Mitchell Effect" the most, because of the historical value, but it's also the one with the most archive footage. "Haulout" was the most unique, I don't know if it's gonna appeal to everybody; it's probably the least documentary-feel of all the nominees, and IDK, maybe I like walruses better than elephants? "Stranger at the Gate" is pretty powerful as well, that's the one I'm trending towards predicting, because I think it's the one that had the most pertinent effect towards me and the times we live in. And I think the favoritism comes from "The Elephant Whisperers" being on Netflix, but, y'know, that hasn't worked out every time. It has for a few of the nominees in the category, but last "The Queen of Basketball", which like "Stranger at the Gate" was a New Yorker short won, and it deserved to as well. It also got shown on ESPN though. I like "Stranger..." more than "Haulout" the other New Yorker short. I liked "The Martha Mitchell Effect" more than "The Elephant Whisperers", the two Netflix shorts, but I don't know if everybody's gonna have my enthusiasm for that. Eh, I think I need to take a chance here, and that means, "How Do You Measure a Year?". The filmmaker is Jay Rosenblatt who got nominated last year for a short called "When We Were Bullies" which I didn't get to see 'til recently and that was amazing, and "How Do You Measure a Year?" is a pretty intriguing and artistic undergoing; it took 16 years to make as he interviews his daughter every birthday from age 2-18. I hear it's inspiring and Rosenblatt's an inspired name in the documentary world who's been making some good documentary shorts for decades, but hasn't won yet. I've got to gamble on something here and since I'm not overly enthused with any other pick.... (Shrugs) Most interesting idea is the orange in the bag of apples. </i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>PREDICTION: "How Do You Measure a Year"-Jay Rosenblatt</i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>Alright, now I'm actually done with this blogpost. Sorry for all the delays. I don't think my Oscars Post-mortem blog will be on time either, I should warn everybody now. Life is still getting in the way, but I am, cautiously optimistic about these Oscars. I'm sure Jimmy Kimmel will be fine as per usual, I'm starting to get used to him hosting these, so that's something. I think this will overall be a blowout year and "Everything Everywhere All at Once" will probably take, well, maybe not "Everything...", but close enough. I worry I'm underrating them to be honest; I think it might not feel like it in total numbers, but this'll feel like the biggest Oscar blowout win since, maybe when "Slumdog Millionaire" won eight Oscars? It's gonna feel like that, even if they only win like, five or six. <br /><br />Oh, I should also note that, I actually liked the traditional announcements this year! Thank fucking Christ you brought that back! Yeah, I wish you woke up people more exciting than Riz Ahmed and Alison Williams, but hey, it's not like I'm not down for a "Girls" reunion, so, yeah, that awesome. Already this show is looking up. Shame it's not a more competitive year. </i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>Oh btw, anybody who comments in any FB group I post this blogpost in about how dumb/useless/meaningless the Oscars are, or some variant of how they don't matter, or you shouldn't judge art in such and such manner, or whatever other self-righteous blah, blah, blah, you want to spew about them, if I see it, I'm just gonna delete it this year. I'm not in the mood for that stupid argument anymore; you want to hate the Oscars for whatever reasons, legitimate or not, (And usually it's not, which stuns me 'cause there's plenty of good reasons to feel that way, and it's never any of them... but I digress...) fine, but find your own damn soapbox this year, don't piggyback off mine! Yeah, I'm just not putting up with any asshole who wants to ruin it for everybody else 'cause of whatever it is that bothers you about them, complain about it on your space, this one's mine. </i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div>
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/I8y3XgAhU94" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696790060036702346.post-41787715461044388532023-01-19T08:57:00.004-08:002023-03-29T15:01:43.933-07:00MOVIE REVIEWS #200: "CODA", "CRUELLA", "tick, tick...BOOM!", "WRITING WITH FIRE", "A SHAUN THE SHEEP MOVIE: FARMAGEDDON", "EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE", "PLAYGROUND", "THE ONE AND ONLY DICK GREGORY", and "WHO WE ARE: A CHRONICLE OF RACISM IN AMERICA"!<div style="text-align: left;"><div>Sorry for having been so absent lately. </div><div><br /></div><div>I know Oscar season's coming up, I'm not sure I'm gonna get my nomination predictions out in time or not right now, but I will be trying to this weekend as much as I can. </div><div><br /></div><div>In the meantime, I don't usually mention celebrity passing when doing these, or most recent Hollywood news anymore, but I wanted to mention the passing of Clarence Gilyard. He's a character actor who I knew mostly from "Matlock" growing up, playing Conrad McMasters, but many of you might know him from "Walker, Texas Ranger", or possibly as one of the villains from "Die Hard", a role he had recently reprised in a short a couple years ago. I knew him as Professor Gilyard. I never actually had a class with him, but I did get to work with him on a set once. I didn't get to see much of him acting unfortunately, cause I had the job of holding a light up from behind a giant wall and through a large window, but I really enjoyed my time with him. After the shoot, he bought us all Guiness at the Crown & Anchor bar on Tropicana and Paradise, and he talked about soccer as he was looking forward to the World Cup in South Africa at the time. Every time I crossed paths with him after wards, he's smile and say hi to me. He was an incredibly nice guy, I never heard one bad word about him, and I can definitely tell you that I wished I took more acting classes just so I could've worked with him more. He was a really good actor who was still in demand, apparently he just loved teaching and decided to stay on at UNLV, and I'm glad he did. He was suddenly the last few months or so and he suddenly passed away last month. I'm glad for the few memories I had with him. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Anyway, I just wanted to mention him. I'm still behind in movies and I probably will remain so for awhile, but don't confuse being behind with being dormant. It's my 200th batch of official movie reviews on this blog, so thank you all for those who do read me, those who've been here from the beginning, those who check in only occasionally, and those who might be running into my work for the first time. Who knows what this blog's future holds, but thanks to all those who read me. </div><div><br /></div><div>Alright, let's get to the reviews. We got a lot to get through this time around.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>CODA </b>(2021) Director: Sian Heder</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://resizing.flixster.com/6K5guzmeFQ8x_fPC-mPz0Ryd3RM=/740x380/v2/https://statcdn.fandango.com/MPX/image/NBCU_Fandango/101/822/thumb_A2D6D5BD-7730-464E-A055-3AF98719A771.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="380" data-original-width="740" height="329" src="https://resizing.flixster.com/6K5guzmeFQ8x_fPC-mPz0Ryd3RM=/740x380/v2/https://statcdn.fandango.com/MPX/image/NBCU_Fandango/101/822/thumb_A2D6D5BD-7730-464E-A055-3AF98719A771.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: left;">So, before "CODA" came in and completely blindsided the Oscars last year, sneaking in with three nominations and winning all three of them, including Best Picture, the first time a film won Best Picture with that few nominations since, eh....- I don't know, "Grand Hotel" I think? before that, the last time a movie that centered around the deaf/ASL community was "Children of a Lesser God". It's a favorite of mine, it's a good movie, and it featured a lot of the biggest and best deaf performers of their day; it actually originated as a Tony-winning play years earlier, and 'til "CODA", I think I'd argue that it was still the biggest piece of art to really showcase ASL, at least in modern American pop culture. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">That said, there are problems with it. For one, it's a movie that's main protagonist character is a white male who can hear, and he talks a lot, even at one point, joking about how he likes to hear the sound of his voice while he's in a discussion with his deaf lover. Another is that, if you know about Marlee Matlin and William Hurt's real life romance that bloomed from that film, um, it becomes a lot harder to watch.... I won't go into details but-eh, that was not a good relationship. The third thing though, is that, it's not actually that good at showcasing ASL. I mean, it is, compared to most other mainstream movies but, their are definitely scenes that are shots done in such a way where, the mise en scene advances the emotional story, sure, but they actually don't show the sign language, which is kinda rough if you are deaf. Like, I get why you'd show a closeup of somebody in most cases, but when they're speaking with hands and you can't always see their hands.... I mean, here's a movie about deaf people and the sign language is not always visible, that's kind of an issue. Director Randa Haines was mostly a television director previously and eh, she basically was afterwards, it's still a good movie 'cause it's a good story, but I know opinion within the ASL community is a bit mixed on it overall. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">There's also been other films and TV series in recent years that have shown many different aspects of deaf culture and people. My favorite is probably the Ukrainian film "The Tribe" which takes place entirely within a school for the Deaf and doesn't even have subtitles. In recent years in America, the "A Quiet Place" movies have become a major franchise where ASL is integral to the plot and story, and is showcased mostly well enough. However, another title in recent times is the French film, "La Famille Belier" or "The Belier Family" which inevitably got adapted into "CODA", which is an acronym for "Children of Deaf Adults". I haven't seen "The Belier Family", but it did reasonably well critically, and was nominated for a decent amount of Cesar awards among others and while based on the trailers, it looks like the same movie essentially but the French film seems to be much more obviously comedic and focuses more on, well, the entire family and all their quirks and such. That might've been a pretty good idea, 'cause I'll say this, "CODA" is definitely better than "Children of a Lesser God". </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">It still focuses mainly on a character who can hear, and isn't deaf, Rubi (Emilia Jones), the daughter of a family of fisherman, all of whom are deaf and rarely, if ever actually talk verbally, although they do make quite a lot of noise. Ruby is the only family member who can hear, so she's spent her whole life as the interpreter, and being the only deaf family in a seaside town, makes her quite the outsider. Her father Frank (Oscar-winner Troy Kotsur) goes out to the sea every morning trying to make the daily catch. He's one of many fisherman who are getting a little screwed over as they struggle to move their product to the auction, and he's particularly getting screwed since he's deaf and him and his son Leo (Daniel Durant) need Ruby around to both help out on the ship and work as an interpreter and handle things like the radio communications and let them know when something on the ship doesn't sound right. Her mother Jackie (the aforementioned Marlee Matlin) who also helps out when she can with the business when not working around the house. It is noted that she's a former beauty queen, which...- okay, that got a chuckle out of me when this was first brought up at the family dinner table in the beginning, and I don't know if this came from the French version too, but in America anyway, there used to be a really old dumb joke about Miss America being deaf, and then the person you're talking to would say something like "Really?" or something, and then you'd pretend you didn't hear them, like you're Miss America. It's a really old dumb joke. I don't know when it started, but in '94, Heather Whitestone actually did become the first deaf Miss America. You'd think that would've made that stupid joke obsolete but it actually made it more popular for a time; I heard that joke and told that joke a lot as a kid. Nowadays, nobody knows what Miss America even is, so it doesn't matter, but anyway.....</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Behind helping out her parents in class, struggling not to fall asleep in class, while being the butt of ridicule by some of the more particularly cruel kids, and even her best friend Gertie (Amy Forsyth) partially hangs around her to flirt with her older brother. There are laughs here, I should point out, but I was much more attracted to Ruby's struggles to make sacrifices for her family. Partially, this is just me, as somebody who has a brother who's autistic, I know about having to make sacrifices in order to keep the family going. I also know about how difficult it is to break out of it and try to find your own voice and how hard it is to go out on your own when you're not sure your family can hold it together without you. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">On a whim, she ends up applying for a choir class in school to be near a crush of hers, Miles (Ferdia Walsh-Peelo), and possibly because she likes to sing, and it turns out, after some initial struggle, she's really good at it. Her teacher, Mr. Villalobos (Eugenio Derbez) sees something in her and her struggles and she begins to get inspired. That's not aspect I can relate to, being heavily inspired by something that nobody else in your family is really able to appreciate. It's funny, I've often heard about people who did get into music after having a relative, usually a parent who was deaf, but I don't remember seeing to many pieces of media telling a story about one of them. Usually, it's the opposite, it's a story about a person inspired by music who has to learn how to deal with someone close who's deaf, like Lily Tomlin's character in "Nashville" or-eh, Richard Dreyfuss title character in "Mr. Holland's Opus". </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Another reason why "CODA", on top of focusing mainly on the daughter instead of the whole family, is also, just a better title, is because the film's musical coda itself, is quite moving. It could've been simple and cheesy on the paper, but I did find it inspiring how not only Ruby would evolve through singing, but through her evolution into being inspired by singing and performing that the rest of her family would begin evolving themselves to a life where she wouldn't be as needed. Yeah, it might've mostly been done through a somewhat contrived musical montage sequence, but it's done to one of those great songs that always make me cry and get inspired. (I won't say which one it is, but it's also a very good song to see performed, while being signed, and I've seen it signed in performance before.)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Actually another problem with "Children of a Lesser God", that "CODA" also fixes in a sense, is how a lot of the conflict within that film is about how the main deaf character is often just pressured to be more like those in the hearing world and act and behave like them. It leads to a powerful scene in that film, but it's mostly because the acting is so great, and not because it's a greater inner conflict the deaf character has, even though it's presented that way, it's really something forced upon her by her hearing boyfriend. Here, it's the exact opposite. Her deaf family don't have to adapt to the more hearing world, they just have to go out there and put themselves out there to the world. They're deafness has been used as a limitation for them not to say, start their own fish co-op outside of the Union, and now it's actually costing them when government regulators are trying to come in and make their jobs more difficult with the possibility of not having Ruby alongside them to bridge the gap. Their deafness isn't something they have to overcome, it's their excuse for not trying to overcome their own fears and issues. And that's a great big difference.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">"CODA" is only the second from writer/director Sian Heder, she's also mostly worked on television, but her first feature was the Sundance hit "Tallulah", and I think she was on to something here. The acting helps this movie a lot, there's a great cast here, I particularly want to focus on Eugenio Derbez's performance, 'cause this was a role that very easily could've been nothing and yet, arguably the whole movie hinges on it. The teacher/mentor who sees something, and yet he's a complex character as well, and you do buy him as an inspiring teacher, who can infer a lot from a few words and gestures. By the end of the movie, you can tell what he's saying without him saying it, and in a movie where people have to communicate without spoken words, stuff like this that's really subtle, becomes very powerful. I'm still unsure yet if this film should've won Best Picture, but I totally get why it did. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>CRUELLA </b>(2020) Director: Craig Gillespie</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMmQyZGU4YTgtZTlhNi00ZmY0LWE5NjItODhjMGUzZmY2Mjg0XkEyXkFqcGdeQXRyYW5zY29kZS13b3JrZmxvdw@@._V1_.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMmQyZGU4YTgtZTlhNi00ZmY0LWE5NjItODhjMGUzZmY2Mjg0XkEyXkFqcGdeQXRyYW5zY29kZS13b3JrZmxvdw@@._V1_.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>(Very long deep, disappointed sigh)</div><div><br /></div><div>Disney.</div><div><br /></div><div>Okay..., I don't even know where to start on this one. So, I have not paid as much attention to, what we are calling this, "Woke Disney", "Post-Disney", "Remake Disney", "Late Stage Disney",- whatever the term for the ouroboros-like way that Disney has been devouring their old properties and spitting out, some weird congested "modern" interpretations of their old stories and characters. Basically, I've only watched these films when I have to, and basically only because I have to. I've recommended some, hated others, I don't really get what they're doing with any of them. I mean, I get that their making money, blah, blah, blah, but other than that, I don't really get what they're doing and why they're doing it. Honestly, I'd probably be more upset about it, if it wasn't for like, every other mainstream studio and brands in Hollywood wasn't also doing that already. And yeah, half the other things in Hollywood doing it, are also in fact, just Disney under a different banner, like Star Wars or Marvel, so I probably should be angrier at them for that, but, eh, maybe it's just that I think that most of the other brands doing it are, generally worst than Disney's brand that it just annoys more when they do it as oppose to Disney itself combing their way through Uncle Walt's vault looking for things to bring back and remake. <br /><br />(Shrugs) <br /><br />I don't know, maybe Bob Iger will put a stop to this now that he's back in charge there, but.... I don't know, maybe I'm just more forgiving of Disney for doing this. </div><div><br /></div><div>Or maybe, I'm just more used to it from Disney, because it's not like this was a change in form in any real way, Disney's always been digging up their own past to make a buck. I mean, once upon a time at least, George Lucas would take a decade or two before going back to the Star Wars well, for better or worst, and usually worst. (Hint, hint James Cameron.... ) I mean, this isn't the first time they've gone back to make "101 Dalmatians" live action, and honestly, I didn't get it then either. </div><div><br /></div><div>Actually, hold on, does anybody actually remember the original Disney live-action remake, when in the '90s they got Glenn Close to play the great Cruella De Vil (Emma Stone)? I feel like that's one of those films that's more remembered in peoples' minds as something that existed than it is something that people actually watched. Like, Cruella De Vil might pop up as one of Glenn Close's signature performances or characters, but I think people just like remembering that she was cast in that performance and how good a casting it was as opposed to the actual performance, which is pretty good, it's Glenn Close so of course it is, than the film itself. I kinda think the same way about John Goodman playing Fred Flintstone around that same time, like it is great casting, but did we need a live-action "The Flintstones" movie, or like, three-or-four for some reason. (Thank Christ, Disney stopped at "102 Dalmatians", which I didn't see but somehow also existed, I'm not sure why.) </div><div><br /></div><div>"101 Dalmatians" has however, always been a bit of a weird one in the Disney canon. It's one of the very last animated features that Walt Disney oversaw as a producer, although, he wasn't nearly as hands-on as he used to be at this point, and the movie actually went really cheap in the animation part, partly because of necessity, "Sleeping Beauty" was not a box office hit at the time, and the animation studio was bleeding cash. Walt was more interested in live-action features at that time, and therefore, in order to save money, the movie became one of the first to use a really showcase a xerox-technique to transfer animations to cell, without having to go through ink-and-paint. That means it doesn't look nearly as lavish as other Disney animated films of the time, and you can tell it's a step backwards if you're really looking at it. That said, it's was a box office hit and has always generally been considered a beloved classic. </div><div><br /></div><div>It's also always been a hard movie to promote within the Disney marketing machine. I mean, there were some toys and clothes and such, but you don't see characters from the movie on the streets of Disneyland too often, it's main characters are just a bunch of similar-looking puppies so they're not really distinctive, the main human protagonists aren't that memorable, there's no Prince or Princess, aspiring or otherwise character.... Basically, it's the only truly great Disney feature where the villain is not only the natural appeal of the film, she's also the only who's genuinely appealing and beloved because she's so evil. </div><div><br /></div><div>(Sigh) </div><div><br /></div><div>That might be a controversial statement to some, especially "Sleeping Beauty" people, but there's a reason I didn't speak up much when they decided to give "Maleficent" a sympathetic backstory, it's because she needed one, not that I particularly loved either of those films, but not only does "Sleeping Beauty", suck, and sorry, it's not one of their best animated films, I totally get why it underperformed at the time, but also, Maleficent was not an interesting villain before. I know she has fans, and they like how she basically cursed everybody for not inviting her to a party and whatnot, and yes, she turns into the dragon at the end, I can kinda see if you squint why she might be a cool villain, but I stand by this assessment. Her motives aren't that interesting, and she needed to be more compelling, and not simply a petty dragon bitch for the Prince to kill at the end.</div><div><br /></div><div>And for what, because she didn't like a boring princess. </div><div><br /></div><div>(Blows raspberries) </div><div><br /></div><div>So yeah, redoing her backstory is, at least an interesting idea.</div><div><br /></div><div>But Cruella?! How the hell do you reimagine and give a sympathetic and appealing backstory to Cruella De Vil? I mean, I get why every actress would want to play such a part, but why would you try to make her more sympathetic? Cruella's one of my all-time favorite villains and she's one of the most fun ones, because she's such a fascinating psychopath. I think the less we know about her reasons for why she's the way she is, the better. I mean, look at the other Disney villains, or most villains in general. They want stuff like revenge, or to control the world, or gain land and power over others or sometimes just money. But Cruella, wanted to kidnap and skin puppies alive in order to turn make a fur coat for herself! Like, what the-f-!, like, if you polled other Disney villains, they'd think Cruella was the worst, 'cause she does not act or think like those other villains, and somehow that makes her more sadistic and disturbing. </div><div><br /></div><div>I get why people want to play her, but do you really want an explanation of why she wants that coat of many spots, or why she hates dalmatians, or they hate her? I know, I didn't want this, but I got it now, and oh boy, well, we got answers. Don't know exactly what I expected, but definitely wouldn't have gone with her MOTHER being KILLED by a DALMATIAN!!!!!!</div><div><br /></div><div>No, I'm not kidding, that's literally what happens in the film. Cruella, who's actual real name is Estella (Billie Gadsen at five years old, Tipper Seifer-Cleveland at twelve years old) and she's an eccentric genius with goals of becoming a fashion designer. Her single mother though, Catherine (Emily Beecham), while doing all she can, ends up getting killed after trying to collect extra funds for her future schooling after Estella got kicked out of most every other school she was in. Now, an orphan, who has slight Simba-syndrome fearing that she was the reason her mother was killed, by the dalmatian...- (Eye roll) ends up becoming friends with a couple of artful dodgers in Horace and Jasper (Joel Fry and Paul Walter Hauser). Eventually, as a young adult, she manages to get internships in the fashion industry, and works her way up to the biggest fashion house in town, run by The Baroness (Emma Thompson), who eventually takes a liking to the mousey redhead gopher Estella. </div><div><br /></div><div>The Baroness is Cruella's inevitable mentor and eventual rival in the fashion industry, and Emma Thompson is clearly enjoying licking the scenery here. I can think of a lot of actors who could hypothetically play Cruella De Vil, but Emma Thompson might be the only one I can think of who could play someone Cruella looks up. She's like if Meryl Streep from "The Devil Wears Prada" was genuinely evil. </div><div><br /></div><div>Eventually, Cruella learns a few things about The Baroness that I won't go into here and she begins to evolve into Cruella, which in this movie is, kinda like she turned into a-eh, eh, 1970s punk mod, fashion variant of, eh, Banksy?! I think?</div><div> </div><div>Like, I'm not saying this isn't Cruella, another one of the appeals of Cruella is that she's a pretty malleable villain, and you can legitimately transport her to other places and times. Especially since her main inspiration is fashion, you can definitely transport her to many time periods and eras, visually you have an idea what a Cruella De Vil would look and seem like. It's easy to do it, like as a Halloween costume, but in terms of transporting her literately I've never been sure it's a good idea to do it. And, if anything, telling an origin story about a young Cruella, actually makes this movie feel more like, eh, fan art depictions of Cruella. It's like those pictures of Emo Thomas Jefferson from "Hamilton". Like, it's kinda cool, but it's also just, projections that probably shouldn't be taken seriously. Yeah, that's actually a really good depiction of this whole movie, it's kinda like an emotional kid's fantasy depiction of what a much more problematic character than the kid realizes, imagines she would be. </div><div><br /></div><div>Like, I went on a slight <a href="https://twitter.com/DavidBaruffi_EV/status/1606564324264521729">twitter rant</a> about how the movie's soundtrack always seemed just a little bit off despite all the songs being used actually being pretty good songs. For whatever reason, they chose to set this film, the majority of it anyway, in the late '70s, I think to help give Cruella a more punk appeal and aesthetic, which, exactly my point, but the movie also uses a lot of songs from the '60s and '70s and they're all good songs, but none of them ever feel like the right song for the moment. I said it felt like they were trying and failing to create a Wes Anderson soundtrack. But like, nothing really sounds like Cruella De Vil's music. Even her titular song, is weird because of when the original film was made and how strange pop music, especially in England in the early '60s, but it also makes trying to figure out what music she would be accompanied with a challenge. It'd be hard enough to have no limitations with music doing this, but under the Disney umbrella, this becomes even more difficult. (Did anybody even know that Ike & Tina Turner did a cover of "Whole Lotta Love".) </div><div><br /></div><div>I don't know, I don't hate a lot of this, I just don't know if it's an entire movie. I might've been a little tempted to recommend this despite all the emo fan bait-ness of the film as an interesting mess, but then the movie even got more disturbing and confusing with a post-credits scene that...- (Sigh) yeah, I'm still knocking off stars for post credit scenes. You don't need them, everyone uses them wrong, blah, blah, blah, I don't care on this one, I give the double middle finger to anybody who thinks I'm wrong on that, but "Cruella" is such a weird mess that I do find it hard to embrace. Disney trying to do "Cruella: Portrait of a Serial Dognapper" would always just seem bizarre, and while I have an appreciation for it, I can't quite get over the hump into recommending it. Cruella always seemed like she'd be one of your close friends, but always the one who was more fun to be around than she was good to be around, and this movie is basically that, "Cruella" is fun, but it's not good.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>tick, tick...BOOM! </b>(2021) Director: Lin-Manuel Miranda</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/5spe2_ZC-yi_F9RSwr3kwrELRzc=/0x0:6000x4000/1200x675/filters:focal(2941x397:3901x1357)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/70127785/TTB_20201112_09340r.0.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/5spe2_ZC-yi_F9RSwr3kwrELRzc=/0x0:6000x4000/1200x675/filters:focal(2941x397:3901x1357)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/70127785/TTB_20201112_09340r.0.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div>I have to presume that at this point, Lin-Manuel Miranda basically had carte blanche as to whatever project he would've inevitably wanted to direct. I mean, this is the guy behind "Hamilton", he's the golden touch of Broadway and Disney right now, basically, he could do whatever the hell he wants. I mean, he could've directed his own musical, if he wanted, and he's a good enough actor that he could've taken any role he wanted as well. So, on the one hand it's kind of an interesting choice that he went off the beating path and while he did pick a musical, it wasn't one he wrote and it wasn't one that showed off either his acting, or even his music. That said, he didn't make it simple on himself, 'cause he picked about as loaded a project as you could get and it's not a natural musical to adapt to film to begin with, and that's before you get into the subject and creator of the musical. </div><div><br /></div><div>So, "tick, tick...BOOM!" was, the other Jonathan Larson musical, and it's-, it's kind of an odd thing to begin with. It's a one-man autobiographical "rock monologue", that he performed Off-Broadway successfully for a couple runs over a few years. It's very insider-y, I've seen some bootleg clips of Larson performing the musical before, and there is something striking and compelling about it, and I've heard from people who did see it live just how special it was, especially Broadway people. That said, the play is really meta. It's basically a one-man play from a struggling composer/playwright about a struggling Broadway composer/playwright and his struggles to get his big show off the ground, and it's by and starring that se one-man composer telling about his struggles in a play that itself has struggled to get shown! That would be a lot, and then you have to throw in, that that composer/playwright is Jonathan Larson (Oscar-nominee Andrew Garfield). </div><div><br /></div><div>For those who don't recognize the name, Larson's most famous work is the musical "Rent". Nowadays "Rent" has become a much more divided musical, there's either people love it or people who hate it. You don't have to look far to find people who really have issues with it; Lindsay Ellis famous did a massive takedown of the work a few years ago. I recommend that analyses very highly, 'cause I think she does make a lot of good points about it, but I'm in the camp that it's great. I'm always blown away by it, I even think Chris Columbus's film adaptation is good. Now, no adaptation of it, is without flaws, admittedly, but eh, personally I tend to give it a little more slack, and since I probably won't have an opportunity to bring up "Rent" like this again, I have two big issues with most of the criticisms, and I'll use Ellis's critiques as a baseline here. Firstly, the play is technically, unfinished. Larson never got to see his production of "Rent", the day before the show was set to make it's first preview performance, Larson died due to an undiagnosed aortic dissection, most suspect from having something called Marfan's Syndrome that he was never diagnosed with. So, the play hadn't started early previews, which is when a lot of musicals make the final editing choices for the play, so, much, maybe not all, but some of the criticisms of the play, might have been figured out at that point, but since Larson passed, no changes to the musical were ever really made and it was left in it's unfinished preview state. For that reason, I'm more lenient on some of the issues that come up. </div><div><br /></div><div>The other thing thought, and I do kinda this get criticism, which is that "Rent" is not the greatest depiction/portrayal of the height of the AIDS pandemic; it doesn't necessarily have a lot to say about the actual political and societal issues regarding AIDS at that time, and you could argue it's fairly shallow about it. I don't know, I think that's overkill to bash the play for that. It's even brought up a bit in this movie, when Larson's confronted by his best friend Michael (Robin De Jesus) after Larson blows a focus group that Michael put him up for, and mentions that, all their friends are dying and he's just sitting around writing plays. He's not wrong about that, but I think there's room for seeing both the people on the battlegrounds of the pandemic, as well as the personal struggles and love lifes of those who are suffering from the pandemic and still trying to live their lives with as much fun, joy and successes whenever and wherever they could. Basically I think there's room for Jonathan Larson and Larry Kramer is all I'm saying there.</div><div><br /></div><div>Maybe I am just a defensive Renthead, but I bet Miranda would think the same way, 'cause,-, and I guess this is kinda inevitable, but he doesn't entirely make a direct adaptation of "tick, tick...BOOM!". He also tells a biopic about Larson, which is kinda the direction the play also took after Larson's passing. </div><div><br /></div><div>Another reason why "tick, tick...BOOM!" is weird is because there's two versions of it. There's Larson's one-man thing, but after his passing, the play was revised by David Auburn, he's most known for the play "Proof", great play btw, but he made an Off-Broadway version of "tick, tick...BOOM!" that had three actors in it. That's the version that,- well, it never did end up on Broadways but it made The West End awhile ago, and probably was the key to getting this to be filmable. Jonathan and Michael, along with his girlfriend Susan (Alexandra Shipp) are the main characters, but depending on the gender of whoever else is talking, the other two actors would take over their roles as Jonathan would narrate or sing. This is why there's such a natural scene where during a reading of Jonathan's monstrous sci-fi futuristic musical play, one that he's been struggling to finish writing, and put on at the same time, that his actress for the show, Karessa (Vanessa Hudgeons) would then turn into Susan singing the song, through Jonathan's eyes. </div><div><br /></div><div>In fact, a lot of the movie is often just a gigantic and sometimes confused mess of mixed media slamming into each other. You got Jonathan, and all the worlds around him. His apartment, his friend's apartment, his job as a waiter, and then you got the recreation of some of these memories and moments for flashback, then you got these locations turning into musical performances in his mind, plus you have Jonathan talking and performing about all this in his one-man show, as well as the performance at the reading of his next show....- that's not even getting into the recreation of actual Jonathan Larson footage. (Some of which we also see in the end credits, so add that media to it too.) The movie got an Oscar nomination for Editing, instead of Spielberg's musical version of "West Side Story", and I totally get why. I think if you really wanted to, you could make an argument that this film is a bit of a confusing mess, but I think this is the actually the right approach. The effect is that essentially is give us a more full glimpse into the world and mind of Jonathan Larson. Larson's world was a fifth floor apartment in Lower Manhattan on Greenwich and Springs, and when it wasn't constantly getting the electricity shut off or past due on the rent, it was full of a wondrously eclectic group of devoted friends, many of which were passing away more than they should've and other were often struggling to stay in Jonathan's life while he would push them away as his find was infatuated with his latest musical projects and his obsessive need to inevitably be the biggest Broadway success. It might seem a little too cliche of a narrative outside of it being his actual life, but "tick, tick...BOOM!" is still an impressive achievement that manages to bring life to one of the most important and revered young artists of out time, and frankly Larson's work and life is inspiring, and I'm glad we get a sense of what and how he was inspired to create the works he did here. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>WRITING WITH FIRE </b>(2021) Directors: Sushmit Ghosh & Rintu Thomas</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://filmthreat.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/REVIEW-Writing-With-Fire-1.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="397" data-original-width="800" height="318" src="https://filmthreat.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/REVIEW-Writing-With-Fire-1.jpeg" width="640" /></a></div></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;">I don't know exactly how much this should be said, but it comes up more often than it should, but anybody who goes after the press, the media, is some corrupt evil motherfucker. There is literally no reason to. You'd think that'd be obvious in a free society, but you know, the press does get bombarded and attacked much more than you'd think. You can practically trace the modern news landscape, especially in America as it's divided between legitimate center-left leaning networks that are deemed the "Liberal Media" by those who decry it, and the far-right propaganda that mildly poses as legitimate media here. And still there's people who will just constantly bash the press for several reasons. There's a reason why journalist is one of those professions that has a surprisingly high mortality rate in certain parts of the world. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;">Some of the best and my favorite recent documentaries are often about the media in recent years, particularly when they're practicing journalism in some of the toughest places in the world to do so, and "Writing the Fire", the first Indian documentary to receive an Oscar nomination in the category, follows the reports of the Khabar Lahariya, a weekly-run newspaper that's entirely owned and run by Dalit women. Now,- I'm a smart guy, but the political and social structures of India are ones that have always alluded me, hell, the film industry layout in India has always alluded me, (Haha, you think it's just Bollywood, don't cha, oh boy is it not!) but India society and political structure is revolved around the archaic Caste System, and without going too deep into this, the Dalit People are on the bottom rung of the Caste System, (In fact, I've heard some say that they're not even apart of the Caste System) and they're often the most discriminated against 'cause of it. And even if you've been following recent news from India, badly, you'd know there's been quite a bit of recent tensions there, a lot of it involving biases of the peoples within the Caste System. I don't claim to know or understand all the intricacies of India and Indian politics, but I know that nobody thought this little endeavor of there's would last six months, and now, in the middle of a major election and in the middle of a epidemic of hate violence that's being protected by corruption on all levels of authority, especially by the police, the women of Khabar Lahariya, fifteen years into their newspaper are making a switch to digital. And in Uttar Pradesh, one of the biggest subdivisions of a country in the world, and one where much of the violence of the Caste system is based.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;">We see some desperate conditions in India, and some troubling stories about some of the treatment of the Dalit. I personally fell for the one kid who was interviewed and talked about losing a friend in school after they learned what her caste was. Meera is the current leader of the paper, and the Chief Reporter who is often the one tracking down the stories, despite her husband's wife that the paper would fail and that she's return home like a more traditional housewife and watch over the kids. The other two reporters we follow are Suneeta, who's the one reporting on the mining. She's probably the one that gets the most abuse being a reporter, literally batting their hands away from her body while trying to questioning them. Suneeta's tough though, and all journalists in India have to be, they've been getting killed as much as most, and women Dalit reporters seem like they'd be target practice, but instead, they adapted and persevered.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;">As they shift to a successful Youtube channel and website, and new young reporters who barely know how to use a cell phone to record themselves, reporting, they grow to become an influential and dangerous media sites in the country. "Writing with Fire", details a group of women who potential are gonna be looked back upon as among those who might've actually changed things in the world, or at least in India as the nation clumsily struggles to overcome it's inherent biases as it transfers to the modern world. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif; font-size: large;"><b>A SHAUN THE SHEEP MOVIE: FARMAGEDDON </b>(2021) Director: Richard Becher and Richard Phelan </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif; font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐1/2</b></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/films/2019/10/17/TELEMMGLPICT000211953225_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqplGOf-dgG3z4gg9owgQTXDVXE4-NcPVfcZy5a1cUJ04.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="800" height="400" src="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/films/2019/10/17/TELEMMGLPICT000211953225_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqplGOf-dgG3z4gg9owgQTXDVXE4-NcPVfcZy5a1cUJ04.jpeg" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>Looking over my review of the first "<a href="https://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2016/04/movie-reviews-115-part-3-of-3-shaun.html">Shaun the Sheep</a>" movie, it seems like I was actually fairly excited about it originally. That said, I haven't thought too much about it since, and really wasn't sure what to expect coming into, "A Shaun the Sheep Movie: Farmageddon". Mostly, I just kinda liked the real back-to-basics approach that Aardman Animation was doing with Shaun the Sheep. It's been said of their Wallace & Gromit franchise that Gromit never speaks but has all the best lines, and that's true enough, and nobody ever has any actual lines in "Shaun the Sheep" stories, just some occasional bleats and grunts and grumbles. On the one hand, I do enjoy that about the best of Aardman Animations' work, but eh, it can also just be the kind of thing you need to be in the right mood for. But, they also have to have the right sense of whimsy and "Farmageddon," almost has enough of it, but ehh.... </div><div><br /></div><div>In my aforementioned "Shaun the Sheep Movie" review, I compared the film positively, if tongue-in-cheekly to "Babe: Pig in the City", which, for the record is an underrated film. But, yeah, the Sheep and their Farmer, eh, The Farmer (John Sparkes) had to navigate their ways back out of the big city and to their home at the Mossy Bottom Farms. (Also, the Farmer had amnesia and became an in-demand hairstylist, it was a bit weird.) This film, well, their not hiding their inspirations, the big one being "E.T.:..." but basically it's a sci-fi film, with the premise, "What if Shaun (Justin Fletcher) and the rest of the sheep, come across an alien?" In this case, a small female alien Lu-La (Amelia Vitale) who basically looks more like a rabbit with some occasional alien abilities, particularly involving his ears in a Snorks-like manner. While the Sheep struggle to figure out how to get Lu-La home, and enjoy his company, The Farmer also has them working on building an Armageddon-themed theme park on the farm. I like the sequences of the sheep sitting on the beam having lunch and some of those peculiarities, those things feel right for this. </div><div><br /></div><div>And I'm not necessarily against science-fiction elements entering the world of Aardman; my favorite "Wallace & Gromit" short is "A Grand Day Out", where they literally travel to the Moon in order to find some cheese. But, those were also characters who were seeking out strange oddities and adventures. Shaun the Sheep, I feel is more interesting when it just sticks to the farm, and only just reluctantly at-best ends up having to go on more elaborate adventures. Like, the Farmer getting amnesia and going into town and having to get him back, that's a good way to push them off the farm. But an alien coming in, I kinda think this time, they were a little too eager to go outside the farm quirks. I get that it's a movie, but, eh.... It felt like it was being bigger just to be bigger as well. </div><div><br /></div><div>I don't know, I guess this is more of a mixed review to me, but I wasn't particularly enthralled with Shaun the Sheep this time. Maybe if I was in a better mood, perhaps, but eh, this felt like a step back the more I thought about it. Before I really got the relationship and friendship between the Sheep and the Farmer, and this time, it seemed like they were too desperate to bring in another character for us to care about instead and just for this film only, presumably. It felt like I was cheated. Perhaps if the alien stuff was a side character that only casually invaded the Sheep's world, and they were as frustrated with him as the town was and not try to go for the winking heartwarming stuff.... Eh, it just wasn't a great natural fit for me. I might be being a little hard on it, but I think they could've done better. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE </b>(2022) Directors: Dan Kwan & Daniel Schneinert</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BOTdlMjI3N2MtZjAxOS00ZmYwLWJiYjYtODUxYzY2MzhmMWYzXkEyXkFqcGdeQXRyYW5zY29kZS13b3JrZmxvdw@@._V1_.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BOTdlMjI3N2MtZjAxOS00ZmYwLWJiYjYtODUxYzY2MzhmMWYzXkEyXkFqcGdeQXRyYW5zY29kZS13b3JrZmxvdw@@._V1_.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>Call me Jobu.</div><div><br /></div><div>Tupaki, if you wish. Yes, I am the one, who doesn't think "Everything Everywhere All at Once", is an absolutely, unilaterally great film. I am the cynical emotionless empty hole in the middle of the everything bagel of existence. Apparently, everybody loves this movie. It's award season, and it's popping up everywhere, and getting nominated for basically everything, and all at o-, all at the same time. But that's mainly because the awards all take place around this time, but yeah. This movie...- is, hmmm.... Well, I have a lot of thoughts on the film. In fact, for a movie that I think is really great, this review is gonna sound incredibly negative, but this is a good film. This could easily make my Ten Best List. Hell, who knows, it could be number one when I finish making this year's list a couple years from now. I can see that. Maybe another me and a different universe, would actually like this film a lot more than I do, the way most everybody else seems to. I can see how this movie is uplifting, and yet..., there's a lot of thing that does bug me about it. </div><div><br /></div><div>I'll admit that I was worried going in, because I was not a fan of Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert's previous feature, "Swiss Army Man". That movie was eccentric, to say the least, and it did show that "The Daniels," as we've taken to calling them, were unique, but they definitely were absurdist and I wondered if their style of filmmaking was really going to translate that well overall, and frankly it came very close to making my worst list that year, just based on how disturbed the film made me. I saw they had talent, but if this was the story they were starting off with, a tale about a suicidal runaway who's stuck on a desert island and saved by a rotting corpse that talks to him, where do we go from there?</div><div><br /></div><div>To be honest, even as much as I like this film, I'm a little concerned that, in order for The Daniels' aesthetic and storytelling approach to finally be more relatable and to truly crossover, that they had to create a world where it's possible to jump between multiverses. That is a concerning- well, it's not a red flag exactly, but a yellow card to me. It's not as strange and horrible as when Shane Carruth's films kept having layers upon layers of worlds within themselves, in order to shield his misogynistic and controlling tendencies, (Something that, it turned out, I was totally correct on back when everybody thought I was nuts. [stick out tongue mockingly]) but it does make me concerned.... </div><div><br /></div><div>Well, we started off normal seeming enough. The film begins with the trials and tribulations of Evelyn (Michelle Yeoh) the matriarch of the Wang family. They run a laundromat, her father Gong (James Wong) is coming into town. She's throwing a party for the neighborhood, even though she seems to be constantly alienating her customers. She's constantly frustrated with her daughter Joy (Stephanie Hsu) and still apoplectic about how to deal with her relationship with her girlfriend Becky (Tallie Medel) who she correctly notes should grow her hair longer, although some of her other constant criticisms of her family can be harsher without meaning to be. She's also struggling with her husband Waymond (Ke Huy QUAN, and yes, it's spelled with a W), who wants her to deal with the taxes and lease situations, where she is up to her eyeballs in paperwork with the IRS representative Deirdre (Jamie Lee Curtis), and is secretly considering getting a divorce. All this is fascinating and great, and then the movie turns. </div><div><br /></div><div>That's when, through the body of Waymond, a version of Waymond from a different universe called Alpha, informs Evelyn that she's needed in order to save all existence. </div><div><br /></div><div>I made a rant about a scene around here where their was song lyrics used in the movie's dialogue in a pivotal scene, that I didn't like on Twitter and Facebook that got a little attention. I'm kinda over that now, since it wasn't the only place the song was brought up in the film, and the way it was used in other scenes was done well, but it did strike me as lazy, particularly the song that they chose. But it wasn't just that they quoted a song that I thought was a strange choice, you see, I'll just be blunt, I think most multiverse narratives in literature, are lazy, and usually bad ideas. </div><div><br /></div><div>I like the idea of multiverses in quantum physics, even though I do find it skeptical on a practicality level, I think it is inspiring in the scientific theory context. I get why people are inspired to explore the idea in literature, the theory itself is inspiring, it's nice to think about other worlds not as some foreign or alien presences, but as contemplative ideas on what differences other worlds would have to us, and to consider the possibilities of how much better, worst, or different our own world can be, if certain minor decisions were changed. In theory, I like the theory. In literary practice, I'm far less impressed. I guess I enjoyed it when you first begin hearing about it, and seeing it pop up, my reference point for it is that episode of "Star Trek: The Next Generation" where Worf gets caught up in a dimensional shift and he keeps alternating through multiple Enterprises in different universes. But I always thought it made more sense in that world because "Star Trek"'s whole conceit was exploration of different worlds, so the concept of finding alternative universes to our own made sense. Other characters and worlds in other universes has always felt more sketchy and cheap to me, like they didn't want to keep writing in the world that they had, so they use this idea from a mostly legitimate source of prestige as an excuse to do something completely different and retcon-, just as a way to get out of a problem without like, having to actually get out of the problem. Kinda like, how instead of coming up with a good monologue explaining how Evelyn could be the key to saving the universe and that universe jumping is just a thing that exists, instead you can just use lyrics from an old song to explain it, and just let that be accepted as normal. </div><div><br /></div><div>Okay, so is the way the multiverse world is done here, this kind of lazy writing? </div><div><br /></div><div>(Long pause)</div><div><br /></div><div>Ummmm. Yes, honestly. I mean, it's done well, but-, I think another issue with multiverse narrative is that, they're not used to their full potential. It's always how one universe went crazy and now they need help from characters in other universes to help fix everything. Why doesn't anybody ever just travel to another universe because they have a better pizza place or something. Why are all these universes fighting each other, why can't people from alternative universes ever just get along once in a while? Or, go to another universe because it's just better. I actually liked the one quick little joke where after Evelyn first learns to transfer between universes and she sees herself as a successful kung fu action hero, she asks Alpha Waymond why she can't just stay there, instead. I do like that acknowledgement at least. </div><div><br /></div><div>Anyway, on Alpha Waymond's universe, they discovered the ability to switch between alternative versions of themselves in other universes, but people have differing levels of potential for travel. And now, one villain, the aforementioned Jobu Topaki, who through the process of being able to jump between alternative versions of herself through multiple universes, is now able to feel all the emotions and decisions made by every one of the multiple versions of her at the same time, and it's made her become very, evil version of Dr. Manhattan from "Watchmen". Too ridiculously powerful for anyone to stop and completely apathetic towards existence to find anything appealing about it anymore. And, the entire, everything is basically controllable to her mind. </div><div><br /></div><div>That's another aspect, this world of Alpha, the name of the universe given to the one that figured out how to jump into and out of other universes, has been involved in a long multi-dimensional conflict with Jobu, and either before or after or because of this, they were able tojump between universes is mostly used now for people on Alpha, and now in the world of Evelyn and Earth, to find the other versions of themselves and when needed, gain the skills and power in order to combat and defeat those they're fighting. Basically, the majority of the people of Alpha, use this universe jumping, just like that scene in "The Matrix" where Trinity just calls up and has the ability to drive a black ops helicopter downloaded into herself, and it's way cooler in "The Matrix", but it's a quick way to suddenly make Evelyn learn Kung-Fu, or whatever else she needs for the battle she's in the middle of. Again, I wish they used the universe jumping for a more inventive purpose here. </div><div><br /></div><div>I don't know, I'm very torn on whether or not this film is as deep and emotionally powerful as it seems. The thing that inevitably makes up for a lot of these issues I have, is the acting. Pretty much every main actor I've listed I can easily see getting an Oscar nomination and possibly winning. That's the one good advantage of films with this multiverse narrative, is that you really do get to showcase the actors in all of their range. Nearly everyone inevitably plays multiple roles and several different emotions and personalities and the tone can shift drastically in several different directions, and the worlds can shift with them. In one world, there is no human life and everybody's only rocks. There's universes where human evolution, or de-evolution, really lead to everybody having long hot dog-like fingers that flail about and are quite breakable. Relationships between characters are different in different worlds, etc. etc. All the performances are great, and elevate the material ten-fold. </div><div><br /></div><div>The editing helps too. Although, at least in my copy, there's one scene that's pixelated because of-, well I won't give away why. I- this has been a more common trend in American cinema lately and we really should be criticizing it more, but I hate pixelating nudity or bleeping out certain words just to give the movie a proper rating. (#DeathtoMPAA) It's probably one of the aspects that people will point to when they ask I was not bothered or concerned about that, but went on a bitchfest about using song lyrics as dialogue, but I called that one the second I saw what the prop used in this sequence earlier, so I wasn't surprised. And again, these are the filmmakers behind "Swiss Army Man", so I wasn't unprepared for strange and surreal. </div><div><br /></div><div>I'm not sure I like the world they created with this multiverse narrative, and even the fact the symbolic meaning of the movie of a family getting together by showing their struggles and alternative outcomes through other universes is even particularly emotional or powerful, I'm not entirely sure it isn't also cliche as all Hell either. </div><div><br /></div><div>And yet,..., and yet, I was emotional at the end. Yeah. It earned it, it was well-done, and well-made. Once in a while, I don't actually have to like what someone's doing to recognize it's power, and I don't like a lot of what they're doing here, but goddamn if they didn't pull it off. That "Swiss Army Man" review of mine ended with me saying that if they hadn't made a good movie yet, but when they will, it'll be a great one, and yeah, this is a great movie. I have no real qualms with all the acclaim it's getting, because everything it does, is done too well to ignore. I wonder if it's sustainable; what I do like a lot about "Everything Everywhere All at Once" does feel a lot like everything just happen to accidentally click for this one time. All at once. Sometimes that happens, a filmmaker who could annoy the hell out of me most of the time will make all the perfect decision one time. Guiseppe Tornatore for instance, he's a good example, he made other films, some are decent but only "Cinema Paradiso" is a truly great film, 'cause it was the only one where everything about him and his style of filmmaking came together and I'm a little worried that this is The Daniels's great film and everything else will just be slight from here on in. Even this great film, the closer you look the more issues you can point to with it though, issues that would probably hurt other films, but it all seemed to work here. </div><div><br /></div></div></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>PLAYGROUND </b>(2022) Director: Laura Wandel</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div><div><div><br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z3tDnQ8EWvA" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe></div><div><br /></div><div>(Frustrated sigh) </div><div><br /></div><div>Oh boy, hole-lee Hell. Alright, well, for starters, TRIGGER WARNING!!!!, if this movie doesn't either stir up past memories of events that happened either to you, or someone you knew growing up that make you genuinely angry and annoyed, then,- well, frankly I probably don't want to talk to you then, or play with you, on the "Playground" or otherwise, or even sit near you, and I still probably don't want to talk to you. I'll say this also, um, I have a-eh, line, I bring up a lot when I talk about school during my formative years, partly as a joke, but honestly not really, 'cause there were plenty of times where it was true, and the line is that "I loved school, it was the other students who I hated". That said, in my conscience mind I tend to downplay much of the bullying that I got from other kids growing up, not that it wasn't bad, 'cause, it was bad. If I actually start listing the shit that happened to me over the years, I start to realize how traumatic a lot of it actually was, but all that said, it still wasn't, like, the worst. I certainly knew kids who actually did get it a lot worst than me. Maybe I didn't witness it, and maybe it wasn't on the playground, or even on the school grounds, hell the true worst beating I actually remembered from kids bullying me, happened with neighbor kids of mine, and it was outside of my apartment and not with fellow classmates, so it isn't just the recess playground where stuff like this happened. And, it probably was a lot fewer kids than I remember actually doing the bullying, but that doesn't mean the pain wasn't real, and when you're constantly getting that kind of pain and berating, it feels like it's everybody whether it is or not. I've brought up "Carrie" a few times over-the-years, a movie that I love and genuinely makes me, probably a little happier than it should, but if you ever go watch it again, and you get to the pig's blood scene, "They're all gonna laugh at you!" "They're all gonna laugh at you!" You know the scene, but have ever actually noticed how few kids are actually laughing? I mean, there's a decent number, but even then, you can tell that some of them are basically laughing in spite of themselves and not, actually laughing at her, like they hear other laughing they see what's going on, and then they inadvertently laughing. Yeah, you think Carrie gave two shits about that, that some weren't laughing and others didn't want to laugh, 'cause she did not care, 'cause the few that were laughing means that everybody has to fucking die! And you know what, I totally get that! If all you feel around you is the pain and suffering of being picked on and bullied every day, then it's hard to contemplate that it's often only the actions of a few, especially since it doesn't seem like anybody else is doing anything substantial to stop it. </div><div><br /></div><div>The first feature film form Belgian director Laura Wandel, "Playground" perhaps more intensely than any other movie, gives us a real child's-eye view of what bullying and being bullied seems like. And I mean "Child's-eye view", the entire movie is shot from the perspective of Nora (Maya Vanderbeque), the five-year old who's entering into public school for the first time, and effect is kinda chilling. The camera never gets above her eyesight, and the only time we see adult's faces in the film is when they kneel down into the frame to talk to her. It's honestly jarring, even other movies I can think of where the camera is almost solely portraying a young child's perspective don't do this. The underrated Scott McGehee & David Siegel film "What Maisie Knew" is probably the closest to getting this, but that movie, while through a child's eye view, was mostly about the struggles of the adults in her world, and "Playground" really shows not only how impotent and absent adults are in the kid's world, even and perhaps especially so at school, but it also shows just how narrow the kid's world is and in many ways, just how destructive and devastating their world and the other children who do populate it can be. </div><div><br /></div><div>Nora, we learn is the younger sister of Abel (Gunter Duret). Abel, is a couple years older, but is constantly getting assaulted and bullying in ways that are just,- ugh.... </div><div><br /></div><div>I'm not kidding btw, about the trigger warning, this movie's images are very difficult to talk about; it's why I'm bouncing around actually describing them, even if you were, or only think you were, just, "a little bullied" in school, these images can bring back some hard memories of just how bad it was and just how sociopathic some kids can truly be. Like, I said, I joke about loving school and hating the other students, but if you ever actually think about it for half a second, it is genuinely disturbing just how twisted the idea of school is. Taking a bunch of other children, most of whom you never met and might otherwise never want to be around, and forcing them together in a single place for hours on end everyday and essentially letting them interact and expecting all of them to just make friends with each other, whether any of them want to be friends or not. Kids are just forced into groups like these, without any free will of their own, and they end up separating and from each other into groups and...- (Sigh) You know, I hate that this movie is making me rant and dredge into dark recesses of my mind and subconscious, but it really is, and a lot of that might be just how much I hate bullying. Honestly, and this might be controversial, but I don't think kids are punished enough for making other kids life's miserable and horrible, especially when you're that young, you can give me any sob story about how bad their homelife is you want, and I'll still ask for the death penalty, and maybe settle for life in Juvie at least!?</div><div><br /></div><div>I'm serious, what the fuck do these kids gain by just beating up other kids, embarrassing them, threatening them, shoving their head into a toilet full of water, on top of everything else, that's attempted murder! Assault at least! If these were adults, we'd be bending over backwards to get these people locked up, or at least I'd like to think so, but to kids these ages, it's just the life that's forced upon them. And we see it, and we see how they have to deal with it. Nora sees all this firsthand, but Abel insists she don't tell others 'cause it'll be worst! He might actually be right too.</div><div> </div><div>There's a lot of aftereffects of bullying that I don't think people bring up enough and this movie shows two of them, one is that become a bully yourself, which happens as after lots of physical, mental and humiliating abuse, Abel, starts bullying another, a smaller ethnic kid named Ismael (Nael Ammama), and he doesn't do it alone, which is the 2nd thing that occurs, you end up becoming friends with the bully in order to protect yourself from getting bullied and picked on.</div><div> </div><div>I've become a bully at times, thinking that I had to before, and I've regretted it ever since, (And no, I wasn't this big a bully, I didn't hurt or attack anyone physically, but I did pick on others unfairly, just because, and made their lives worst, think that that was the best way I could get more appreciated and that I absolutely regret that, and it was fucking stupid and terrible of me.) and I definitely feel like I've seen this happen enough times, were the kid that's bullied and picked on becomes friends with their abusers. I think I resisted that, if for no other reason than I was resistant to trying to have friends to begin with, but yeah, there is still some held-back anger I have towards a few of my old classmates that still lingers even today, and I wouldn't get it when somebody who was also bullied would then become friends with them. Yet, it's almost like it's both inevitable and unfortunately a design of the school system, and that's just fucked up. And Nora sees this, and knows it's fucked up, but can also tell that, well, what is their to do? Adults aren't really useful here, something they are unfortunately aware of, and kids, even those so young like Nora who are new to the world, much less school and are just trying to get a grasp on their surroundings, and they have to determine what to do next.</div><div><br /></div><div>"Playground" brings back so intently some of these moments, that it's kinda hard to see the movie without placing yourself back there. And don't get me wrong, I'm praising the movie for this; the more I think about the film the harder it is to criticize. The directing is special, but the story is devastating. I'm glad that the ended wasn't as tragic as it could been. It's heartbreaking though too, Nora isn't just basically deciding to do the right thing, she's basically has to figure out her own values, trying to understand and contemplate what is right and wrong to begin with, much less what the right thing to do even is, and who knows, perhaps if it wasn't her brother she has to save, she might not have done anything. Perhaps both of them are genuinely lucky to have each other, or else things might've ended up differently for both of them. </div></div><div><br /></div></div></div></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>THE ONE AND ONLY DICK GREGORY </b>(2021) Director: Andre Gaines</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://mediaproxy.salon.com/width/1200/https://media.salon.com/2021/06/the-one-and-only-dick-gregory-still01.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="540" data-original-width="800" height="432" src="https://mediaproxy.salon.com/width/1200/https://media.salon.com/2021/06/the-one-and-only-dick-gregory-still01.jpg" width="640" /></a></div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;"><i>"Five black guys walk into the middle a jewelry store, they just stand there and everybody looks up and stares at them. While they doing that, five white guys come in behind them, and steal all the jewelry." </i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times, times new roman, serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div>That's always been my personal favorite Dick Gregory joke, it might've probably been the first joke of his I'd ever heard admittedly so but it's the also the one that stuck with me (Although I nearly fell out of my chair laughing when I heard that joke in this documentary about how Krushev and Kennedy fighting and both have a button that could blow up the world, and the real frightening thing being that JFK's button is in Caroline's playroom.) It was some obscure clip of him on one of those old variety shows he would appear on, I think it was apart of an old Comedy Central list of the Greatest stand-ups of all-time. The second time I ever came across Dick Gregory, wasn't for his stand-up work, it was, curiously in a high school Street Law class. We were looking up First Amendment Supreme Court cases and Gregory v. City of Chicago came up, as he had led a protest and gotten arrested, along with several others, the police claiming that they started a riot and disobeyed a police order. He won that case btw, unanimously at that, that they were not given the right to peaceably assemble. </div><div><br /></div><div>I'm so glad a documentary like "The One and Only Dick Gregory" exists, because he really is one of the true greats and one of the ones who really does get forgotten sometimes. The film documents every aspect of his long, profound and often strange career. Or careers, you can legitimately argue that he might be more well-known as an activist than as a comic at some points in his life. The guy went on an 18-month fast to protest the Vietnam War. He was friends with Medgar Evars and Martin Luther King, and march and protested and got arrested with them, several times. He was even shot once. None of that stopped him either. All through the late '70s and '80s, he would go on several cross-country runs in support of several different causes. He started out as a smoker on stage, and there's a great clip where Chris Rock compares their early stand-up style of Gregory to Dave Chappelle and how they used their cigarette smoking for timing. And yes, this is a really good comparison by the way, there's a lot of Dick Gregory in Dave Chappelle. I don't know if it's exactly a direct influence, but those two have very similar temperaments, Including, not doing a ton of stand-up for long periods of time and following their own particular muse wherever it may take them, or at the cost of their wealth and family. For awhile, Gregory was just as known as some kind of health food guru through his vitamin supplements that he would create, which would make him rich, but would also eventually bankrupted him.</div><div><br /></div><div>In his later years though, he kinda essentially made a comeback as an African-American elder statesman activist and entertainer, making TV and film appearances, often to get medical insurance through SAG, oddly Gregory rarely made films earlier in his career. Most of his television appearances were as guest on various talk shows like Jack Paar. I was shocked to look up his IMDB page and see how often he turned up in stuff in recent years. He had basically become that cranky old man at the end, but he had nothing to lose and had the right and ability to say whatever-the-hell he wanted at that point, and starting working the nightclub scenes again. Dick Gregory may not have always tried to be funny, but he always was able to be funny and few were as observant and witty as he was. And because there was so little of his standup through most of the prime years when standup was regularly recorded, he tends to get overlooked and sometimes forgotten. That stand-ups list Comedy Central made that I referenced earlier, he was ranked 85th on that list, and that was a list done by fellow standup comics at the time, and that was twenty years ago, and I remember thinking at the time, after only seeing a few moments or clips of him and not knowing about him beforehand that that must've been low, mainly by proxy of people just not knowing about him. Even Rob Schneider admitted in the film that after he met Gregory at Comedy Central's famous Hugh Hefner roast, and seeing him perform he only knew that he was funny and casted him in a scene in "The Hot Chick" not really knowing all the other things he had done. Hefner is the one that basically gave Gregory his career too, having him perform at the Playboy Club back when most clubs wouldn't allow black stand-ups and purportedly he killed in front of an all-southern audience for two straight hours one night. </div><div><br /></div><div>I don't know about whether or not this is truly a great documentary, with a lot of these entertainment biodocs it can be difficult to discern the greatness of one over the other as they can so easily blend together a bit, but I'm definitely happy this one exists more than most. Dick Gregory could easily go down as a minor footnote in comedy, and hell, some might argue that he's thought of as an activist than a performer, and even then, he hung around and worked with so many more well-known and culturally-recognized activists that he could've easily been forgotten to time, and that should just not happen. Documentaries are ultimately about preservation and this is one of the best preservations and "The One and Only Dick Gregory" does a damn good job and preserving and telling his story and legacy. <br /><br /></div><div>And hey, it wasn't in the movie, but did you guys know he was the blind panhandler who's pretended he didn't know that his pants kept falling down in "Reno 911!"? Yeah, that was him! Shame on me for not knowing that immediately. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>WHO WE ARE: A CHRONICLE OF RACISM IN AMERICA </b>(2021) Directors: Emily Kuntsler & Sarah Kuntsler <b> </b></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div><div><br /></div></div><div><div>
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IGsGRSgZbXY" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe> </div><div><br /></div><div>I'm sure there are ways to go about criticizing "Who We Are: A Chronicle of Racism in America", but I don't want to write them. I don't want to criticize this film, so I'm not going to. Not just because I'm a cis white male, and it'd be in poor taste,- besides I'm not using the negative tense of the word "criticism" anyway, I'm talking about positive criticism as well; I just don't want to write any for this film. What would that do? What point would I possibly make doing it? This isn't a movie to criticize, it's a movie to listen to. To learn something, and perhaps learning a deeper truth about America. </div><div><br /></div><div>I'm gonna use another word that I'm told that people automatically just hear and only instantly think of the most negative connotations of it, "lecture". That's probably my mother's most hated word, she can't say the word without a vile tinge in her voice 'cause of how much she genuinely hated school growing up. I never had a negative interpretation to it, 'cause lectures aren't just negative. Sometimes, the best way to be taught or learned something is by someone, just standing up and talking about it. Maybe with the help of some props an overhead projector, and-eh, I don't know, I guess a powerpoint presentation these days, and that's mainly all this is. "Who We Are: A Chronicle of Racism in America" is just that, and frankly, I don't even want to say something like, "It's a good lecture", 'cause that would indicate a determination of quality, a criticism, if you will. It's a brief Introduction to the story of Racism in America, and if anybody, black, white, whatever, has ever actually looked into, even a microscopic modicum of the history and actual connections and entanglement our nation's history has had with racism, then, well, you know how solemn this subject matter is, so-eh,... </div><div><br /></div><div>Yeah, what do you want me to do, criticize the interview approach that Jeffrey Robinson had when interviewing Eric Garner's mother? Yeah, I'm not doing this thing, not for this movie. Even if I did have a negative thought like that, would I gain anything from expressing minor quibbles like that? No. "Who We Are..." is mainly Jeffrey Robinson, the ACLU lawyer who started the Who We Are Project after decades as a major D.C. criminal defense attorney and civil right lawyer, talking about how the United States and racism, white supremacy in particular are so deeply intertwined from the very beginnings of our history, that they continue to effect us to this very day. Occasionally, he'll jump in with clips and other performances from his travels around the country, I don't want to go into the specifics of these clips, because all of them are just part of the full presentation and doing so would just be a regurgitation of the facts learned in this movie.</div><div><br /></div><div>Well, maybe not entirely learned, some things I knew before this film, it doesn't always mean that I contemplated the gravity of some of those facts. I think that's always the real key to history lessons, especially when it comes to something like this especially is being able to connect the past to the present and a lot of people seem to look at history as though it happened so long ago that none of it matters as much as it does now. And that's not even taking into account how history, actual history, can get rewritten, changed, misinterpreted. There is one scene in the beginning of the movie I will discuss, where Robinson talks with some Confederate flag waving idiot trying to decry how slavery wasn't the cause of the Civil War, and how he's confronted with the obvious facts that of course slavery was the entire reason the war happened, and how he stills rejects it. Robinson doesn't continue to combat him, and just says thanks for talking to me, and shakes his hand off. I've done stuff like that before too, and I've had days where I didn't as well, and I get why it's not worth continuing. It's the only real, questionable-in-authenticity moment, but y'know, it's not worth really picking apart as to whether or not it was staged, or they find a guy and bring him in to talk....- even if it was pre-planned, it's no more pre-planned than anything else, and besides, this movie is a lecture anyway, or course it's planned out, you don't improvise a lecture anyway. </div><div><br /></div><div>So, yeah, I don't want to say anything else about the film, I just want to tell people to watch it, and take it in. Does it cover everything, no, not in a two hour movie are you gonna be able to express every historical aspect of America's relationship with racism, but it gives you a more complete sense of how indisputably America is connected to racism and white supremacy. </div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696790060036702346.post-79398864267847997232023-01-06T15:28:00.001-08:002023-01-08T00:57:22.697-08:00CANON OF FILM: "HARLAN COUNTY, U.S.A."<div style="text-align: left;"><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">HARLAN</b></st1:placename><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> <st1:placename w:st="on">COUNTY</st1:placename> <st1:placename w:st="on">U.S.A.</st1:placename></b></st1:place><b> (1976)</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /><o:p></o:p></b><b>Director:</b>
Barbara Kopple</div><div style="text-align: left;"><o:p></o:p><o:p> <br /></o:p>
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6PfaE4R4eA4" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe> </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">You know, funny thing, I thought when I started this list that I would have more documentaries on it than I do. It's a strange thing though, documentaries are strangely one of those genres that age fairly badly overall. I mean, it makes sense when you think about it, 'cause documentaries are the most immediate of genres; watching older documentaries seem more like an anthropology assignment. Even the best documentaries I can think of, they rarely end up becoming feature films that I end up going back to on a regular basis. Some because they're so good that they become too hard to watch at times, sure, but a lot of times, time has just made such films lose such power. The appeal of most of these films is that they're about the conditions and events that are going on right now. Even historical documentaries suffer from this, they're telling a slanted portrayal of history that might be what's considered general knowledge now, but things can change that. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Things have definitely changed in the years since "Harlan County, U.S.A.", but not nearly as much as you'd hope. <br /><br /><a href="https://www.workers.org/2019/10/44199/">https://www.workers.org/2019/10/44199/</a></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Actually, there's a lot of links I can point people to, but I'm not gonna bombard you with the current status between miners and owners, it'll just be depressing. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">On every possible list of the
great documentarian filmmakers of all-time, you’ll soon arrive at Barbara
Kopple’s name. In fact, among film people, she’s considered one of the greatest
female directors of all-time in any genre, and is one of the most
highly-respected artists working today. Her debut feature “<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Harlan</st1:placename> <st1:placename w:st="on">County</st1:placename>
<st1:placename w:st="on">U.S.A.</st1:placename></st1:place>” isn’t just one of
the best documentaries ever; it’s one of the best American films ever. Chronicling a
coal-mining strike in the small <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Kentucky</st1:place></st1:state>
county, It earned Kopple her first Oscar for Best Documentary. Her second Oscar
was for the film “American Dream,” also involved a labor union going on strike.
I haven’t seen “American Dream,” but I’ve been informed that the ending of that
film is different than this one, probably a commentary on not only how union
workers are getting screwed over by large companies which are becoming large
conglomerates, but also how times have changed and the power has shifted even
more drastically between the worker and the man. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I say even more drastically
because “<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Harlan</st1:placename> <st1:placename w:st="on">County</st1:placename></st1:place>…” chronicles an uphill climb for
unions that includes incredibly shocking behavior by the people involved even
by today’s comparison, especially for this country. Her subjects can stray wildly
from this too, to the life of Woody Allen in “Wild Man Blues,” to recording the
fall and rise of the “Dixie Chicks,” after Natalie Maines famous comment about
George W. Bush, and the fallout from the country music base of their fans to
the respect of those outside of them in “Shut Up and Sing,” (She co-directed
that film). She’s also directed many T.V. shows that use a more natural,
handheld style of filmmaking, most notably “Homicide: Life on the Street,” and "Oz" as
well the occasional scripted film like the Stephen Gaghan (“Traffic,”
“Syriana”) penned “Havoc,” starring Anne Hathaway and Bijou Phillips and is actually one of those rare straight-to-video films that is
truly worth going out of your way for, depicting the risky behavior of rich
Beverly Hills teenagers as they party in crime-riddened Mexican gangster neighborhoods
for fun, drugs, sex, violence, and anything else they can find. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">“<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Harlan</st1:placename> <st1:placename w:st="on">County</st1:placename>
<st1:placename w:st="on">U.S.A.</st1:placename></st1:place>” begins with
images of the claustrophobic mines and some of their workers. They’re dirty,
dark, unsafe, and unhealthy. We meet the townspeople on the picket lines,
during strategy meetings, even during elections and funerals. I never really
imagined what goes into having to strike. I remember the Frontier Hotel Strike
which lasted almost a decade in this town. They’re certainly a risk for most
industries, especially those for untrained jobs which can easily be replaced,
usually for cheaper labor. Mining is certainly not that but in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Harlan</st1:placename> <st1:placename w:st="on">County</st1:placename></st1:place>,
it’s basically all there is. Nobody’s particularly happy to work in the mines,
but it’s the place in town that hires people. Almost every miner wife has a
story of there husband getting hurt, or suffering from Black Lung, or accidents
in the mines. The older wives inform about the strikes in the thirties during
the depression and how those took months to end, in the meantime, they had to
battle police, hired guns, scabs, even the U.S. Government stepping in before
they got what they wanted. I went into this movie thinking things had changed
from back then. Maybe they had somewhere else, but not here. Police protect the
scab workers from being attacked by the picketers, and the picketers get
attacked by the thugs. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Kopple was right in the middle of it, recording 5am
attack of picketers by machine guns that seem to come out of nowhere. There’s a
recording of how the former president of the company hired and killed one of
the heads of the union and his entire family. He is later arrested. They’re
bullet holes in the houses from drive-bys at night, and threats from a
strikebreaker named Basil Collins who rides in his pick-up wielding his gun at
the protesters constantly threatening violence. Finally, one of the protestors
is killed. Everybody knows who did it, but there’s no trial or conviction, just
a funeral and then a contract agreement. It ends the strike, but it certainly
doesn’t end the war. Miners have been going on strike on and off for years
since this film came out. I don’t know if the violence still remains, but the
greed of the business leaders continues. (And since Harlan County is mostly know nowadays for being the setting of TV series "Justified" which basically treats the modern town like it's a wild west town, I suspect the violence might still be around) </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">When I first watched the film, there was a special feature on the Criterion disk where Kopple, Roger Ebert and others talked about the film and the continuing struggle of the mineworkers. Back then, it was mentioned that Kentucky mineworkers were still only getting $9/hr, when the average should've been around $16/hr., with the companies pocketing the rest and continue to fight the Unions. Looking it up currently, at least statistically, it seems like miners in Kentucky make about the current average of $23/hr, which is actually around the average, although I wouldn't necessarily say that the Unions are exactly winning now either, in fact their aren't any union mines in Kentucky anymore. The Brookside Mine that the miners were striking over, all non-union. The Eastover Mining Company that owned the mine, they still exist, although I doubt for long. Mining is a dying industry, even in Kentucky, so it's not necessarily the lack of the unions that helped raise the wage today, it's mostly the lack of a willing workforce to work for less, and in a sense that was created by the Unions fighting to get the advantages they got and leading to a modern-day workforce, especially one in such a life-threatening and dangerous profession, to expect a lot more for the job.<br /><br />"Harlan County, USA" shows citizens overcoming
struggles to achieve their goal, and even then, as many American stories are,
it’s a sour and hollow victory. As the miners go back to work, they wonder for
exactly how long before the company brakes their contract, again. The bluegrass music
based soundtrack of the film, including most notably, songs by Hazel Dickens
became popular after the film, but the film continues to be watched and studied
as a seminal masterpiece of cinema verite, and one of the most fascinating
films ever made, and it’s one of those rare movies, particularly among
documentaries that are as relevant today as they were the time they came out,
and as powerful. It’s a triumph of the human spirit, a sendup of the American dream, and of
the unabashed fearlessness of those who risked life and limb to fight for it, and for it's director willing to record it. </div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696790060036702346.post-22914117311312528592022-12-04T11:28:00.000-08:002022-12-04T11:28:21.758-08:00MOVIE REVIEWS #199: "PARALLEL MOTHERS", "SHANG-CHI AND THE LEGEND OF THE TEN RINGS", "ALONE (Hyams)", "MR. SOUL!", and "CHARM CITY KINGS"!<div style="text-align: left;">Sorry it's been so long since I've posted recently. Even by my stutter of a standard, I seem to not be able to get out as much as I'd like to recently. Much of this is just me being busier lately. In the case of my movie reviews, well, I just haven't been writing them, because most of the movies that I've been watching lately have just been too old. For several reasons I don't review every film I'm watching anymore, and frankly if a movie is over two years old, I just don't review them, and frankly, due to a couple different flukes in my viewing queue, I haven't watched a lot of films that I required myself write a review on. Nowadays, I usually post a new batch of movie reviews every ten films I watch, no matter what, but in this case, I had seen so few recent films that I decided that I should at least have a minimum of five films reviewed before I post, so it took a little longer than normal. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Speaking of getting to films older than a couple years, yes, I've seen the new Sight & Sound's poll results. To say the least, I'm a little surprised, but I really don't know, in general what to make of them. Mainly because, well, I'm never actually seen "Jeanne Dielman...". Yeah, usurping both "Vertigo" and "Citizen Kane", on this, much more eclectic and yet, strange list from the BFI of their once-a-decade polls of Critics and Filmmakers of the greatest films of all-time, Chantal Ackerman's "Jeanne Dielman, 23, Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles" was named the greatest film of all-time. I've only seen on Chantal Ackerman film, her last feature, "No Home Movie" a documentary she made about her mother, a Holocaust survivor, documenting the end of her passing, which was completed shortly before Akerman took her own life. Honestly, I don't have much of an opinion on that film either, partly because the version I watched was only available in French with no English subtitles, and while I did fail four years of French in high school and college, I can't say I grasped as much of it as I could, but also it was a bit of a disturbing film in general, especially knowing that she would commit suicide shortly after...- honestly, while I'm aware that, like some of her contemporaries like Agnes Varda, another female filmmaker who did incredibly well on this list, as did many other minority and female filmmakers, (This is the first time since "The Bicycle Thief" in 1952 that a foreign-language feature has won the top honor, and the first time ever that a female director has topped the list.) they're known for some more avant-garde work, especially regarding documentaries that self-insert themselves into the film, but yeah, I suspect that that's not a particularly great or representative to look at Akerman's career. "Jeanne Dielman..." is definitely a movie I've heard about and thought would show up on this list, but, yeah, number one is very surprising, but I won't say more than that until I finally get around to it. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">There's more than a few movies that I indeed haven't watched yet, which is good, I mentioned in my earlier post about my thoughts on the list, which you can read <a href="https://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2022/08/some-thoughts-on-sight-and-sounds.html">here</a>, that I find the results of everybody who voted, far more interesting, and they do inevitably publish the ballots, and the complete results of the polls and not just the top 100, and I prefer them, because I like to see what else gets on there so I can now have more stuff to watch. I don't when I'll inevitably be getting to "Jeanne Dielman..." I'm sure she's about to bump up my list and a bunch of others sooner than later though. As for other random thoughts on the list, eh, I don't get how "Sherlock, Jr." topped "The General" in terms of Buster Keaton films. I called all three films "The Portait of a Lady on Fire", "Parasite" and "Moonlight" getting in, which they did, and I'm proud of that. (And now, I didn't delete "Get Out" from being on there. Also called "The Searchers" falling out of the Top Ten, I did okay on the predictions all things considered.) Frankly it's not a list I would make, but it's a mostly good list. The only films I've seen that I genuinely think are just lousy are WONG Kar-Wai's "Chungking Express", (And frankly I'm not huge on "In the Mood for Love" either which broke the Top Ten), Sergio Leone's "Once Upon a Time in the West", which I get making the directing list honestly, but critics, really? It's 2 1/2 hours of boring before something happen, I think it's pretentious, just pick "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly", the Leone film people actually like, and Andrei Tarkovsky's "The Mirror", which- I'm sorry, I love Tarkovsky, but do not get the appeal of "The Mirror" at all. Especially the Directors who loved it, what the hell? </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Oh yeah, the Directors Poll also came out, and for the second consecutive year, they put Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" at number one. "Jeanne Dielman..." made five there, but the list has got it's own quirks. Lot more Scorsese and Kurosawa and a few oddities. "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" getting in must mean; I never did think about it, but I guess that film is a movie that I can see a lot of directors relating too. (As a writer, my favorite Charlie Kaufman script is "Adaptation.") If anything, I think this means they polled a greater, more eclectic group of critics and scholars and the directors' poll was a little bit less eclectic and hence the subtle but noticeable differences from the list, but top-sheets results aside, they're interesting lists so far, but trying to get meaning out of it other than, "Oh wow, I should see/go back and rewatch this movie", or "That movie", I think is missing the point. Right now, "Jeanne Dielman..." is number one, and that's the moment we're at right now in the zeitgeist, you can like it, you can hate it, I don't care, I don't think BFI or the pollsters themselves care either, but that's where we're at and that's all you need to know. We'll see where we're at in ten years time and what to make of it then. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Oh, as to the film's I'm reviewing here, eh, honestly, it's a small and weak group. I mean, I guess it's not quite that, but maybe it feels this way 'cause most of the films I didn't review weren't exactly ones I would be licking my chops to do so, one way or the other. It's been a lot of blah lately. The best film I can recommend that I've seen lately is the documentary, "That Way Madness Lies..." a horrifying documentary by "60 Minutes" producer Sandra Lackow about about having to deal with her brother as he descends deeper and deeper into untreated schizophrenia and how it impacts both him, her, and her family as the medical system seems to be only be able to do something, once he checks himself into therapy, or until he acts out so badly that the law has to come and intervene. It's a stunningly powerful film about the disease and how exactly and suddenly it can change people and the kinds of horrors that come from having to deal with it, in your own family. It's streaming on Kanopy at the moment, and it's definitely the movie that I've been thinking the most of lately. It shows the lack of the ability to get people the help they need, especially when they don't think they need it, can really lead to disaster along the way, and how it effects everybody. Like, how the police become more terrified because of how they fear he'll do something crazy that ends up on the news, and especially with lax gun control regulation, you wonder how many mass shootings could've and should've been prevented if people who were legit dangers to society, were put into treatment, even against their will,.... It makes you think and care the most, very powerful film. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Let's get to the proper reviews now: <br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><b>PARALLEL MOTHERS </b>(2021) Director: Pedro Almodovar</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"> <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cL6JDYkRa2g" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe> </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Pedro Almodovar is so distinctive a filmmaker, that while I can instantly recognize any film of his from a single shot, it's stunning how often he can still manage to surprise me. Not necessarily in terms of what film he makes, although, really, he's always kinda stunned us with that, but in how there's so many very recognizable aspects of his films. The romantic settings, his parade of great Spanish actress that he rotates through his films, his tales about women and the struggles for their place in the world, the tales about men and how they struggle with their place in a greater world, usually regarding how they're treating women, somehow, or just his regularly campiness when he just wants to have fun, that I think we don't always analyze him from every possible perspective. For instance, while I don't think there's any real argument that he is Spain's most famous and prolific filmmaker, I don't think we bring up much that, he indeed is, a Spanish filmmaker. In that he's from Spain and, Spain has a history....</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">It's actually got a pretty complicated present too, but the main thing to know at the moment, is that Spain is full of unmarked mass graves. Remnants of General Franco's fascist reign, and right now, and I won't go into every detail of it, but the Spanish Civil War was pretty damn brutal and destructive. There's so many mass graves in Spain that there are maps outlining them and Spain is currently in the middle of a process of actually trying to dig up a lot of these graves and identifying the bodies and give them burials. Or, just, you know, make the history known.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">This is probably why "Parallel Mothers" begins with a photoshoot for an archeologist. Arturo (Israel Elejalde) is the archeologist that a renowned photographer named Janis (Oscar-nominee Penelope Cruz) is photographing. She's intrigued by Arturo and also, she's trying to get a mass grave unburied in order to find the remains of her great grandfather. She has her reasons, and during the talks about the excavation details, she and Arturo have an affair. He's married at the time, and she's approaching her 40s quickly, so she decides to be a single mother like her mother had. Arturo doesn't like this, but this doesn't get in the way of the excavation plans, which are slow-going as their paperwork, permissions and preparations that need to get done for that. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Meanwhile, she ends up having her baby and meeting a fellow new mother Ana (Milena Smit) while at the hospital, as they share a room while they're heading into labor. She even becomes close to Theresa, (Aitana Sanchez-Gijon) Ana's mother, who's an old-time actress who still works mainly in theater. Janis's mother died young of an overdose while Ana's mother is more prolific, she wasn't around much either growing up and isn't really around now, even with her presence. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Eventually, after both parents give birth, Janis and Ana's friendship, turns into a relationship. I'm reluctant to reveal some of the revelations in the movie between that though. Without giving anything away, on the surface, you could read what happens as a nature vs. nurture debate being played out, but I think that's too simple for this film, and generally too simple for Almodovar. (Although one of my favorite films of his, "Volver" literally has a built-in excuse for what happens in the film being that the town is fully of crazy people, so maybe I am giving him too much credit.) And with the Spanish Civil War, reliving and rewriting the past, and all these talks of absent relatives and parents, I suspect there's a much more powerful metaphorical message going on here. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Come to think of it, one of Almodovar's biggest, but more subtle themes is transformation. The literal process of going from one thing to another. "The Skin I Live In" is a pretty literal version of this, but think about "All About My Mother" about a mother exploring the world that her gay son lived in after he had passed from AIDS, and how the experience changes and evolves her. Or how in "Volver", characters who are presumed dead soon start living as literal ghosts haunting the town. At one point Ana confronts Janis about her obsession with the mass grave and her family. She's much younger, and hasn't lived through Franco's Spain, and more importantly is to separated from it to be effected by it. That was a major transforming in the country of Spain, but Janis herself insists that one doesn't get over the pain and suffering of one's ancestors and the country doesn't heal itself either until it's confronted with it's past. That seems illogical on the surface, but I don't know, I once remember seeing an interview with the great Joel Gray talking about going to Germany for the first time, and just getting off the plane making him uncomfortably sad, being the son of Jewish parents, he could tell right away that something felt wrong there. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I'm not kidding when I talk about Spain just having tons of mass graves, literally all over the country, and most of them, are just there, unmarked and unnoticed. If you're not looking for them, you won't see them, but once you realize they're everywhere you can't like, not see them. "Parallel Mothers" on the surface seems to be about two mothers who gave birth around the same time, but I think the time aspect is much more cerebral. Even the movie itself has sequences shown out of chronological order, to give us a sense that events aren't always linear, and sometimes time does revolves and seem out of touch, as life goes on, the past is still being relived and even linear time itself can somewhat get caught up in it sometimes and "Parallel Mothers" is a story about why and how when that happens, we really need to, and should, get things right, in order to get back on the right track, whatever that may be. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>SHANG-CHI AND THE LEGEND OF THE TEN RING </b>(2021) Director: Daniel Destin Cretton</span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐</b></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BYzVmNGUxYTMtMDhhZC00ZTlhLTk0NGEtN2FjN2ZhMDg1MzQxXkEyXkFqcGdeQWpnYW1i._V1_.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BYzVmNGUxYTMtMDhhZC00ZTlhLTk0NGEtN2FjN2ZhMDg1MzQxXkEyXkFqcGdeQWpnYW1i._V1_.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">(Scratches head)</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">So, not too long ago, I actually watched an episode of "Avatar: The Last Airbender" for the first time. I know, I'm way late on it, and frankly I wasn't even planning to watch it at all, but I kept thinking about how some of the criticism of "Raya: The Last Dragon" included a lot of people talking about how similar it was to the TV series, and frankly the interest finally wore me out, so I watched it, and..., well, I don't know exactly what I was expecting but absolutely, "Raya..." is a complete ripoff of it. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Now, "Raya..." is still a good movie, my thoughts on the film itself haven't changed, and I only watched the one or maybe two episodes, I forget now and I don't want to double-check my Paramount Plus subscription in the meantime, but it did put it in another context for me. That said though, even without having finally watched "Avatar: The Last Airbender", I can't help but think that I've seen, just a lot of Chinese magical realism mythology based stuff lately. I'm not entirely questioning why, I get why, it's part of their heritage, both culturally and literally, and by literally, I mean, through their literature. Not just modern stuff, and modern films made by mostly Americans at that, but stories like "Journey to the West" for instance, have a deep resonance in their culture. Things means stuff there that frankly, I don't quite understand. On the surface, of course a Marvel superhero of Chinese heritage would be intimately familiar and connected to this culture, hence a piece of work like "Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings", I totally understand that, and think that if you're going to create a superhero that appeals to this audience, this is the direction to go. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">That said, as a westerner who's gone through, way too many of these damn Marvel films at this point, and has just become completely numb to this insipid onslaught of overly-pervasive superhero culture, I just cannot make myself care about it here. I think in a different context this material might've intrigued me, in very much the same ways that stuff like "Raya..." or "Avatar: The Last Airbender" or even something like the "Kung Fu Panda" sequels have. The best parts of a fantasy story are of course, the discovery of the world at large. And, if this wasn't a Marvel movie I might be intrigued by the world here. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Shang-Chi or Shaun (Simu LIU), is the son of Xu Wenwe (Tony LEUNG), the leader of the Ten Rings and Ying Li (Fala CHEN) the Guardian of Ta Lo. Ta Lo, is a-eh, basically it's a "Land of the Lost" for Ancient Chinese mythological creatures. Unlike, most of those other aforementioned Chinese-based recent tales, this film takes place in modern day, and naturally, the modern MCU universe. Now, the Ten Rings, are, well, ten rings, but they apparently grant it's owner immortality, and they're also, like, an organization that's started by the father who's taken over and topples various kingdoms and other world powers....- I don't quite get it to be honest. In fact, the fact that the rings' origins are still kinda vague actually made me like one of the movie's two post-credits scenes where the discussions was about what exactly they were and what they were doing. Anyway, Shaun had long left the family but he and his best friend Katy (Awkwafina), who doesn't know any of his past, suddenly get called back in, believing that the sudden attacks on him and Katy are about Ta Lo, and a belief that his mother, who was killed when he was young, might still be alive and in the hidden myth-filled land. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Now, this first involves collecting his sister Xialing (Meng'er Xhang), who's taken over the Ten Rings organization has been running an underground fight club in Macao. After that, they find they their aunt Ying Nan (Michelle Yeoh) in Ta Lo, where they confront their father who's trying to re-collect the ten rings in order to possibly contact his mother. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Like, on paper, this can be compelling, in of itself, but of course, at this point, nothing is Marvel is in of itself. In my mind, I see a lot of this story, and I'm thinking, "Black Panther" did this so much better. "Black Panther" created a secret world, and that world had a lot greater meaning to it, it was a futuristic world where an African society existed in modern day that was free from all the atrocities of colonialism, and we can see how a so-called dark continent would've naturally progressed on it's own, without Western influence. But Ta Lo, is just a place with a bunch of Chinese mysticism creatures. It's a link to a past, and frankly it's only done because, this is the Marvel movie with the Asian superhero. This is why I'm thinking back so much on "Raya..." and "Avatar...", it's not that these are bad stories in of themselves, but, when it's the default..., and you keep feeling like you're running into it....- </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I don't know, maybe it's just that it's Marvel. It's funny how all the MCU films are on Disney+ at the moment and Disney owns them as well, but the thing is, Disney as a brand can get away with this. Introducing us to different people and lands through their most basic and infamous cultural iconography and stories, it's basically been their brand since the beginning. I don't even like, "Mulan", either version, I might add, but with those films and when they do dive into the cultures and peoples of places that, for the most part, haven't been predominantly featured in western media, Disney, the brand, makes these tales feel like they have more gravitas and importance. These stories that Disney puts their label, that they tell, feel like we're being taught their culture by people through their most important tales and narratives. Marvel, on the other hand, is a brand focused on forcing everything to be around, superheroes. Fighting bad guys who try to take over the universe. Everything, no matter what they do, whether it's good or bad, has to be centered somehow, around these continuous properties and,- frankly that framing makes this film, far less interesting and compelling. I mean, I've sat in front of Marvel films before staring at my watch, waiting for the misery to end, but none that I've ever been so troubled by for the lack of interest I have in them, and none for a film that really should be a lot better. I can admire the attempt, and I think clearly, the film wanted desperately to be something bigger, but, eh, this just gets thrown onto the pile of all the other MCU films to me. Just another origin story retelling, only this one uses up old ideas and tropes from several other origin stories I've heard many times before, many times by Marvel themselves, and the nearest I can tell is that they think their brand is equivalent to Disney and they can just simply make a movie to satisfy every demographic they can and it'll automatically, well, not necessarily be good, but automatically have that same kind of resonance and power that Disney's label has. And that's the arrogance that I felt with "Shang-Chi..." that totally turned me off. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">It's a shame too, there's stuff here I like. I'm a huge fan of Awkwafina, and she was really good here. As was Simu Liu. I don't know Ben Kingsley is here playing some kind of former bad guy-turned-prisoner-turned actor hippie-type...- I guess he showed up as this character in a previous Marvel movie that I've probably seen and do not remotely remember, but, eh, at least he's having fun in this movie. I don't know why it always seems like he's having the most fun in his worst movies, but he's good here for comic relief I guess. And I do think Shang-Chi has a lot of potential as a superhero character; this is probably one of the few times I'm actually panning a movie where I'm actually kinda intrigued by the idea of the sequel. There's some good directions this character can go, both in his own narrative and in the greater MCU world. I like the film's director Destin Daniel Crettin a lot, he made "Short Term 12" and "Just Mercy", both of those are damn-near great films; he's a fascinating filmmaker, and he is Asian-American, and I think he did a decent job technically here. The effects aren't inspiring necessarily, but I thought they were done well; I liked that last sequence with the dragon especially. But, I also feel like this character is probably more interesting outside of the world of Ta Lo than he is inside of it. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Here's to hoping that, like Superman, Shang-Chi is one of those superheroes for whom the worst and most boring and useless aspect of them is their origin story. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>ALONE </b>(2020) Director: John Hyams</span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.austinchronicle.com/binary/3db9/alone1.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="332" data-original-width="800" height="266" src="http://www.austinchronicle.com/binary/3db9/alone1.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I've very much struggled to begin to describe "Alone", exactly, even though it's pretty straightforward on it's surface. It's a bare minimum horror that you'd think a first-time filmmaker would've made on a budget, but John Hyams, is a director with a pretty extensive resume, even if most of it has been television dramas for the last few decades. Yet, there are clearly some fascinating influences here. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">The opening sequences in particular were incredibly inspiring to me, not as a critic but as a screenwriter, and they're just they very stoic shots, of a woman packing her things into her U-Haul trailer, leaving the plant that she deems doesn't fit, and then walking into her car and driving off. And then staying with her, often inside the car, for a very long, quiet and tense ride. I've actually written in my own writing in a similar scene and it was for a horror film script that also began with a character, "Alone" just driving in their car and away from everything. There's an eerie quietness to it, and I think it's a great idea to start off a horror movie. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Another interesting idea for a horror movie, two cars driving, and one of them is frustrating the other. I know this, because I've seen Spielberg's "Duel", and at a certain point in the opening, the girl, Jessica (Jules Wilcox) while driving up a mountain on a two-lane road, runs into a driver who seems to be driving in a way that frustrates her and that's when she tries to take things into her own hands at first, but that eventually fails. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">That's when we get the other major influence I was thinking about with "Alone", the single female revenge film. There's actually been quite a few of these films in recent years that are, essentially revenge fantasies to some extent where women end up with a distrustful man, usually and ends up in a situation where they seek out murderous vengeance upon them for being harmed. Some of them I like, Coralie Fargeat's "Revenge" comes to mind, where a character is left for dead in the African desert by rich yuppie assholes and she turns into a killing machine as she survives through the desert. Others I don't. Sarah Daggar-Nickson's "A Vigilante" made my Worst List recently. It was incredibly simplistic tale of an a scorned woman determined to just destroy her abuser. I like the idea of these movies in theory, but in practice, you need more than just, here's an attacker, here's the victim, let's get revenge. In this case, the other driver, known in the credits as "Man" (Marc Menchaca) apparently uses his giant SUV and calm demeanor to kidnap women travelling alone on secluded roads, and taking them to his cabin to sexually and mentally torture until he kills them, and Jessica is his latest victim. Menchaca is very good as a menacing villain who otherwise seems like an average part-time outdoorsman when he's not at home working. During one scene, we see Jessica watching him calmly eat a sandwich while calling his wife and children, definitely doesn't seem like he's acting like there's a girl locked up in his kill room that he's apparently built in his basement. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">From here on in, the movie is essentially just, get the protagonist into a situation she can't get out of, and then get her out of it. There isn't much else to the film, and that's a strength. We don't learn anything deep about what the Man does this, or we find out something special about the girl, it's basically just a nightmare scenario played out and gotten out of, and that's fine for me if it's done well, and it's done well. There's a good cameo by Anthony Heald at one point that's nice to see and you hoped we'd see more of, but it was not to be. Part of me wishes there was more potential here. I mean, essentially this could've been a more elaborate "Psycho" but mostly it feels like a better-than-average filmmaking exercise. It's a good one, that strangely has moments that make me feel like there was more inspiration than at the surface.</div></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><br /></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><br /></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>MR. SOUL! </b>(2020) Director: Melissa Haizlip and Samuel D. Pollard</span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><br /></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/08/28/arts/mistersoul1/merlin_176029947_2db645fa-8624-4f3b-abe1-9ffc47c712b5-mobileMasterAt3x.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="426" src="https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/08/28/arts/mistersoul1/merlin_176029947_2db645fa-8624-4f3b-abe1-9ffc47c712b5-mobileMasterAt3x.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">A lot of the story of American television that we have, often ignores, among other things, PBS, weirdly enough. It's always under some threat, usually by the far right, mostly by those who either don't watch it to begin with, or those who do, but want to control it entirely. It also just tends to get ignored. As much as the major networks are struggling right now, they're not in any real fear of having to hold telethons every six months or so in order to keep their shows on the air. The thing is though, while PBS rarely submits to Neilsen for their ratings breakdowns most of the time, they're generally watched by a lot of people and it's actually quite an even breakdown on the American populace who's watching PBS. There's a myth that it's for a certain, more aged and affluent audience, especially their primetime lineups, but that's totally not true, and in fact a lot of the most important and groundbreaking television has either been aired on PBS or produced by them in some way and much of it crossed demographics of all ages and races. It wasn't always that way though; in fact it wasn't always PBS, up until the late '60s it was NET, or the National Education Television, and it wasn't ;til the late '60s when the network was beginning to be put under the microscope by Washington, who didn't like how NET was producing their own content that they deemed to be too liberal and radical. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">What kind of programming was that? Well, there were quite a few news and educational programs, but probably the biggest one was "SOUL!". It's been deemed the first "Black Tonight Show", and I-, until now, never heard of it, although I'm certain I've seen clips from it over the years. The history of African-Americans on television is it's own quite complicated discussion, but basically for most of the early days of television they were non-existent on a regular basis. One actress who worked on "SOUL!" even said that she didn't want to work on television, because she knew she'd just be "Beulah". Also, a lot of NET has kinda either been forgotten, or the stuff that survived like "Sesame Street" and "Washington Week" is now basically morphed into the PBS brand so much that we don't even think of them as starting from a completely separate network. "SOUL!" was a NET program, and it was a showcase for African-American art and talent of it's time, and was the show that often was the premiere debut showcase for artists on national television, as wide-ranging as The Lost Poets to Earth, Wind and Fire. Poetry especially was showcased in a manner that I don't recall ever seeing on television much elsewhere before. Pretty much every African-American name across all literary, popular, political and cultural arts came through there. It's practically a documentation of the 2nd Harlem Renaissance and a first hand view of the Civil Rights struggles through the African-American perspective. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Honestly, I'm kinda just stunned it exists at all. Especially for Variety shows, African-American-lead series just didn't survive very long. Harry Belafonte's series was canceled after just touching Petula Clark, a white woman, somewhat romantically during a song performance on a show. The only other African-American host I can think of from that time was Flip Wilson, and while that was a Variety Show but it wasn't a talk show, and "SOUL!" predates "Flip", and actually lasted a little longer on the air. Granted, "SOUL!" started locally in New York before it eventually went national though.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">The show was produced, and eventually, after they ran out of other options, hosted by Ellis Haizlip. Haizlip wasn't a journalist, or much of a performer; he was mostly a theatrical producer and hadn't done much television before, as neither had most of the staff of the show. Ellis is an interesting character, with his skinny frame and wirey glasses, he looks like he could double for Malcolm X, if not for his Richard Roundtree moustache and he James Baldwin-like cadence, he seems like a strange amalgorithm of the entire era. He's quiet, calm, soft-spoken but speaks intensely when he needs to and seems just the right amount of unprofessional when the situation needs to. He was openly gay, even at the time, and his main objective was simply to present African American art and culture to the public, make sure others like him were on the television screen. He interviewed everybody from Sidney Poitier to Harry Belafonte to even Louis Farrakhan, who basically opposed his entire existence, and knew how to confront him while also seemingly showcasing his immense oratory skills. He didn't shy from confrontational figures, even interviewing George Jackson's mother after his assassination. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Questlove gave a great soundbite at the end, after the show wasn't picked up for renewal after Nixon took over the PBS budget, mentioning how different the landscape of television would've looked if the show had, even like a ten or twenty years run instead of the very brief five years it had. You can basically say that pretty much only in my lifetime, outside of Don Cornelius on "Soul Train" has there been numerous regular African-American and other races and sexes hosts across all of television. Like, I date myself back to when Oprah and Arsenio first hit the airwaves and it was and felt revolutionary and different back then, but that's only because others like Haizlip who should've been given that chance were denied it, or just given it for a brief flutter of a moment before television reverted back to the norm. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">"SOUL!" was written and directed by Melissa Hailzip, Ellis's niece who's been an actress and performer for most of her career before finding her way into documentary filmmaking; this is her first feature and it's a very loving portrait to her uncle putting his and the television show's place in television history back into the context that it should've been all along. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>CHARM CITY KINGS </b>(2020) Director: Angel Manuel Soto</span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><br /></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.baltimoremagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Screen-Shot-2020-10-09-at-11.30.52-AM-1200x675.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://www.baltimoremagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Screen-Shot-2020-10-09-at-11.30.52-AM-1200x675.jpg" width="640" /></a></div></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><br /></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">"Charm City Kings" doesn't necessarily do anything new as a coming-of-age story, especially for one about growing up in the inner city, but for what it does, it does well enough. Well, it might not do anything particularly new as a story, but as to depicting and creating a world, it's got enough new wrinkles to capture your attention. For one, it's backdrop is the Baltimore dirt-bike gang scene. At night, the dirt bike gangs run the streets, so much so that police are even told not to chase them down after they break up whatever gathering they're having, not that they can catch them half the time anyway. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">The movie follows a young preteen boy named Mouse (Jahi Di'Allo Winston) whose brother was a member of the Midnight Clique, one of the bigger biker gangs in the city. His brother died young however, and since then, his mother Teri (Teyonah Parris) has been a bit too spread out taking care of him and his younger sister. Mouse has a couple good friends in Lamont (Donielle T. Hansley Jr.) and Sweartagard (Kezii Curtis) both of who also want to get in on the dirt bike culture. He also has a crush on a new girl-next-door, Nicki (Chandler DuMont) who likes taking photographs. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Eventually, Mouse gets in with Blax (Meek Mill) the leader of the Clique, and he starts skipping school and his afternoon job at a vet's office in order to work at his garage. He even starts getting trusted with delivering bikes across town to other bikers. This, in spite of some pretty clear warning signs that associating with Blax is already a fairly sketchy idea. He gets some warnings from others, including Rivers (William Catlett) a police detective and family friend who he warns to stay away from Blax, knowing about his past.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Like I said, there's not a lot new here. We get the coming-of-age crossroads story, we get the two competing male characters representing Mouse's tendencies to either inevitably go good, or inevitably go bad, and we do see that neither side is completely black and white either. After Mouse gets robbed of one of his bikes by an old rival/friend of Blax, we see Blax go a little too far in trying to get the bike back. And of course being an African-American cop is already full of it's own gray areas, especially in a city like Baltimore which is already known for it's violence. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">There's also an intense scene involving Blax's dog, who is injured and Mouse has to put him down at Blax's request. Mouse is an animal lover and his work at the animal clinic after school, shows that he has a career path outside of the biker gang culture, however he's still wildly drawn to it, even if he knows that the dangers of the world. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I will say this, the motorcycle work, and the photographing of it, is quite impressive. The cinematography is quite good, and the filmmaking from director Angel Manuel Soto is quite skillful. "Charm City Kings" originally debuted on HBO Max, but it's one of the productions of theirs that recently was taken off of the streaming service as HBO Max begins it's bizarre morphing into, whatever it's next failed form is going to be. I'm not gonna pretend it's the biggest loss from the service, for one, there is a DVD release so you can find this elsewhere legally, but also, while it's an interesting film, it's not exactly the most necessary thing missing from the network that should've been on there, but it was a good film, and it shows this world of the Baltimore dirt bike scene pretty well, and why it can be appealing to youths in the area as a career or life choice, and how easy it can be to get sucked into that life, and in some cases, how lucky it is for some of them to be able to get out of it. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div></div></div></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696790060036702346.post-36017264934790072102022-11-09T10:24:00.002-08:002022-11-15T03:26:00.045-08:00CANON OF FILM: "BEFORE MIDNIGHT"<div style="text-align: left;"><b>BEFORE MIDNIGHT </b>(2013) </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Director: </b>Richard Linklater</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Screenplay: </b>Richard Linklater, Julie Delpy & Ethan Hawke based on the story and characters by Richard Linklater and Kim Krizan</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NRVLVPWzeek" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe> </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">(Stares longingly at the date on the computer. Sighs)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I guess, this time, they didn't show up. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I was holding out hope still believe it or not. I know, they said they weren't making a new one, but they said that last time and they secretly made "Before Midnight" so.... but no, this-, this time, it looks real. I mean,- I don't know, they might come later on when we're not expecting, but for now, this trilogy is going to remain a trilogy. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">For those unfamiliar with Richard Linklater's "The Before Trilogy",- well part of me just wants to tell you to watch them and then we'll talk; it's definitely the kind of the film project that it's better to discover on your own, but...- anyway, in 1995 Richard Linklater made "Before Sunrise". Inspired by an actual conversation, the movie details two strangers on a train who have a "Brief Encounter" during one of those romantic endless nights that might've ended with them falling in love. Two romantic, inspired 23-year-olds, an American named Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and a French girl named Celine. He's on a Eurorail Pass and it's his last night before his plane leaves out of Vienna, and he meets Celine on the train on his last night in Europe and convinces her to get on the train and then spend the rest of the night walking around Vienna and talking about the meaning of life and other such meanderings, and falling in love before they both have to leave in the morning.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Now that movie ended with our two lovers promising to meet again in six months. Nine years later we got "Before Sunset", where they actually meet again in Paris. Jesse has become an author and written a book about that one night and they meet again at the end of his book tour, but he has to catch a plane at night back home, and only have the one afternoon to catch up. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Well, nine years later, like clockwork, Jesse is finally at the airport. He's talking to his teenage son Hank (Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick) as he sends him away to go home to his mother in Chicago, and he exits to meet back up with Celine, and their two eight-year-old twin girls Ella and Nina (Jennifer and Charlotte Prior). Products of,- well, that time he missed his plane...,- anyway, things got complicated and to quote Sheryl Crow, who I'm fairly certain didn't actually say this first, but "Life is what happens while you're making plans". Jesse continues his success as a writer and Celine's still working away as a global environmental activist, although she's thinking about taking a government job now. Jesse's become successful enough with subsequent novels that his writing career has taken off and he's invited to stay the summer on the shores of Greece by the invitation of Patrick (Walter Lassally, a rare acting performance from the acclaimed cinematographer and director) a writer himself who's surrounded himself with an ecclectic mix of friends and family living a full albeit reclusive life outside the tourist-laden Athens. Jesse's son went home early and as a departing gift for their visit, they have a hotel room for the night, which leads to Jesse and Celine, having rare time to walk around, explore and just sit down and talk, for the first time without their daughters hanging on to them, in a long time. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Their conversation at first seems like they're back where they were. They even visit a small church like the one they visited in Vienna. And their flirtations are a lot more-eh, I guess risque isn't the word, but familiar; they're not two people trying to gauge each other's interest, trying to figure out any subtle meaning in the slightest glances or the slips of the tongue, they talk like two people who are insanely familiar enough with each other to know how to get under their skin, both literally and erotically. And they each know how to push each other's limits in private and public, whenever the mood feels right. (There's one gestures that Julie Delpy makes that I don't know how it hasn't become like, the ultimate meme by now [Although I don't seem to get meme culture anyway]) And they've now got nine years of moments and life lived together, to call back and draw upon whenever they're verbal dance turns into verbal combat. It is so strange to watch these films and hear characters talking about Skype and on cell phones, and reminiscing about how these characters met before e-mail was regularly a thing and just trusted each other that they would meet months later at a time and place. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">But they were kids then and now they have kids now. They try to forget about their regular problems, but eventually, they come up. And soon, we're thrust back into the realities of a couple struggling to determine if they're still in love with each other. Or more importantly, if they should stay together or not? Maybe? That's something that's kinda new, we don't really know the stakes on the line; we can think we do, but you can make a decent argument either way.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">They're still recognizable the romantic idealists we once saw meet each other on that train years ago, we still hear that in them. The spark is still there, the attraction is still there, and their love is still there, but perhaps it's just time for their paths to diverge. She calls it right away, in the car ride from the airport in the beginning how it's the moment, and we see glimpses of it briefly pop up in their conversations with others and each other, like when the Jesse expresses his desire to go home to Chicago to be with his son and his concerns about his living with his mother back home most of the time. There's accusations that maybe Celine's had a wandering eye too. Her anger and frustrations seems to be so internalize every slight that might be a sliver against her she can interpret and rearrange as a slight against all of womankind. And maybe she's right. I don't know. I remember I keep wanting to yell at the screen for Jesse to stop talking about how great it is to actually be living in Paris, France, as a reason to show how great their life is, like, "Dude, she's from Paris! It's not special or unique to her!" </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">But that's kinda what's so great about "Before Midnight" too. I listed it years ago as the <a href="http://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-ten-best-movies-of-2013-oh-christ.html">Best Film of 2013</a>. Rechecking my old original <a href="https://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2013/07/movie-reviews-67-before-midnight-silver.html">review</a>, I realized that I discussed the shift in the discussions over the movies as the first dealt mostly with abstractions and the more they've spent time together, they move into specifics, actual things. I didn't comment on it, at the time but I do remember a lot of discussion at the time about how autobiographical the films were. Some people desperately wanted to make some parallels to how Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy's lives and how they connected to their characters. I guess it is true that you can trace them pretty well, if you wanted to. Reportedly they did talk about a 4th film but Linklater, Hawke and Delpy couldn't agree on a good idea, and yeah, I kinda get it. I mean, you can definitely come up with several ideas and situations to put these two in if you wanted to, they even did this once for a brief non-Trilogy canon scene in Linklater's animated stream-of-consciousness masterpiece "Waking Life", but I get it now, we don't have to see them continued on. We loved "Before Sunrise" not knowing where these characters would end up before we had the continuations of their story, and now, we can have our own theories and interpretations. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">And again, maybe they will come back later. Most of the time when people try to come up with a comparison film to describe "The Before Trilogy" the typical closest that anybody lists are "The Up Documentaries". The mainly Michael Apted-led documentaries that document it's subjects and what they're currently doing starting from age seven and going back to check-in again on them every seven years after that. That is probably the best comparison, I've only seen a couple of those films myself, but yeah, it's really the only other comparable film experiment involving time like that. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">However, there is another cinematic couple I think about now when I think of this series. Recently, HBO did a remake of Ingmar Bergman's miniseries/theatrical feature "Scenes from a Marriage", but the original follows Liv Ullmann's Marianne and Erland Josefson's Johan as they go through twenty years of life, including kids, divorce, reconnection, and several other events and tragedies in between. It wasn't shot over twenty years, but it's one of his most beloved films, but people forget he eventually did make a sequel. His last feature as a director, "Saraband" went back to explore the two characters decades later, and I think it's one of his most underrated and surprisingly one of his best films. All the main actors were still alive and only too happy to revisit their characters and see what they were doing now as they suddenly reconnected much later in life than Bergman himself probably ever thought he would imagine them, or him, being at. And we also got introduced to other characters through the extended world, as the lives of the characters expanded and grew. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Perhaps, thinking somewhere down the line a "Saraband"-like addition to "The Before Trilogy" is wishful thinking for me, but I don't see why it couldn't happen. Now that I think about, Jesse's kid today, would be about the age his dad was when he met Celine.... Or maybe we'll see where they're are years later, like when they're 82? </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">It's so weird how Linklater's very best films are just amazingly timely and nostalgic at the same time; nobody manages to capture the essences of time periods the way he does, especially when that time period is the present day. Any shortlist of the greatest living directors that doesn't immediately include Richard Linklater is just somebody who has not paid attention. He's kinda had two different directing careers, so it can a little tricky analyzing him. On the one hand, he's known as one of the vanguards of the American Independent movement starting from the late '80s, starting with his breakthrough feature "Slacker", which also dealt with time in a way, as it was a multi-narrative feature that followed one character until it ran into another and then followed them until they drifted into a third and then a fourth and so on, all across a day in Austin, Texas. He'd toy with variations of that idea too like with "Waking Life". However, he would often fund projects like "The Before Trilogy" and "Boyhood" with taking occasional Hollywood features as well, like "The Newton Boys", the remake of "Bad News Bears", and probably most famously "School of Rock". At some point, and I'm not entirely sure when exactly, he did this so often that it became tougher to even determine which film was the personal indy and which one was the Hollywood feature, not because his style or subjects would change, it felt more like the Hollywood movies would find ways of drifting more into his evolving ideas and vice-versa. "A Scanner Darkly" and "Fast Food Nation" were released in the same year, and I think "A Scanner Darkly" was the indy, but it's got so many stars in it and it so ambitious, it certainly doesn't feel like it, and you can kinda say the same for "Fast Food Nation". Or "Me and Orson Welles" and "Bernie" a couple years later. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The thing is, as great and versatile a director as he is, I don't know what he technically does special that constantly finds himself evoking a sense of place. Ask me what a Richard Linklater film looks like or feels like I can almost always spot it, but ask technically how he's different and it becomes a lot harder to describe. There's a few common motifs, long takes, and especially with the Before films, long, elaborate pieces of conversation that are full of wisdom, philosophy, and personal connections that can often hide deeper stories and truths underneath. Or perhaps he's just mastered the perfection of directing with exact precision, and especially in the case of "The Before Trilogy", mastered a collaborative writing process with incredible actors that manages to make these films seem like they're improvised when in reality the dialogue and directing are crafted to the most miniscule degree to get these films so exacting. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">That's the real secret of Linklater's greatest films, how easy he makes these films look, 'cause trust me, the directing might look like it's easy going, but it's not nearly as easy to make as they look. It's absolutely stunning how well he does it in most every film of his, and arguably, along with his epic masterpiece "Boyhood" which literally took 12 years to film, "The Before Trilogy" are his best at doing this. They capture moments of life and truths that secretly hide the greater stories, between the lines of dialogue and in those subtle inflections. If "Before Sunrise" was the moment two people were free to express themselves in a moment of truth, and "Before Sunset" was a more repressed moment of two people trying to see if they still connect, what is "Before Midnight"? Two people who know each other too well, and still connect, but are stuck in the middle of personal and emotional conflicts and they're trying to find all the ways to get through it? It makes it feel like I'm describing a chess match, where each side knew each other's next moves before they make them but, nah, I'm just describing a moment in time between these two. We all know people who we are that close to and we've had conversations like these with them. Perhaps this a major one for them, maybe a forboding one, perhaps it's just the one they're in now that they'll look back on in the future and laugh at the absurdity of the things they chose to care about. Like all his best films, Linklater captures a moment that's seems like it'll last forever in the moment, becomes fleeting once you get away from it, and becomes nostalgic when you revisit it. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Perhaps this love ballad of Jesse and Celine is indeed a fairy tale that has finally ended at the stroke of midnight, but it's a moment of time for us that we'll always cherish. You know what they say, "We'll always have Paris",- well, in this, "We'll always have Vienna". And the Peloponnese Coast.... </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696790060036702346.post-91916502712148565102022-10-21T18:57:00.001-07:002022-10-21T18:57:54.495-07:00HBO MAX/DISCOVER+ REMOVING SERIES FROM STREAMING IN THE AFTERMATH OF MERGER: THOUGHTS ON MEDIA LOST AND MEDIA FOUND!<div style="text-align: left;">(Sighs)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.tvinsider.com/1057111/discovery-plus-shows-removed-hbo-max-merger/">https://www.tvinsider.com/1057111/discovery-plus-shows-removed-hbo-max-merger/</a></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">(Shrugs)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">What do you guys want me to tell you, I told you so? Alright, I told you so. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">But y'know, who cares now? I mean, I don't feel like bragging about this or anything, and not because I quietly like to rub it in, mainly it's because I stopped banging the drum on this fight years ago, and frankly now, I don't really care about this. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Yeah, that's the thing, everybody else seemed to be really frustrated and annoyed at this, "How dare, HBO Max take off shows all for a tax write-off because Discovery+ plus wanted more room for their shows!" and it was the big thing for awhile and Kenan Thompson made jokes about it at the Emmys and all, and I was like,- (Shrugs) yeah, that's pretty much what I expected. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I tried to warn everybody. I warned about streaming, and how it wasn't gonna be as secure or great a future as it you thought it was, and as long as film, and television were businesses, streaming was never gonna be as secure as actual physical media and it should be a secondary option, but everybody said, "Nah, nah, nah, you don't get it, streaming is the future!" And you know, that future is now; I'm watching Al Michaels commentate the most boring NFL games every Thursday night on Amazon, for some reason, and sounding like a dead relic of what he used to be inside unless he's making a sly reference to sports betting that goes over everyone's heads, but the point I always made when I would go after streaming, with blogs after blogs, starting, with <a href="https://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2011/08/streaming-movies-sucks-why-everyone-who.html">this one</a>, from like, eleven years ago!, was that, streaming was never going to be the ultimate catch-all of media that people thought it was. Especially when you let all the networks and studios themselves cultivate and collect their own exclusively libraries, and have them all charge their own separate fees and control the distributions of their content, then you were gonna to have stuff that slipped through the cracks and wouldn't be available for the most amount of people as possible. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I mean, it's all bullshit that HBO Max and Warner Bros. is get lauded and controlled over by Discovery of all goddamn entities, 'cause that's what I wanted when I got by HBO Max account, more um-, what the hell even is on Magnolia Network...- (Goes to channel's website, clicks on original shows) eenie meanie, miney mo, catch a tiger by the toe, eh, something, something, not that word, eh, let her go, eenie meanie miney mo, more, um "The Garden Chronicles"?! whatever the hell that is. But, it's not like I saw anybody trying to stop it at the time either, or stop any of these bizarre corporate media mergers, that should all basically be illegal, but y'know, even if they weren't working within well-established, well-regulated and well-funded loopholes, if you did manage to legally close them up, good luck enforcing any of that. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">So you're losing a bunch of shows now, and yeah, it sucks, but you know what, it's not like shows haven't been going away or never returning to begin with. How often have your favorite shows or movies suddenly went on or fell off all your favorite streaming services? Not to mention that shows that for one reason or another just don't show up on streaming, or don't show up in their complete original forms. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Film has always been a business, from the moment Thomas Edison put patent numbers on his short films, more than any other modern art form the moving picture, was spurned and evolved from a business standpoint, not an artistic one like most other art mediums. Until that's eliminated businesses and business decisions are always gonna get in the way. And no, this is simply not a good look on the business venture to begin with.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I don't know, what bizarre monstrosity combination of HBO and Discovery and what will inevitably become of HBO Max from it, which would be like HBO's what, fifth or sixth separate generation attempt at becoming a streaming service brand now? I mean, I could point out that this deal is just, nonsensical and ridiculous on several levels and that I ultimately would predict that, like say, when AOL and Time Warner combined way back when, that the deal is shortsighted and ultimately is gonna flop, and Warner and Discovery, have way overestimated Discovery+'s actual value in their programming and that the two brands are just not a good clash for each other, and that this forced removal of programming on both sides is the first sign that this is a truly bad combination, but eh, do I need to? </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Seriously, like, even before this news about the shows going away broke, we all knew this was just weird right? I mean, I wasn't surprised, but I feel like, in a normal world, Warner would've just bought out Discovery+ and incorporated it naturally into their own collection, let them otherwise be on their own and continue to create, produce and distribute their own programming and HBO would I feel, know to stay standoffish enough to let that happen, but instead, they merged and from these depictions, it feels like they're either being treated equally, or possibly the Discovery+ people coming into this, are actually higher up in the corporate structure, which baffles the fuck out of me the most out of this. I mean, obviously, the uproar and the fact that all these programs are getting taken off the air means that there's people who've noticed and care and I suspect either, after the year, they'll either be back on HBO Max/Discovery+-whatever, eventually be included into whatever the weird combination both of them come up with at Warner Bros. Discovery, or some other media distribution outlet will pick them up and have them streaming that way. And if they're not, then, I don't know, they'll join the same in-between media rabbit hole that stuff like, "Dream On", or "1st and 10", or the "If These Walls Could Talk" movies, or a bunch of other programs that HBO has previously lost the rights to or just refuses to air on HBO Max already. (As well as several other programs across all major networks and production and distribution companies; HBO's not alone in this.)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Look, there is commentary to talk about here, but everyone else has talked about it, and frankly, I'm tired of the business minutia of the entertainment world. Until we actually get, some kind of deal where everything that's ever been filmed is easily readily available on a single, legal platform, like the way a video store used to be, this is not gonna end with this deal, or in the near future at all. Everybody has to get together and just come to the conclusion that making sure everybody has equal availability of their content, than none of this matters. It didn't matter to most anybody else either, until the programs starting getting removed and everybody realized too late that maybe streaming has limitations. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">But this isn't about streaming either, it's about preservation, and film and television don't have a good history of preserving their arts. And, that's the big problem here, it's not the deal, it's not even the fact that they're doing it for a tax cut, although, yeah, that's bullshit capitalist greed for ya, but like, that loophole isn't the problem itself, the problem is that we don't encourage or enforce media preservation like we should. It seems like we do, because we have all these streaming services, logically you think, "Well, that must mean that anything that's possible to be available to me, surely must be available, right?" NOOOO! and that's really what the big uproar and frustration, that there's a massive amount of people at one time, who are only now realizing that that's not the case. And again, in terms of the big picture, this is minor. Half of Youtube entertainment media now can sometimes seem to be people finding, seeking out, or discussing lost media, and for good reason. There's a lot that's missing, some that seemed to be there for us to always have, and now they're not there. Or not as easy to get to. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Anybody try to find Kevin Smith's "Dogma" on streaming lately? Yeah, it's, not easy. It's copyright's owned by Harvey Weinstein and it, among other titles are being held up while he's being held up, and some copies of the used DVD are priced in the $80 and up range on Amazon now, which is mindboggling to me, 'cause that was a movie when I was growing up, just always seemed to be around; I watched it rerun on cable dozens of times, and borrowed it from video stores and libraries regularly. It's not unavailable or lost or anything, you can find copies and plenty of people have downloaded their copies on Youtube if you have to see it, and most of them haven't been taken down yet, but it's kinda bullshit still that the filmmakers aren't making money on it right now. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I'm using "Dogma" as a recent example but there's so much more out there that we've lost and we're currently losing and the thing is, most of it we might not ever even really know about until or unless things change and it pops up again. To use another famous example, John Frankenheimer's "The Manchurian Candidate", one of the great American movies was held without being re-released to the public until 25 years after it's release, all because Frank Sinatra didn't realize that he actually owned a majority of the rights to it. There were generations of filmmakers and cinephiles who might've only vaguely recalled seeing that film, or missed decades of possibly being influenced by that film's ever-presence, all because, it wasn't widely present. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">That's the thing, I've gone through the lists of the shows that have slipped off HBO Max, and I'll be damned if I know whether or not quality-wise these shows are "worth preserving", but that honestly doesn't matter as much as one might think because we shouldn't just be preserving the absolute elite of stuff, we should be preserving all media and art as best we can and as much of it as possible. Sometimes, we may not know what's important or what we're missing until years later on down the line. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Anybody happen to catch Wink Martindale's Facebook page lately. I follow him and FB and Youtube 'cause in terms of classic American game shows, he's a goldmine of rare content and preservation, and recently he posted a link to this amazing find: <br /><br /><br /></div>
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Fll-_C8UBr8" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe>
<div><br /></div><div>For those who might not look at this and see much related here, but this is, currently the only known complete episode recording of the game show "The Wizard of Odds". It's not a particularly important, or even a good game show, it's basically just a low-end "The Price is Right" rip-off, except for this one thing, it marked the first American television appearance of it's host, of Alex Trebek. I had only heard about this for years, and only knew previously of a single sound recording that existed, and possibly one rare episode in an university archive that only existed because an actor Don Defore was on, (DeFore, oh, eh, he was on "Hazel", I think, old time, forgotten actor, more well-known for his work now as a SAG board member and early president of NATAS) and that was it, before somebody just randomly posted this one episode. This was a major piece of American television history, and it had been a lost show. Alex of course would host several game shows over the shows, most famously "Jeopardy!" for over thirty-five years before his sad passing a couple years ago, but this was where his national career in America started. (He had a few hit hosting gigs in Canada before he came here of course too, and not all of that is preserved either) The series only lasted one season, and lost big in it's timeslot to "Gambit" which wasn't even that big of a hit, and NBC just wiped out the series and taped over it. It wasn't just them that did that, a lot of television did that back then, in America and elsewise. BBC for instance, it's almost like, impossible to find any television pre-"Monty Python" from them.</div><div><br /></div><div>That's really what this is all about the fear of media that we've got now, one day becoming lost in the future. And it is a real fear, especially since we thought, of all things, streaming, as opposed to actual physical media, was the way to go for the future. God help us if we're ever hit a "The Trigger Effect" calamitous event and the internet and electricity ever goes out completely. (Note: It's far-fetched, sure, but it's not as far-fetched as you'd think....) </div><div><br /></div><div>So, what is there we can do? In terms of what HBO Max and Discovery+ are gonna do, probably very little. If you can do your part to preserve the media they got rid of, in case they don't eventually return it the current or some other streaming or physical platform, be my guest. </div><div><br /></div><div>As for what really needs to happen. Personally, I'd go to Congress. Seriously, I think there should be laws preventing media producer and distributors requiring them to preserving their media. Once it's released to the public, at least, then, they need to take any efforts possible into preserving that media, in some reasonable amount of form. Now, I'm not gonna tell them, it has to go on a streaming site, or it has to be on DVD, or that it has to be out for the public all the time for anyone to see, that's taking it too far, and for several reasons there are certain pieces of media, that do indeed exist, and are preserved, but don't need to be shown or revealed regularly to the public. To name an extreme example off the top of my head, I know for a fact that there's footage, somewhere in Stamford, Connecticut at WWE headquarters of the night Owen Hart fell from the rafters and was killed, because they have to keep it for their own sake and protection, but it's in a vault and labeled not to be released, and it's evidence, and blah, blah, blah, preservation and public are two different things, and some things need to be preserved, even if they aren't, and in some cases, should never, be seen by the public. And even taking that extreme case out of the equation, there could be other good reasons, legal or not, why some media isn't public. Perhaps there's some other legal copyright claims that are in dispute, perhaps there's some unlicensed uses of footage or music that has to be resolved, or perhaps, people just don't want something to be readily available in the public. That happens too. It's there right not to put something out into the public, however, not preserving it, is something different to me. So, reasonable efforts should be made to preserve media as much as possible, that should be a requirement of any media electronic-based artistic media. We're documenting ourselves and our lives here, we should have notes of it. Once it's out there, it should stay out there. Even recently, if you think about all the old forms of streaming media sites, Vine, Blip, etc. that don't exist anymore, lots of recent media are gone now because there efforts aren't required by the owners and distributors of those sites, you make that a legal requirement, I can't guarantee it won't ever happen where something will become lost, but it's an extra level where it makes material more likely to be preserved and by the people who should be the ones preserving the media. It shouldn't be up to us to do this. </div><div><br /></div><div>I know, this is a longshot, btw, I seriously doubt that this kind of legislation would get any modern traction and to be frank, there are more important battles politically to have at times, but you know, starting the movement now for media conglomerates to make preservation a requirement is the first start. </div><div><br /></div><div>There's one minor thing that I think we could do right now, that won't help out this immediately, but something that really needs to get done. I've talked about this before occasionally, but in America, we do have the <a href="https://www.loc.gov/programs/national-film-preservation-board/about-this-program/">Film Preservation Board</a>, which works with the Library of Congress every year to name films for preservation as apart of the <a href="https://www.loc.gov/programs/national-film-preservation-board/film-registry/">National Film Registry</a>. They compile a list of 25 culturally, historically or aesthetically important films in order to preserve America's film heritage. Whatever happens from here on in, these are the pieces of film that are of the greatest significance to evoking America. They've been doing this every year since 1989, a year after the National Film Preservation Act was passed into law as apart of an Appropriations Bill, and it's been renewed and refunded multiple times ever since, and it's gathered a huge collection of the history of American film. Not just the big films and titles you would expect either, on top of several feature films, there's lots of experimental films, documentaries, short subjects, even advertisement material, industry films, old shorts they'd only used to show in classrooms, home movies even, there's even a music video that's apart of the collection. What's not included in the registry are television productions. Nothing that's made exclusively and intently for television at least.</div><div><br /></div><div>There's no equivalent Television Preservation Board and there's no National Television Registry, which is really kinda insane at this point, 'cause let's face it, television is a dying medium. A dying medium that you might think would get preserved through the advent of streaming but frankly it's a medium already missing a lot of it's media and as it continues to slowly die, it might continue to lose more, and more quickly than you think. </div><div><br /></div><div>I don't really know why we don't have a National Television Registry, but there should be one. I doubt one that's equivalent would've now or later would have saved any of these shows but, it's a start. I recommended this years ago, even gave a list on Facebook of what I would recommend be the first television programs inducted. <br /><br />"The $64,000 Question" (1955-'58)</div><div>"All in the Family" (1971-79)</div><div>"American Bandstand (1952-'88)</div><div>"An American Family (1973)</div><div>"Captain Video and His Video Rangers (1949-'55)</div><div>"The Ed Sullivan Show (oka Toast of the Town" (1948-'71)</div><div>"Experiment TV Broadcast with Milton Berle (1929)</div><div>"Guiding Light" (1952-2009)</div><div>"Gunsmoke (1955-1975)</div><div>"The Honeymooners (1955-'56)</div><div>"The Jack Benny Program" (1950-'65)</div><div>"Life is Worth Living" (1952-'57)</div><div>"I Love Lucy (1951-'57)</div><div>"M*A*S*H" (1972-'83)</div><div>"Meet the Press" (1947-Present)</div><div>"RCA Felix the Cat Test Patterns (1928-'39)</div><div>"Roots" (1977)</div><div>"Saturday Night Live" (1975-Present)</div><div>"See It Now" (1951-'58)</div><div>"Sesame Street" (1969-Present)<br />"Star Trek" (1966-'69)</div><div>"Streets of New York" (1939)</div><div>"Texaco Star Theater" (1948-1956)</div><div>"The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson" (1962-'92)</div><div>"The Twilight Zone" (1959-'64)</div><div>"Your Show of Shows (aka Caesar's Hour)" (1950-1954)</div><div><br /></div><div>I thought it was a pretty decent start list, that includes something from just about but even this is hard to preserve. The Original Felix the Cat tests, they only exist now in recreations and a few photos, and that's more than I can say for the original Milton Berle tests, of which nothing exists now. "American Bandstand", much of their old programs before 1964 were destroyed in a fire, including a lot of pretty historic and important television moments, especially for regarding documenting the history of early rock'n'roll. "Captain Video and His Video Rangers", only about 24 episodes of the estimated 1,500+ of the series is known to still exist; the rest are all long lost. "Streets of New York", one of the first dramatic productions made specifically for television, a 60-minute TV movie, it's reported that only eleven minutes of it still exists. Hell, we're still finding old episodes of "Sesame Street". Literally. </div><div><br /></div><div>
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/O1dRuP9zLDE" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe> </div><div><br /></div><div>Yeah, we're finding old episodes of "Sesame Street", but were losing Elmo's HBO Now talk show. I didn't care for his talk show admittedly, but how does that make any sense at all?</div><div><br /></div><div>If there's a time to stress again that we need this, it's now. And this shouldn't just be an American thing, every country should have their own preservation boards for film and television and have registries like the NFR. I think they need a TV registry as well, and there should genuinely be a serious push for that. Make it a national to preserve the most important pieces of all media we have, and we do for film. We do for even recordings, there's a National Recording Registry as well, but we don't for television. I don't know what the hold up is or why we don't, but we really should. </div><div><br /></div><div>So if you're frustrated or annoyed at HBO and Discovery, these are the steps I would be channeling your anger towards. Creating and promoting legislation, not to prevent this from ever happening again, but to mitigate the loss of media when it does, and start calling Congressmen and those who might be influential to them and start the processes of getting these preservation regulations into law and to creating a real National Television Preservation Board and Registry. This is what the future can hold, and if we start using these weird HBO/Discovery decisions as the catalyst for it to come to pass, then by all means, perhaps the frustrations we have now will not be in vain. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /><br /><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696790060036702346.post-23168152184485328782022-10-03T13:47:00.005-07:002022-10-04T04:00:41.855-07:00MOVIE REVIEWS #198: "ENCANTO", "HOUSE OF GUCCI", "TEST PATTERN", "AZOR", "ANNE AT 13,000 FT.", "BEANS", and "RAMS (Sims)"!<div style="text-align: left;">Ugh, procrastination. Like all writers, once we stop putting it off, it's our favorite. Lately, I've been getting around to it a lot. Not all of it my own fault, much of what's been delaying me from writing more here, and in general, has been stupid and idiotic things like life getting in the way, but other times, yeah, my free time has been going more towards turning my mind off than it has striving to advance it lately. It happens sometimes, I hate to admit. Every so often, you just gotta turn everything off. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">That doesn't mean I'm not watching and analyzing a lot. With the Emmys last month I tried to catch up on as much as I could. I haven't gotten to everything, but the Emmy shows were actually pretty decent this year. I've never been as sold as everyone else that we're in some kind of golden age of television; in fact, if anything, I think television might be dying quicker than any genre at the moment, but the quality at the top is always gonna win out. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Movies-wise though, yeah, I've been slowing down more, and I gotta catch back up. Especially with all the Oscar films coming up and I'm still two years behind, and yikes, it's already October. Let's get some reviews in before I have to really start knuckling down and run through every inch of my spare time watching everything. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>ENCANTO </b>(2021) Directors: Jared Bush & Byron Howard; Co-Director: Charise Castro Smith</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://media.wdwnt.com/2021/11/Encanto-4301974-1155x700.webp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="485" data-original-width="800" height="388" src="https://media.wdwnt.com/2021/11/Encanto-4301974-1155x700.webp" width="640" /></a></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I think when it comes to Disney, separating a good one from a- well, rarely, if ever bad, but maybe, average or mediocre film, is that if it just has one little thing that I can notice as being truly unique, different and downright inspiring. You could probably argue that this is double for the princesses, and I'll be damned if I haven't seen a quote-unquote "Disney Princess" as uniquely intriguing in recent years as Mirabel. (Stephanie Beatriz) The obvious note that was in fact taken by request of a young woman in the UK, is that Mirabel, wears glasses. Yeah, I never thought or noticed it before, but there had never been a Disney Princess character that wears glasses. (You would've thought at least Belle must've had reading glasses, but no, she had perfect 20/20) Which is a shame, 'cause not only do I generally find eye glasses to be appealing, but they do add a aura of intrigue and mystery to a character.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Mirabel's mystery is that she is the only one in her family who doesn't have, some kind of special X-Man-like power, but that's way too simple. She's a teenager for whom being a teenage girl is appropriate for the story and not at all about any kind of romance, thank god. She's a middle child in a busy family who's filled with magic. Abuela (Maria Cecilia Botero), the family matriarch founded their enchanted casita after escaping a conflict and in the decades since, their home in the mountains of Columbia has looked over the growing village town, that's formed from the large family and their special gifts (As well as the actual gifts of the enchanted house, which, is a lot more Disney and Pixar-like, but yes, does have moments where it feels like Pee-Wee Herman might live there) helping oversee and protect the town. Mirabel, however, is the one family outcast who doesn't have a gift, but she still remains very proud of her family and of their gifts, and of protecting them and the town. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">At first, I thought based on the opening Lin-Manuel Miranda song, which actually does go through all of these characters in quick succession, that perhaps her skill was as a storyteller. Their abuela is the matriarch and protector of the family after all, she's old and someone will have to eventually take her place, and the rest of her family seemed to be trying to find ways to move on with their personal lives. Again, this is also more complicated. Mirabel is quite complicated. In fact, it took me a minute to realize who I really think she reminded me of, and I couldn't confirm this, but I wouldn't be surprised if she was inspired by Vanessa Marquez's character in "Stand and Deliver". The young, really smart girl, Ana, the quiet shy one who does also wear glasses periodically in that film, but has a homelife where she has to help out the family restaurant business, and almost drops out of school because of it. Mirabel, feels like a similar smart character who's out-of-step from her caring but flawed family and has to struggle to find a way to appease them, and herself. I didn't find any evidence of a direct influence, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was there; she was always my favorite from that film, and I got the same good vibes from Mirabel that I always liked seeing from Ana. (Sidenote: BTW, I looked up the real Ana Delgado, to see whatever happened to her; apparently she was the only one of the students in that film who were directly inspired by an actual person and her life did turn out pretty successfully after. That said, um Vanessa Marquez's life, um, did not.... it's actually really tragic what happened to her and I didn't know about it until I looked it up. If you ever get a minute, google her and shed a tear for her.) </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">The movie itself, like most Disney films recently, on the surface, is fairly predictable. We start with this beloved perfect world, and then, we start suspecting that something's off with the world, in this case, Maribel starts seeing cracks, literally appearing around the enchanted house. Nobody else sees them, at least publicly, but eventually, it becomes known how fragile the house and the family dynamic actually is. Obviously, this movie is basically a huge metaphor for the internal struggles of families, and how they will often try to eradicate those elements when they fear them. Obviously, the most notable one from this movie is Bruno (John Leguizamo) who was found to see the future and apparently was the first to see the cracks. He was tossed out of the family years ago for it, and has since been secretly living within the halls of the house, "Parasite"-style looking over the family, concerned as their gifts have been eroding. The metaphor is also too obvious in this case, but I can see why it's an important film to be made. In fact, I really should be more mad at this movie; it's problem and solution is petty simple when you break it down, but the way it's revealed and discovered is good.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">"Encanto" is a rare Disney film that gives us a complex but loving complete family, and is about the family coming to help strengthen their bond. Usually Disney films are often about the struggle to find or reconnect with family in some ways from having been lost from it, but here's a film about a family starting off well,-, relatively well on the surface anyway, and then overcoming their own obstacles to be back to fulfilled again. It's inspiring and unique in its own way. As for the film, perhaps there's potential for more fulfilling stories in sequels, but I still liked this a lot. The music helps, Lin-Manuel Miranda could probably be given a potato and he would manage to make it an entertaining three-star musical, but "Encanto" shows how we can be "Enchanted", and yet, still have to struggle to stay together and that even the happiest of families still have secrets they have to overcome and come together on. It's different enough and done well, and for that, it's an easy recommend. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>HOUSE OF GUCCI </b>(2021) Director: Ridley Scott</span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐</span><span style="font-size: large;">1/2</span></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://media.newyorker.com/photos/61a3c01006dce1701f60d12d/master/w_2560%2Cc_limit/Lane-HouseofGucci.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="426" src="https://media.newyorker.com/photos/61a3c01006dce1701f60d12d/master/w_2560%2Cc_limit/Lane-HouseofGucci.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I gotta be a little honest here, of all the tabloid fodder that paraded through that most alien of time periods that we mysteriously call the 1990s, the murder of Maurizio Gucci (Adam Driver), done by a hitman paid off by his wife Patrizia (Lady Gaga), and the circus of the trial therein, was kinda off my radar. I imagine this may have been bigger in Europe, as for us, at that point, we were just done with the epic that was the O.J. Simpson trial and frankly sports is much bigger than fashion in this country, especially American football. Honestly, Gucci, as a brand and image,- uh, you know, I'm not anti-fashion per se, I mean, I'm watching the new season of "Making the Cut" while I'm writing this in fact, but the name,- in fact a lot of the big names in fashion in recent, I feel like have become so shorthand for something luxurious or exquisite, that honestly I kinda feel like the appeal has been lost on me. In fact, I actually know someone who constantly uses the word "gucci" as a way of saying something, anything, is "Good", and it's not like I don't like Gucci, or think it's bad, but y'know, I-eh, I don't know. I mean, it's- yes, Guccio Gucci did start the idea of leather hand bags that he noticed appealed to the customers he was serving as a bellhop, and he was an entrepreneur and even though Gucci itself is more of a brand, a label, than a specific idea of fashion anymore, I still feel like, we're kind of way off using a designer's name as just a pronoun for good. (Especially in the urban and hip hop communities, like, what is your deal with Italian fashion designers, exactly? Even this movie basically tells you at one point that the "fakes" or "replicas" of their own items are often just as good. Or, as long as your going through fashion history books anyway, how about we use "Chanel" as a pronoun for exquisite more often? Or St. Laurent? or Dior? Of Van Furstenberg? Or Ann Lowe?)</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Anyway, most of that wasn't what I was thinking of anyway during this film. Mostly, I was thinking a lot about how generally underwhelmed I usually am with Ridley Scott's films. Seriously, for a household name director, he's got one of least compelling filmographies I can think of for any great director. And he is a great director; I'll always give him that even I think much of his work is overrated, the guy's made more than his fair share of great films, and yet, for a lot of his supposed best films he's always had some storytelling tendencies that I just find frustrating. Oddly, I won't go over most of them here, even though this movie did in fact, feel like it had like, six or seven endings.... The main observation I had was that this is kind of a strange subject matter to discuss to begin with, and after thinking it through, this wasn't the best way to tell it. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">This is definitely a film that might've been way more compelling if say, the people behind "I, Tonya" had written and made it. But, man it did get me thinking that, Ridley Scott's apparently been into a lot of stories about the foils of the privileged lately. Or the rich. Just something I've noticed, to me, unless he's doing sci-fi stuff, his most notable recent films have been about people with money, sometimes it's about the unscrupulous ways they get them, but most of the time it's about their erratic behaviors. "The Counselor", "All the Money in the World" and now, "House of Gucci". That's what's always kinda befuddled me about Ridley Scott, he's the biggest name director who you just can't get an auteur-like read on. Stylistically you can, but content-wise, I never know what he's gonna make and worst than that, I never know why either. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">It's just weird. And I know that are plenty of great directors who are infamous and well-known for being chameleons, two of Scott's British director compatriots that come to my mind are Stephen Frears and Michael Winterbottom in this regard. Yet, it doesn't bother me with them, partly because Ridley's constantly put on a taller pedestal, but also their films are also done much more on indy-film level scales and while they are chameleons, there's definitely more definable trends in their work and inspiration. Ridley, is a big time Hollywood director and every time I hear somebody try to list themes to his oeuvre, I feel like I'm hearing things that apply to, maybe a quarter of his films, maybe. Like, the guy's in the science-fiction Hall of Fame, and yet, I never think of him as a science fiction director. Maybe it's because I'm the weirdo who thinks both "Alien" and "Blade Runner" are both highly overrated, but-, I think it's more that I just never get a sense from his films about what he's actually passionate about. (Maybe that's why everybody singles out "Blade Runner"; perhaps Ridley Scott is just a replicant who's inspired by the false memories that have been put inside him and now he's making his movie choices believing that they're something about them that he relates to closely, but he's unaware that those memories and personal instincts themselves aren't real? Well, that's my theory anyway...)</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Anyway, I guess I thought a lot about that 'cause I had a very hard time caring about this film. Scott himself has called this film a satire; um, yeah, I can kinda see that, but eh, he's not exactly a great comedic director.... This movie definitely could appeal to some; this wouldn't be a bad film to put on to make fun of at times, and not because it's bad, because it just is a little too over-the-top at times. It's a story of a rich aristocratic family with an outrageous outsider character joining in and it's all very soap opera melodrama. I mean, Salma Hayek plays Patrizia's best friend who happens to be a high-end psychic that advertises on TV. That's before we get into Jared Leto's weird role as Paolo Gucci a failed designer who was basically the Fredo of the brothers. Oh yeah, the Gucci legacy is actually pretty familial, and before Patrizia just goes ape-shit mad, she orchestrates how her husband Mauricio manages to overtake through legal and questionable means the family business from the elder Gucci's the New York based Aldo (Al Pacino) and the Milan-based Rudolpho (Jeremy Irons). Paolo is Mauricio's brother who's put up with, but is basically too incompetent for anybody to really trust with anything serious, and it's him who gets manipulated into selling his shares. Nice makeup jobs, and mostly good acting all around, but honestly, I wish they focused more on the murder and trial instead. A lot of this history is just not as compelling as they think it is. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Well, maybe it is in some fashion circles. For a film comparison, there's a lot of similar ownership drama involving the Warner Brothers and their studios and brands and IP over the decades, and it does intrigue me, but that I don't think about it every time I see a Warner Brothers logo before a film or a Bugs Bunny cartoon, and I don't think about the struggles over the ownership and rebranding of Gucci every time I see a leather handbag with it's logo on it. There are interesting characters here, but "House of Gucci" is a painfully narrow tale to watch. It's a movie that makes the simple mistake of having a film be more about the extravagance and popularity of the brand as opposed to creating a compelling story narrative about the people behind the brand. There are moments where it tries to show it, but yeah, maybe a director with more vision and care could've pulled this off. I'm sure Ridley Scott got whatever compelled him to make this film out of his system and had it fulfilled, but many, I just never know exactly what that is from watching his films. as for me, I just found myself struggling to much to find a reason for me to care enough about this story. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>TEST PATTERN </b>(2021) Director: Shatara Michelle Ford</span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/291cf7a/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1600x900+0+0/resize/1486x836!/quality/80/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F37%2Faa%2Fcfb7db2448859b5bc6f03f0ea099%2Ftest-pattern-5-copy.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/291cf7a/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1600x900+0+0/resize/1486x836!/quality/80/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F37%2Faa%2Fcfb7db2448859b5bc6f03f0ea099%2Ftest-pattern-5-copy.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I don't normally look through the User Reviews on IMDB.com, because...- well, because they're user reviews on IMDB.com, of all amateur critic reviews, they're by a large margin, the absolute least credible or worth looking into, but I was scrolling down the page, I caught one of them, and-eh, yikes....! I won't say which of the reviews for "Test Pattern" popped up on the front page, or quote it directly, mainly because I don't want to give this ignorant asshole any form of acknowledgement, but trust me, even saying that doesn't narrow it down as much as you'd think it would. Man, there are some real ignoramuses who write what they think are their "hot takes" on this film in particular. ("Ignoramus" is the nice word I would use to describe them btw. Some might find it hard to believe but I do actually censor myself here.) </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Anyway, some of those (finger quotes) "reviews" (blows raspberries) ring as being especially horrid considering the subject matter of "Test Pattern", the low-budget indy from first-time writer/director Shatara Michelle Ford. The movie begins following the early parts of the romance between Renesha and Evan. (Brittany S. Hall and Will Brill) She's an African-American corporate worker who eventually begins transitioning to working on the business end of social work, while Will is a white tattoo artist, and they seem quite lovely together. Very caring and knowing how to give each other space when needed and love when needed. The next major sequence is Renesha going out with her friend Amber (Gail Bean) the night before she starts her new job. Evan, is not worried, not jealous, nor should he be. The two girls do connect with a couple of guys, Mike and Chris (Drew Fuller and Ben Levin) while out at the bar. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Then, the movie takes a very dark turn. I should warn people who might be sensitive to talk of sexual assault, but yeah, while Amber seems okay, Renesha has a bad reaction to an edible and inevitably blacks out, and wakes up on one of the guy's bed, and with one of the guys. She doesn't remember what happened but she knows something bad did, and doesn't quite know what to do about it. Much of the rest of the movie is something I've never actually thought about before, but after I did think about it, the nightmare possibility scenarios did begin to go through my head, as Evan drives Renesha around from medical center to medical center, searching for somebody to administer a rape kit. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Now, a normal and admittedly trivial movie, might use this time to have some kind of great conflict between these characters, probably one where, in an effort to blow off steam, the boyfriend would become angry, unsupportive and begin making some backhanded statements about how and why she ended up in such a position. "Test Pattern", doesn't do that. Oh, he's definitely mad, in fact he's madder than she seems to be. She seems content to forget the whole situation entirely, especially as it does get comically and tragically more and more difficult and ridiculous to find a place that A. has rape kits and B. has somebody who's actually certified to use them. Yeah, I didn't know this either until I looked it up, but in America they're called Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners, or SANEs, and because of how invasive, time consuming and possibly traumatizing the rape kits themselves are to conduct-, well, it's not always a requirement that administrators be trained, but it's not exactly a bad idea, especially considering that this is a process of gathering evidence for the police. and there are ways in order to preserve that evidence without tampering or compromising it, that a regular, standard-issue nurse might not be astute or aware of how to do it. And, not every medical facility has them on hand, and this frustrates the boyfriend who basically wants to get whoever did this, while the wife would rather, just want to forget the whole night and day.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"> </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Maybe I'm just a guy, but I relate to Evan here; this guy drugged and assaulted his girlfriend and he'll do it again to someone else. I get his anger and I like that, it's not him blaming her and while she's nowhere near being the most comfortable she could be, nor how comforting he could be in this situation, but...., mostly we get her perspective and that means, it's all traumatic, insidious, and very useless. Like, the whole affair, and just how things can happen to her and even after going through that, and everything that comes after, and still have little-to-nothing done, that kind of uselessness, where the system's basically too weak to protect her. Or designed not to. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">"Test Pattern" is fairly minimal overall, It's barely 80 minutes long and doesn't come with any satisfactory ending. I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't be shocked if this film was at least a little autobiographical, and it's nakedness is basically just an attempt to document not just the events, but to get to the core emotions afterwards. This feeling that everything around you is freaking out and scared, but you're just trying to block out all such noise in an effort to shelter one's own pains and traumas of being violated. "Test Pattern" is a good title for this, and it is the peoples' reactions to these events and how they're portrayed that says more about the audience than the film and story itself. This is a movie that's definitely intended to show and reveal our biases while it shows it's flaws in society and the system's treatment of rape victims, and how we perceive them, and for that, I think it more-than-accomplishes it's goal. Strong, memorable and albeit, disturbing first feature film. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>AZOR </b>(2021) Director: Andreas Fontana</span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.rogerebert.com/uploads/review/primary_image/reviews/azor-movie-review-2021/azor-movie-review-2021.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="333" data-original-width="800" height="266" src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.rogerebert.com/uploads/review/primary_image/reviews/azor-movie-review-2021/azor-movie-review-2021.jpeg" width="640" /></a></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">It's always at times where a country needs major reforms, isn't it? It's never when the country, is just doing okay, or just needs a few changes. That's what a bellhop at the beginning of "Azor" tells the movie's protagonist Yvan (Fabrizio Rongione) when asked about some of the country's delays he's noticed when getting into town. I'm not entirely sure, if it's always when the country was actually in a bad place, when dictators would rule to power, or if perhaps that's only what the propaganda that they themselves probably perpetuated said, but it's not incorrect to say that most countries are indeed struggling at the time. I mean, the trains really did used to run late in Italy. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">It's something that peppers along the edges of "Azor", the debut feature by Swiss filmmaker Andreas Fontana, a Carol Reed meets Joseph Conrad mystery that dives deep into the depths of rule under dictatorship. Yvan and his wife Ines (Sephanie Cleau) travel to Argentina searching for Yvan's partner in banking Keys. They're Swiss bankers who have quite a few customers among the Argentinean upper crust, but his banking partner has become missing.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">He's not the only one though. The more he dives into the sophisticated world, the deeper in the nation's underbelly he goes. The movie takes place in 1980, four years after Videla headed a military junta to overthrow Isabel Peron, and this would've been right in the middle of what's been called the nations "Dirty War", a time when, well, a lot of Argentineans who protested, criticized or rejected the military dictatorial rule, were suddenly apart of "Los Desparacidos" or "The Disappeared". </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">It's a weird kind of mystery where we'll dealing with a search for what happened to a missing comrade, but essentially you're there to ensure everyone he was working with that the job of handling their money is still secure. Swiss banking is of course infamous for it's strict adherence to privacy and it's severe lack of quality control over it's clientele, so while, in the streets there's murder and crimes against the public going on, we're actually getting guided through this journey of capitalist corruption, through the eyes, of another person participated in that corruption essentially, but he's seeing it from a differing perspective. I saw a lot of Conrad comparisons in the reviews, and by the end, he actually is travelling down a river into a literal jungle, looking for his Kurtz, but he never does find his "friend", he just finds the situation and the country, and perhaps himself, deeper and deeper into this world of dictatorship. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Of course, why go down that trip down a river when there's a rooftop pool one could traverse at the hotel you're at? "Azor" is a complex film that says a lot about authority and genocidal dictatorship and those who help fund their orchestrations. It shows how easily some can get suckered into such a world, especially when you're surrounded by it and only observe the horrors of the world from, the inside of the cab you're taking, at a distance. Or even if you do see it, you just remember, just how bad it was beforehand....</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>ANNE AT 13,000 FT. </b>(2021) Director: Kazik Radwanski </span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐1/2</span></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><br /></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://torontofilmcritics.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Anne-at-13000ft_2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://torontofilmcritics.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Anne-at-13000ft_2.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">There aren't too many genres that are genuinely guarantee to always pissed me off, but "Anne at 13,000 Ft." is definitely a good member of one of them. It's that classic indy genre I call, "Movie Where You Keep Waiting To Find Out What-The-Fuck's With This Person, And Then They Never Tell You"! Or as I sometimes might call it, "The Other Parker Posey Indy Film Genre." It's slightly different than the normal "Parker Posey Indy", where you only have like half of a movie written out, so you cast Parker Posey as a lead and hope that if she'll go as over-the-top and ridiculous as possible, and somehow by doing that, you'll end up with a full movie. No, this is the other version, where the main character just keeps acting out in weird ways and you keep waiting and wondering for why and what the great reveal of this character's behavior is going to be, and then eventually, you don't really get an answer, she just, apparently is that. I don't really associate Parker Posey with this genre, although she's definitely been in a couple, but my usual go to example for this genre is Tea Leoni's performance in "Spanglish", but despite how batshit what-the-fuck performance that was, it's not really the best example in this case. These are small indy drama films where we focus in on a troubled erratic character, often, usually a young attractive woman like Anne (Deragh Campbell), who's behavior is just so bizarre and out there, but she's still somewhat sympathetic and you're just trying to figure out why she's acting in such ways, and then, they don't really get to a good answer or any answer really.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Not that you necessarily need a good answer for films like these mind you; in fact there are actually some really good films that have this structure, but the best of these, do reveal and filter through, not complete answers always, but they give us more exact indications as to why these characters act in the ways that they do. Patty Jenkins's "Monster" with Charlize Theron's performance for instance, can easily fit this. One of my more favorite recent ones is Adam Salky's "I Smile Back" which has a very underrated performance from Sarah Silverman at it's core, but in those films, they dive way more into why a character is like that. "Anne at 13,000 Ft.", it-, I don't want to say it doesn't have an answer to it, but boy, it's not a real good one. Basically Anne acts in these ways where she's constantly struggling to get her grip on the world, because she went skydiving.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Skydiving????</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Yeah, skydiving. This is supposed to sorta explain why she's a trainwreck, I think; I guess? </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">This is actually a Canadian film, so-eh, perhaps there's some kind of stigma or cliche about skydivers in Canada that I'm just not aware of, maybe? There's a decent chance that I could just be missing something here. Well, okay, maybe I am missing a little bit; I've never skydived myself, but I do know that people who skydive a lot, tend to enjoy it, (At least I hope they do; that'd be a dumb thing to keep doing if you really hated doing it) but I've also heard that the reason that a lot of them do it, on top of the adrenaline rush obviously, is that they're often more, "at home" or "at ease" in the air, than they are when they're simply going about the regular goings-on of the day. I've heard similar anecdotes about a lot of extreme activities in fact, people struggle with the benign and trivial realities of life and so they find activities like skydiving to help them get through that. (Shrugs) The thing is so, with this film, it kinda feels like, we start with the skydiving and then the main character Anne, starts behaving strangely to the world, which, I'm not sure that's how that works. I think it's more likely that people who are already struggling with their environments and then they find a sense of relief with activities like skydiving. Is this why she's like the worst elementary school teacher who's constantly complaining and getting belittled by all the other teachers because she comes in late, doesn't sign in for work, or throws water on teachers who are trying to help her, under some vague threat of feeling closed in? Is this why her dating life is a mess? Or her homelife? It's all erratic in ways that you keep feeling like there's gotta be more going on here. We don't get any solutions or answers and the last shot is of Anne, being the last one to exit a plane, by skydiving, and, I assume her parachute works and all, but I don't know, she really likes skydiving and everything else is kinda just, bleh?</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I feel like there's gotta more to this. I was stunned when looking this film up that it took two years to film, it's barely 75 minutes long, and frankly felt like it was stretching for that; I would thought this was shot in like, a month, at most two months. I have a few suspicions about this, perhaps there is a greater, more deeper script but it got sliced heavily in the editing room, or during shooting they could barely get enough time and money together to shoot the material they had and that means they didn't quite get enough? Or it was too thin on the page and he just kept shooting and shooting and possibly improvising a lot, until he had enough to sorta cobble together for a feature. I'm speculating on this here, I'm not too familiar with the film's director Kazik Radwanski, but he's mostly known documentaries for television and short films before; this is only his third feature film but his other two features, at least by their descriptions, "Tower" and "How Heavy This Hammer" sound like similar kinds of meandering slice-of-life pieces, but they also sound way more interesting and much more like they're telling a full story, or at the very least, giving a full and perhaps more complex character arc. They seem way more thought through. "Anne at 13,000 Ft." I think had potential; maybe if they showed real differences and distinctions between Anne, before she goes on her first skydiving adventure and then seeing a lot of these interactions afterwards, and really showing how the experience changed and shifted her, I think it would be more compelling and I'd be more accepting of some of her stumbles through work and life, but here, it just seems like a character who stumbles through life, had always stumbled through life, and she stumbles through it so badly that you're downright amazed that she somehow was competent enough to become an elementary school teacher, and after she stumbled into skydiving, she's now stumbling with an obsession of going skydiving? </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Honestly, she seems way more like the unstable best friend Jo, played by Norma Kuhling in Dan Sallitt's film "Fourteen", a character who goes through severe undiagnosed and diagnosed mental disorders and drug addiction before dying too young, which, might possibly be true for this character, but I don't think that was the intent. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">There's potential here, but as this films stands, on a letter grade of A-F though, it's an incomplete. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>BEANS </b>(2020) Director: Tracey Deer</span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MIlC3zT1gw4" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe> </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">George Carlin was right about golf courses. He was right about a lot of things, but whether you admire, participate or like the sport or not, it is a stupid amount of wasted land and there are too many of them out there, and they should be retaken by the public. Or, in this case, the rightful owners. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">"Beans" is a Canadian film, but really it's a Mohawk film. It's filmmaker Tracey Deer grew up on the Kahnawake First Nations Reserve in Quebec, and was the creator/producer of the series "Mohawk Girls". which was kinda the First Nations version of "Girls". "Beans" is titular nickname of 12-year-old Tekehentahkhwa (Kiawentiio) a young Mohawk girl who's life and family get caught up in Kanesatake Resistance. Or, as it was known more often at the time, the Oka Crisis. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">If you're a millennial American like me, you'll probably have little-to-no recollection of this, even if, again, like me, you were alive through all of this.... Okay, so Oka, Quebec is right on the Ottawa River, it's about 30 miles west of Montreal, and near the Reserve. Brief history of Canada treatment of Indigenous Peoples, um,... think of America and Indigenous People and it's about the same, and maybe worst even, somehow.... I'd be here all day if I go into everything, but for our purposes, there was a land dispute that involved Oka wanting to build a golf course on property claimed by the Mohawk. Eventually, Now, this original dispute went all the way through the courts before a small golf course was built, but when they wanted to expand the golf course over more land, the city used that original ruling to claim that it was their property and despite stiff resistance and protest, refused to even consider or acknowledge the Mohawk's claim. The Mohawk people, refused to let this go through. This lead to a severe standoff between them; it's one of the few really big and violent and yes, deadly disputes to take place in the Americas between Indigenous Peoples and national government in the late 20th Century, and this Resistance lasted a couple months, and, there are documentaries and other texts that go over all the details, and we see it play out through Beans's eyes here, 'cause this thing lasted well over two months, including bringing in several policing forces- and all over a goddamn golf course of all things.... I don't think you could've concocted something more moustache-twirling cliche and evil if you tried. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">It's at this time that Beans is caught in the middle of several growing crossroads here. At the beginning of the movie, we see her in a school interview that her mother Lily (Rainbow Dickerson) was pushing for at an exclusive mainly white private school. She's smart enough to go of course, but once the Resistance starts, she begins to get disappointed and disillusioned with some of the expectations after experience the racism and violence first-hand. She also befriends a tough, older Mohawk girl, April (Paulina Alexis) who she sees as inspiration for her outspoken don't-give-a-fuck demeanor. Once she gets in with her, she becomes influenced by her. Making her clothes slightly more adult and modern, starting to use more cursed language, and even, during one weird bonding moment, eh, whippings with a stick, so that she can learn to live with pain...- That part was weird, but I kinda got it, when afterwards she starts cutting herself after flipping out after the family car was attacked by rock-throwing Quebec protestors and the cops that didn't do anything to protect her. Only in Quebec can "They don't even speak French" be considered an insult to people who speak English. (Oh yeah, eh, Quebec is weird. I know we all like to link all of Canada together as though they're all just they're own land, but there are different parts of the country and different traditions and such, and without going into too much detail, eh, Quebec is like their weird province. [Especially back then, I might add, 'cause there was actually a lot going on in the province back in the '90s, people forget that now, but it was fairly contentious there on multiple fronts.{I mean, contentious for Canada at least, but still....}])</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Beans also has a tender crush on April's brother Hank (D'Pharoah Woon-a-Thai), who's probably not the greatest choice for a first crush, and also, her relationship with her younger sister Ruby (Violah Beauvais) who admires her, begins to get suddenly strained, but as things get worst around everyone from the Resistance and as Beans starts acting out in response, she gets caught up in the middle. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Believe it or not, I'm still kinda being vague about a lot of the events in the film; it's ultimately a coming-of-age story, but even then, there's a lot of life going on here and it's not just as simple as one side vs. another; it's a complicated film that has more layers to it. Like how April's family is much more troubled than Beans but she doesn't quite see that on first glance and only kinda eventually realizes it. In some ways the Mohawk deal with the same problems as we do, and in others there's deeper and more troubling contexts to their problems that resonate far deeper from centuries-old wounds that will never heal. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">For those curious, eventually the Tribes and several of the nation's liberal and empathetic Canadians begin to come together and defend the Mohawk from the impeding militarization of the conflict and the government eventually bought out the land, cancelling the golf course, although the land still remains in the government's control, not the Mohawk. As for "Beans", she finds herself, probably in a little too cliche a tidy-up manner, almost going for a little too much symbolism in the end, but it works. It's both a good reminder of a very dark time in recent history, and also shows the struggle of having to grow up, not just in the shadow, but right in the crossfire of the conflict. It's a bit of a story of a war-torn country with Catherine Hardwicke's "Thirteen" in the middle, but sometimes the story at the center of your own life will differ greatly than the one going on outside that'll be written about in history books. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>RAMS </b>(2020) Director: Jeremy Sims</span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BN2U0ZGM5ZWUtZWU1Yy00YTQzLTlhMTctMjlkMGE1MDFkZDAxXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjE5MjEwMzA@._V1_.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="426" src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BN2U0ZGM5ZWUtZWU1Yy00YTQzLTlhMTctMjlkMGE1MDFkZDAxXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjE5MjEwMzA@._V1_.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">"Rams" is a curious little film. It's an Australian film that's a remake of an Icelandic film. Now Australian cinema has it's own quirks that fascinate me, but Icelandic cinema is a little more of a mystery to me, but I had heard of "Rams"; the film was their submission for the Foreign Language Oscar film that year, and it's a highly beloved film there. One publication called it the 2nd greatest Icelandic film of all-time! That's high praise. Unfortunately I haven't seen that original film yet; it's on my Netflix queue, and I'll get to it eventually. but I'm not surprised this was an Icelandic film first. However, I'd also buy it if you told me this film was Australian. Both countries, are surprisingly similar in a lot of ways, one of them, is their farming traditions, especially sheep farming.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">"Rams" is about two brothers, Colin (Sam Neill) and Les (Michael Caton), who are neighboring sheep farmers, often competing in local competitions, but never talking to each other. We don't get exactly why they're so at odds, and why it's been going on for, apparently several decades. Things change after one of Les's prized sheep are diagnosed with Ovine John's Disease, or OJD. It's a pretty nasty disease and it can spread like a pandemic. The whole Western Australian area is in trouble, which is sparsely populated an they're in a heavily sheep-farming area, and now, all the sheep have to be killed because of how serious the disease is. This puts the whole town and especially the two brothers at odds. Colin is the more dependable farmer, who seems to be obliging by the federal regulators who are coming in to oversee the humane slaughtering of all the sheep in the region, with compensation for the inconvenience, but such a change to the area. Both brothers inevitably find a way to fight against the government's attempts to cleanse the area. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Western Australia is actually fairly known for having been free of this disease, so I imagine something similar has either happened there, or this story is a warning or an imagining of what could happen if that changes. The movie has a somber feeling for most of the film, especially as so little is revealed and so slowly about why these two brothers don't get along. Actually, this strange disagreement oddly reminded me of Walter Salles "Behind the Sun", and the conflict between the two families in that film, which is weird 'cause tonally that's not at all comparable, although that was a film based off of a European text that was adapted to be told in a completely different part of the world. I can't tell if this kind of tension is just common, or perhaps if this Eurocentric idea of conflict kinda contrasts with the location here. It seems reasonable enough though. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">The film was directed by Jeremy Sims, the guy behind "Last Cab to Darwin", an intriguing road movie that dealt with a man dealing with his own impending death. So far, I can't quite get a read on him as a filmmaker, but "Rams" is probably a little better. I think I would've enjoyed it more if I didn't see it after a surviving a pandemic. Sam Neill is really good here, and Miranda Richardson is strong as the local veterinarian who likes Colin, but isn't really willing to make any real leap romantically, hell he can't even talk to his brother who literally owns the shed next to him, and they're both grazing sheep that came from their father's own lineage and barn. I do like how the movie inevitably comes together and reveals itself at the end, but it also portrays the government in this instance as particularly douchey. Apparently the ending from the original was changed from a snowstorm to a fire where the climax ends; I think that was a good idea, but I think the film had ultimately dried up for me by then. I might appreciate it more when I finally get around to the original, but I don't like it that much more. For what's good about it, it's worth recommending. </div></div></div></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696790060036702346.post-74603901522945933302022-09-13T18:20:00.000-07:002022-09-13T18:20:31.706-07:0074th PRIMETIME EMMYS AWARDS ANALYSES: "TED LASSO" and "SUCCESSION" REPEAT, "THE WHITE LOTUS" SWEEPS, and THOUGHTS on a GOOD, but FORGETTABLE SHOW AND THE STATE OF THE AWARDS FOR THE FUTURE. <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gsBg0kbdk5A" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe>
<div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Okay I'm gonna get this out the way, eh, no, "Living Single" was not "Friends" before "Friends". Sorry, it wasn't. For one, Queen Latifah was the star of that show, there was no star of "Friends", it was all equal supporting actors. (And for the record, that is the distinguishing factor with "Friends" before anything else. Every other show had a main star or two, and everyone else was Supporting, "Friends" had every performer having equal standing with each other.) Also, when I remember "Living Single", I remember the show being as much about the hip hop magazine world that Khadijah worked at, as much as the foils of her friends who's lives all revolved around her. So, I think there's much stronger arguments that "Living Single" was the original "Just Shoot Me", or really, more like the original, "Ellen", which people who are my age remember was originally called "These Friends of Mine" in the show's first season. I'll give that argument more credence, but the original "Friends"? It's a funny joke, and I kinda get it, but I really think that's a stretch. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Anyway, I wasn't able to watch the Emmys live like I normally would, but I had work at my-eh, well, not my real job, but it's the one that gives me money, so I'm watching the replay on Peacock as I write this, and this show definitely feels very much like the Oscars this year in that, it's pretty clear that most of the people behind the show didn't really care that much about it and were putting things together on the fly. That said, they're doing a decent and more coherent job overall. Kenan Thompson was funny, when he finally got to his monologue. In terms of the dance numbers at the beginning, ehh,-... I mean, every few years, the Emmys will do something that revolves around television theme songs, and this was very bleh.... I think part of it is that theme songs aren't as memorable or interesting anymore, and aren't as synonymous with television as they used to be, but also, I've been around to remember better ways of celebrating them at these shows.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">As to the show, I like the set and the setting, and how they used it. This is the way you do a televised version of a theater in the round; very much like the Tonys would do, and very unlike how the Emmys used to try to do it. (Especially that one horrible Fox year with Ryan Seacrest hosting.) That said, I don't love all the decisions. I'm not crazy about the DJ and party atmosphere and some of the strange song selections for the winners. I noticed they occasionally stopped that when "SNL" won Variety Sketch Series, which even they seemed depressed at winning, but eh, it seemed like desperation to stay upbeat. (Also, Lorne Michaels looks, rough. Like, really rough.) </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I liked that Kia commercial where they showed you how you can show completely different scenes with the same lines of dialogue, that was cool in theory. In execution it was okay.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Did anybody know Sofia Vergara was on "America's Got Talent" now? Why do they always have foreign judges on that show, what the hell? It's kinda insulting when you think about it, like- well, I guess America judges a lot of other countries enough, but still...., like I know Britain's Got Talent has British judges, so it's really kinda fucked up if you think about. (Man, Britain television, especially reality television has a lot of bad undercurrents around it, doesn't it.) Also, did anybody know "The Good Doctor" was still on the air? Why is it still on the air? </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Also, Jerrod Carmichael what the hell man, wear a shirt! Like, I'm pretty lenient on award fashion in general, like, what the hell was Sarah Paulson wearing and who told her to do her hair and makeup like that; I love her but she looked a display piece, at a museum showing an avant-garde chess board, but good lord, that was still better than you accepting an Emmy without a shirt on! Maybe a musician at the Grammys can get away with that, you're a comedian at the Emmys! You don't have to wear a suit or a dress, but c'mon man!!!!</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Also, I'm sorry, I don't know why the In Memoriam keeps fucking doing this, guest musical performer thing, but it sucks! It has always sucked, just stop it. Have the orchestra playing something sad and somber, and stop moving the camera around blocking our view of the video package of those who've passed. I don't know why this is so hard, but goddammit, it needs to stop! The music should be the background for the Memoriam not a feature! Literally, this is like the only part of television that should always be heard but never seen, and every goddamn award show fucks this up now! STOP IT! I don't need John Legend to be here singing, I just need to be able to see Louie Anderson's name and picture on the screen for a few seconds while I cry!!!! And this is not out of nowhere btw, the first time I remember an award show doing this, people bitched about it so much they made them load the montage on the internet so everyone can see it, and yet, we keep doing it, and that was back when it was not easy to do that! </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I was happy though that that was followed by Mariska Hargitay and Christopher Meloni actually getting a chance to be funny for once. It was goofy, but I like that. They've been in those roles for so long, and especially Mariska Hargitay, like, low-key, everybody in the industry knows how great an actress she is and she should really find some time to do some more fun stuff to show off all her acting skills. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />I do love that Jennifer Coolidge decided to just hijack the stage because she couldn't move when she won Supporting Actress for "The White Lotus". Oh, she's one of my favorite winners tonight; I was always annoyed and sad at how "2 Broke Girl$" turned her into a caricature, so I'm glad she's finally getting recognized. I would've loved it if she and Jane Lynch had both won, we could've had a brief "Best in Show" reunion. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Sheryl Lee Ralph's great speech was special too. She's only the second African-American to win Supporting Actress for a Comedy Series after Jackee Harry's win for "227" way back in the '80s. People forget she was one of the original "Dreamgirls" on Broadway, nice to see her sing, and I'm so pissed I didn't switch to her in predictions, dammit. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Oh, yeah, I didn't post a blog on it, but I did post my Gold Derby ballot FB, you can find the link <a href="https://www.facebook.com/david.baruffi/posts/pfbid02hgppDWFqpCK2dfJAbttF3u26X49p4ERhuJ3WDZZy3NZPKrPozapaQK26LHj23YDql?notif_id=1662938643974741&notif_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif">here</a>, and that one of the biggest ones I wish I switched on. That and I was really pissed I missed "Lizzo's Watch Out for the Big Grrrls" being the upset winner in Competition Program. Like, literally, the only reason I didn't switch was because no first year reality-competition program had ever won in the category. Anyway, you can look at those predictions and thoughts, and see how I did, mostly I'm happy at how many predictions I missed on, I had in second or third. I could've and should've done better, especially since I apparently forgot to switch Limited Series Directing back to "The White Lotus". (I swore I changed that earlier, dammit!) </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The Limited Series category was owned by "The White Lotus" taking all five Emmys they were up for, including Series, Writing, Directing and both Supporting Performances with Coolidge and Murray Bartlett taking them. Lead Actor for a Miniseries started the show with Michael Keaton winning for Best Actor for "Dopesick" and he kicked things off well with a lovely speech that you can tell he was a bit contempt to make, 'cause he's Michael Keaton, he's always like that in real life, and that's fine. We've come to expect it of him. Amanda Seyfried took home Supporting Actress for "The Dropout", and it's nice to see her finally win. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">One thing with television, particularly the Emmys is when you see people who've been doing television for years and years finally win. That's another reason with Coolidge or Sheryl Lee Ralph's win is so cool. "Abbott Elementary" also got Quinta Brunson a win for Writing for the Pilot episode, but the comedy category ended up with "Ted Lasso" winning for the second straight year. Jason Sudeikis and Brett Goldstein also won for the show for Lead and Supporting Actor respectably, and the show won Directing as well. Jean Smart also went two-for-two for Lead Actress for "Hacks", rounding out the Comedy categories. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Drama Series was also more retreads, with "Succession" winning Series, and Matthew McFadden again winning Supporting Actor, as well as winning for Writing. Julia Garner won Supporting Actress again for the final season of "Ozark", Directing however went to "Squid Game"" as well as Best Actor as Lee Jung-jae became the first Asian actor to ever win Leading Actor in a Series, and "Squid Game" has become the first foreign language series to win major awards for the Emmys. It also took Directing for it's Pilot episode. So, for a show that tried to be much more exciting than it was, the awards themselves were much more by the book in their recent trends of just sticking to the one or two shows they incessantly like even though they tend to mostly seem more good than great. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I've said my piece earlier on how much I don't like the current voting system, and while I don't think any of the winners this year were bad and the show overall was okay, not spectacular, it was nice to see Kel Mitchell in a cameo there, for instance, the show was mostly, eh, slightly better than average, I guess a B- overall. It was a smoother show than the Oscars were, at least, but honestly, as I'm thinking this through, one of the problems with the Emmys in terms of a Production standard might just be, well, the networks. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I never really thought the network television wheel rotation that the Emmys have used for a while has been a problem until now; I like that the Emmys are still true to their network roots, I like that they're available for everyone to see on television, and I like that despite the more availability and arguably higher quality of streaming options that the four main networks still broadcast the Emmys every year, but the thing is, I don't think they care anymore them. Let's face it, only ABC's "Abbott Elementary" did fairly well among any network series this year, and network shows barely win anything at all anymore, and usually aren't trying to push Emmy-quality programs anymore. They're not putting in the great effort for the show anymore, and maybe when their contract runs out in 2026, maybe we let HBO or say, even a streamer like Hulu, or even a basic cable with quality like AMC or TNT or even BET handle the Emmys in the future. Not every year, but once in a while, through them into the rotation.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I'm worried for next year, which will be the 75th Emmys, their diamond anniversary, and while it'd be nice if one of the three original stalwarts hosted, it's actually Fox's turn in the rotation next year, and I just hope they find a way to spotlight the evolving history of television in a profound and important way that also shows how televisions present also fits into that story of television, without seeming like we're talking about two completely different eras of the entertainment world. One thing the Emmys have lacked is that feeling of reverence, no matter the outcomes of the awards. Ironically, this years group of winners, when they weren't just picking the same-ole same-ole, actually did showcase just how much television has evolved and expanded. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">That's another issue, the Emmys have always been the celebration of the small screen, and yet, the thing is, the screen isn't small anymore. Some Emmy categories are so huge these days that arguably they're harder to win than Oscars now. And while I think it would greatly benefit the Emmys to strive to express themselves in that more grandiose feeling of the big screen, the Emmys themselves as a broadcast still feels devoted to portraying themselves as the big show honoring the small screen. This is why I think maybe it is time, when the latest contract with the networks are up in four years, that maybe switching the Emmys to a cable or streaming service might do some good. Maybe let somebody at HBO give it a shot, especially since HBO Max hasn't cancelled all of their classic tv lineup yet and maybe let them have a go and telling the story of television through the modern eyes. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Also, it'd be able to have more of the categories on the main show that we don't usually see award. I mean, wouldn't you have liked to see "Chip & Dale: Rescue Rangers" win best TV Movie, or "Arcane" with best Animated Series or Chadwick Boseman posthumously win for his Voice-Over work on "What If", or Barack Obama winning for Narrating a documentary on National Parks (Seriously Barack's got two Grammys and now an Emmy, if you count his production company's documentary "American Factory" winning an Oscar, he's getting close to an EGOT) Okay, maybe some of those are still too obscure for the main show, but hey, at least half the speeches wouldn't have to be muted on seven-second delays anymore? </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696790060036702346.post-43563972224406539912022-08-24T03:11:00.003-07:002022-08-24T03:11:20.551-07:00MOVIE REVIEWS #197: "NIGHTMARE ALLEY (Del Toro)", "THE MAN WHO SOLD HIS SKIN", "NOBODY", "THE SOUVENIR PART II", "FAYA DAYI", "THE SPARKS BROTHERS" and "MADRE (aka MOTHER) (Sorogoyen)"<div style="text-align: left;">Eh. Sorry it's been so long; it's been rough getting around to reviews lately. Thankfully I watched a decent number of films that are old enough that I didn't have to review them. The best of that bunch is one that's been stuck on my Netflix queue forever and that's Alejandro Jodorowsky's "The Dance of Reality". Explaining Jodorowsky for those who haven't seen his films can be a chore, but trust me, once you've seen one of his movies, you'll understand why it's so hard to describe him. This is my third feature of his after "El Topo", which is in my Canon of Film, and "The Holy Mountain", and when "The Dance of Reality" came out in 2013, it was his first feature-length film in well over twenty years. A lot of his past films were caught up in royalty disputes, so he didn't make much until those cases ended, but he's been fairly busy ever since. "The Dance of Reality" is very much him. There's a lot going on, and I don't know exactly what it all means, but he can still create some indelible and fantastic imagery and tell these wonderful surrealistic epics. It's definitely one of the films I'm recommending the most out of this group. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Other than that, I feel like I've been running into a lot of movies that I find conceptually interesting moreso than ones I feel are actually compelling. Perhaps I'm just going through a phase. Anyway, let's get to some reviews. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>NIGHTMARE ALLEY </b>(2021) Director: Guillermo Del Toro</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://media.newyorker.com/photos/61bceb0fa781a26a4a73f5ac/master/w_2560%2Cc_limit/Brody-NightmareAlley.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="426" src="https://media.newyorker.com/photos/61bceb0fa781a26a4a73f5ac/master/w_2560%2Cc_limit/Brody-NightmareAlley.jpg" width="640" /></a></div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">With few exceptions I've mostly been left cold by Guillermo Del Toro's work. I'm usually impressed with the visual looks of his movies and the technical skills involved, but most of the time, I just don't entirely know what he's going after. That said, there are exceptions. "The Shape of Water" was the first time I really did get him, and one thing I got was that, despite most of the time, he loves cinema. Classic cinema especially. It's been there this whole time, his love of monsters and horror and fairy tales, harken back to the classics of early pulp cinema. His content might be more low-brow and traditional, but his approach is quite sophisticated. It's rarely appealed to me, but I do finally get why it appeals to others. Mostly, I've found him a-eh, curiosity, you would say.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Curiosity.... That is an interesting word in this context. "Nightmare Alley" is a lot of firsts for Del Toro. For one, it's a remake. Well, I guess it's more of an adaptation, but it's not the first time "Nightmare Alley"'s been made into a film; it was adapted back in the '40s as a George Jessel-produced film noir and directed by Edmund Goulding. It's based on the best-known novel by William Lindsay Gresham. I'm actually watching the original as I write this, it's free on <a href="https://filmdaft.com/how-much-is-a-tv-screenwriter-paid/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%202020%20WGA,minimum%20of%20%243%2C964%20per%20week.">Youtube</a>. Tyrone Power and Joan Blondell. So far, it's definitely a more sanitized version of the story, and overall I'd say that this remake is better and infinitely more intriguing. "Nightmare Alley" does get brought up occasionally as a classic film noir, but I don't think it's a particularly highly regarded one. Both films definitely bate in the language of noir, but what "Nightmare Alley" does have, as opposed to other noir is a great hook, and an unusual location and world it inhabits, the carnival circuit. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Oh yeah, I should probably explain a little of William Lindsay Gresham. He's not actually a particularly noteworthy writer of novels, "Nightmare Alley" is his most successful work, but he led an interesting life. In fact, him and his wife, poet Joy Davidman were the inspiration for C.S. Lewis's "Shadowlands", but in between several struggles with alcoholism and illnesses, before his eventual suicide in 1963, he actually worked quite a bit with J.D. "Doc" Halliday, a noted sideshow performer who taught him some of the tricks of the carny trade. He also later wrote about Harry Houdini and even worked with the great James Randi, the magician and skeptic who was famous for debunking pseudoscience and paranormal phenomenon as well as just other various hucksters and conmen. If you don't know James Randi's work, please look him up one day, he's one of the most important people in the magic and debunking community over these last many years. Anyway Gresham also clearly had some insider knowledge of the working of the old carnival. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">And I do mean, the old carnivals. Not, the kind with ferris wheels and fixed games, I mean, the kind with the ridiculous sideshow acts. The first act we actually see in the film, is a geek performance. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I've had this discussion with some people before, but "geek" actually was an old time word for a freakshow act. This one, (Paul Anderson) is portrayed as some kind of beast-like man who's act is to bite the necks off of a live chicken. We observe him and a few other of the sideshow acts through the perspective of a loner audience member Stanton (Bradley Cooper) who manages to connive his way into a brief gig at the carnival and begins working on the tour as a stagehand and helper before figuring out ways to get in on some acts of his own. He's that man with a past that all these carnivals in films seem to have; that talk of running away and joining the circus, that's definitely a cliche that's often-times accurate and always compelling. And definitely appealing especially through the eyes of Del Toro, and an amazing cast. Willem Dafoe, as the ringmaster, Toni Collette and David Straitharn as aging mentalists that take Stanton under their wing and teach him the mentalism code of there's. Ron Perlman as an aging strongman who takes care of the physical work involved in keeping up the carnival. This movie feels like everybody's having fun making this movie. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">It's not a particular original story, it's about a conman who takes his con too far and begins believing his own con and trying desperately to keep his heist going way too far. This begins when he runs off with the show's electricity act Molly (Rooney Mara) and begins a mentalist show of his own on the tour. Eventually he gets rung in by a psychoanalyst Dr. Lilith Ridder (Cate Blanchett) who, as a psychoanalyst is already pretty on to his con, and essentially wants part of the act as she brings him a couple high-profile patients who are desperate to get in touch with some passed loved ones. Again, some great supporting work here by the likes of Richard Jenkins and Mary Steenburgen. This is a movie seems like it was casted too perfectly to actually exist. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">As to the movie itself though, um, it's fine. Oddly, it's a more interesting film to talk about than to watch, which is something that I find happens with a lot of Del Toro's films. Oddly, instead of his films kinda just meandering and living too long in their world, this movie's problem is that it's too obvious and old-fashioned. No, it's not inherently similar to the original film and stylistically it's nowhere near that but it feels too much like a movie that could've been from that era. Exchange Goulding for a more interesting director from the time, say maybe Tod Browning, and yeah you might've ended up with that feels like this at the time. There's not really much of a twist to the material or the approach and that definitely hinders the enjoyment of it. It's basically like watching all these actors, but like, in a play you've seen a million time before, and it's not like they're doing something completely new with it or anything, it's just them doing the play exactly as you would've expected the play to be done. It's not that it's not impressive, or done poorly or anything, but it's just something been seen and done so much better too many more times now. I mean, the movie it actually reminded me the most of wasn't an old film noir, but Christopher Nolan's "The Prestige" and I'm not entirely big on that film but yeah, it's much more interesting than "Nightmare Alley". </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">This is still fine though, it's just more impressive from far away than it is when you look up close and you can see that the geek is just a regular man doing a performance. Once the trick is told, the trick is sold as they say, and this trick has long been told and long been sold. It's still a nice trick though. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>THE MAN WHO SOLD HIS SKIN </b>(2020) Director: Kaother Ben Hania</span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><br /></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/TMWSHS-Yahya-Mahayni-with-audience.-Photo-Courtesy-Tanit-Films.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="493" data-original-width="800" height="394" src="https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/TMWSHS-Yahya-Mahayni-with-audience.-Photo-Courtesy-Tanit-Films.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I was partially hoping that the title of this one would be metaphoric, but no, it is indeed quite literal. It's not as squeamish as I feared, but then again, it's also not as weird of an idea as I imagine others might think. People have indeed sold their skin. I remember years ago hearing about one person who had determined to tattoo their entire body, in order for it to be displayed after their death, with the profits from the display to pay for their children's college fund. An idea that seemed a little counter-productive, as I imagine that many tattoos would be pretty expensive...., maybe not enough to pay for all of college, but you know, a couple years at least.... (Shrugs) I don't know whatever happened to that person, but he was far from the first person to have essentially sold their skin, as a piece of art. Hell, people who have a lot of tattoos used to actually be apart of the kind of freak shows you'd see like at the ones in "Nightmare Alley", now that's just, what you regularly see walking down the street. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">In fact this movie itself, is inspired by an actual art project from controversial Belgian artist Wim Delvoye, the guy famous for tattooing pigs, (I mean, actual pigs, he puts tattoos on living pigs. Yeah, the modern art world can be....) and even the story for this film was based on an old short story by...- </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">(Eyes widen in shock at Wikipedia page) </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Roald Dahl?!?!?!?! Seriously? Like I know he was much darker than how most of his more popular material is perceived, but really? </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Anyway, Tunisia's first ever film to earn an International Feature Oscar submission, "The Man Who Sold his Skin" takes a modern look at the art world, the relationship, literally between art and artist and well, the kind of desperation it takes for people to become an art project. The movie's protagonist is Sam (Yahya Mahayni) a Syrian refugee who manages to escape Raqqa along with his girlfriend Abeer (Dea Liane) only for them to be separated again when she is forced to marry a rich guy in Brussels by her family. This leads him to looking for ways to earn enough money and travel status in order to get her out of that relationship. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">That's when he meets with an "artist", Soraya (Monica Bellucci) I say, "artist" because she's essentially one of those artists who mainly puts her name on works and then they sell more. She's basically an art world shitposter. She thinks of herself kinda like a modern-day Duchamp but is really more like a slightly-more artist Kotsabi. (And I mean, modern-day Kotsabi, not '80s Kotsabi) With a little bit of Bansky's wit, as her idea is to have Sam's back tattooed with a copy of his passport that he got for selling his skin. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">That's kinda dehumanizing, and yeah, the artwork is controversial. And he does begin regretting it at times when he's more regarded as an art project as oppose to a human, like when he's told to not answer questions from adorning fans. He just sits there in the museum with his shirt off. (I actually looked up that art piece "Tim" that this character is inspired by, and during the pandemic, he was still apart of a museum in Australia and he was alone in the empty museum forever.) </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I have a hard time coming up with complete thoughts on the film. I get the metaphor and the targets of the satire, but this is might an instance where the mark might be too on-the-point. Like, we see why somebody would do this, but we don't really get a sense of being a Syrian refugee. We see the macabre of the art world and the contrast is clear, but not necessarily sharp and biting dark satire we need. I mean, it's there, but it almost seems too easy a target to contrast the life of a refugee to the excesses of the art world. I don't really know if there's a greater point here or not. The refugee crisis is definitely important, but I can think of better movies exploring it. The art world is definitely fodder for capitalist and western gluttony, but there's other more prudent aspects of western culture that you can show effecting the lives of refugees in more straightforward ways. (As well other recent movies I can think of that skew the art world, Ruben Ostlund's "The Square" comes to mind.)</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I guess I'm wondering if the movie would change that much if there was somebody other than a Syrian refugee who had motives and reasons for participating in this art piece, would the film change all that much? Hypothetically it should, but perhaps the fact that he's a refugee is just another artificial layer of depth, kinda like the art piece and the art world in general. It's the first feature I've seen from Kauther Ben-Hania and it's only her second feature outside of a few documentaries. So I suspect she's trying to say something greater here. It is interesting that this is a Tunisian film; Tunisia was the country that started the Arab Spring that inevitably led to the disagreements that cause the Syrian Civil War and the Syrian Refugee Crisis. I don't know, how much that fact effected the film or it's filmmakers, but it's something I thought about. I don't think it's an act of callousness to not be considering that, but perhaps that's the point, that using the art world as a metaphor for the callous approach the world, particularly the western world has had to the refugee crisis is? </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Or maybe I just have to see more from Ben Hania. She seems like an interesting filmmaker if nothing else. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>NOBODY </b>(2021) Director: Ilya Naishuller</span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><br /></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.slantmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/nobody-1000x600.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="800" height="384" src="https://www.slantmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/nobody-1000x600.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">A Facebook friend of mine, and a fellow film critic I respect, Michelle Kisner brought up a point about action heroes recently, about how men action heroes can just exist without much background information at all, while a female action hero, needs basically her entire background to explain how and why she's able to do the strong masculine things that the male heroes do. I'm paraphrasing heavily here, she actually said it a lot better than that, and was more specifically referencing the film "Prey", which I guess is getting some slack for this...- I don't know for sure..., (Apparently it's a sequel to "Predator", which, I haven't seen "Predator" much less this, way-too-long after the original, sequel, so....) but I tend to agree with this analysis. Even some great movies with female action leads, like both volumes of "Kill Bill" and "La Femme Nikita" for instance, pretty much fit that. I also find those movies better than most action films and heroes, and in general, while I don't necessarily need explanation for how action heroes can the amazing things they do, but in general, I would also add that it's usually better male or female, that we do indeed know the backgrounds of the main hero. (And really, I usually tend to not like action heroes with characters having background anyway, and frankly I don't care for a lot of the-eh, like the Steven Seagal or Jean-Claude Van-Damme type action films where they are just, there, exist and beat up everybody.) </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">"Nobody" isn't one of those male-led action films that doesn't have an action hero backstory, but it does remind me of one of my personal action-hero tropes that I don't like much. I call it the "Death Wish" narrative, after that film and it's series, which basically has two parts to it, neither that I like. The first one, is that, the character is inspired to action, because of an attack on their family. That's what happens here, Hutch's (Bob Odenkirk) house is broken into by some petty thieves. A couple items personal to his family are taken, and he decides to get vengeance on them. There's also the second part of this narrative, how it leads to the action protagonist, ended up deep with organized crime. Actually, that part is a bit circumvented here.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Hutch on the surface has a fairly boring, regular 9-to-5 life and job, but instead of going out to seek out the greater organized syndicate to get revenge, he instead, just, runs into them, because, he wants to and he can. You see, Hutch, while is "Nobody" to everybody else, a fairly innocuous family man, he used to be a hired hand for the CIA, and would be one of the people hired to, ahem, I guess one of the terms they might use would be, depopulate the area, per se. He used to get rid of people who needed to be gotten rid of. And now that he's inadvertantly rejuvenated that part of himself through this petty theft, he's now out to take out Yulian Kuznetsov (Alexey Serebryakov), the local leader of the Russian mob, who's mainly the big money man for the syndicate and it's trading partners. He also enjoys karaoke night. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Now, I don't hate this movie, it's hard to hate a movie that has a car chase/shootout done to Pat Benatar's "Heartbreaker", more movie actions scenes should use that song, but it is that, original basis that is confusing to me quite a bit. I guess the idea of the movie is that the man next door could be a brutal killing machine who's just on dormant, and I like that it reverses that trope and shows a man who doesn't want to avoid going back into the life and instead wants and desires most to rush himself back into it. That's the real big twist that makes "Nobody" a little more tolerable than a lot of these other action movies, plus it is well-made, and well-acted, but I can't really say it's unique or original enough for me. Of course, I think I'm in the minority that constantly wants to see stuff that's different from this genre. I can't seem to remember a goddamn thing about any of the John Wick movies that everybody creamed themselves over; especially the first two, they mostly seemed like these same kind of typical action hero/hitmen films that I've seen and liked, but didn't find particularly compelling to revisit. What they have are good action scenes, but that's just never been a main appeal to me. "Nobody" has a little more then that, but honestly not as much more as I think the movie thinks it does. I mean, it's a movie named after a main character who declares that he himself, is "Nobody", so, yeah, this movie definitely decides to go minimum on the background info on the character, giving us, just enough to know where he is now and to know exactly how he was. It's honestly not that different from a "Death Wish" film plot-wise in that regards. We get the info of how he got this way, but nobody does really question it, perhaps because it's a male lead instead of a female? I wonder what would've happened if we saw this kind of movie, but instead of the old comic actor known for character drama work in film and television wasn't the lead, and just some pretty girl was whose background we didn't know and had to have it mildly explained to us before we found it as believable as we do here?</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">(Long pause)</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Oh wait, that was "The Long Kiss Goodnight" wasn't it?! Oh god, that movie was terrible. Yeah, never mind, "Nobody"'s a better version of that, done smarter and funnier and without the stupid amnesia thing. It's weird how the most minor of details can separate good and crap in this genre though. And yeah, even with the added background, sometimes the action movie can still suck too, male or female action lead. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>THE SOUVENIR PART II </b>(2021) Director: Joanna Hogg</span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2</span><br /></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3PR_ZK57c54" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe> </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Believe it or not, I have been dreading watching this movie more than, pretty much any movie I can think of since it hit my Netflix queue. Much to my surprise, I actually was fairly kind to "The Souvenir" the very autobiographical feature by Joanna Hogg, but in my mind, I just remember finding that movie excruciatingly painful to watch. It actually came damn close to making my worst list despite, technically being a movie I reviewed positively. I was practically dumbstruck by the fact that it was getting a sequel, not the least of which because, it actually seemed like a pretty complete film, but more than that, it just felt like a film I hated to it's core. What was I thinking when I wrote my original review exactly being so charitable to this film about an over-philosophical film student and her awful heroin junkie boyfriend. It got me so off-putting, especially looking at the positive receptions for both that film, and it's predecessor that, I did something that I rarely ever do; I went back and rewatched "The Souvenir" before I dived into the sequel. That might surprise some people, but A. I usually don't have time to watch the previous films back in a franchise, (I'm sure as shit not doing that with the entire MCU every time a new film comes out, that's for sure) but also, if a movie is great or memorable enough, I really shouldn't have too to go revisit it; I should pretty much still have remnants of it on my mind. But yeah, how can I possibly have let this film off the hook and been so much more generous towards it considering how hard and frustrating it was to watch? </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">So, yeah, I watched it again, and I totally get why I was so nice to it. Oh, it's still painful, perhaps, still too painful. And I don't think it's perfect, it's not the best film of this kind, this story of that first bad influence relationship that poisons a young woman's life and possibly career because she can't see how bad the person they're with or the situation actually is, there's better versions, Lone Scherfig's "An Education" as being one of the best recent versions of this, but that film did seem romantic and fantastical and "The Souvenir" is painfully realistic, right down to the annoying film school dialogue between the students. I don't think I knew anybody who actually was in this bad of a relationship, at least not that I was immediately aware of at the time, but as I've grown older, I can definitely say I've seen it elsewhere. That monologue Julie (Honor Swinton Byrne) has about why she hadn't been showing up to film school and tries to explain why she's had to devote so much of herself to a truly worthless boyfriend, is just-, like I don't think I've heard somebody actually say those words to me in my life, but it sure feels like I've heard it way more times than I should have. (And come to think of it, most of the people I can think of that I've tried having that kind of conversation with, are no longer with the person they were with at the time.) Still though, the boyfriend, eventually OD'd, and- I don't know, everything okay now,- well, not great, you're living with the knowledge that you got conned by that fuckup, but y'know, this sharing-too-much therapy film from a privileged upper class British white girl, why am I getting a sequel to this film? </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">What possible story could she still have to tell?!</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">(Sigh)</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">The first line of dialogue in "The Souvenir Part II" is, "My period's late". I blurted out, "Oh shit!" This movie literally shut me up in three words! That's gotta be a record. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Thankfully, the movie doesn't go in that direction, whew! but the movie doesn't just stay static at the same point the last film did either. Julie's boyfriend Tony died of a heroin overdose at the end of "The Souvenir", he was a manipulative asshole, but that doesn't mean that she wasn't still in love with him. "The Souvenir Part II" essentially is her grieving process, but also, her trying to tell her story through making her first feature about the relationship while in film school. In between, we also get sequences where she backs up and tries to find out about her boyfriend's last few days/weeks.... Essentially she's trying to understand him, and herself. It's never done in a way that makes you think that she's only now realizing how stupid it was of her to be with a guy like that, which is probably how a less adept filmmaker would approach this. Hell, that's how I'd probably would've approached this story; it's probably why there's such a struggle on her film set for a lot of her actors and crew to understand the meandering memorial of a film she's making about him. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">In a way, I feel like I should be panning this movie for just how meta it is; on a literal core level, this film could be misplaced as a movie about the making of the last movie, but that's way too simple. The first movie also had a lot of talk and discussion about the more philosophical aspects of film. Like, there's definitely a painful observation she has with one of her fellow aspirational students, Patrick (Richard Ayoade) when he laments about being kicked off his own film's final cut, about how he wanted to be Orson Welles. Yeah, don't we all at some point. Oh, note of advice for any current or future film school students/graduates, don't try to be Orson Welles, you're not Orson Welles. You're not anybody, but you, and when it comes to filmmaking, that's all you can try to be. Essentially, "The Souvenir Part II" is about how Julie, and/or the film's writer-director Joanna Hogg, learned/realized that she was her. Yet, Anthony does linger over her. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">She does make attempts at seeking out those who knew Anthony and even questions her friends and loved ones, including her mother, again played by Honor's real-life mother Tilda Swinton about their feelings and thoughts on him, but it's almost like she's realizing how different everybody else saw him, from the way that she herself saw him. The struggle is being able to show, through film, the way that she saw Anthony. That's always the struggle, of being able to show your vision through what you see, and get others to see it that way. Hard enough, without that thing, being a relationship that you were apart of. I forget who said that we always see those we love as that with which we want to see in them, or something to that effect, we see the best in them to reflect how we see ourselves...? I'm forgetting the old sayings but something of that nature, but it is true.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Anyway "The Souvenir Part II" is far superior to the first film, although it helps to see "The Souvenir" first. The nearest I can compare this to is how Claude Berri's "Manon of the Spring", while being a far better film than it's preceding film "Jean de Florette", works far better with the context of that first film. We see her struggling with the actors in trying to get them to understand their characters, especially as she struggles to understand her own ex-boyfriend, much less what motivation to give to her actor playing her boyfriend. The movie even brings up the criticisms of the first film in the form of some of her teachers critiquing her script, which, their thoughts on her projects have themselves had a compelling arc over these two films as she gets more and more away from their imput and ideas and moves deeply into her own. "The Souvenir Part II" really gets a lot right about filmmaking and a lot of the struggles they have, especially young ones in understanding, developing and trusting their own style and voice, even if and when it'll look like it's amateurish to those around them, perhaps it'll eventually look wrong to herself as well, but, y'know, most films about filmmaking really don't show that struggle. Even the best ones, they're more about the stress and the overwhelming nature of the filmmaking process, not the stumblings of coming up with the process as you go. Maybe that's why "The Souvenir Part II" does work so well to me. Part one, was a lot of talk. Part two, is the action. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">And when the director says the final cut, "The Souvenir" is the finish product you end up with? </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>FAYA DAYI </b>(2021) Director: Jessica Bashir</span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><br /></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.rogerebert.com/uploads/review/primary_image/reviews/faya-dayi-movie-review-2021/faya-dayi-movie-review-2021.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="333" data-original-width="800" height="266" src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.rogerebert.com/uploads/review/primary_image/reviews/faya-dayi-movie-review-2021/faya-dayi-movie-review-2021.jpeg" width="640" /></a></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Hmmm, let's talk about, getting high.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">(Very long pause)</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Did you want to start? No? Well, that sucks, 'cause I don't really get high all that much. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">It's not that I haven't ever...-, but, in trying to explain "the effect" of it, or why it's a feeling or emotion that is prized or appreciated, I don't really get that. My experiences, I can't say that I enjoyed them, but might just be because most of the time I was trying to get work done, and instead of them inducing supposed more creativity in me, they mostly just took out the creative energy I was striving to get. Maybe that's a similar effect to others and their bodies are just more able to adapt, I know mine was not the last time..- ahem, but maybe it's also my inexperience. Maybe I took bad stuff or I took too much stuff in the wrong way...- I dunno. It's not that I hated the experience, or thought it had a negative effect on me, and if it helps you, and it's legal currently in your state or condition, than fine, go right ahead. Did it make me feel closer to God or in some other way, more spiritually enlightened or some other way, get me to feel something deeper.... I can't say it did. Apparently it has for others. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Some people live and swear by it. Some of my most respected creative people who I idolize find a lot of creativity and inspiration in getting high. The hallucinatory that, so far, have not done much for me has done wonders on others. Just to be clear, the word "wonders" in that sentence, is not always meant positively; I definitely know both people who could, and in some cases, should be getting high way more often than they are, as well as people who should absolutely shouldn't be getting high nearly as often as they do, and perhaps shouldn't be allowed to be high at all. (Just because marijuana is more legal now, doesn't mean it's for or good for everybody.)</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Now, let's talk about that hallucinatory effect of getting high, and movies. Now, for me. And for our purposes, we're gonna separate this into two categories. The first being, the age-old practice of getting high and then watching a movie. List your favorite example below. The second category, are those rare movies, for which, the intention and goal of the movie, is to create/recreate that feeling of actually being high. Now, they might still be telling a story, but often that effect of being mesmerized and intoxicated just happens to work to coat the movie the story's telling. One of the more memorable films for me where I felt this effect was Fritz Lang's classic, "Metropolis" and that's a silent movies from almost a hundred years ago, but the effect still is there. There are other times where I don't think it worked; I'm sure Bob Rafelsen was trying something with that when he made "Head", and while I actually like that movie, I can't say it got me to feel like hallucinatory. I guess it also depends on the kind of high you're trying to achieve as well. However, I once watched a DVD of an Ani DiFranco's concert tour doc "Render",... well, that was a more fun high for me, I guess....- </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">The point I'm making here, is that, even if you've experienced this, the overall effect is still subjective. Some people will become entranced and intoxicated by the experience, and others will just, wonder what the hell you're all looking at that's so entertaining. Or, frankly just not care for the haze their in. For that reason, it's hard for me to analyze "Faya Dayi" the black & white documentary from first-time feature director Jessica Bashir. In fact, I've basically been in a daze ever since watching it, and trying to write this review of the film has only further thrown me into the movie's impressionistic hallucinatory vibe, and I just, don't think I like it.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">So, Bashir was born in Mexico City, and is part-Ethiopian, which is one of those things that sounds weirder than it actually since, since Mexico is also a country of immigrants, but it also means that she's periodically returned to her family's homeland and lived there for much of her life, in particular, this ancient highland city just outside Addis Ababa called Harar, where the nation's biggest cash crop, khat, is king. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">What is khat, other than a nice word to know for Scrabble and Boggle? It's a medicinal plant that's for centuries been used in religious rituals of the region, and it still; it's listing as illegal stimulants in most of the west, but it's quite legal in much of East Africa and the Arabic world. For my mind, I remember it from the Stephen Frears film "Dirty Pretty Things" where Chiwetel Ejiofor's character is shown being addicted to it as it helps him stay up at night. It's Ethiopia's biggest cash crop, and it's become a bigger and bigger crop over the years, to the point where this small section of the world where it's cultivated, it's basically engrossed all aspects of life in the city and community. "Faya Dayi" doesn't try to explore the effect directly, rather it's trying to give us the feeling of being apart of that haze of living each and every day with this crop and the feeling that entails. There's some various talks about how the recent past regimes of Ethiopia have treated it's citizens, and other political discussions, but mostly the movie just shows the people who work on the crops, at all points in the cultivating process, and looks at how they live and use the crop. There's some haunting monologues about how one kid's guardian gets paranoid, angry and unpredictable when he's using it. The older villagers are pretty much addicts who wait for the deliveries to come. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I have no idea if the movie succeeds in giving us the exact hallucinatory sense of living in this town or not, but Bashir basically grew up in the area and knows it well and has seen how much the crop have overtaken everything and everyone else in the town. Whether or not it's accurate I guess doesn't matter, when you're all consumed by any kind of substance like this, the tone of life is eventually gonna kinda drift in and out anyway, even if that's not the intent or effect of the drug. What it means for my purposes is that I just don't know how to really rate this film. It's right in that fuzzy, hazy in-between zone for me where I can appreciate what's being done, but I can't really say that I enjoyed it either. The movie looks great, the cinematography is quite striking and top-notch, and occasionally I found myself effected. Maybe it did effect too much, I know I've been in too much of a fog to be writing this review, maybe that is the point of the movie and it succeeded. A lot of people seemed to enjoy it; it was one of the more widely acclaimed documentaries last year. I don't know if I can entirely get there but it's a part of the world I don't know and it's definitely an experience seeing it. I guess the standard for a film that's aiming for a hallucinatory effect is too narrow; it shouldn't just be how successful it is at bringing me into it's world, it should be whether or not I'm effected at all, since not hallucinatory experiences are enjoyable, and for me, this one isn't. I kinda have the same issue strangely enough with Terry Gilliam's adaptation of "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", I love the book, but I find the movie just too much of an outsider looking in, but maybe I am too hard on the film, because it does genuinely effect me when I'm watching the film. I mean, it is about a bad trip after all; I don't know why I'm unimpressed with that film. With "Faya Dayi" I think I'm even more forgiving because it's not the director's own hallucinatory vision she's trying to emulate; she's trying to recreate the essence of living amongst these hallucinations, and that's even harder, and probably more succeeded than most would've. And I always do think getting high is more intoxicated and romantic in theory than in actual practice anyway, so yeah, I think I enjoyed this film and admired what it was trying for. I can definitely relate to that other feeling this movie could be trying to express, what it's like to being the only one around you who isn't under the influence of a substance, and that can be just as hallucinatory and terrifying to experience, and I certainly wouldn't want to live in it. </div></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>THE SPARKS BROTHERS </b>(2021) Director: Edgar Wright</span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BM2FiMTllMDQtNDlhNC00ZjA2LTgxM2QtMjJhYWIwMzU1YzdmXkEyXkFqcGdeQVRoaXJkUGFydHlJbmdlc3Rpb25Xb3JrZmxvdw@@._V1_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BM2FiMTllMDQtNDlhNC00ZjA2LTgxM2QtMjJhYWIwMzU1YzdmXkEyXkFqcGdeQVRoaXJkUGFydHlJbmdlc3Rpb25Xb3JrZmxvdw@@._V1_.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Well, I'll be honest, I-eh, I don't know the band Sparks. Like, much of them, or about them, at all. Not going in, and I'm still kinda unsure what to make of them after seeing "The Sparks Brothers", Edgar Wright's documentary on the brothers Ron and Russell, eh, Mael. I mean, I've heard of them sporadically over time, but-, well, I'm an American and this is a very, very,-, um, American-born British band, and I just don't know much of their work at all. Which is good, 'cause this movie goes through, pretty much, their entire milieu of material and their life. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I'm definitely interested now in these quirky duo who seems to have come out of the early fifties Southern California youth and grew up with the movies to suddenly create, essentially...- I mean, that's kinda the other thing, their music is very distinctively theirs. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I can totally see why I have heard so little about them. Their genre is...- themselves. Except they basically created new genres that everybody's been stealing from, since the sixties. They were a synthesizer prog work band before synthesizer bands. They were a glam rock band before glam rock. They were an eighties band, before the '80s. They've got fans ranging all the way up and down the music spectrum from Paul McCartney, who famously portrayed Ron Mael, he's the one with the Hitler moustache, in one of his music videos, to Weird Al Yankovich, who lists Sparks as a direct influence on his music. Oh, yeah, they were basically a comedy band before comedy bands were a thing. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">In fact, most of their music is very sardonic and ahead of it's time, filled with lyrics that are both kitchy and poignant at the same time. Sometimes they're just primal yells repeated at nauseum until the message overwhelms you. They're fascinating characters. I don't really know if they're story as music legends really is enough for a feature-length film. Oh, it's a fascinating long story with a lot of twists and turns in their work and career, and their careers have just been as bizarre as they've been exhaustive, but it's not exactly a narrative per se. Not, that even if they had a narrative would they necessarily reveal it to us in an normal manner, which is kinda why Edgar Wright is a good choice for this material. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Wright is a director who's developed a beloved cult fanbase over the years and he is quite a talented and unique filmmaker, particularly in regards to the editing in his films. This is clearly a guy who's always thinking about the editing room, even when directing his films. The opening sequences in "Baby Driver", the sound mixing that peppered "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World", his masterful use of several different kinds of quick-cuts in his more comedic films, I particularly enjoy it in "Hot Fuzz", which is by far his best film, and honestly, probably the only one I really like. He's talented as hell but he can be pretty jarring for me for a lot of his traditional films which mainly, even when good, seem to just be him trying to make his slightly booze-induced versions of old movies and other media from his youth. Sometimes it works, like in "Hot Fuzz", and it works here pretty well. Not the least of which because "The Brothers Sparks",-, eh, I mean, Mael, are just as obtuse with their own personal lives as Wright is flashy with his editing. It makes Sparks as a band seem more important, even if, for much of this movie, we're basically literally just getting told about each of their albums, one after another, with little-to-no real emotional depth in between. We do meet people who they've worked with, the band's had several different members over the years, depending on what period their music was in, and we even get some praise by longtime fans and other collaborators. Personally, I liked hearing Jane Weidlin's admittance to literally throwing herself at Russell after they worked together on a duet that charted. (Never change, Go-Go's, especially you Jane, never change!) Yeah, honestly, you could mistake this documentary narratively for a Mic the Snare Youtube video in his "Deep Discog Dive" series, which itself is very strange for a music biopic. I mean, when they do have a six year gap in their recording history, Wright breaks up the time by showing old clips of every Dick Clark New Year's Rocking Eve Special from those years. Like, who does that? Well, I guess Sparks do, and Edgar Wright does. Eventually this does make some sense, when you get to their concert tour where they literally played each of their previous 21 albums, all on tour one after another every day!, but still, it's not what I'm usually expecting from movies like these, and I guess thank goodness for that.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">"The Sparks Brothers" is a unique music documentary about a unique group. I'm not gonna call myself a fan yet; I still gotta get more into their music, but the movie makes me want to explore them more and that's good enough for me right now. Maybe I'd appreciate it more if I dive into their music further. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>MADRE (aka MOTHER) </b>(2020) Director: Rodrigo Sorogoyen</span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><br /></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/1eYqHitA.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="426" src="https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/1eYqHitA.jpeg" width="640" /></a></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Trying to analyze "Madre" or "Mother"-... Man, I don't know how to respond to this film, if I 'm being honest. Most reviews bring up how this started as an Oscar-nominated short film from it's director Rodrigo Sorogoyen. I didn't watch that film originally, but having now watched it, it's basically the movie's opening scene. It is a powerful scene if that matters, the film begins with a phone conversation between a scared six-year-old and his mother, Elena (Marta Nieto). He's been left alone on a beach after his father, his battery's dying and he's alone and lost. As the conversation continues. He's in another country and she frantically tries to talk to her son, find out where he is, and if possible call the authorities, who are insisting that they have to be lost for a day in order to find them. The last thing she hears is that he was hiding from a man that's spotted him and that's the last time she hears from him. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Now there's a lot of stories you can come up with from this scene and expand the story from there. Sorogoyen decided to jump ahead ten years, and tells the story of Elena. She's since given up what seemed to be a fairly well-to-do life and become a bar owner on the same beach area that her son went missing and has become kind of a town ghost story. The woman suddenly meets and begins to befriend Jean (Jules Porier) a sixteen year old, who she realizes looks a little like her missing son. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Ummm...- I don't know if I want to explain what happens next... I'm trying to figure out how to go about it for a couple days now, and I'm still not sure what exactly to make of it. I'm not familiar with Sorogoyen's work until now, so I don't really know what he's aiming for. Something about grieving? something much more oedipal? Perhaps it is much more about the multitude of layers somebody would feel if they were in such a situation. Like, you see your long lost son, but he's no longer a kid, he's a teenager, and he might not be your son, and you're not necessarily his mother anymore. You can't make up the last ten years, but you don't want to disturb the world he's in now. You don't even know who he is now, so you want to learn about him. He's interested in the fact that you're interested.... It's weird. Maybe too weird, even though it's not handled poorly. We see how the friendship gets in the way of both her life, as her current boyfriend Joseba (Alex Brendemuhl) is patient with her, but still, tensions slowly arises between them. And Jean's parents (Frederic Pierrot and Anne Cosigny) also grow from finding the relationship bemusing to deeply concerning. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I'll say this, based on the short, it's not the direction I would've thought this story would've gone, so I gotta give him props to that, but I'm not entirely sure what to make of the film either. There's no answers or reveals here, by the end of the movie we're still not entirely sure Jean is Elena's son or not, and I'll add that that's a good thing; perhaps the movie is trying to just put us into this emotional state of the character. In hindsight Marta Nieto gives a great performance, it's subtle and at first I wasn't impressed with it, but on careful thinking back, we remember the woman we meet in the beginning and then we see how she's changed in the years since, and we watch her confront the several dire and complex emotions that she's dealing with here, and it simultaneously feels like we've seen someone change so drastically that she could be almost two or even three different people, and yet, we don't find it too jarring and totally buy into that this is the same person after all these years and all these experiences. Oddly, it reminds me most of Halle Berry's similarly strained and emotionally complex performance in "Monster's Ball" of all things. As to the film though, I still feel like this might've just been out of Sorogoyen's league. I watched the film and couldn't get this feeling out of my head that this perhaps should've been a Claire Denis film, like, not-so-much in content, but definitely aiming for that tone, like, he was trying to turn this story into his "35 Shots of Rum". It's an inventive take and direction, so I gotta ultimately give him credit for this attempt, but this is a mild recommendation. Great performance, but in a very conflicting film. I can easily see as many people appreciating this, as I see being turned off by this, and I'm pretty much on the fence all things considered. </div></div></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div></div></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696790060036702346.post-44102099958404452912022-08-14T00:13:00.004-07:002022-08-14T00:20:11.433-07:00CANON OF FILM: "THE GREAT DICTATOR"<div style="text-align: justify;"><div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>THE GREAT DICTATOR
(1940)</b></div><b><div style="text-align: left;"><b> </b></div></b><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Director/Screenplay:</b> Charles
Chaplin </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"> <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/k8bVG8XC-4I" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">
Somehow, I always felt like of all of Chaplin's films, this would be the one that would age the worst. Well, maybe not age the worst, but definitely seem the most of it's time. You'd think I would've gotten to this one sooner considering how wrong I've been on this one in particular the last few years, but..., anyway, "That damn ballet dancer", as W.C. Fields used to refer to him, was, once again, more right than we realized. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Thirteen years into the age of talking pictures, Charlie Chaplin finally made his first talkie, and it spoke loudly. Before that, he had made what are probably his two best features, “<a href="http://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2016/03/canon-of-film-city-lights.html">City Lights</a>,” (1931) and “Modern Times,” (1936), with the latter marking the last appearance of his “The Little Tramp,” character, although he does play a variation here, a character known only as “A Barber,” along with him playing Dictator Hynkel.
“The Great Dictator,” first started being made in 1938, at a time when opinion on Adolf Hitler, was actually fairly mixed in America. Nothing happens in a vacuum, and there were fascists in America then as their are fascists now, and to claim that they simply went away and came back is a gross misnomer. Many anti-semantic groups secretly condoned Hitler's then rumored practice of eradicating the Jews, and the country as a whole had not taken a side one way or another in regards to Hitler. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">By 1940, when the movie was released, that had changed, and Chaplin’s daring satire on Hitler, dictatorship, and Nazism became his highest grossing film ever, and earned five Oscar nominations, including Best Picture.
Saying that however, it is still fair to say that “The Great Dictator,” is actually one of Chaplin's weakest films now, although it's still quite powerful; this would be his most pre-"Limelight" overuse of sentimentality, and more importantly is his his infamous five minute long speech at the end of the film, where The Barber, at this moment confused for Hynkel, stating Chaplin's own personal views on dictatorship and Nazi practices. It spoke loudly at the time, by the one man who up 'til then, had never spoken at all, but the speech stops the movie dead in its tracks. Yet, the speech is probably the entire reason Chaplin made the movie. (And it's trended several times over in recent years I might add. But who's surprised Chaplin would go viral, really?) </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The movie would eventually lead to him actually being deported from America over a decade later, under the veil of being supposedly a Communist, which he wasn’t. He wasn’t Jewish either, which was another rumor at the time. "The Great Dictator" was banned in much of Europe at the time, in some parts for decades. The movie begins with the character of the Barber, after being a WWI hero, and some of the battle scenes in the film are not only incredible for realism at that time, but some are incredibly funny, including the entire sequence about the dud tank bullet which starts off with just a funny bit where the bullet limps out of the shot cannon, but Chaplin continues the joke by investigating the bullet, and leading the joke to it’s natural hilarious conclusion. (If you can find it, there's some great very rare behind-the-scenes footage, shot in color, of Chaplin preparing this sequence, and it might be some of the Earliest color footage of Chaplin.) </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"> The Barber, injured in the war, in a coma, and suffering from amnesia, wakes up twenty years later to find Dictator Hynkel in charge, and he has to now rebuild his life in the ghetto. It's basically a subversion of Rip Van Winkle that seems so obvious, it's kinda stunning nobody had done it before, or really for that matter much since. He meets a nice girl from the family next door (Paulette Goddard, Chaplin’s then wife) who helps him from being taken away by storm troopers, one of them being a guy who’s life he saved back in the war. The other famous sequences from the film include Chaplin’s choreographed dance sequence that he has as Hynkel with an inflated globe, that eventually bursts right in his face. As well as a wonderful sequence with Oscar-nominee Jack Oakie, obviously meant to reference Mussolini, where both dictators attempt to one-up each other by sitting in higher chairs than the other, until they’re both near the ceiling and unable to get down. It's stunning how much it seems being a corrupt and murderous dictator essentially involves this diluted belief that they somehow always have to be better than everyone else. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">It’s certainly a landmark film, just for being one of a literal handful of films to criticize the Nazi regime before the war, or any kind of dictatorial practices. Chaplin was of course, one of the very few people in Hollywood who even could do that though, but it's not like anybody had to twist his hand on it. "The Great Dictator" is Chaplin’s is by far his most pointed and important satire; I'd be hard-pressed to call it his most personal and emotional film, I think that goes to "Limelight", but I think it's fair to say that it was the one that he was the most proud of having made.</div></div>
</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p></o:p></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696790060036702346.post-57261987378663448672022-08-02T01:16:00.001-07:002022-12-02T21:01:53.112-08:00SOME THOUGHTS ON "SIGHT AND SOUND"'s UPCOMING POLL RESULTS OF THEIR DECENNIAL GREATEST FILMS OF ALL-TIME POLL! And yeah, fine, I'll do a list of my own again. <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0AmfnfyztxA" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe>
<div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Every ten years, the famed British publication "Sight and Sound", an offshoot periodical from the BFI, or the British Film Institute conducts polls of all the world's most respected, accomplished and acclaimed film critics and filmmakers and simply gives them the one question, and that's to list what they consider the Top Ten Greatest Films of All-Time. There's no other qualifiers, they can use any/all arbitrary definitions of whatever the person chooses the words "Greatest" means. There's quite few other qualifiers; you can't put a bunch of movies together if they weren't originally supposed to be viewed together or were made separately from each other, so like, unlike past years, you can't list "<a href="http://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2014/06/canon-of-film-godfather.html">The Godfather</a>" and "<a href="https://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2020/09/canon-of-film-godfather-part-ii.html">The Godfather Part II</a>" as a single film, but other than that, there isn't much else in regards to standards and qualifier, you just have to pick ten, and only ten. Their goal is simple, just to find what is considered by the greatest film of all-time, and doing so by asking the most qualified experts in the field, worldwide. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Obviously, since they still haven't asked me to participate, they clearly have failed in this objective, again, but y'know, par for the course. BFI and Sight and Sound aren't that great or prestigious anyway.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">(Regrettable sigh) </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Anyway, I talked about this annual poll <a href="https://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2012/04/my-list-of-10-greatest-films-of-all.html">ten years ago</a>, when despite being continuous ignored by the group even then, I put out my own list anyway. I'm not alone a lot of people do, and they've been doing it lately. Honestly I wasn't going to this year, until everybody else started doing it. I mean, I feel like I do too many lists as it is on this blog, and honestly, as much as I do love lists, we all do, eh, my main concern is that, essentially, you can only really tell so much from them. This list is the most popular in the film world because of how it's been used as a guide, not for what the best film is necessarily but for how the world of film looks at the cinema of the past. In 1952, the first year of the list, the best film was Vittorio Di Sica's "<a href="http://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2012/03/canon-of-film-bicycle-thief.html">The Bicycle Thief</a>", or "Bicycle Thieves" if you prefer the more correct translation of the Italian title. It had only been released four years earlier when it won that poll. "<a href="http://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2012/03/canon-of-film-bicycle-thief.html">Citizen Kane</a>" famously won the poll the next five times, they held the poll, and "The Bicycle Thief" hasn't been in the Top Ten since 1962. Orson Welles's "Citizen Kane" came out earlier of course, it released in 1941, but it wasn't as fresh in peoples' minds; it hadn't been seen since it's original release and only after the passing of William Randolph Hearst, who basically had it covered up, did the film finally reemerge and it's importance, greatness and most notably it's influence, became abundantly clear. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">In 2012 however, for whatever reason, that streak ended when Alfred Hitchcock's "<a href="http://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2012/08/canon-of-film-vertigo.html">Vertigo</a>" overtook "Citizen Kane" bumping it off the top. There's a lot of theories as to why this happened. The fact that despite the attempts of "Sight & Sound" the fact that they are a British/European publication means that it's more predominantly bias towards European sentiments and influences, and "Vertigo" is particularly influential in Europe. It also had gained influence in America too, like how it raised over fifty slots on AFI's similar 100 Films Poll from 61 in 1998's poll to 9th in their 2008 poll. Also, I think there was just general rebellious backlash to the notion of ranking "Citizen Kane" number one, and it just happened to be the film that was chosen to overtake it. While I think it's incredibly difficult to argue that the film is not the most important film and influential film ever made, I can definitely understand people who say, don't think it's particularly entertaining or fun or whatever. I know plenty of people who hate the film, including a lot of film people; I get it. I didn't rank it number one last time, either. I was just as rebellious and said, "Fuck it, I'm picking the movie I like the most for number one," and clearly I wasn't the only one.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">And honestly beyond all that, there's something weird about this list and it's process in general. For one, as any true film person will tell you, narrowing this kind of process down to ten, is just cruel and unusual punishment for us. As of this writing, I've seen, well over 5,000 feature films, and that's not counting short films, and hell, you technically could count television programs for this list now; last time "The Wire" got two votes. It also kinda zeroes on just, the films that somebody out there might consider the absolute greatest and it actually a lot of other amazing and generally highly-regarded great films that, just don't make lists like these because we generally wouldn't rank them in our Top Tens. A movie like Sidney Lumet's "Network" comes to my mind, make a top 100 list, it'll show up almost every time, it's widely considered one of the most prescient and ahead-of-it's-time films out there but narrow it to ten, and it falls way down. Or "<a href="http://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2012/05/canon-of-film-rocky.html">Rocky</a>" for instance shares a similar fate, among many others. To go back to those AFI's list for example, even though those lists were limited to American movies, #17 on that list in '98, and #65 in 2008 was John Huston's "The African Queen", a movie that on BFI's list, did not get two votes from anybody. Does that mean it's not a great film, that AFI's list is just weirder for including it? (Shrugs) ehhh-i'on'tno? Maybe? I mean, I never think of it as among Bogart's or Hepburn's or John Huston's best films, but I would've thought some people would've put it in there, right? There's plenty of others. Bob Rafelson just died, I know if maybe they asked for a Top 100 list, "<a href="http://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2016/06/canon-of-film-five-easy-pieces.html">Five Easy Pieces</a>" would probably be higher ranked on these lists, but for a top ten, do you really have room to put it on a Top Ten? Or how about any of his other films? Only "Five Easy Pieces" and "The Postman Always Rings Twice" got multiple votes. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">In fact, another issue with this poll, is how it can be bias towards films/filmmakers who are generally considered to have one single movie be considered their absolute masterpiece. I'm not saying it is their masterpiece, or their only good film or only good to be worthy of being on such a list, I'm saying that perception-wise, the film is considered their masterpiece. Filmmakers for whom, the debate on what their best film actually is, tend to struggle in these polls, even great filmmakers. If you go on Mubi.com, where they have a <a href="https://mubi.com/lists/sight-sound-2012-top-1000-films-combined-critics-and-directors-ballots">page</a> that lovingly ranks all the films that got at least two votes in the last poll, they rank them together, but if you go through that list, you'll notice that there are quite a few instance of filmmakers who have multiple films, literally right next to or near each other in the rankings. It's easier to single out a director's single great film as oppose to looking at a giant collection of their work, and if that film is beloved, they would do better than directors who everybody disagrees on their best film, so their votes get spread over multiple films of theirs. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">It's not a negative per se, but it is a quirk. There's a lot of quirks with all polls, and this one in particular, being ranked periodically every decade, and limited to ten films, means that, I don't really think of these lists as entirely accurate readings of greatness, but rather as looks at ourselves. A reading of the modern zeitgeist of the time and what that says about ourselves, both in terms of the overall lists results, and in turn, with our own individual choices. The films aren't so much a standing for our definite picks for what we believe to be the best, but rather, a small representation of who we are at the moment we do them. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">In that respect, I really don't like my list from 2012 anymore. If you clicked on that earlier link to my blog, you'll know how I got to the Top Ten, 'cause I wrote the post in a manner that made it seem like I was literally trying to figure out the list as I was writing it (Which is because, that was exactly how I actually came up with it.); I'm not doing that this year, I already know what my list is going to be going into this blog, but still, I don't like my old list. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">MY 2012 LIST: </div><div style="text-align: left;">1. <a href="http://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2011/10/canon-of-film-casablanca.html">Casablanca</a> (Michael Curtiz)</div><div style="text-align: left;">2. The Godfather (Francis Ford Coppola)</div><div style="text-align: left;">3. Citizen Kane (Orson Welles)</div><div style="text-align: left;">4. <a href="http://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2013/08/canon-of-film-2001-space-odyssey.html">2001: A Space Odyssey</a> (Stanley Kubrick)</div><div style="text-align: left;">5. <a href="http://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2017/03/canon-of-film-wings-of-desire.html">Wings of Desire</a> (Wim Wenders)</div><div style="text-align: left;">6. The Maltese Falcon (John Huston)</div><div style="text-align: left;">7. <a href="http://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2015/10/canon-of-film-metropolis.html">Metropolis</a> (Fritz Lang)</div><div style="text-align: left;">8. <a href="http://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2012/12/canon-of-film-rashomon.html">Rashomon</a> (Akira KUROSAWA)</div><div style="text-align: left;">9. <a href="http://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2011/11/canon-of-film-pulp-fiction.html">Pulp Fiction</a> (Quentin Tarantino)</div><div style="text-align: left;">10. <a href="http://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2014/04/canon-of-film-lost-in-translation.html">Lost in Translation</a> (Sofia Coppola)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">It's not that these aren't great movies, or don't deserve to be on a list like list, in fact most of my list, isn't gonna change, but eh, I don't really know why I picked some of these, and I don't like how I picked some of them. I basically threw in "Pulp Fiction" just out of some half-baked notion that it was somehow, "his time", or whatever. (Blows raspberries) Eh, I was still out of college and while I do still love Tarantino, I was also clearly still in that phase. Post-film school grad,- phase where Tarantino was just the coolest, or whatever. There's actually a lot of this list I don't love though. I don't love how American it is, there's only three foreign films and one of them is silent on here. Almost all white men, and one white woman. Perhaps I put films on here more out of obligation as opposed to what I genuinely thought was the best. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">"The Godfather" now feels weird on this list to me. It'll always be one of my core films, I'm Italian-American after all, I grew up on the movie; it's basically a part of my cultural identity, and it's still a great, one of my all-time favorite films, I've probably watched it more than any other film on this list except for "Casablanca", but eh, do I need it to be on here? Or any Francis Ford Coppola film? Considering how much I've watched and talked about his films, especially his absolute best films from the '70s, it's kinda surprising to me how little I think about him as a great filmmaker, and frankly, how much I find myself looking for films outside "The Godfather" these days as standards of greatness to compare. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Why did I somehow think I needed a Coppola film, and didn't need a Hitchcock film? No, the rest of the world was right on that one. Hitchcock's the greater more important and more influential filmmaker, but I'm not putting "Vertigo" on here. Sorry, I know people who love "Vertigo", and while I don't think it's unworthy of being number one, and I have heard some great arguments for why it deserved the spot, I have always had issues with and never thought of it as his best film. I think "Psycho" is his real masterpiece. I think it's influence is not only greater, more important, more positively influential than much of the movies that were far more inspired by "Vertigo" and if I have to narrow it down to one Hitchcock that everybody should see, I'm gonna pick "Psycho". </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">There's some other things, I put "Casablanca", my favorite movie of all-time, ahead of "Citizen Kane", which, eh, you know, I usually do make the favorite exception only for "Casablanca", but it also feels wrong to put it ahead of "Citizen Kane" now. I'm restoring "...Kane" to number one. What can I say, I will prefer the critical best over the personal best. I mean, I could personally chose some other Orson Welles film too, "The Stranger" is a favorite of mine, so is "F for Fake", I know a lot of people have come to the conclusion that that's secretly his best film, and I can definitely see that argument. But I'm still going with "Citizen Kane" at number one. Call me a traditionalist, call me a film snob, whatever, the history of cinema doesn't make sense if you take out "Citizen Kane", I'm making sure it stays in.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Also, last time, I put Wim Wenders's "Wings of Desire" on the list, mainly as sort of a secondary pick over Krzyzstof Kieslowski's "<a href="http://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2016/07/canon-of-film-decalogue.html">The Decalogue</a>". Mainly because I didn't think I could pick "The Decalogue". That rule I talked about earlier, about how you couldn't lump two films together, "The Decalogue" is weird because it's actually ten films, each about an hour long each one of them about the Ten Commandments. They aired originally as a miniseries in Poland, but made it to theaters eventually in America, not that that distinction matters much anymore in a post-Covid world, but that did mean that they weren't eligible as an entirety in the past. I've double-check though, and while I can't put the Godfather films together still, the rule is that, I can pick something like this, if they were meant to be watch together in their entirety. So, in other words, I can pick "The Decalogue", the same way I could say pick, other longer-than-average multipart features, like Fassbinder's "Berlin Alexanderplatz" or perhaps more recently David Lynch's "Twin Peaks" reboot that the Cahier du Cinema people seem to love so much. So, "The Decalogue" goes back on. I don't necessarily think that should mean that "Wings of Desire" goes off though; they're different films, and truly great in different ways, but hmm, they are similar enough..., perhaps too similar for this list, at least for me, at least this year....</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I do want to try be as inclusive and varied on this list as possible, but it's hard. People do relate to stimuli that's more familiar to them then stuff that might seem more foreign. I am a cis white male, so as much as I'd love to see more foreign filmmakers on here, I'm probably going to understand, appreciate and relate to films made by cis white male filmmakers more often than others. So, should I just sacrifice films I think are better for films by filmmakers that I think should be more recognized, especially minority filmmakers? No, that's the same thinking that led to me to putting "Pulp Fiction" on there when I shouldn't have. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">No, Tarantino didn't belong on there, and while I wish I could say that instead I'm putting on Spike Lee, or Satyajit Ray or Ousmane Sembane or Luis Bunuel, or Sergei Eisenstein or Fernando Meirelles or Hector Babenco, or..., if there's a director I most feel passionate that I feel should be on my list, and should've been on there before, it was Billy Wilder. Especially if we're talking movies, films about making films, even tangentially should be represented, and for me, "<a href="http://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2014/06/canon-of-film-sunset-blvd.html">Sunset Blvd</a>", is really his best. I can argue for "<a href="http://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2014/04/canon-of-film-some-like-it-hot.html">Some Like It Hot</a>" or "<a href="http://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2014/02/canon-of-film-apartment.html">The Apartment</a>" or "<a href="http://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2013/10/canon-of-film-double-indemnity.html">Double Indemnity</a>" as well, but man, those are great films but I don't any of them are as good, or have as much good influence out there. So, "Sunset Blvd" gets the spot that it should've had all along.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Does that mean that I should just ignore recent films entirely? The only film from the 2000s that made my list last time was "Lost in Translation", and there's some stuff about that film and including the perspective of the filmmaker that you can regard as questionable now. I lost one Coppola, can I lose two? And is there something modern I could replace it with? I thought about Barry Jenkins's "Moonlight", I thought about BONG Joon-Ho's "Parasite", I thought about Terrence Malick's "The Tree of Life", I even came close to putting "Hamilton" on here. All films that I think deserve to be on lists like these but I did feel like I needed to have at least one female director on here. No, I can't adequately explain why it feels more wrong to me to not have a female director than it does an African, African-American, Latino, or other nationality or group of directors that isn't represented, but it just does. <br /><br />So, is there a film by a female director that I'd rather have on this list or I think more deserves the spot? Well, I'm partial to Lina Wertmuller's "<a href="http://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2015/09/canon-of-film-swept-away-by-unusual.html">Swept Away By an Unusual Destiny in the Blue Sea of August</a>", (And she's generally a filmmaker who also got screwed on the last list, not one film of hers got two votes!) I like Jane Campion, and I think "The Piano" is great. I've been a huge Lisa Cholodenko fan since "High Art" and "Laurel Canyon". Marielle Heller and Lynne Ramsay have blown me away. Celine Sciamma's movies have really been inspiring to me, as have Catherine Breillat's. Somehow though, I can't seem to shake how rare and beautiful the emotional ennui of "Lost in Translation" is, and for that, how much more difficult I think it is to get that effect with a movie. That's the one that's always stuck with me and remains sticking to me. Yeah, I just credit that more than I do the accomplishments of other films. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">So here we go, this is how I'm ranking my Top Ten Films, now: <br /><br /><b>MY 2022 TOP TEN LIST<br />1. Citizen Kane (Orson Welles)</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>2. Casablanca (Michael Curtiz)<br />3. The Decalogue (Krzyzstof Kieslowski)<br />4. Sunset Blvd (Billy Wilder)<br />5. Psycho (Alfred Hitchcock)<br />6. Metropolis (Fritz Lang)<br />7. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick)<br />8. Ikiru (Akira KUROSAWA)<br />9. Lost in Translation (Sofia Coppola)<br />10. The Maltese Falcon (John Huston)</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">"Citizen Kane" goes back up top. A couple other minor and trivial changes to the order of the films. "The Decalogue" does replace "Wings of Desire", which is basically my number one of the several number elevens I have. I replace the Tarantino with the Wilder, I replace the Coppola with the Hitchcock. Oh, and I did switch KUROSAWA films, from "Rashomon" and "Ikiru". I don't have a real deep reason on this one, they're both basically tied for me, and I decided that, as long as I feel like I need a Kurosawa film on here, which, I do, that I would just keep switching between them every ten years. I had "Rashomon" last time, so this time, I'm putting "Ikiru" in there. Anyway, it feels right. Admittedly, I probably thought it felt right the last time I did this list and ten years from now I'll probably regret how I made this list. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">As to what I expect/predict from Sight & Sound's actual results this year? I think there'll be a lot of the same and a lot different, and a lot of intrigue. They usually release all the results of everybody who voted and personally I find those more interesting than the overall results. If I am making predictions, than I'll say that "Citizen Kane" regains the top spot on at least the critics poll. I'll say "The Searchers" will fall out of the Top Ten. Despite my taking it off my list, I think "Pulp Fiction" will break into the Top 100. And I think, overall, more female films and filmmakers will be represented, especially the likes of Agnes Varda and Chantal Akerman I suspect. As for modern films, "Parasite", "Moonlight", "Portrait of a Lady on Fire", a few others that I suspect will have surprisingly good showings. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">(Shrugs) </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Yeah, I'm not interested in making too many calls. I'm frankly more interested in seeing what's gonna be on there and frankly, hopefully find films that I haven't seen and seek them out. See the movies that others think are the greatest, the movies that have inspired other artists and critics. I hope to expand my cinematic knowledge and vocabulary, which I think should always be our goal, whether as filmmakers, as critics, or even just as fans. Seeing what others consider greats and important enough to preserve, especially when only given space to preserve ten, says a lot about them, and for that matter us. What does it say about me, that I chose these ten? </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I don't know, I'll let others decide that. In the meantime, if you haven't seen any of these films, watch them, see what you think. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696790060036702346.post-3316519959151584602022-07-25T04:38:00.000-07:002022-07-25T04:38:36.091-07:00MOVIE REVIEWS #196: "KING RICHARD", "NO TIME TO DIE", "COMING 2 AMERICA", "LUNANA: A YAK IN THE CLASSROOM", "HILLBILLY ELEGY", "ROCKS" , "PAW PATROL: THE MOVIE", and "MLK/FBI"! <div style="text-align: left;">Um, there's not much really to talk about here. I've been busy lately, and I fear that I'm gonna be busy for awhile still, so sorry if I'm not posting as regularly as I'd like to. Honestly, I think I'm preferring these more sporadic commentary posts, it makes me focus on things I actually want to say and dive more into subjects instead of trying to find things I care about to talk about, which in terms of the film industry has been much more fewer and farther between in recent years. I did get my usual commentor who thinks he's being cool and talked on my Emmys blog about how award shows were about millionaires honors millionaires. (Ugh) I wonder how actually thinks the makeup people actually make.... Like, Jesus, I went after the Emmys hard this year for the actual problems but no, it's that hypocritical argument. Like, seriously, you watch all the shows made by the people who are indeed the millionaire voting on the other millionaires, but you don't think they should honor the best in their field? I don't get it, you watch the great art they create but you can't trust their opinion when it comes to the actual art medium you watch? I genuinely will never get that opinion. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Anyway, I'm glad it was only one lone strangler comment I could ignore this time. Other then that, not much going on. Movie world's getting excited for the upcoming BFI Sight & Sound's annual Greatest movie lists. Last time they did one, I decided to do a similar poll for television, and that took awhile, and frankly I don't think I'll do that this time. I still do think television in particular needs to be put on a more equal pedestal to film in general, but I hope somebody with more time and resources would take up that mantle instead. I look up my list when I did one back in 2012, I would change a few things now, but personally, I'm mostly hoping that "Citizen Kane" just regains the top spot. Sorry, "Vertigo" fans. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Anyway, let's get to this latest batch of reviews! </div><div style="text-align: left;"><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>KING RICHARD </b>(2021) Director; Reinaldo Marcus Green</span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><br /></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Screen-Shot-2021-07-28-at-12.34.35-PM.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="511" data-original-width="800" height="409" src="https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Screen-Shot-2021-07-28-at-12.34.35-PM.png" width="640" /></a></div></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><br /></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I don't remember what class this was, but at some point in-, I think it was middle school, I distinctly the teacher bringing up this argument about nature vs. nurture. It was sometime in the late '90s, and right around the time that Tiger Woods and Venus & Serena Williams (Saniyya Sidney and Demi Singleton) were breaking onto the national sports landscape, as well as their parents. Tiger's father Earl Woods was a constant presence on tour with Tiger, and the Williams Sisters' father Richard (Oscar-winner Will Smith) was often the focal point of conversations regarding them, and basically the discussion was, whether or not these athletes would've been the great athletes they were, at the sports they were athletes at, if not for the pressure and persistence of their father's insistence on it. I don't think race was initially brought up out loud in this discussion, but the undercurrent was there. For whatever reason, I argued that Tiger was a more natural phenom and it wouldn't have mattered as much the environment he grew up in while the Williams' had the extreme pressure from their father meant that they were more nurtured to the sport than natural phenoms. I don't remember why exactly I decided to take that argument, although I think it was because I had remembered seeing clips of a very young Tiger Woods, at around three years old on "The Mike Douglas Show" already a master putter, and I just couldn't imagine a three-year-old being that taken by golf to become that good that young unless there was something ingrained in him to take to it naturally, but in hindsight, I totally would not make that argument now. Of course, the answer to any nature vs. nurture question is always always a little bit of each, but yeah, in both their cases, I have to believe the parents' had more to do with their success now, for whatever that's worth, than their own ingrained natural talent, if for no other reason than the fact than it was parents' ability and determination to provide them with the golf clubs and public golf courses in Tiger's cases, and the public tennis courts and the rackets and balls in the case of the Williams. (For all I know, I could've been the greatest cricketer of all-time, but it wasn't a sport I had access to, and you're more likely to be good at a sport that you're constantly around and able to play than one you're not.) </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Tennis, in paricular, is a sport that's kinda weird. On the one hand, it's a very posh sport traditionally, guarded by the same kind of private exclusive club barriers as other older lawn sports like golf and croquet, but on the other hand, it really shouldn't be, 'cause it's remarkably one of the cheapest of these sports. One that, with two rackets, a ball, a net, and maybe some chalk, basically anybody could play tennis. And traditionally, while tennis has been perpetuated by a lot of white, upper class athletes, they often are, personality-wise, they're kinda the rogue black sheep types from those groups. Not always, obviously, nowadays the sports actually been fairly boring in terms of personalities for years, (Although it's starting to get better, especially on the women's side) especially from America, but back then, tennis was filled with some fringe personalities that made the game fun to watch. And it does say something when Paul Cohen (Tony Goldwyn), the Williams' first professional coach tells Richard that he's the most stubborn person he's ever met, and he coached McEnroe. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Actually, I was amazed how much that got brought up, especially at a certain point when Richard is concerned about Venus turning pro because of Jennifer Capriatti's sudden fall into addiction and arrest, but I had totally forgotten just how much of the top up-and-coming female tennis players of that time were complete fuck-ups. (After I watched this movie, I looked up the infamous French Open Finals in '99, between Martina Hingis and Steffi Graf, if you watched this match, you know this match, it was the exact moment that Martina Hingis, who was the youngest number one in the world at that time, became a total heel, spoiled brat fuck-up, and supposed over-the-hill Steffi, who Martina insulted for being old earlier, just wiped the fricking court with her. and Martina never got good again after that! And then, like, the next year, Venus was queen of the court, until Serena came of age.) </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">That's the thing though, this movie, first of all, it was produced by the Williams Sisters, so they're telling their own story here essentially, and the story of their father, and his-eh, very much persistent approach to making them tennis superstars.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">He worked nights after coaching them on local courts, often populated by Compton gangsters. There's one time where he apparently almost tries to take out a bully who constantly went after him, only to witness somebody else take him out.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">(Shrugs) </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I have no idea if this is true or not, it's believable enough, I guess... </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">(Shrugs) </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I guess the implication is that, Richard almost lost his dream, for his daughters, by almost killing a guy, but got lucky that someone got their first...? It's dramatic in the moment, but weird if you think about it for more than a minute.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">That's kinda what makes "King Richard" somewhat fascinating, it's essentially a movie that gives Richard Williams's nurturing, for whatever it was worth, all the credit for the Williams Sisters. He's the one that started them on tennis at age 4, and he began by writing out an, 85-page plan for their continued progress in the sport, which...- (Sighs) okay, that's just, weird. And kinda fucked up. (Like writing down your goals, that's one thing, writing down your kids goal, eh, questionable, but not concerning, 85 pages at ages 4, on being teenage tennis phenoms? Like, you couldn't do it in like, fifty pages?)</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">It's also strange in that, after he convinced Cohen to take them on, Venus for free but being paid to teach Serena at first, Richard hated taking the girls to Juniors, which is usually where the younger up-and-coming tennis prospects start up. Venus and Serena were great when they did play, but he mentions hating seeing all the tennis parents there and how much pressure they seemed to put on their kids. I mean, I guess it's a little pot calling the kettle black, but maybe he had a point too, but y'know, that's the thing that makes something like this crazy. Most prospects in any sports don't end up becoming pro and winning grand slams all the time, and even if it the kid's who venture into that sporting direction at first, it's stressful for them, and for their parents who are taking an interest in their future career, that might not happen. You can be training and expertly crafting your game for just as long, and be as great and skilled as you possibly could, and then, you run into Venus, and you get your dreams and future killed. The movie technically climaxes with Venus losing in her first pro tournament, and losing fairly early to Arantxa Sanchez Vicario (A woman who herself started tennis young and had some very dubious parents that's led her adult life after tennis to become a complete mess; last I heard she was potentially facing years in jail for tax evasion and fraud). I'm sure there were other contemporaries of the Williams Sisters who turned out fine; I think Kim Clijsters is still playing into her forties like Serena is now, but yeah, it is kinda coincidental and curious how every other tennis great in this story seems to be struggling either handling their successful pro career or are damaged afterwards by their successful pro careers.... Again, tennis is a young sport full of the rebellious black sheeps of upper crust types, but it's still kinda interesting how those are the other names that get thrown around. (Could've been the times too, tennis and sports in general in the '90s, was fucking insane! Remember when Monica Seles got stabbed by a crazed fan in the middle a match? It's shocking how little that gets brought up, but that's how bizarre sports in the '90s was!") </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Still though, like, I guess it worked for the Williams Sisters, skipping over Juniors and not playing competitive tennis for years before turning pro. I know it didn't work for Michelle Wie years years later.... </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I don't know, I'm very conflicted on just the idea of this movie, and that's before we even get into all the subliminal stuff regarding Will Smith and his recent actions. It is not hard to think that Will Smith finally winning that Oscar that we all know he's wanted for years, and he's playing a over-protective helicopter parent father over his future celebrity kids. Yeah, I think he sees a lot of himself in Richard Williams at this point. And like Richard Williams, he may occasionally make an ass of himself at major events like these. (They didn't show Richard Williams jumping over the NBC desk in celebration of Venus winning Wimbledon in the film, but they definitely could've.) He also kinda smug and obnoxious like he's capable of slapping a comic in the middle of an award show.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I don't know, I guess Will Smith is good here, and besides for all he's done for Hollywood, he probably did deserve that Oscar inevitably. Honestly, I'm surprised the film is actually as good as it is; I credit that to the filmmaking, particularly director Reinaldo Marcus Green, the talented young filmmaker who was behind the multi-narrative "Monsters and Men" film about three different perspectives surrounding an incident where police killed an unarmed black man. I wondered if that debut was more essay than film, but still appreciated it a lot. In that sense, I guess technically "King Richard" is a better movie, but I also have a hard time thinking of this as Green's film. This feels more like a job-for-hire to paint Richard Williams in as positive a light as possible. They don't shy away from his faults, but they often do only show his wife Brandy (Oscar-nominee Aunjanue Ellis) when she is in disagreement with him, but only usually after he makes decisions for the family and the girls. And then there's a scene where she basically outlines all his faults, well, what the movie thinks of as his faults, mostly his other kids. He's had a couple marriages and apparently kids out of wedlock, it's implied that they seem to be doing well-enough, the ones they bring up. While he seemed to do everything for Venus and Serena, arguably maybe had a little too much control over them, he also left his first family of four kids before when the oldest was eight. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I guess you expect embellishments and negative things left out with all biopics, but even still this is such a weird one to rate. I'm trying to think of a comparable film about a story about a parent being "responsible" for their kids achievements, particularly their athletic achievements like this..., and the parents' influence are shown to be just as extreme but also positively..., I guess "Searching for Bobby Fischer" is kinda close, but even then, that's like, the fourth most interesting plot-thread in that film. Honestly, there's a lot more "Fear Strikes Out" than their are "King Richard"'s. Like, imagine if Venus and Serena's story did turn out negatively after all this; I mean, that could've really screwed up their minds. It'd be like, watching a movie about The Beach Boys that's about how the Wilsons' father was the one most responsible for their success and accomplishments? Like, that's kinda how absurd that would be. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Yeah, that's the biggest issue with this film, the framing is all wrong; the interesting perspective is Venus and Serena's not Richard's. I mean, he's certainly an important character, but they're the one's on the hero's journey, the father is just a guide for them. But Venus and Serena don't think that and wanted this story to be about him instead, so-, (Shrugs) I don't know, if they think he's this important than who am I to judge them? He's the one who nurtured them, and things certainly turned out alright for them overall, and on that level, I guess it's worth recommending since it's about as decent movie with this premise could be. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">As for this being the film that Will Smith cashed in his Faustian bargain in order to win his Oscar,... (Shrugs) well, we'll see in the future if it was worth it for him. For me, it's a weird, albeit well-made, but ultimately average and forgettable sports biopic, and I guess he was fine in a role that suits him very well. I just wish it was a supporting role instead of a lead; I might've thought higher of performance honestly if that was the case.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>NO TIME TO DIE </b>(2021) Director: Cary Joji Fukanaga</span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐⭐</span></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N_gD9-Oa0fg" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">
So-eh, I-eh,- that ending. I-, I did not see that coming....</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Hmm.... Okay. Let's talk about "Casino Royale", for a moment. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I don't think it was totally understood at the time, but in hindsight I put "Casino Royale" up there with any James Bond film. I tend to be one of those people who only thinks "Goldfinger" is the only true essential Bond movie, and usually the best, but if "Goldfinger" is one, than "Casino Royale" is 1A. It's not entirely the quality of the film, a lot of it is also just how different it was than every other James Bond film. As good as the movies could be, and I'd argue even had been; (I seem to be the only one who no doesn't outright hate "Die Another Day"; I don't really get why that's so much more ridiculous, than, I don't know, "Moonraker", so of the other ridiculous films in this franchise) but the franchise, had long gotten, pretty stale. Despite a few bumps of relevance since it's '60s heyday, the truth is that, the franchise never really set itself out to reinvent itself much, and the formula had gotten cliche, outdated and fairly boring. If you grew up watching the Bond movies from the '60s, you pretty much could rather easily keep up and see the same movie from the '90s James Bond, or the '70s, or the '80s for that matter. But, "Casino Royale" was not different in it's tone and approach to those Bond movies, it was a literal reboot of the franchise, beginning with before Bond earned his double 0 status and it circumvented or mocked much of the traditional tropes of the franchise. Bond didn't particular care how his martini was a prepared, nor was there even a Q character introduced yet, so the high-tech gadgetry was at a minimum, it wasn't his Aston-Martin he was driving, he didn't understand why he had to wear a tuxedo, he was blond and gruff, much more akin to the Bond in the Ian Fleming novel, which, "Casino Royale", was the first of the Bond novels, and also one that somehow had never been officially adapted to the screen before. It was so powerful, that five movies on, when we meet James Bond here, in "No Time to Die" and he's visiting the grave of Vesper Lynn, we know exactly who it is and why he's there, something that, frankly I don't think I could see happening with any other so-called Bond girls. In fact, this reboot is actually shockingly light on Bond girls and their importance and relevance to the tangential story, and that's the other big thing that "Casino Royale" marked, the Daniel Craig Bond movies, were going to have a continuing storyline. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">My biggest fear of this, when that realization started to become apparent was that the films would transition too much from this "Casino Royale" Bond origin story, and eventually go too far and turn Craig and the movies, into, well, more typical and traditional James Bond films. I didn't want that, and, there were times where they slipped a little too far into that. Maybe this is me, but I've never cared much for Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) as a Bond villain. There's no 1A after Goldfinger on my list of Bond villains, let's put it that way, and to be fair, not all the Craig Bonds were great, and I think "Quantum of Solace" was just outright boring and a straight up bad film, but none of them are disposable or unnecessary. They started at the beginning of Bond for a reboot, and they kept telling and we did grow into the characters. They even made one movie that's mostly about M (Ralph Fiennes in this film) just so we can tell a more overall story of Bond. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">And now that Daniel Craig is leaving the franchise, for arguably the first time in the franchise, we get a true conclusion. Don't worry, they'll make Bond movies longer than they'll make Spider-Man movies I assure you, (Or at least they better) but, we get a real ending here, and I won't give it away, but it's truly satisfying. We meet up with a retired Craig as he gets swung back into work after meeting Leiter (Jeffrey Wright) his longtime CIA co-hort who's also been around since "Casino Royale". He's broken up with Madeleine (Lea Seydoux), the girl who, at the end of "Spectre" he believed was his true love, but came to distrust her after another co-ordinated attack on his life, and suspects her as being a traitor to Blofeld. Instead, he's wrapped up in a secret MI-5 program, Heracles, which, apparently was some kind of blood-transmission DNA manipulator who's facility was broken into, not by Blofeld, but by Safin (Rami Malek), a terrorist who actually is out to get Spectre, in vengeance for them killing his family years ago, and with whom, Madeleine, who was a scientist for Spectre, and who's father was also a scientist for Spectre. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Safin's a motivated villain, and one of the more traditional Bond ones in theory, he's even got his own hideout on an island where the majority of the movie's climax is. Honestly, I found most of the details involving the actual MaGuffin and why he's after it confusing, but basically it was a biological weapon that was supposed to be used for good, and a scientist that was turned developed it to use it for more widespread genocide, and blah, blah, blah, now everybody's pissed at England for their secrets and now Bond has to confront a captured Blofeld, who still was controlling his organization despite seeming like he was going insane, and then get to Safir, who's got Madeleine, and Madeleine's daughter (Lisa Dorah-Sonnet).</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">As a Bond movie, it's probably in the good-to-very good range moreso than great. In fact, it's downright dreary for much of the ending, albeit it's also intense, and this movie is in fact close to having too little of the old Bond movie influence narratively. Thank goodness for a wonderful shootout sequence involving Craig and a newer-esque CIA agent, Paloma, played by Ana De Armas, who both is a great person who absolutely should have a credit as a Bond girl, and also makes this a delightful "Knives Out" reunion. ("Knives Out" is amazing btw!) As an end to Bond, at least, Craig's Bond, and it's a wonderfully satisfying conclusion, one that takes a character that felt iconic and made him seem more real than ever. "No Time to Die"'s legacy will be that it made all five of the Daniel Craig Bond movies more special, and when you realize just how few of all the James Bond movies, really are special, that's saying something. Kudos to Craig, Barbara Broccoli, director Cary Fuji Fukunaga, and for everybody involved over the years of these five films, for being some of the interesting and compelling over the run of the franchise. </div></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>COMING 2 AMERICA </b>(2021) Director: Craig Brewer</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://media.architecturaldigest.com/photos/604153561e7a612248406b1b/16:9/w_2560%2Cc_limit/C2A2_2021_Unit_6000x4000_IAW_KeySet_02496R3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://media.architecturaldigest.com/photos/604153561e7a612248406b1b/16:9/w_2560%2Cc_limit/C2A2_2021_Unit_6000x4000_IAW_KeySet_02496R3.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Welcome, once again, to my least loved recurring feature on this blog; yep, it's that time again! It's another edition of "David Has to Review a Sequel to a Movie He Hasn't Watched To Begin With Yet, Because He Didn't Think It Was Important Enough to Get To Originally, and Now, People Think The Sequel's Good Enough That He Has to Watch Both Now!" </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Ugh, man, I hate this segment. But no, I skipped the original "Coming to America", until now. Apparently, that was a mistake, because it's- what is it, July, now, like 33 YEARS LATER, they decide that movie was good and important to make a sequel, and reportedly there was enough people about the sequel that it grabbed my attention. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">(Sigh)</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">So, why did I never get to "Coming to America" 'til now?! </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">(Shrugs)</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Honestly, I kinda always thought people considered it second-tier Eddie Murphy at best, to be honest. Granted I'm a little behind on Eddie to begin with, I'm already fearing that there'll be another "Beverly Hills Cop" movie for a later edition of this, but I don't know, I thought the essentials were "Trading Places", "The Nutty Professor", "Bowfinger", "Shrek", eh, "48 Hours", sure, the parts of "Dreamgirls" that don't suck, and-eh, yeah, I'll catch up "Beverly Hills Cop" eventually, and if you want to count them, "Raw" and "Delirious". I always heard "Coming to America" was just kinda ehh. I'm already partially in the minority on "48 Hours", which I don't think is nearly as interesting as people did at the time, but I always grew up in the early '90s, and that was not a good time film-wise for Eddie Murphy. I remember even Gene Siskel interviewing him once asking him about his string of bad movies; I mean that's notable for two reasons, one, Siskel & Ebert rarely did interviews on their show, but also, Eddie Murphy is actually pretty hard, in general, to interview. He doesn't do a lot of talk shows, when he does it's a delight, but he's fairly seclusive for a major Hollywood star, at least when it comes to the public. "The Nutty Professor" was considered a major comeback of his back then, and he had a few other good films after that too. There was a brief point in the '90s where he was almost as big as he was in the eighties. His career overall though, has had some severe ups and downs, in general. Right now, he's in a good peak it seems. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">However, I did have to quickly watch the original "Coming to America" before getting to this, and-eh, honestly I kinda didn't like it. It's got a good joke or two, there's some wonderful little cameos and whatnot and of course Eddie Murphy's talents are on display, but I found it boring. I found it confusing too. I don't think it's aged that well. There's something very weird and off-putting about a foreign country leader, who's so secluded in his own world where he's literally bathed by naked female servants, just feels weird. It's also, very slow, the jokes are very far apart to me. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Honestly, you know what the movie really needed? Well, a sequel, 'cause I actually liked "Coming 2 America" much more than the original. The multiple layers of conflict help. In the original, the only real conflict was Akeem (Murphy) going to America and how he reacts to their strange ways, it's a weird fish-out-of-water narrative that I don't think is particularly set up well. In "Coming 2 America" we get a lot more of Zamunda. He's still out-of-touch as a Prince of this African nation, but it's a little more modern and realistically so, even if it is over-the-top. I know, I'm always willing to accept anybody who gets Salt-N-Pepa to perform for their anniversary party. But, the main thing I liked was how it expanded and built upon the world of Zamunda. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">We barely saw much of the land of Nexdoria in the first movie; it was so little, I didn't realize how Marx Brothers that joke was, but I was happy to see that the daughter was still hopping on one foot and barking like a dog for Prince Akeem. Anyway, their land is poor, and while the King (James Earl Jones, loving to ham it up) is dying, Akeem and his wife Lisa (Shari Headley) have been ruling Zumanda for years, and have produced three girls, led by the oldest Meeka (Kiki Layne), who is getting prepared to lead and possibly marry a Prince from the neighboring Nexdoria. Instead, we find out that Akeem, has a bastard son in Queens from his trip back at the previous movie. Zamunda law is still old-fashioned enough that he needs a male heir, whether through birth or marriage to take over, and the leader of Nexdoria, General Izzi (Wesley Snipes) is preparing to assassinate him and start a war if Akeem is unable to produce a male heir.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Akeem goes back to America and finds his son Lavelle (Jermaine Fowler) eventually taking him and his mother Mary (Leslie Jones) and an Uncle Reem (Tracy Morgan) back to Zamunda where he will get acquainted with his princely duties. There's also some tests to pass, and he ends up falling in love with his groomer Mirembe (Nonzano Mbathe) and there's some typical well-set schtick based around Akeem's now being King and not living up to his promise to change the ways, and now it's his son Lavelle who's backing out of the arranged marriage to pursue true love...- I'm being blase, but I actually like how manic this is when you describe it. Plot-wise, this feels like an older comedy, something the Marx Brothers, or Bob Hope or Bing Crosby would've fallen themselves into, and those films, at their best were just nutty. That's something that I didn't get with the original; it was just too thin. Here, there's a lot all going on, and it's not all sensical, and it's not all PC either, but this movie, should just be as manic as possible. More random dancing girls in obnoxious stereotypical, "outfits", if you can call them that. More soldiers, more Eddie Murphy in makeup. Maybe it has a little too many callbacks to the previous film; I didn't think the McDowell's joke would keep going, but I like that I got to see Louie Anderson one last time. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Yeah, I'm still not convinced that this is peak, essential Eddie Murphy with either of these films but I definitely enjoyed "Coming 2 America" more, and probably did enjoy it more knowing the first film. It didn't change my opinion on the first, but you really did get the sense that Eddie Murphy really liked that first film, and that he really liked this idea of bringing everybody back and telling a better, richer story than the original film. I can appreciate that he can appreciate it, and that's enough for me. </div></div></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>LUNANA: A YAK IN THE CLASSROOM </b>(2021) Director: Pawo Choyning Dorji</span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://easyreadernews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Lunana.Dorji-and-yak.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="507" data-original-width="800" height="406" src="https://easyreadernews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Lunana.Dorji-and-yak.jpeg" width="640" /></a></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">There's a couple things I found interesting about "Lunana: A Yak in the Classroom" before I watched the film. The first is that, it's a rare movie that got disqualified at the Oscars, and then re-eligible. In 2020 is was submitted for the Academy Awards International Feature category, but was disqualified because of a technicality. The nation of Bhutan didn't have an officially recognized Academy voting panel, so the next year, they got the recognition, submitted the same film, and it not only got accepted for eligibility, but it got a surprise nomination. The second thing, was the fact that it was a film from Bhutan. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Obviously, from the fact that they needed Academy approval for eligibilITy, they're not a country known for their filmmaking; "Lunana..." is only the second film they've ever submitted to the Academy. It's got a bigger film industry than that number would suggest, but it's still in it's primordial stage. The small mountain Buddhist nation is known for being very insular and has only really recently started to take in and expand it's influences beyond they're more friendly neighboring countries, especially India, where much of their cinema was directly inspired by for years. (There's a lot of remakes of Bollywood films in older Bhutanese cinema.)</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">In fact, the movie is kinda about that struggle with the country right now. Ugyen (Sherab Dorji) is a government worker getting his teaching license, but he wants to move out to Australia and pursue a singing career. Bhutan is a monarchy and also being a Buddhist monarchy, government work is pretty admirable in the country, so not going after it can be somewhat disconcerting; it is to his family and he's looking for a way out. Then, he gets transferred from the city, to Lunana, a more mountainous village in the country that's heavily cut off from the major cities. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">He's not happy about it, but he eventually gets there and begins getting seduced by the area. There's not even a blackboard in the classroom, and he eventually begins adapting and teaching well, and begins liking it. Teachers are highly admired and prized in this remote area and the children love him. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">He also befriends a local, Saldon (Keldon Lhamo Gurung), the daughter of Asha (Kunzang Wangdi) who sings a folk song every day as an offering to the village. Ugyen is intrigued and asks her to teach it to him. Oh, and at some point, she gives him a yak, that eventually gets kept in the classroom with the kids. Honestly, it's not as important to the story as you'd think. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">The story itself is fairly basic, there's plenty of films out there about somebody going out to some obscure part of the world that they don't want to be apart and getting entranced by it and then regretful and forlorn about returning to their normal world, or the world they think they want to be apart of, but it's the setting and context that sell it. The movie has a more emotional resonance than that and could be read as a modern commentary on the country of Bhutan. It's also just an entrancing guide into the country and it's modern conflict within the country as they strive to figure out their place in the world. I don't know if it is that, it could just be a lovely little tale made that happened to be made in an obscure part of the world that makes me think it's more about the country than it is, but it feels that way. "Lunana..." is a delightful and powerful little story about a conflicting young man in a conflicted young country tied between the traditions of the past and the hopes of the future. There's a lot of ways this film could've been hokey or cliche, and while on paper it is, in practice, I appreciated the nuances in the storytelling that made it much more then that. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>HILLBILLY ELEGY </b>(2020) Director: Ron Howard</span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐</b></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><br /></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://occ-0-55-325.1.nflxso.net/dnm/api/v6/E8vDc_W8CLv7-yMQu8KMEC7Rrr8/AAAABY50Dv-Vt2i5wZu3zr05FO_OLiEaPGJMsfWqPvoLCV8SPmem8biAp4TGTH_5iAr0FceNZrypUDvPyrovVBvfFUi3GJFSEzcrrDrd.jpg?r=59a" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://occ-0-55-325.1.nflxso.net/dnm/api/v6/E8vDc_W8CLv7-yMQu8KMEC7Rrr8/AAAABY50Dv-Vt2i5wZu3zr05FO_OLiEaPGJMsfWqPvoLCV8SPmem8biAp4TGTH_5iAr0FceNZrypUDvPyrovVBvfFUi3GJFSEzcrrDrd.jpg?r=59a" width="640" /></a></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">So, I was taught forks in ninth grade. I forget what the name of the class was, it was when I was at a magnet program that, honestly sucked, at the time, I hear it's run better now, but the class, kinda was an intro and a catch-all class for general knowledge and career path indicators; it's the class that you took those career tests in, those tests that determine your skillset and what kinds of possible future careers you'd be good for based on those results. Anyway, I do actually remember a lot from this class curiously and one of things we were taught was the rules about forks and spoons, and fancy dinners such as they were. Always go left to right from the outside in with your forks, always eat meat with a knife and fork, fish, you can eat with only a fork however, and if you're still not sure, always just use whatever utensil the head of the table is eating, because very often, whoever is actually in that seat, might be just as unknowing and unaware as you are, but he is the one that's big and powerful enough that nobody will tell him no. I'd make an obvious Trump joke here, but the person who wrote the book that "Hillbilly Elegy" is based on, JD Vance, is based on is currently a Republican Senatorial candidate who got Trump's endorsement, so apparently he eventually learned that one, and perhaps maybe we should abandon that rule. Anyway, that's one stressful opening on "Hillbilly Elegy" for our main character, JD (Gabriel Basso) as he's trying to get an interview out of Law School, hopefully a good-paying internship of some kind, learning from his girlfriend Usha (Frieda Pinto) over the phone, what fork to eat with, before returning to some, distressingly frustrating elitist questions from the table about his background. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">"Hillbilly Elegy" was described as one of the books that help explain how someone like Trump could've won in 2016.... (Shrugs) I can kinda see that, like, it is kinda embarrassing to think about how somebody can hear of someone being from Kentucky and immediately ask them if they worked on the coal mines. It's also annoying to hear an old Mamaw (Glenn Close) correct her grandson by saying, they're called "Indians, not Native Americans, like the Cleveland Indians," and yes, it took me so long to get to this movie that the Indians, did indeed change their names because of how racist and insensitive "Indians" was as a name. (And it was and is racist and derogatory, always was, you can look that one up.) The movie itself, well, it's been pretty heavily panned. Glenn Close, pulled off an extreme rare feat with this film, getting both an Oscar nomination, and a Razzie nomination for Best Supporting Actress and Worst Supporting Actress respectively, for the same performance. She lost both awards, but while the movie was heavily panned in general, it was polarizing. There are some who thought the movie, which is based on Vance's own youth, fell into some poverty tropes and stereotypes, some decried the film as "Poverty Porn" in fact, while some others were fairly effected by it, and found the movie quite inspiring and powerful, and a love letter to both his family history, but to an often-overlooked and shunned part of the country. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Ehh, where am I standing on this? Well, I'm mostly caught in-between. I don't think the movie is "poverty porn" or anything, but I also don't think it's that good either. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I haven't read the book to double-check what's been changed or altered and/or how, but director Ron Howard, who also got a Razzies nomination for the film, I imagine probably improved the material. It wouldn't be the first time, Ron Howard is a very underrated director, in general, and one of his better skills, is taking material that's not particularly of quality on the page and turning them into some surprisingly quality films. The big one that most will point to is "The Da Vinci Code" and it's subsequent sequels, which, yeah, is pretty cheesy to read, but I actually like the two of those movies I've seen, as absurd as they were. From what I can tell in this case, the main thing he added was a narrative, 'cause the book is far more anecdotal than this film is, with many of his personal stories being used as arguments to help defend or showcase his political views and give explanation for why much of the Rust Belt has shifted from recent years from Democrat to Republican. Some of these observances I think are interesting, if not valid, although I'd to love to argue some of them, but in terms of a narrative, the movie, kinda has to form one, and it's tricky. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Basically, the whole film takes place with a ticking clock to an interview, and the rest is told in flashback to JD's youth (Owen Asztalos). In the current time, around 2011, he's gone back to his hometown of Middletown, Ohio to collect his mother Bev (Amy Adams) a heroin junkie who's fallen off the wagon again, after years of bad choices and usually bad men that primarily came about mostly after her grandfather Papaw (Bo Hopkins) died. His sister Lindsay has been married to her boyfriend, basically since high school, and has been struggling to deal with her life and kids, while also keeping an eye on their mother and JD's left, first for the Marines, and then for Law School at Yale. The movie jumps a lot in time and narrative, and keeping track of everything after this or within the timeline, basically becomes moot after a while. You do get to see all the major events, but we don't see them necessarily in a particular order, which I can't say is a terrible move here, believe it or not, but it's not really well setup.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"> </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">That's the other thing, the movie sets us up with the geography of the area, how JD loves the Summers in the Kentucky Appalachia with his Grandma more than his homelife in- well, it's not really a big city, but if you prefer the Appalachia, than I guess it is. Eventually, he does move in with his grandmother, after Bev first begins to struggle and her addictions and messy relationship start really effecting their lives. Mamaw isn't particularly saintly either, we learn, but what really brings this down from somewhat compelling as a narrative to something less compelling is, oddly, how little the geography matters. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">The movie is elegiac about the Appalachia in a sense that the narrator says it's where he grew up and is therefore some place that's apart of him, but the area and his problems, actually have very little to do with each other. His mother's a junkie who goes from man-to-man, his grandparents are old nags who struggle in their old age, his sister's in love, and his father's absent,- honestly, what the hell does that have to do with the hillbilly culture that you couldn't find in the big cities? I know people in rural, urban and suburban environments with basically the same problems growing up; it's not even necessarily a class issue, or even a cultural issue with that area necessarily. His family's fucked up, I'll give him that, and I will admit that I think it's a bit of an accomplishment getting to be as successful as he has after growing up like that, but there's nothing particularly compelling about it that makes me convinced that it was that unique. Maybe it's supposed to not be unique, but-, no, I don't see too many grandmothers light their loved ones on fire for being drunk, so I don't think that's it. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">And frankly, I didn't think his early memories of being a kid in Appalachia were that good either; he's reminiscing about how his family inspired him after he got bullied by neighborhood kids, like what-the-fuck, why is that a positive to you?! </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">There is a good idea, somewhere here, in fact I think I do know where it is, and they missed a really sharp storytelling idea here; I won't give it away, but this could've easily been a road movie and that would've solved a lot of it's problems, for both the narrative interest, and for the characters themselves. The movie doesn't take that direction, I get the direction it did take, but it is short-sighted. The whole movie is kind of a short-sighted mess; it's a whole film about how great the area where this kid grew up is, and then the climax is, him leaving it...- that's not how these movies usually go. It's almost like he's trying to justify it to himself that this is where he belongs because this is where he came from..., and I just have severe doubts about this. I mean, there's another running theme of the movie where the kid is interested in politics, and that's from him constantly being thwarted in his attempts to watch the news, like "Meet the Press", which...- like, okay, I was a '90s kids, around the era as him, and I did watch the news very intensely more than most, especially at around that time, 'cause the late '90s, early 2000s, well, it's hard to remember now, but there a lot going on in Washington, but it never comes off as something he would have genuine interest in through any of other actions; it feels much more like something that might've been true, but I suspect he probably also watched "The Disney Afternoon" a lot, and that just didn't make it into the film. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">"Hillbilly Elegy" is well-acted, and probably does improve the material given, but I don't think it does it enough. It's more interesting to reflect on afterwards than it is to watch, and it can be irksome at times. I don't think it's terrible either, and- eh, I guess some of the makeup is kinda Award-worthy, and sure, Glenn Close and even Amy Adams, in an underwritten, tricky role is good, but it's a lot less passionate and inspirational than I believe it's filmmakers think it is. And while it does indeed, see a lot of the problems with the area and the ways of life, it doesn't look at them, and tries to come up with better solutions; it just looks at them with awe in how unfortunate and sad it really is. In many ways I could easily make an argument that I should really be much more frustrated with it than I am, but I guess I'm lenient 'cause I'm somewhat impressed that the movie isn't as bad as it could've been. It could've also been a lot better though. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>ROCKS </b>(2021) Director: Sarah Gavron</span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://variety.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/rocks.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="800" height="320" src="https://variety.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/rocks.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I don't think I've ever fully realized just how much Ken Loach's influence is in British cinema has. I guess that's partly because he's a neorealist and you don't usually think of them as being influential, especially in some of the more major filmmaking countries when you look upon their overall film landscape. Italy created Neorealism, but they didn't stick with neorealism. I don't necessarily think of England as a country that stuck with it either, but there's quite a lot of cinema from England that's clearly inspired by his work, or if his work necessarily, the influence of telling tales of some of the downtrodden characters in a post Thatcher society that's somewhat crumbling even today, and is full of fringe characters on the edge of society, often young characters, caught in some of our worst societal sins, economic and otherwise, that's when you do start to begin realizing that the influence is much more pronounced than it first seems. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I don't how to rank "Rocks" on that scale; I'm not even really sure how much "Rocks" is influenced by Loach. It's the latest from Sarah Gavron, she was the director behind "Suffragette" as loose biopic about the fight for Women's right to vote in the UK. I didn't care for that film; I thought it was trying too much when it could've been sharper. Gavron's new attempt "Rocks" is more universal, and specific, but at the same time, I could see the argument that the story perhaps is too manipulative and generic. Rocks (Bukky Bakray) is the daughter of a Nigerian immigrant single mother who lives with her little brother Emmanuel (D'Angelo Osei Kissiedu), who she takes care of a lot since her mother is apparently busy all the time. We don't get to know how busy she is, because we find out that she's abandoned them one day. Rocks tries to get ahold of her, but to no avail. She was fired from her job a week ago, and we have suspicions, but eventually, things start to get bad. Money runs out, electricity runs out, but she doesn't seek out help.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Sometimes for good reason. a few of her friends thinks she's helping out by calling social services, including getting into an argument with Sumaya but that ends up separating them eventually when, after getting kicked out of a hotel she managed to talk herself into, her friend Agnes (Ruby Stokes) calls them, thinking it was the best idea.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Actually, compared to Loach, this movie, and a lot of other modern British-neorealist cinema, seem to be more inclined to focus on the struggles with the familial dynamics plaguing the country as opposed to just the governmental ones. They're both related of course, but...-, I think if anywhere, that's where "Rocks" really separates itself the most. It's a movie with few adult or parental characters, so we're mostly following these young adults, and the one thing I noticed most everybody agreeing on with this film is that, it's gets teenagers and their behavior, actions, motivations, etc., it gets all that right, which ultimately I think is a good thing. Well, not entirely, there's one hypocritical character, Roshe (Shaneigha-Monik Greyson) who commits fraud through her family's store, taking customer's credit cards, and when Rocks does the same to survive, she publicly out her. Rocks also defends another girl from bullies, causing a food fight in-, what I think was a Home Economics class. (I hate the term Home Economics; I'm glad I took Independent Living in school; except for the fact that my teacher at the end of the year, went back to her ex-husband. True story) And actually, the nice thing about the movie is how, when much of her inner friends circle realize how she's been on her own and ducking social services people, they try to help her out. Even combining their funds to get her to see her brother at his care foster school. It's actually hopeful for the future in my mind to see how good these kids are. They're mostly minority immigrants as well, but not all, and they are from different economic classes as well. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I suspect that's why the film plays so well in England especially, where class has historically been a major cultural divider and not just an economic one. For me, "Rocks" is good, not great, and doesn't entirely show me stuff that I haven't seen before, but there's really good performances and a hopeful look at modern London youths and how they handle difficult problems, often on their own, and seeing them as being genuinely empathetic and helpful that puts it over the top. This is a weird movie where the only villain, supposedly, is the unseen mother character who abandons her children, but you know, and while that's terrible and there's a lot to be said about the perils of struggling to raise kids on your own in a society that punishes single parents, especially immigrant ones, especially black immigrant ones, the movie might be sad on the surface, but it's overall perspective on the world is hopeful. Don't confuse that for an easy watch, but considering the alternative endings to stories like these, this is not bad. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>PAW PATROL: THE MOVIE </b>(2021) Director: Cal Brunker</span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><br /></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/SKUS3AAFCFKGLATCQK4Q3QIJBM.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="335" data-original-width="800" height="268" src="https://cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/SKUS3AAFCFKGLATCQK4Q3QIJBM.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I remember reading a profile on Tony Macklin one day; I forget what periodical it was,- Tony Macklin is a famous freelance movie critic based in Las Vegas; he still reviews films and is generally well-respected critic. He's a regular participant in Sight & Sound's yearly poll for instance. Anyway, I remember reading him back when he wrote for the Las Vegas Mercury, a now-defunct weekly alternative magazine in town, back then there were a few of them. The Mercury had some decent articles and writers in them, but he had some pretty negative things to say about them. One of the things he mentioned was how the editor would send him to review the "Pokemon" movie, which-, yeah, that was not something he should've been doing. I'm not saying that 'cause he's not qualified to have an opinion on it or anything, or that movie critics shouldn't have to be review everything and give them a fair shot, but when you're one of like, four film critics on a staff for a local alternative magazine that's cost, free, to pick up, and you're sending your most knowledgeable and experienced film critic to go see "Pokemon" and write a review of it, you're probably quite inadequate at being a magazine editor who doesn't use the resources he has correctly. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Anyway, I saw "PAW Patrol: The Movie" this week.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">(Shrugs)</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Actually, if I being honest, I actually knew more about "PAW Patrol" going into this than I did "Coming to America". I had seen a few sporadic episodes out of curiosity when I had cable and was stuck in some random hotel rooms with cable and my internet not working. There's nothing on basic cable in the afternoon, so, why not keep something, light and educational on. "PAW Patrol" did get a little bit of news a few years ago when #DefundThePolice was trending, and the nuttiness of right-wingers pontificated that that meant that somehow those people wanted all police taken away, including the PAW Patrol. It got to the point where they had to tweet about it. Also, we really should defund the police, they're terrible and they don't protect us, blah, blah, blah....</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">However, that said, if the police acted a lot more like the PAW Patrol, I probably would want more of them around. The PAW Patrol are a team of, well, puppies, led by and brought together by Ryder (Will Brisban) a, kid, who, in Adventure Bay, apparently was placed in charged of the local police, fire, and all other emergency sectors and decided to hire puppies to run them. I-, I don't get it either, but apparently it works. They treat everyone equally, they seem to save those who are in trouble on a regular basis. They don't overstep their influence and power, and are mostly there to help others. Honestly, yeah, I'd rather have the PAW Patrol than the regular police. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Granted, Adventure Bay, doesn't seem to be that populated an area, but in this movie, they take a rare detour outside, or apart, of their jurisdiction-, I actually don't know how the jurisdictional lines work here, but they're called to Adventure City, after a corrupt mayoral race lead to their old rival, Humdinger (Ron Pardo) becoming the new Mayor. They come, to help, because he is a really awful mayor. Yeah, I don't know if he was created in this series, before or after Trump, but yeah, whether on purpose or not, he is a major Trump caricature. He's so selfish and self-absorbed that basically all his idea are disastrous failures plans to show how great he is, that usually injure or hurt himself or everyone else around him. Also, he's more of a cat person. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Among his disasters, he rushed a fireworks display for his inauguration party, which leads to the fireworks all going through the city instead of up in the sky, he tries to add a loop-de-loop to the subway, he forces the university science department use their weather machine to suck up all the clouds so he could have that fireworks display, and just have nice days everyday while he's in charge, he puts a giant tower on top of the tallest building in order to work at the top of the world's tallest building.... Like, yeah, he just causes havoc and chaos wherever he is. And then get annoyed when puppies have to come and, save everybody from his failures. There's truly many egomaniacal layers to this guy, but we gotta move on.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">The major inner conflict in the show involves Chase (Iain Armitage), one of the PAW Patrol, who, in a previous life, had some bad experiences as a young pup in Adventure City. He tries to help on and keep going with the aiding the rescue missions, but while the missions remain successful, his strive for perfection is costing him to make potentially lethal mistakes and Ryder eventually benches him temporarily while they're in town. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">There's also a storyline involving a young female city pup Liberty (Marsai Martin), who is a bit of a fangirl of the PAW Patrol, but also, after she calls them in on the city's latest disaster, and begins helping them on their rescues and guiding them through Adventure City, almost seeming and acting like an Honorary Member of the Paw Patrol at times. At times, she reminded me of Cleo from "Clifford the Big Red Dog"; I was almost convinced Cree Summer was her voice actress before I looked into it. No word from whether or not Care Bear Cousins count as Care Bears right now, but apparently there is room for advancement in the PAW Patrol, and a willingness to recruit outside their base jurisdiction and room for potential expansion and that's good to know. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Honestly, I rather enjoyed this film. I came in with little-to-no expectation, as was probably just gonna be nice if I thought the movie was good at killing 90 minutes of time, without killing a five-year-old's brain cells, but you know what, I totally get why PAW Patrol are popular and well-accepted in family homes. And the movie's pretty fun; in fact, it got pretty terrifying at the end. It didn't feel just like another episode of the show, but it didn't necessarily go too over-and-above what I'd expect from a preschool series being adapted to a theatrical feature length. It feels like the people involved cared about making this and making it good. I can see myself liking this show if I was a young kid now. I don't know if it's a favorite of mine, or anyway, but it's perfectly suitable, and hey, if in the future, people who grew up on "PAW Patrol" were to use the structure to create a more efficient and less awful actual police and emergency system in this country, one that comes when needed and prepared to help out the people who are the most in trouble on a regular basis, than perhaps this show could possibly do some good. Honestly, this is a movie that should be shown to cops. It shows how helpful they can be, and that it's good to arrest and jail corrupt politicians when they break the law and put the public's lives in danger! It's gotta be better than most of what they're teaching the police now. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>MLK/FBI </b>(2021) Director: Sam Pollard</span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div></div></div></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/120411111923-mlk-speaking-full-169.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/120411111923-mlk-speaking-full-169.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I must say that it's genuinely weird to think about how many television appearances there are of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and how strange and surreal it is to see some of them. Where he's always stern and serious about the struggles of the negro and their ongoing fights for civil rights, and yet, still being somewhat looser and cordial, even joking and laughing at times and it's weird to think that, basically my entire life, we've had a national day devoted to him. There are people alive today who probably still take January 20th off with pay every year, that cheered when he was assassinated. Oh yeah, he was never beloved or admired, nationally in his life. We do like to think of the '60s as a more liberal and free flowing time, but while it was the dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the reality was that the leaders in charge were still very much ideologues that grew up in a time when then thought that African-American were to be kept in their place and shouldn't be so outspoken in general, much less about such liberal and communist ideas. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Yeah, MLK wasn't a communist, don't let that get twisted, but J. Edgar Hoover definitely thought he was. It's- (Sigh)- look, it's-, it's not like the FBI is entirely legit or whatever right now, as an organization, naturally, some of their actions, supposed or otherwise are gonna have a little shade to and surrounding them, and the fact that they are a policing organization at all is always gonna make anything they do skeptical, but by any measurable standard, they're a helluva lot better now, than they used to be. Not all of that can be contributed to J. Edgar Hoover finally dying, but a lot of it can be. J. Edgar's place in the story of America is, on some level, always gonna just be this bizarre mindfuck of the history books to analyze. In hindsight, a lot of his behavior, well, it does sound very much like Trump. He was paranoid about subversion, and always making claims about certain liberal peoples who he thought of as threats. Hoover was good friends with Roy Cohn, who was one of Trump's mentors, but...- yeah, while you can point to successes of his, especially in his early career, he basically used the FBI that he created as his personal gestapo. And MLK was no different. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">King himself was skeptical of Hoover's full interest in him for awhile, but eventually, it became quite clear that they were wire-tapping him and everywhere King went, their were agents who followed. Even one of the major Civil Rights photographers turned out to secretly be an FBI spy. One of the weird weaknesses of the FBI is that it's basically able to be altered by the person in charge more than most U.S. Government organizations, arguably more than the White House even. He was known for supposedly finding salacious materials on all his enemies and probably several of his so-called friends, which is part of why he stayed in power for so long, arguably the most influential political figure in American history who never ran for elected office of any kind. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">What exactly did his G-men find searching on King? Well, there were definitely threats of his, and they definitely found out about his indiscretions. It's known that King did have affairs and apparently at some point, Hoover tried to use that to stop King, even sent several fake letters from supporters and even one of his tapes to him. King's camp seemed to laugh most of them off as Hoover had a distinct disadvantage in that, he really didn't quite have any good concept of African-American culture, and just how obviously out-of-place some of his attempts to fool him were.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"> </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">"MLK/FBI" is a pretty good document on the FBI's involvement in King, as well as King himself and how he worked around and handled the threat. It also gives a pretty good breakdown of King over the years. While there's definitely, nuance to him personally, there was also some political nuance from King as well as some of this is showcased. While he worked with LBJ to get the Voting Rights Act passed for instance, Johnson was not particularly pleased with his stance against Vietnam, which was much more of a firestorm than is remembered; even much of the major Northern liberal press took issue with him at that time; this was '67, a year before his assassination, which, the FBI actually went to stunningly grave detail to seek out James Earl Ray and find, although, it is a bit troubling that they followed King for years and were there in the next room when he was shot and didn't do anything.... (Hoover did know how to up the actual investigations into crimes when you know, their reputation was genuinely at stake), but very much still when the Vietnam War, was popular in the country. The war didn't start becoming generally unpopular until after the Tet Offensive in '68, and even then.... We still don't know exactly what they found on King, the official records of the wiretapping won't be made public 'til 2027, and there are some of the more controversial speculations about King that some are kinda concerned about.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"> Honestly, I thought one of the reasonable talking heads in the film, and he was mostly a disembodied voice from a recording, was from James Comey, the then-head of the FBI, saying that he suspected that most of what he suspects will be revealed will mainly be proof that King was more complex as a person, and probably more of Hoover's general obsession with the private sex lives of the people he investigated for subversion. Yes, it's weird how Hoover's sexuality, which, is highly discussed now personally for him, was such a key touchstone with him in terms of what he thought of as hypocrisy in general, and yeah, apparently with King, who was married and a minister of course. There is one brief note of the one known FBI note about King being present at a rape in Baltimore, that, based on the descriptions definitely has certain questions regarding it's legitimacy,- and again, the issue is that he was present, he wasn't necessarily involved or participatory, and even then, the account sounds odd.... You gotta remember, most of this wasn't videotaped and probably wasn't photographed, this was people listening to wiretaps and hearing things through walls, there's a decent chance that while a lot of King's transgressions will become more public in the future, that a lot of this might be imagination run amuck.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">The big questioned posed with the movie isn't so much what the contents are in the FBI's vault on King, it's more to do with the historical purpose of them, and whether or not they should be used to tell his story. We're gonna learn quite a lot from them I'm sure, but legally and technically, we shouldn't really have them at all, and what do we make of recordings of King? It's a question that's posed and considered but never answered, although I supposed the film's existence itself is a bit of an answer. Not a complete one, as this is essentially an incomplete film. There's more to the story of Martin Luther King, Jr., and the FBI, and perhaps one will get the complete story. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div></div></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696790060036702346.post-72836254351543609872022-07-15T00:09:00.004-07:002022-07-15T20:18:43.953-07:0074th PRIMETIME EMMY AWARDS NOMINATIONS ANALYSES! And, why I'm not really caring about the EMMYS this year, and why they need to change. #BringBackBlueRibbonPanels!<div style="text-align: left;"> <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/J4l8F6UA4j8" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">(Sigh)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I am so sick of the Emmys that I want to vomit.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I know, everybody else, if they're angry at an awards show, it's usually the Oscars, and you know, I've never pretended they're perfect and they definitely have problems, and I don't always agree with them. hell, "Green Book" made my worst film list the year it won, a pick I got criticized for it, but I still stand by it. ("Green Book" is legitimately as bad as everybody thinks "Crash" is.) But, you know, I don't use that standard of "I have to agree with who they pick to begin with...",- like, (Blows raspberries) no, that's-, that's not the problem. Although, no, particularly in the categories I most care about, I haven't agreed with them in a long time, but it's how I don't agree.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">And I,-, I just can't take it anymore; I just fucking hate how the Emmys work right now. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I'm so sick and tired of staring at the Emmy nominees every goddamn year and seeing, not the best shows being nominated, but the most popular shows being nominated. The ones I read the most about, the ones I hear the most about, the ones that are the most popular and the most watched. (Well, the ones that don't have superheroes in them, thankfully.) Starting in 2015, the Emmys got rid of the so-called "<a href="https://www.vox.com/2015/9/15/9333321/emmys-rule-change-predictions">blue-ribbon panels</a>" they had, where select voters go to screenings and receive screeners of all the eligible submissions and then nominees. I can't say I always with those picks either, again, this isn't about what I think should win, but I always at least had the knowledge that the people voting, all industry professional and theoretically anyway, voting the categories that they were professionals at. It meant that, even if I didn't agree, I could at least respect whatever decisions they made, knowing that they were at least trying to honor their best in television every year. But ever since they got rid of those panels, and the left the voting to the entire academy to vote, and basically go off of "The Honors Systems".... (Sigh) Even the shows that everybody hates and complains about, seem to not only get nominated every year, but half the time they usually sweep! </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I legitimately can't tell you how much the Primetime Emmys have just depressed me over these recent years, and that's regardless of whether or not I like the choices they make. I want these award shows to at least feel like every year, they're trying to honor the best, whether that's a show that six million people have seen, or whether it's a show that six people have seen, and for all their faults, I still feel the Oscars are actually trying to do that. Maybe they aren't and it's just as much a show as anything, but it's a show that I can buy into, but I haven't believed that for the Emmys for a long, long time now. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">And look, I understand some of the arguments against these voting panels, like how they can have their own voting quirks (I didn't get why they gave Tyne Daly that Emmy for "Judging Amy" either), but mainly the bigger issue now is that, well, television is so big and massive right now, that voting panels would be unreasonable and impossible these days; this isn't the era of just three networks anymore. I mean, in certain categories, there could be like, 250 nomination submissions to sort through! And yes, that is a genuine, real logistical problem with the voting panels, there. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">As a counter-argument though, I DON'T CARE!!!!! Do it anyway! It was better then! It sucks now!<br /><br />#BrickBackBlueRibbonPanels!!!!!! #BringBackScreenings! </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">And I'm not saying we should just have voting panels only, I don't want 30 people deciding every category either. Awhile ago, I outline a proposal for a two-prong Emmy voting System that including both blue-ribbon panels and keep the vote open to the entire Academy. The link is<a href="https://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2019/08/proposition-for-new-emmy-voting-system.html"> HERE</a>. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">It's not a perfect system but it's more perfect than this one we've been using, and whether I'd agree with the results we'd get from this kind of system, if/when it gets implemented I can honestly claim that I would respects the decisions more and be happier with the Emmys overall because at least I'd feel like they made real efforts to seriously go through all of television and nomination and honor the best.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Right now though, the Emmys feel more and more like the worst popularity contest in Hollywood and all popularity contests suck!</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Well, wait a minute, I can think of one way to have a Hollywood popularity contest that would be fun...!<br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div>
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lGskvt6UfOQ" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe><div><br /></div><div>Can we have the Emmys in the Squid Games this year?! Please!? I bet it'll increase the ratings?!</div><div><br /></div><div>(Sigh)</div><div><br /></div><div>Oh well... Well, now that I did get all that off my chest, we might as well look at the nominees anyway. I mean, these mostly aren't bad shows from what I can tell, and I'm not begrudging the shows for being popular enough to get noticed, and frankly these things can still be good. I hate the system that picks them right now, but let's see how well they actually did pick. We'll start with the Comedy Series categories.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b><u><i>2022 PRIMETIME EMMYS NOMINEES</i></u></b></span></div><div><b><u>COMEDY SERIES</u></b></div><div><b><u><br /></u></b></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING COMEDY SERIES</b></div><div><b>Abbott Elementary-</b>ABC</div><div><b>Barry-</b>HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Curb Your Enthusiasm-</b>HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Hacks-</b>HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel-</b>Prime Video</div><div><b>Only Murders in the Building-</b>Hulu</div><div><b>Ted Lasso-</b>AppleTV+</div><div><b>What We Do in the Shadows-</b>FX</div><div><br /></div><div>(Sigh)</div><div><br /></div><div>Alright, I get it, I will get around to "What We Do in the Shadows" at some point. (Sigh) Sorry, I- the movie's still stuck on my Netflix queue and-, yeah, yeah.... I didn't think it would show up again, so I put it off again...- Anyway, uh, this is actually a very competitive category. Three former winners in the category with "Barry", "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel' and "Ted Lasso", three past nominees with "Hacks" leading the way along with "What We Do in the Shadows" and "Curb Your Enthusiasm," which-, just seems to always get nominated every year, whenever it decides to have a new season.... In fact, that's gotta be a record now. They got their first nomination in this category back in 2002! There can't have been another sitcom that got nominated in this category, 20 years apart! It's a bit surprising to see ABC, of all networks hold onto their nomination. "black-ish" ended, but "Abbott Elementary" takes its place, giving network it's only hope. Meanwhile, Netflix is shutout here while Hulu's "Only Murders in the Building" replaces last year's "PEN15" nomination. Despite HBO doing really well, the big shocker is "The Flight Attendant" missing the category this year, which-, I'm still in the middle of season 2, but I thought that was the best sitcom last year and still thought it was solid enough to deserve to get in again so far, even in a tough field where multiple perennial nominees came back. "Atlanta" for instance, missed for the first time it was eligible. "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel", to me, is the best of this bunch, but it missed Writing and Directing nominations, somehow.... (WTF Emmys) but I wouldn't exactly rule that out either. "Ted Lasso" won last year, and gut instinct tells me that it's between that and "Hacks", but in a tough and mostly wide-open field, this is technically as unpredictable this category's been in awhile. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTOR IN A COMEDY SERIES</b></div><div><b>Donald Glover-</b>"Atlanta"-FX</div><div><b>Bill Hader-</b>"Barry"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Nicholas Hoult-</b>"The Great"-Hulu</div><div><b>Steve Martin-</b>"Only Murders in the Building"-Hulu</div><div><b>Martin Short-</b>"Only Murders in the Building"-Hulu</div><div><b>Jason Sudeikis-</b>"Ted Lasso"-AppleTV+</div><div><br /></div><div>"The Great" is another show that I haven't caught yet, although I've heard good things, and despite that also missing Series, got into both Lead categories. Other than that though, good luck. It's up against three former winners in the category, all of which got into Series, and it's up against Martin Short and Steve Martin for their Series-nominated show. Both of whom btw, have never won a Performance Emmy, of any kind. They have both won, but Steve Martin's only Emmy win was as a writer for "The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour" back in 1967!!!! I'm not sure what the longest time between two Emmy wins by a person is, without another win in the middle, anyway; I'm fairly certain Betty White holds the record between a performer's first and last Emmy (Although technically her first Emmy was a L.A Area Emmy, but whatever...) but between just Emmy wins, of any kind, that'd have to be up there. Martin Short has two Emmys, one for Writing for "SCTV", back in the 1981, but he also has a Producing Emmy for that "A Tribute to Mel Brooks" special. It'd definitely be nice to see either of these television legends get a performance win. Also, weird to think that Sudeikis, last year's winner, is the only returning nominee this year. (Man, those COVID Emmys these last couple years will just look weird in the future) </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTRESS IN A COMEDY SERIES</b></div><div><b>Rachel Brosnahan-</b>"The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel"-Prime Video</div><div><b>Quinta Brunson-</b>"Abbott Elementary"-ABC</div><div><b>Kaley Cuoco-</b>"The Flight Attendant"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Elle Fanning-</b>"The Great"</div><div><b>Issa Rae-</b>"Insecure"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Jean Smart-</b>"Hacks"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><br /></div><div>Did anybody even realize that "Insecure" had a new season? (Sigh) I do need to catch up on that one but still, I legit didn't even realize that was still a thing. Anyway, Rae and Cuoco are past nominees, joining past winners Jean Smart and Rachel Brosnahan along with Elle Fanning and Quinta Brunson getting their first nominations. Brunson's also a nominee as a writer for the "Abbott Elementary" pilot episode, so they might not need to award her here. It's hard to go against Jean Smart, just 'cause, well, it's the Emmys and they love her no matter what she's in, and "Hacks" just happens to be a great show. Wouldn't be shocked if Kaley Cuoco could play spoiler here; if they actually do watch the tapes, she's got a lot of acting in a lot of those episodes. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A COMEDY SERIES</b></div><div><b>Anthony Carrigan-</b>"Barry"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Brett Goldstein-</b>"Ted Lasso"-AppleTV+</div><div><b>Toheeb Jimoh-</b>"Ted Lasso"-AppleTV+</div><div><b>Nick Mohammed-</b>"Ted Lasso"-AppleTV+</div><div><b>Tony Shalhoub-</b>"The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel"-Prime Video</div><div><b>Tyler James Williams-</b>"Abbott Elementary"-ABC</div><div><b>Henry Winkler-</b>"Barry"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Bowen Yang-</b>"Saturday Night Live"-NBC</div><div><br /></div><div>Is this Tyler James Williams's first nomination? Wow! That's long overdue. Hey, wouldn't it be cool if he wins and Chris Rock is the present-, actually nevermind. Nope! Forget I thought that! Anyway, Williams joins Winkler, Goldstein and Shalhoub as the past winners in this category. Although, that didn't hurt Goldstein last year either as he won over multiple co-stars, including Mohammed last year. I could see Bowen Yang playing spoiler here if he picks the right episode. "SNL" kinda had a weak year this time around, only three actors across all the comedy categories. I wouldn't even be surprised if they're upset by "A Black Lady Sketch Show" in Variety Sketch this year, which is a category that's once again, has fallen to just two nominees. We'll get to that later. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A COMEDY SERIES</b></div><div><b>Alex Borstein-</b>"The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel"-Prime Video</div><div><b>Hannah Einbinder-</b>"Hacks"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Janelle James-</b>"Abbott Elementary"-ABC</div><div><b>Kate McKinnon-</b>"Saturday Night Live"-NBC</div><div><b>Sarah Niles-</b>"Ted Lasso"-AppleTV+</div><div><b>Sheryl Lee Ralph-</b>"Abbott Elementary"-ABC</div><div><b>Juno Temple-</b>"AppleTV+"-AppleTV+</div><div><b>Hannah Waddingham-</b>"Ted Lasso"-AppleTV+</div><div><br /></div><div>See this is the kind of thing I'm talking about here, the Supporting categories especially, if you're not in a Best Comedy Series nominated-series, unless that show is "SNL" or some other sketch series that gets shoved into this category, you're probably not getting nominated. In the men, the last time it happened was in 2020, with Mahershala Ali for "Ramy" and Andre Braugher for "Brooklyn Nine-Nine", both of whom, just usually get automatically nominated for everything to begin with, and before that you might have to go to when the late great Louie Anderson won for "Baskets". On the Supporting Actress side, 2020 as well with Betty Gilpin for the criminally underrated "GLOW" and Yvonne Orji for "Insecure". It's nice to see Sheryl Lee Ralph nominated for the first time. Really, that's her first nomination, ever!? Wow! Yeah, glad to fix that error, what the hell!?</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING DIRECTING FOR A COMEDY SERIES</b></div><div><b>Atlanta-</b>Hiro Murai-<i>"New Jazz"-</i>FX</div><div><b>Barry-</b>Bill Hader-<i>"710N-</i>HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Hacks</b>-Lucia Aniello-<i>"There Will Be Blood"-</i>HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>The Ms. Pat Show-</b>Mary Lou Belli-<i>"Baby Daddy Groundhog Day"-</i>BET+</div><div><b>Only Murders in the Building-</b>Cherien Dabis-<i>"The Boy From 6B"-</i>Hulu</div><div><b>Only Murders in the Building-</b>Jamie Babbitt-<i>"True Crime"-</i>Hulu</div><div><b>Ted Lasso-</b>MJ Delaney-<i>"No Weddings And A Funeral"-</i>AppleTV+</div><div><br /></div><div>Okay, congratulation BET+ for your first ever major nomination in these category. It's-, it's the obligatory nomination that's required for a multicamera sitcom but still, good job. You have no shot at winning. Is it weird that the two shows with African-American casts here didn't get into Series? Eh, I probably shouldn't read into that. Anyway, I don't have much else to add at the moment here. Lucia Aniello won the category last year for "Hacks", in kind of a surprise upset over "Ted Lasso", Bill Hader has been nominated every year "Barry"'s been eligible in this category; they're more likely to give an Actor a writing award, but it's not unprecedented. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING WRITING FOR A COMEDY SERIES</b></div><div><b>Abbott Elementary-</b>Quinta Brunson-<i>"Pilot"-</i>ABC</div><div><b>Barry-</b>Duffy Boudreau-<i>"710N"-</i>HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Barry-</b>Alec Berg, Bill Hader-<i>"starting now"-</i>HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Hacks-</b>Lucia Aniello, Paul W. Downs and Jen Statsky-<i>"The One, the Only"-</i>HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Only Murders in the Building-</b>Steve Martin, John Hoffman-<i>"True Crime"-</i>Hulu</div><div><b>Ted Lasso-</b>Jane Becker-<i>"No Weddings And A Funeral"-</i>AppleTV</div><div><b>What We Do in the Shadows-</b>Sarah Naftalis-<i>"The Casino"-</i>FX</div><div><b>What We Do in the Shadows-</b>Stefani Robinson-<i>"The Wellness Center"-</i>FX</div><div><br /></div><div>Bill Hader's got a second shot at pulling off the rare Acting, Writing, Directing triple, although it's the other "Barry" nomination that got into Directing. That episode along with the "Ted Lasso" and "Only Murders" nominations got into both. Everyone's a Series nominee. It'd be rare for "Abbott Elementary" to get this, a network series hasn't won this category since the finale episode of "30 Rock". It looks like a four-way race right now for series between "Barry", "Hacks", "Only Murders..." and "Ted Lasso" though. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING GUEST ACTOR IN A COMEDY SERIES</b></div><div><b>Jerrod Carmichael-</b>"Saturday Night Live"-NBC</div><div><b>Bill Hader-</b>"Curb Your Enthusiasm"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>James Lance-</b>"Ted Lasso"-AppleTV+</div><div><b>Nathan Lane-</b>"Only Murders in the Building"-Hulu</div><div><b>Christopher McDonald-</b>"Hacks"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Sam Richardson-</b>"Ted Lasso"-AppleTV+</div><div><br /></div><div>I'm really stunned Luke Kirby for "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel" missed this category; especially since he's won the category in the past and he's got an amazing episode this year. But instead, Bill Hader gets nominated again, this time for "Curb Your Enthusiasm". Huh, okay. Well, except for Jerrod Carmichael, the rest of the nominees are from the Best Series categories. This is Nathan Lane's 7th Guest Acting nomination, but he's yet to win. I'm also partial to Christopher McDonald getting his first nomination. He's been one of those absolutely great character actors for decades now. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING GUEST ACTRESS IN A COMEDY SERIES</b></div><div><b>Jane Adams-</b>"Hacks"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Harriet Sansom Harris-</b>"Hacks"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Jane Lynch-</b>"Only Murders in the Building"-Hulu</div><div><b>Laurie Metcalf-</b>"Hacks"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Kaitlin Olson-</b>"Hacks"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Harriet Walter-</b>"Ted Lasso"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><br /></div><div>It's not technically Kaitlin Olson's first nomination, she got nominated for a Quibi show a could years ago, but yeah, it does feel like it os, doesn't it, and that's just- (Sigh) well, it is what it is. I'm sure someday the Emmys will officially acknowledge "It's Always Sunny....", maybe. Anyway, she's one of four "Hacks" nominees, which is, a lot! Especially in a category usually dominated by "SNL"; how'd they get nothing here, was there not a good female host this year? Oh well. Anyway, four "Hacks", one "Ted Lasso" and Jane Lynch showing up for "Only Murders...", also snubbed from "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel" oddly enough. Man, I don't get why that show has fallen even the slightest it has.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>DRAMA SERIES</u></b></div><div><b><u><br /></u></b></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING DRAMA SERIES</b></div><div><b>Better Call Saul-</b>AMC</div><div><b>Euphoria-</b>HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Ozark-</b>Netflix</div><div><b>Severance-</b>AppleTV+</div><div><b>Squid Game-</b>Netflix</div><div><b>Stranger Things-</b>Netflix</div><div><b>Succession-</b>HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Yellowjackets-</b>Showtime</div><div><br /></div><div>Oh, there you are. Welcome back, Showtime! You haven't been nominated here since "Homeland", but even that was considered a bit of a fluke by that show's fifth season, this is a legit show you. Too bad, everybody else is gonna kill you. I'm still a bit surprised at some of the nominations though, and what got left off. For the last season, "This is Us", just got completely taken out. "Ozark" got in for it's last season though. "Euphoria", really surprises me. I haven't seen the second season yet, but from everything I was hearing nobody was particularly fond of it, but again, it's the shows people talk about, not what's good. (To be clear, I do like "Euphoria") That's only explanation I can keep finding for "Stranger Things", because I just do not get the appeal of that show at all at this point. But the biggest story, the first foreign language series, "Squid Game" to ever get into this category. I'm late, I'm in the middle of it now, and I-, I don't normally like stuff like this to be honest, but I'm getting into it. I have to catch "Severance" and "Yellowjackets" eventually. I'm always way behind on "Succession" but I'm in the middle of that too now. It's not a bad group, but it does feel underwhelming. I'm not sure on what the favorite is right now, I might lean towards "Ozark" out of sentimentality, but keep an eye on whatever gets talked about the most....</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTOR IN A DRAMA SERIES</b></div><div><b>Jason Bateman-</b>"Ozark"-Netflix</div><div><b>Brian Cox-</b>"Succession"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>LEE Jung-jae-</b>"Squid Game"-Netflix</div><div><b>Bob Odenkirk-</b>"Better Call Saul"-AMC</div><div><b>Adam Scott-</b>"Severence"-AppleTV+</div><div><b>Jeremy Strong-</b>"Succession"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><br /></div><div>This category literally has six completely new nominees, from the year before. Obviously, Brian Cox, Bob Odenkirk, Jason Bateman and Jeremy Strong have all been nominated before. LEE Jung-jae and Adam Scott are the newcomers here. Jeremy won two years ago, but nobody else has won here. I know "Ozark" is ending, and while "Better Call Saul" is also ending, they'll have one more year to honor Odenkirk if they want to, although Bateman does have a win for Directing for "Ozark", and I don't know how much they're under pressure to award him again. If they really like "Succession" still, Brian Cox might have a better shot this year too than previously. And of course, this category has been known for newcomer spoiler winners who might pop up for one year and never again, so, "Squid Game" can't be overlooked here either. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTRESS IN A DRAMA SERIES</b></div><div><b>Jodie Comer-</b>"Killing Eve"-BBC America</div><div><b>Laura Linney-</b>"Ozark"-Netflix</div><div><b>Melanie Lynskey-</b>"Yellowjackets"-Showtime</div><div><b>Sandra Oh-</b>"Killing Eve"</div><div><b>Reese Witherspoon-</b>"The Morning Show"-AppleTV+</div><div><b>Zendaya-</b>"Euphoria"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><br /></div><div>"Killing Eve"'s return means the return of both Jodie Comer and Sandra Oh to the category. Interestingly, Jennifer Aniston for "The Morning Show" fell out, but Reese Witherspoon, moved up to her spot. No "The Crown" this year, so Laura Linney gets her annual swan song nomination, and I suspect she's the slight favorite. She's won several Emmys before, but never as a regular lead for a series, they're in Lead for Limited Series, even her win for "The Big C" weirdly enough. It's also really nice to finally see Melanie Lynskey get nominated for something. She's been an amazing actress for decades now and it's about time she gets some credit. I mean, let's be fair, she was always the best part of "Two and a Half Men", always! Boy this "Yellowjackets" show, I haven't had Showtime in a while, what exactly is this series about anyway. (Checks IMDB, turns on trailer)!</div><div>WHAT THE FUCK!!!!! Okay, that is very disturbing, holy fuck! I was-, I was kinda hoping it was a good dramedy about former high school mean girls,- that's-eh, eh.... Wowsers! Helluva cast with this show though.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A DRAMA SERIES</b></div><div><b>Nicholas Braun-</b>"Succession"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Billy Crudup-</b>"The Morning Show"-AppleTV+</div><div><b>Kieran Culkin-</b>"Succession"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>OH Yeong-su-</b>"Squid Game"-Netflix</div><div><b>PARK Hae-soo-</b>"Squid Game"-Netflix</div><div><b>Matthew Macfadyen-</b>"Succession"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>John Turturro-</b>"Severence"-AppleTV+</div><div><b>Christopher Walken-</b>"Severence"-AppleTV+</div><div><br /></div><div>Well, Billy Crudup's back, last year's winner. I'm in the middle of "The Morning Show" myself right now, and it's a pretty weird show to be honest. I'm in the middle of it but Crudup is definitely the most outlandish of the characters on the show, so I can see why he's in, but it's a weird show, and despite the amazing cast, I kinda get why it keeps getting snubbed for Series. So, in the meantime, we get the regular crew of "Succession", we get a couple interesting "Squid Game" nominees, and a show I haven't seen yet, "Severence", which also seems to have a helluva cast. Man, it's the first time Christopher Walken's gotten an Emmy nomination since, eh... (IMDB search) oh, there's a flashback to bad elementary school required reading! Do they still teach "Sarah, Plain and Tall" in school? Anyway, none of the "Succession" supporting players have won yet, but they might all cancel each other out, and who knows how much they like "Squid Game", the first foreign-language series to ever get nominations in the regular series categories. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A DRAMA SERIES</b></div><div><b>Patricia Arquette-</b>"Severence"-AppleTV+</div><div><b>Julia Garner-</b>"Ozark"-Netflix</div><div><b>JUNG Ho-yeon-</b>"Squid Game"-Netflix</div><div><b>Christina Ricci-</b>"Yellowjackets"</div><div><b>Rhea Seehorn-</b>"Better Call Saul"-AMC</div><div><b>J. Smith-Cameron-</b>"Succession"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Sarah Snook-</b>"Succession"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Sydney Sweeney-</b>"Euphoria"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><br /></div><div>Everyone here is in a show up for Series. Julia Garner's won the category the last two times she's been eligible. Somehow this is Rhea Seehorn's first ever nomination in the category; I'm not sure how that happened but glad she finally got in. Like, arguably, she should've won like twice now. I'm glad to know that Christina Ricci is still around, and creepy as ever it seems in that show- fuck! This is what you get for not recognizing how good "PANAM" was people. Patricia Arquette's a past winner, although she won in Lead years ago for "Medium". Glad to see them nominate Sydney Sweeney though; there's a lot of talent in "Euphoria" and yeah, it was definitely if Rue won last time that then somehow Cassie got overlooked, so nice rectify there. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING DIRECTING FOR A DRAMA SERIES</b></div><div><b>Ozark-</b>Jason Bateman-<i>"A Hard Way to Go"-</i>Netflix</div><div><b>Severence-</b>Ben Stiller-<i>"The We We Are"-</i>AppleTV+</div><div><b>Squid Game-</b>HWANG Dong-Hyuk-<i>"Red Light, Green Light"-</i>Netflix</div><div><b>Succession-</b>Mark Mylod-<i>"All the Bells Say"-</i>HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Succession-</b>Cathy Yan-<i>"The Disruption"-</i>HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Succession-</b>Lorene Scafaria-<i>"Too Much Birthday"-</i>HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Yellowjackets-</b>Karyn Kusama-<i>"Pilot"-</i>Showtime</div><div><br /></div><div>"Succession" gets all the directing nods, but some big time names here. Lorene Scafaria, Karyn Kusama, Cathy Yan, Ben Stiller, Bateman's won this category before. There's a lot of pretty talented filmmakers here. This might be where "Yellowjackets" or "Squid Game" have the best shots at winning something too.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING WRITING FOR A DRAMA SERIES</b></div><div><b>Better Call Saul-</b>Thomas Schnauz-"<i>Plan and Execution"-</i>AMC</div><div><b>Ozark-</b>Chris Mundy-<i>"A Hard Way to Go"-</i>Netflix</div><div><b>Severance-</b>Dan Erickson-<i>"The Way We Are"-</i>AppleTV+</div><div><b>Squid Game-</b>HWANG Dong-hyuk-<i>"One Lucky Day"-</i>Netflix</div><div><b>Succession-</b>Jesse Armstrong-<i>"All the Bells Say"-</i>HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Yellowjackets-</b>Jonathan Lisco, and Ashley Lyle & Bart Nickerson-<i>"F Sharp"-</i>Showtime</div><div><b>Yellowjackets-</b><i>Ashley Lyle & Bart Nickerson-</i>"Pilot"-Showtime</div><div><br /></div><div>Everything nominated for series, except "Stranger Things" and "Euphoria" popped up here, and "Yellowjackets" got the double nomination. Those two shows did show up in Editing, often the biggest predictor category for Series, but this could be a category that predicts the winner this year. </div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING GUEST ACTOR IN A DRAMA SERIES</b></div><div><b>Adrien Brody-</b>"Succession"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>James Cromwell-</b>"Succession"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Colman Domingo-</b>"Euphoria"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Arian Loayed-</b>"Succession"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Tom Pelphrey-</b>"Ozark"-Netflix</div><div><b>Alexander Skarsgard-</b>"Succession"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><br /></div><div>Jesus, how many acting nominations is that for "Succession? Jesus, including three more for Guest Actress, they have 14 total! That's is a record btw. Don't really have much thought on the category itself. Although James Cromwell still getting nominated. He's 82, and I'm actually surprised he's that young in hindsight. The guy's a legend. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING GUEST ACTRESS IN A DRAMA SERIES</b></div><div><b>Hope Davis-</b>"Succession"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Marcia Gay Harden-</b>"The Morning Show"-AppleTV+</div><div><b>Martha Kelly-</b>"Euphoria"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Sanaa Lathan-</b>"Succession"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>LEE You-mi-</b>"Squid Game"-Netflix</div><div><b>Harriet Walker-</b>"Succession"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><br /></div><div>Not too much to add here, more "Succession". It definitely looks to repeat. Yeah, the Guest categories on both ends were kinda odd this year, in that they weren't that weird at all. Usually there's at least a few stragglers from some odder shows. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>VARIETY SERIES</u></b></div><div><b><u><br /></u></b></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING VARIETY TALK SERIES</b></div><div><b>The Daily Show with Trevor Noah-</b>Comedy Central</div><div><b>Jimmy Kimmel Live!-</b>ABC</div><div><b>Last Week Tonight with John Oliver-</b>HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Late Night with Seth Meyers-</b>NBC</div><div><b>The Late Show with Stephen Colbert-</b>CBS</div><div><br /></div><div>Seth Meyers finally breaks into this category after years of missing out. I guess after "Conan"'s series ending that you figure somebody would get back in, like Samantha Bee, but honestly, I think this is the right call. Meyers has basically been my go-to after John Oliver for years now, it's about time he got in. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING VARIETY SKETCH SERIES</b></div><div><b>A Black Lady Sketch Show-</b>HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Saturday Night Live-</b>NBC</div><div><br /></div><div>I was always skeptical of the sketch series boom that lead to the creation of this category, and this was why. I suspect, in a year or two, they're gonna go back and combine these categories. But since were here, (Shrugs) I'll call the upset, this was a weak "SNL" year, "A Black Lady Sketch Show" is great. I haven't seen the new season, but I saw the last one, and any show that dares to do a "227" parody in the 2020s is alright with me. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING VARIETY SPECIAL (LIVE)</b></div><div><b>The 64th Annual Grammy Awards-</b>CBS</div><div><b>Live in Front of a Studio Audience: The Fact of Life and Diff'rent Strokes-</b>ABC</div><div><b>The Oscars-</b>ABC</div><div><b>The Pepsi Super Bowl LVI Halftime Show Starring Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg, Mary J. Blige, Eminem, Kendrick Lamar and 50 Cent-</b>NBC</div><div><b>The Tony Awards Present: Broadway's Back-</b>CBS</div><div><br /></div><div>I didn't see the whole list of eligible submissions in this category, and I'm sure there wasn't a lot to choose from, but, did we really have to nominate "The Oscars" this year? Really? This year? And I'm exclusively talking about, you know who, the guy with a Producing credit on a Peacock drama, yeah that one. (I know everybody hated the hosts, but I thought they were okay, and Wanda and Amy were really good in particular, but like everything else, was just bad...). Also, while I do like those "Live in Front of a Studio Audience" shows in the past, um, "The Facts of Life" and "Diff'rent Strokes" though, um, those were lousy television shows. And I don't mean now, they were quite shit at the time. In fact, did either of those shows ever get Emmy nominations? (IMDB search) Okay, Charlotte Rae got nominated one year for "The Facts of Life", and they had two technical nominations, so that's three in eight years for them. And "Diff'rent Strokes", never got nominated for anything. Yeah, I'm gonna go out a limb and say this was a bad year for the category and they only had slim pickings to sort though. I wouldn't mind either the Tonys or the Halftime Show winning this year.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING VARIETY SPECIAL (PRE-RECORDED)</b></div><div><b>Adele: One Night Only-</b>CBS</div><div><b>Dave Chappelle: The Closer-</b>Netflix</div><div><b>Harry Potter 20th Anniversary: Return to Hogwarts-</b>HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Norm MacDonald: Nothing Special-</b>Netflix</div><div><b>One Last Time: An Evening with Tony Bennett & Lady Gaga-</b>CBS</div><div><br /></div><div>Oh boy, we got some stuff to talk about here. Adele vs. Lady Gage vs., um, Harry Potter? Ehh, how the hell did that one end up here. Normally, I'd try to talk about how I think Stand-Up Variety Special should be it's own category, but only two getting in here, and it's two worth talking about. Okay, I did see "Dave Chappelle: The Closer", and I'll say this, I greatly admire Dave Chappelle as a comic and even though I viscerally with a lot of his recent stances, I can respect him as one of the best and most important artists of our time. But I'm sorry, "The Closer" sucked. It's not a terrible special, in of itself, but I thought his "8:06" special was vastly better. Against him representing Netflix, is the Norm MacDonald, who passed suddenly and unexpectedly after surprising everybody with this, what turned out to be his last special. I haven't seen it; I have friends who are huge MacDonald fans, I've admired him more than I liked him, but I'll definitely see this. He was a great and unique comic and he will be missed. It's a shame that he didn't get nominated 'til after his life though. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING DIRECTING FOR A VARIETY SERIES</b></div><div><b>A Black Lady Sketch Show-</b>Bridget Stokes-<i>"Save My Edges, I'm a Donor!"-</i>HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Last Week Tonight with John Oliver-</b>Paul Pennolino and Christopher Werner-<i>"Union Busting"-</i>HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Late Night with Seth Meyers-</b>Alexander J. Vietmeier-<i>"Episode 1252"-</i>NBC</div><div><b>The Late Show with Stephen Colbert-</b>Jim Hoskinson-<i>"Artistic Musical Performance By Chance the Rapper; Monologue: Ukraine & Russian War, January 6 Committee Evidence on Trump & Donald Jr.; Guest Beanie Feldstein"-</i>CBS</div><div><b>Saturday Night Live-</b>Don Roy King and Liz Patrick-<i>"Host: Billie Eilish"-</i>NBC</div><div><br /></div><div>Colbert, what the hell's with the long-ass titles for your episode! You're a 5x week talk show, don't you just use numbers like everybody else?! Well, that's annoying. Anyway, eh, I suspect with Directing, unless it's something special, it'll go to "SNL", since they'relive, but "A Black Lady Sketch Show" or "Last Week Tonight" could steal this.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING DIRECTING FOR A VARIETY SPECIAL</b></div><div><b>Adele: One Night Only-</b>Paul Dugdale-CBS</div><div><b>Dave Chappelle: The Closer-</b>Stan Lathan-Netflix</div><div><b>Jerrod Carmichael: Rothaniel-</b>Bo Burnham-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Norm Macdonald: Nothing Special-</b>Norm MacDonald and Jeff Tomsic-Netflix</div><div><b>The Pepsi Super Bowl LVI Halftime Show Starring Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg, Mary J. Blige, Eminem, Kendrick Lamar, And 50 Cent-</b>Hamish Hamilton-NBC</div><div><br /></div><div>Wow, I just realized that this is the second year in a row where no Award show popped up here, and there's only one Live Directing nomination with the Halftime Show. Both of those are shockingly unusual; this category is normally the mainstay of the Award shows, but in recent years, Variety has become much more artistically-driven. I wasn't the biggest fan of "Bo Burnham: Inside" last year, but I will say that it was a special directing achievement and he won that Emmy in a more loaded field than this. He's here again directing a different stand-up, but he's up this time against everybody else who's up for Outstanding Special. This might just be the Super Bowl Halftime's year.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING WRITING FOR A VARIETY SERIES</b></div><div><b>A Black lady Sketch Show-</b>Head Writer: Tracey Ashley; Writers: Robin Thede, et. al.-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>The Daily Show with Trevor Noah-</b>Head Writer: Dan Amira; Senior Writers: Lauren Sarver Means and Daniel Radosh; Writers: Trevor Noah, et. al.-Comedy Central</div><div><b>Last Week Tonight with John Oliver-</b>Senior Writers: Daniel O'Brien, Owen Parsons, Charlie Redd, Joanna Rothkopf and Senna Vali; Writers: John Oliver, et. al.-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>The Last Show With Stephen Colbert-</b>Head Writers: Ariel Dumas and Jay Katsir; Writers: Stephen Colbert, et. al.-CBS</div><div><b>Saturday Night Live-</b>Head Writers: Michael Che, Alison Gates, Streeter Seidell, Colin Jost and Kent Sublette; Senior Writer: Bryan Tucker; Weekend Update Head Writers: Pete Schultz, Megan Callahan-Shah, Dennis McNicholas, Josh Patten and Mark Steinbach; Writers: Lorne Michaels, et. al....-NBC</div><div><br /></div><div>Both Sketch series nominees showed up here, keeping out Jimmy Kimmel, and to my mind, shockingly eliminating Seth Meyers, going with Colbert instead. Seth Meyers had been a mainstay in this category, so it's definitely curious that he gets into Series the year they fall out of Writing. That's unusual. It's probably still going to John Oliver, but I wouldn't be shocked by a Daily Show upset here. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING WRITING FOR A VARIETY SPECIAL</b></div><div><b>Ali Wong: Don Wong-</b>Ali Wong-Netflix</div><div><b>The Daily Show With Trevor Noah Presents: Jordan Klepper Fingers the Globe: Hungary for Democracy-</b>Ian Berger, Devin Delliquanti, Jennifer Flanz, Jordan Klepper, Zhubin Parang and Scott Sherman-Comedy Central</div><div><b>Jerrod Carmichael: Rothaniel-</b>Jerrod Carmichael-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Nicole Byer: BBW (Big Beautiful Weirdo)-</b>Nicole Byer-Netflix</div><div><b>Norm MacDonald: Nothing Special-</b>Norm MacDonald-Netflix</div><div><br /></div><div>Well, this is usually where the stand-up will all come out and this year is no exception. Interesting that Dave Chappelle did not get in here for "The Closer" those. Norm MacDonald did, for his final posthumous nomination, along with Ali Wong, Jerrod Carmichael and Nicole Byer. Man, stand-up's literally passing me by. I always thought Ali Wong was what all the criticism I heard about Amy Schumer's stand-up not working, that it really mostly applied more to her, but I think she has gotten better. Jerrod Carmichael's also at the top of his game right now. My main experience with Nicole Byer is "Nailed It!" which,- ugh, I'm sorry, I think that show is fucking wretched, and I just do not get the appeal of it. Maybe her stand-ups better. Also in here is Jordan Klepper, and he could a little spoiler here. His "Fingers the Pulse" segments, mainly with the MAGA rallies have been big lately (Personally, I just can't watch him, but mainly I can't watch any Trump people, it makes me vomit, so kudos to him for having a better stomach than I do.) and this could be the apple in the bag of oranges. I think Carmichael and MacDonald are the early favorites though. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>REALITY SERIES</u></b></div><div><b><u><br /></u></b></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING COMPETITION PROGRAM</b></div><div><b>The Amazing Race-</b>CBS</div><div><b>Lizzo's Watch Out for the Big Grrrls-</b>Prime Video</div><div><b>Nailed It!-</b>Netflix</div><div><b>RuPaul's Drag Race-</b>VH1</div><div><b>Top Chef-</b>Bravo</div><div><b>The Voice-</b>NBC</div><div><br /></div><div>I would've thought with the category going back to six nominees this year, that if they added a new one, "Making the Cut" would've been the easy and obvious pick, but I think after Heidi and Tim Gunn left "Project Runway" the people who would've cared about a fashion-based reality show, just don't care anymore. (I can't blame them entirely, but "Making the Cut" should've still been nominated) Instead, we get the same five as last year, along with another Prime Video series, "Lizzo's Watch Out for the Big Grrrls"? I didn't check Gold Derby this year, but did anybody see that one coming? Honestly, I started to watch it, and-eh, it's pretty good. I was actually fearing that it was kind of a- weird, big girl version of "RuPaul's Drag Race". (Honestly, I've never fully gotten that show, mainly because, I don't really get the competition aspects of it. I don't know, part of me feels like I don't get Drag, but I feel like there's no real competition, it's just drag people, like,- kind of competing, but really, more just, profiling them, which, I think I kinda would prefer than this competition thing with them?) But actually, it's a dance show and it's about becoming one of Lizzo's plus-sized dancers, which, honestly it looks good. I'm gonna watch that; I tend to like professional dancers competiting shows; (Always hated "Dancing with the Stars", loved "So You Think You Can Dance?") so yeah, this is an interesting idea I can get behind. I don't know if it can win over "RuPaul's Drag Race" which has long-wrestled that perennial winner spot away from "The Amazing Race", but you know what, at least it's an interesting idea for a show. Here's to "Top Chef" possibly playing spoiler again though. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING STRUCTURED REALITY PROGRAM</b></div><div><b>Antiques Roadshow-</b>PBS</div><div><b>Fixer Upper: Welcome Home-</b>Magnolia Network</div><div><b>Love is Blind-</b>Netflix</div><div><b>Queer Eye-</b>Netflix</div><div><b>Shark Tank-</b>ABC</div><div><br /></div><div>What in the hell is the "Magnolia Network"!? Ugh, more research.... (Google search) Okay, it used to be the DIY channel, but it got taken over by the people behind "Fixer Upper" which was original on HGTV, and now it's apart of the Discovery+ lineup: I don't have that streaming service, although I have heard humor that they have foreign versions of "Top Chef" on there that I'm interested in, but, anywho, now it's the Magnolia Channel, and it's basically a home construction channel. Magnolia's a flower, why would they...- alright, whatever. Anyway, this category, it basically sucks nowadays. Well, I guess "Queer Eye", "Shark Tank" and "Antiques Roadshow" are still great, and what the hell is "Love is Blind"- a dating show about not seeing who you're going out with, hosted by,- which was one Nick Lachay? He, was-eh, not the one Jessica Simpson, but the other brother from 98°- I don't know why I remember that, or that boy band, from so long ago and not that good, but anyway, him and his wife hosting this...- Man, how are the Lachay's still famous...? I was there, they weren't even that big at the time,- even Jessica Simpson was like, third tier on the teen divas ranking...- I'm getting distracted by this way too much; these people have been famous for way too long and I just realize how disturbing it is to me. Anyway, eh, it's probably "Shark Tank" or "Queer Eye" again, but here's hoping for "Antiques Roadshow" to finally get it. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING UNSTRUCTURED REALITY PROGRAM</b></div><div><b>Below Deck: Mediterranean-</b>Bravo</div><div><b>Cheer-</b>Netflix</div><div><b>Love on the Spectrum U.S.-</b>Netflix</div><div><b>RuPaul's Drag Race: Untucked-</b>VH1</div><div><b>Selling Sunset-</b>Netflix</div><div><br /></div><div>I've seen a little bit of "Below Deck", it's fine. I've heard of the others. (Shrugs) Is it just me, or has reality just become incredibly uninteresting and boring, especially in these alternative categories. I hear "Cheer" is decent, but I have a hard time finding myself interested in any of these. I gave "Selling Sunset" but it mainly just felt like, a far-less interesting "Flipping Out". </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING HOST FOR A REALITY OF COMPETITION PROGRAM</b></div><div><b>Bobby Berk, Karamo Brown, Tan France, Antoni Porowski, Jonathan Van Ness-</b>"Queer Eye"-Netflix</div><div><b>Nicole Byer-</b>"Nailed It!"-Netflix</div><div><b>Mark Cuban, Barbara Corcoran, Lori Greiner, Robert Herjavec, Daymond John, Kevin O'Leary-</b>"Shark Tank"-ABC</div><div><b>Padma Lakshmi-</b>"Top Chef"-Bravo</div><div><b>Amy Poehler, Nick Offerman-</b>"Making It"-NBC</div><div><b>RuPaul-</b>"RuPaul's Drag Race"-VH1</div><div><br /></div><div>Another category where there's nobody new here. I'm not sure why Tom Colicchio didn't put his name in alongside with Padma's; they've been nominated together before, and hell, last year, Gail Simmons was nominated as a host as well. I'm not sure what's going on there, but I think of at least Tom and Padma as a pair hosting, but...- I don't know. Anyway, it's probably RuPaul's again; he's won the award the last...- OMG SIX YEARS! He could win seven in a row! I mean, he is a great host, but fuck! He's also, with a combined 11 Emmys, the most-awarded African-American in Emmys history!!!! I-eh, wow! I would never guessed that, but it does make sense. Maybe somebody else should take this though, six in a row is a lot! And there's poor Amy Poehler with one, that she shares with Tina Fey, and Offerman who never got nominated for "Parks and Recreation"! Yeah, sheesh! Oh well. Reality's boring now. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>LIMITED SERIES/ANTHOLOGY SERIES/TV MOVIE</u></b></div><div><b><u><br /></u></b></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING LIMITED OR ANTHOLOGY SERIES</b></div><div><b>Dopesick-</b>Hulu</div><div><b>The Dropout-</b>Hulu</div><div><b>Inventing Anna-</b>Netflix</div><div><b>Pam & Tommy-</b>Hulu</div><div><b>The White Lotus-</b>HBO/HBO Max</div><div><br /></div><div>Last year was the first time in my memory that the Emmy Awards actually closed the show out with the Limited Series category. I understood it, most of the biggest series, were indeed Miniseries that year, and I don't know but it's probably the first time they've done that, since like, "Roots", I imagine. This is an interesting crop, and the fact that Hulu in particular, is leading the nominees in the category is very interesting, but I hope we go back to either Drama or Comedy Series being the end category, though. Anyway, these are usually the last things I get to, but I'm looking forward to them still... Well, maybe not "Pam & Tommy". I think I lived through that enough without having to see it acted out, I hope. (God, will this '90s exploitative tabloid miniseries shit ever end! There better not be anything on the horizon about Joey Buttafuoco, or else, somebody's getting shot in the head! [Yeah, I dare you to say, "Too soon" on that one.])</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING TELEVISION MOVIE</b></div><div><b>Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers-</b>Disney+</div><div><b>Ray Donovan: The Movie-</b>Showtime</div><div><b>Reno 911!: The Hunt for QAnon-</b>Paramount+</div><div><b>The Survivor-</b>HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Zoey's Extraordinary Christmas-</b>The Roku Channel</div><div><br /></div><div>(Sigh) </div><div><br /></div><div>I'm just trying to figure out if "Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers" is eligible as a theatrical release, for Oscars..., I don't think it is now, which, means, that I probably shouldn't review it...- I have some complicated thoughts on "Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers" already, and I haven't seen the movie yet,.... I might go into that some other time. Right now, I'm just look at it as, one of the four nominees that are apart of a previous franchise, and whatever Barry Levinson TV movie he made this year. Nice to see "Reno 911!..." get in, and nice to know they're doing movies again. I'm still not sure how or why "Zoey's Extraordinary Playlist" is still a thing. Oh, congrats on The Roku Channel by the way, they got a decent size amount of nominations this year. Good for them. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTOR IN A LIMITED OR ANTHOLOGY SERIES OR MOVIE</b></div><div><b>Colin Firth-</b>"The Staircase"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Andrew Garfield-</b>"Under the Banner of Heaven"-FX</div><div><b>Oscar Isaac-</b>"Scenes from a Marriage"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Michael Keaton-</b>"Dopesick"-Hulu</div><div><b>Himesh Patel-</b>"Station Eleven"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Sebastian Stan-</b>"Pam & Tommy"-Hulu</div><div><br /></div><div>This is a collection of actor that would make a pretty damn convincing list of Oscar nominees if you didn't tell me it was the Emmys. Only two from a Series nominee hear though, Keaton and Stan, but I wouldn't be too surprised if another name pulled it off though. Hamish Patel, in particular is in a good place to play spoiler, based on it's other nomination, it's likely that it just missed squeaking into the top category. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING LEAD ACTRESS IN A LIMITED OR ANTHOLOGY SERIES OR MOVIE</b></div><div><b>Toni Collette-</b>"The Staircase"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Julia Garner-</b>"Inventing Anna"-Netflix</div><div><b>Lily James-</b>"Pam & Tommy"-Hulu</div><div><b>Sarah Paulson-</b>"Impeachment: American Crime Story"-FX</div><div><b>Margaret Qualley-</b>"MAID"-Netflix</div><div><b>Amanda Seyfried-</b>"The Dropout"-Hulu</div><div><br /></div><div>Arguably one of the bigger underperformers in the category was "Maid", which miss out on Series, but did get Actress as well as Writing and Directing. It's up against three of the series nominee Leads, which includes Julia Garner who's won twice of "Ozark" as well as other regular contenders Toni Collette and Sarah Paulson. I could easily see Margaret Qualley play spoiler here though. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A LIMITED OR ANTHOLOGY SERIES OR MOVIE</b></div><div><b>Murray Bartlett-</b>"The White Lotus"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Jake Lacy-</b>"The White Lotus"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Will Poulter-</b>"Dopesick"-Hulu</div><div><b>Seth Rogen-</b>"Pam & Tommy"-Hulu</div><div><b>Peter Sarsgaard-</b>"Dopesick"-Hulu</div><div><b>Michael Stuhlbarg-</b>"Dopesick"-Hulu</div><div><b>Steve Zahn-</b>"The White Lotus"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><br /></div><div>"The White Lotus" and "Dopesick" take the majority of these slots. "The White Lotus" is mainly a series without a lead, so that makes sense, but "Dopesick"'s multiple nominations could lead that they're definitely the favorite for the Series win. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A LIMITED OR ANTHOLOGY SERIES OR MOVIE</b></div><div><b>Connie Britton-</b>"The White Lotus"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Jennifer Coolidge-</b>"The White Lotus"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Alwxandra Daddario-</b>"The White Lotus"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Kaitlyn Dever-</b>"Dopesick"-Hulu</div><div><b>Natasha Rothwell-</b>"The White Lotus"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Sydney Sweeney-</b>"The White Lotus"-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Mare Winningham-</b>"Dopesick"-Hulu</div><div><br /></div><div>And it's even more here; wow! It's pretty much a battle between these two limited series with everything else seeming as interesting also-rans. It'll be interesting to see how this'll play out.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING DIRECTING FOR A LIMITED OR ANTHOLOGY SERIES OR MOVIE</b></div><div><b>Dopesick-</b>Danny Strong-<i>"The People vs. Purdue Pharma"-</i>Hulu</div><div><b>The Dropout-</b>Michael Showalter-<i>"Green Juice"-</i>Hulu</div><div><b>The Dropout-</b>Francesca Gregorini-<i>"Iron Sisters"-</i>Hulu</div><div><b>MAID-</b>John Wells-<i>"Sky Blue"-</i>Netflix</div><div><b>Station Eleven-</b>Hiro Murai-<i>"Wheel of Fire"-</i>HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>The White Lotus-</b>Mike White-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><br /></div><div>Well, if the recent trends hold up, then Mike White is likely to win this. Not only is he the biggest film name of the group here, but he directed hi entire miniseries while everyone else is up for directing only an episode of their miniseries. Lately, that's led to Emmy wins. Not always, but pretty much, and unless there's something really unique directing wise in one of the other nominees, this look like Mike White's to win.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING WRITING FOR A LIMITED OR ANTHOLOGY SERIES OR MOVIE</b></div><div><b>Dopesick-</b>Danny Strong-<i>"The People vs. Purdue Pharma"-</i>Hulu</div><div><b>The Dropout-</b>Elizabeth Meriwether-<i>"I'm in a Hurry"-</i>Hulu</div><div><b>Impeachment: American Crime Story-</b>Sarah Burgess-<i>"Man Handled"-</i>FX</div><div><b>MAID-</b>Molly Smith Metzier-<i>"Snaps"-</i>Netflix</div><div><b>Station Eleven-</b>Patrick Somerville-<i>"Unbroken Circle"-</i>HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>The White Lotus-</b>Mike White-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><br /></div><div>Now, for Writing, this isn't necessarily a sure thing for "The White Lotus". With the Writing category, longer doesn't always mean better, and this category is particularly known for upsets in recent. I could easily see this as a spot for "Dopesick" to win, but I could easily see this going to maybe "The Dropout", especially since this is Elizabeth Meriwether's first nomination; she's the creator of "New Girl", which was never a show I loved, but she's pretty beloved and respected in Hollywood; I could easily see this upset. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>ANIMATION</u></b></div><div><b><u><br /></u></b></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING ANIMATED PROGRAM</b></div><div><b>Arcane-</b><i>"When These Walls Come Tumbling Down"-</i>Netflix</div><div><b>Bob's Burgers-</b><i>"Some Like It Bot Part 1: Eight Grade Runner"-</i>FOX</div><div><b>Rick and Morty-</b><i>"Mort Dinner Rick Andre"-</i>Adult Swim</div><div><b>The Simpsons-</b><i>"Pixelated and Afraid"-</i>FOX</div><div><b>What If...?-</b><i>"What If... Doctor Strange Lost His Heart Instead of His Hands?-</i>Disney+</div><div><br /></div><div>Every so often, when I talk about the Emmys, I'd get some people who'd complain that the Emmys never honor the shows they'd watch. That's not really true usually, they don't put everything they honor on the main program, but there's very little they don't cover, and in some cases, some of the stuff they leave for the Creative Arts really should be apart of the main broadcast at this point, and I think Animated is a main one these days. And we got a couple new entries in this one too, with "Arcane" and "What If...?" I still suspect "Bob's Burgers" or "Rick and Morty" are the favorites, but maybe they'll catch up for once. (This category can be a year or two behind occasionally.) </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING SHORT-FORM ANIMATED PROGRAM</b></div><div><b>The Boys Presents: Diabolical-</b><i>"John and Sun-Hee"-</i>Prime Video</div><div><b>Love, Death + Robots-</b><i>"Jibaro"-</i>Netflix</div><div><b>Robot Chicken-</b><i>"Happy Russian Deathdog Dolloween 2 U"-</i>Adult Swim</div><div><b>Star Wars: Visions-</b><i>"The Duel"-</i>-Disney+</div><div><b>When Billie Met Lisa-</b>Disney+</div><div><br /></div><div>So, two original shows that commonly pop up here, along with two side additions to popular franchises, (Hey, "The Boys" fans, this is where you pop up this time, last year was a pandemic fluke!) And one one-off original short? What's "When Billie Met Lisa"... (Disney+ search) Oh, "The Simpsons". That was weird. Short, but weird. The end credits of that were particularly disturbing. Man, I'd complain more about Disney becoming an ouroboros of itself, but it's not like they're the only ones..., lately. Ugh.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING CHARACTER VOICE-OVER PERFORMANCE</b></div><div><b>F. Murray Abraham-</b>"Moon Knight"-<i>"The Friendly Type"-</i>Disney+</div><div><b>Julie Andrews-</b>"Bridgerton"-<i>"Capital R Rake"-</i>Netflix</div><div><b>Chadwick Boseman-</b>"What If...?"-<i>"What If... T'Challa Became a Star-Lord?"-</i>Disney+<br /><b>Maya Rudolph-</b>"Big Mouth"-<i>"A Very Big Mouth Christmas"-</i>Netflix</div><div><b>Stanley Tucci-</b>"Central Park"-<i>"Central Dark"-</i>AppleTV+</div><div><b>Jessica Walter-</b>"Archer"-<i>"London Time"-</i>FX</div><div><b>Jeffrey Wright-</b>"What If..."-<i>"What If... Ultron Won?"-</i>Disney+</div><div><br /></div><div>Oh man, remember last year, when "Bridgerton" was a thing? Man, what happened there? Anyway, Julie Andrews is one of two nominees here that's not for an animated series, along with F. Murray Abraham. There's also two posthumous nominations here as Chadwick Boseman and Jessica Walter have passed away. Jessica Walter does have an Emmy for a miniseries back in the '70s, but Chadwick never won anything, so if they're sentimental, and there does seem to be people who like "What If...". I think Maya Rudolph, is probably the favorite, she's won the award twice in a row, could easily win it a third. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>NON-FICTION/DOCUMENTARY</u></b></div><div><b><u><br /></u></b></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING DOCUMENTARY OR NONFICTION SERIES</b></div><div><b>The Andy Warhol Diaries-</b>Netflix</div><div><b>The Beatles: Get Back-</b>Disney+</div><div><b>jeen-yuhs: A Kanye Trilogy-</b>Netflix</div><div><b>100 Foot Wave-</b>HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>We Need to Talk About Cosby-</b>Showtime</div><div><br /></div><div>This is why I love these categories. Wonderful interesting programs where we have The Beatles against Andy Warhol, against Kanye West, and Bill Cosby! And, a surfer. Okay! My instinct is that "The Beatles: Get Back" is probably the favorite, but I could see Cosby pulling this off as well.</div><div><br /></div><div> </div><div><b>OUTSTANDING HOSTED NONFICTION SERIES OR SPECIAL</b></div><div><b>My Next Guest Needs No Introduction with David Letterman-</b>Netflix</div><div><b>The Problem with Jon Stewart-</b>AppleTV+</div><div><b>Stanley Tucci: Searching for Italy-</b>CNN<br /><b>Vice-</b>Showtime</div><div><b>The World According to Jeff Goldblum-</b>Disney+</div><div><br /></div><div>It's interesting that Jon Stewart's chosen not to submit in his old category of Variety, but instead has put his show into the Nonfiction Series category. He's gonna be the most interesting show to see how he'll do; I haven't watched it beyond Youtube, but so far I've appreciated it, although I know some have found some of Jon's more libertarian stances controversial in recent years. That said, good category. Stewart and Letterman, Jeff Goldblum, weirdly enough, and Stanley Tucci's Italy show, and of course, "Vice", which for all it's faults is still quite a powerful investigative series. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING DOCUMENTARY OR NONFICTION SPECIAL</b></div><div><b>Controlling Britney Spears (New York Times Presents)-</b>FX</div><div><b>George Carlin's American Dream-</b>HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Lucy and Desi-</b>Prime Video</div><div><b>The Tinder Swindler-</b>Netflix</div><div><b>We Feed People-</b>Disney+</div><div><br /></div><div>Alright, so Brittany Spears, George Carlin, Lucy & Desi, Tinder, and the last one, is Jose Andres the legendary Spanish chef, in a documentary by Ron Howard, in his latest foray into the genre. (Ron Howard's made a lot of documentaries lately.) I don't know who the favorite here is off-hand, it's a very compelling and competitive category. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>EXCEPTION MERIT IN DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKING</b></div><div><b>Changing the Game-</b>Hulu</div><div><b>Frederick Douglass: In Five Speeches-</b>HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>When Claude Got Shot-</b>PBS</div><div><br /></div><div>This is a strange category, that even I don't quite understand all the rules to, and there were a few technical changes this year, but basically, this is a category that is for documentaries that aired on television and were released in theaters, but were not nominated by the AMPAS for Oscars. It's-, it's weird. The loosening of some of the Academy standards actually limited this category to three nominees this year, so perhaps were starting to figure out a way, particularly with documentaries to begin avoiding this weird gray spot between television and feature film in the future. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING NARRATOR</b></div><div><b>Kareem Abdul-Jabbar-</b>"Black Patriots: Heroes of the Civil War"-HISTORY</div><div><b>David Attenborough-</b>"The Mating Game"-<i>"In Plain Sight"-</i>Discovery+</div><div><b>W. Kamau Bell-</b>"We need to Talk About Cosby"-<i>"Part 1"-</i>Showtime</div><div><b>Lupita Nyong'o-</b>"Serengeti II"-<i>"Intrigue"-</i>Discovery+</div><div><b>Barack Obama-</b>"Our Great National Parks"-<i>"A World of Wonder"-</i>Netflix</div><div><br /></div><div>Well, Obama does have two Grammys, and his production company does already have an Oscar, if not him. (Shrugs) I mean, he's got a great voice for narration, so I don't know why I'm surprised. Anyway, he's up against, W. Kamau Bell, for his Cosby thing, Lupita Nyong'o and David Attenborough for some Discovery+ stuff, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. I swear, looking back further down the Emmy nominations can be a very joyful experience. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING DIRECTING FOR A DOCUMENTARY/NONFICTION PROGRAM</b></div><div><b>The Andy Warhol Diaries-</b>Andrew Rossi-<i>"Shadows: Andy & Jed"-</i>Netflix</div><div><b>The Beatles: Get Back-</b>Peter Jackson-<i>"Part 3: Days 17-22"-</i>Disney+</div><div><b>George Carlin's American Dream-</b>Judd Apatow and Michael Bonfiglio-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Lucy and Desi-</b>Amy Poehler-Prime Video</div><div><b>Stanley Tucci: Searching for Italy-</b>Ian Denyer-<i>"Venice"-</i>CNN<br /><b>We Need to Talk About Cosby-</b>W. Kamau Bell-<i>"Part 1"-</i>Showtime</div><div><br /></div><div>It's nice to see George Carlin's name back on the Emmys sheet. Nice to see it along side Judd Apatow too. Warhol, Beatles, Lucy, Cosby, and Stanley Tucci, and oh, by the way, Amy Poehler's here too with a nomination. This is her 21st total nomination. Only one win so far.... (Sigh). Great category though.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING WRITING FOR A NONFICTION PROGRAM</b></div><div><b>The Andy Warhol Diaries-</b>Andrew Rossi-<i>"Shadows: Andy & Jed"-</i>Netflix</div><div><b>How To With John Wilson-</b>John Wilson, Michael Koman, Susan Orlean, Conner O'Malley-<i>"How To Appreciate Wine"-</i>HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>Lucy and Desi-</b>Mark Monroe-Prime Video</div><div><b>The Problem with Jon Stewart-</b>Head Writer: Chelsea Devantez; Writers: Jon Stewart, Kristen Acimovic-<i>"The Economy"-</i>AppleTV+</div><div><b>The Tinder Swindler-</b>Felicity Morris-Netflix</div><div><br /></div><div>I don't know how to gage this one. I can see Jon Stewart coming in and taking this, but I can also imagine that he's the anomaly nominee her; everything else is a more traditional documentary, or a regular series. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>SHORT-FORM</u></b></div><div><b><u><br /></u></b></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING SHORT FORM COMEDY, DRAMA OR VARIETY SERIES</b></div><div><b>Carpool Karaoke: The Series-</b>AppleTV+</div><div><b>I Think You Should Leave With Tim Robinson-</b>Netflix</div><div><b>Late Night with Seth Meyers: CORRECTIONS-</b>Youtube</div><div><b>The Randy Rainbow Show-</b>Youtube</div><div><b>Stephen Colbert Presents Tooning Out the News-</b>Paramount+</div><div><br /></div><div>A couple years ago, they combined all the live action short-form categories together, which-, I'm not exactly sure how "Tooning Out the News" is live-action, but whatever, but it leads to some weirdness here. "Carpool Kareoke" is still around, and so it "The Randy Rainbow Show", a guy who makes some mildly amusing song parodies, two late night spinoff series, including one that's just Seth Meyers talking about supposed mistakes he made during the week, and one Netflix show, "I Think You Should Leave with Tim Robinson" that seems almost like a real short-form series. And it's fairly popular. I'm still surprised "Carpool Kareoke..." is still going on, but who knows.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING SHORT FORM NONFICTION OR REALITY SERIES</b></div><div><b>Between the Scenes: The Daily Show-</b>Youtube</div><div><b>Full Frontal With Samantha Bee: Once Upon a Time in Late Night-</b>TBS</div><div><b>RuPaul's Drag Race Whatcha Packin' With Michelle Visage-</b>VH1</div><div><b>Saturday Night Live Presents: Stories From the Show-</b>NBC</div><div><b>Top Chef: Last Chance Kitchen-</b>Bravo</div><div><br /></div><div>As per usual, this category is populated by sideshows of already established properties. It's nice to see that Samantha Bee hasn't been completely ignored. I hate to say this, but, I love her, and I really hope at some point she does become the first woman to win the Variety Talk Series Emmy, but she should've never apologized to Ivanka for calling her cunt. It really took a lot out of her, and the more time passes, the worst that apology comes off. It's a shame, 'cause she might be the most radical and important of the hosts our there right now, but it's been hard for me to watch her since then. I'm hoping "Last Chance Kitchen" takes it this year, this was a very good year for that show.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING ACTOR IN A SHORT FORM COMEDY OR DRAMA SERIES</b></div><div><b>Anthony A. Anderson-</b>"Anacostia"-Youtube</div><div><b>Bill Burr-</b>"Immoral Compass"-The Roku Channel</div><div><b>Brendan Glesson-</b>"State of the Union"-SundanceTV</div><div><b>Tim Robinson-</b>"I Think You Should Leave With Tim Robinson"-Netflix</div><div><b>Ikechukwu Ufomadu-</b>"Words With Ike (Cake)"-FX</div><div><br /></div><div>I guess Tim Robinson is the slight favorite, seeing as he's the only one here that came from a Series nominee. I've heard of "Cake", and I think this is the first time anything remotely related to that has been nominated. I've heard it's kind of a weird show, but I'll get to it eventually. "Anacostia" BTW, is a Youtube, DC-based melodrama that's been around for six years now! Wow! Nice to see it get in here after such a long time. I'll have to check that out. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING ACTRESS IN A SHORT FORM COMEDY OR DRAMA SERIES</b></div><div><b>Jacinta Blankenship-</b>"Intersection"-Youtube</div><div><b>Patricia Clarkson-</b>"State of the Union"-SundanceTV</div><div><b>Desi Lydic-</b>"Desi Lydic Foxplains"-Youtube</div><div><b>Rhea Seehorn-</b>"Cooper's Bar"-Youtube</div><div><b>Sydnee Washington-</b>"Bridesman"-Youtube</div><div><br /></div><div>It's be very strange for Rhea Seehorn to finally win her Emmy and it's for her Youtube side series. It's a good little show, and there's a lot of Youtube series on here actually. Some of them are their own thing, but "Cooper's Bar" is connected to AMC, "Dysi Lydic Foxplains" is from "The Daily Show", "Bridesman" is from, um, Grindr, really? (Shrugs) "Intersection" looks like far and away the most fascinating of the group, but who will win, I have no idea. Patricia Clarkson seems like a strong bet, especially since they're familiar with "State of the Union," a perennial nominee, and she's the biggest most recognizable name here. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>MISCELLANEOUS/OTHER NOTABLES</u></b></div><div><b><u><br /></u></b></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING MAIN TITLE DESIGN</b></div><div><b>Candy-</b>Hulu</div><div><b>Cowboy Bebop-</b>Netflix</div><div><b>Foundation-</b>AppleTV+</div><div><b>Lisey's Story-</b>AppleTV+</div><div><b>Only Murders in the Building-</b>Hulu</div><div><b>Pachinko-</b>AppleTV+</div><div><b>Severance-</b>AppleTV+</div><div><br /></div><div>Eh, I thought I was gonna start with the Interactive Program Emmys, but-um, they don't seem to have any this year. Ah, a quick double-check of the rulebook, yes, they have been eliminated and previously eligible shows have been advised to submit in other categories. Okay. As to Main Title Design, good job AppleTV+ I guess. Oh, and live-action "Cowboy Bebop" that everybody apparently hated got something. As to these nominees, I went through all of them, and they're all fairly decent. The only one I didn't love was "Foundation"; I'm kinda sick of sand effects, but I wouldn't mind any of the others win. I liked the "Candy" and "Cowboy Bebop" ones the best. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING MUSIC COMPOSITION FOR A SERIES (ORIGINAL DRAMATIC SCORE)</b></div><div><b>The Flight Attendant-</b>Blake Neely-<i>"The Reykjavik Ice Sculpture Festival Is Lovely This Time of Year"-</i>HBO</div><div><b>Loki-</b>Natalie Holt-<i>"Glorious Purpose"-</i>Disney+</div><div><b>Only Murders in the Building-</b>Siddhartha Khosla-<i>"The Boy From 6B"-</i>Hulu</div><div><b>Schmigadoon!-</b>Christopher Willis-<i>"Schmigadoon!"-</i>AppleTV+</div><div><b>Severance-</b>Theodore Shapiro-<i>"The We We Are"-</i>AppleTV+</div><div><b>Succession-</b>Nicholas Britell-<i>"Chiantishire"-</i>HBO/HBO Max</div><div><br /></div><div>I always keep an eye on the music categories for the EGOT followers who like to see who can be the next to get one. Nicholas Britell for instance, is a pretty renowned composer, who's already got three Oscar nominations and already has one Emmy, but it's nice to see him got more nominations, especially for his quite special work on "Succession".</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING MUSIC COMPOSITION FOR A LIMITED OR ANTHOLOGY SERIES, MOVIE OR DRAMATIC SCORE (ORIGINAL DRAMATIC SCORE)</b></div><div><b>1883-</b>Brian Tyler, Breton Vivian-<i>"1883"-</i>Paramount+</div><div><b>Moon Knight-</b>Hesham Nazih-<i>"Asylum"-</i>Disney+</div><div><b>Station Eleven-</b>Dan Romer-<i>"Unbroken Circle"-</i>HBO/HBO Max</div><div><b>A Very British Scandal-</b>Nathan Barr-<i>"Episode 1"-</i>Prime Video</div><div><b>The White Lotus-</b>Cristobal Tapia de Veer-<i>"Mysterious Monkeys-</i>HBO/HBO Max</div><div><br /></div><div>I thought "A Very British Scandal" was last year? What am I thinking of? (IMDB search) Oh, "A Very English Scandal"...? Are these shows related or is that just a complete coincidence? (Google search) Well, it's the same producers but they're different stories. How long can they keep that up? I mean, if they're just doing England, they're screwed, but I mean I guess you could do "A Very Scottish Scandal", "A Very Irish Scandal". What would "A Very Welsh Scandal" be?</div><div><br /></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING MUSIC COMPOSITION FOR A DOCUMENTARY SERIES OR SPECIAL (ORIGINAL DRAMATIC SCORE)</b></div><div><b>14 Peaks: Nothing is Impossible-</b>Nainita Desai-Netflix</div><div><b>Lucy and Desi-</b>David Schwartz-Prime Video</div><div><b>Return to Space-</b>Mychael Danna and Harry Gregson-Williams-Netflix</div><div><b>They Call Me Magic-</b>Terence Blachard-Netflix</div><div><b>The Tinder Swindler-</b>Jessica Jones-Netflix</div><div><br /></div><div>Mychael Danna, Harry Gregson-Williams, Terence Blanchard, more big composer names here. I thought Jessica Jones was some Marvel character, but apparently she's a composer.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING MUSIC DIRECTION</b></div><div><b>43rd Annual Kennedy Center Honors-</b>Rickey Minor-CBS</div><div><b>44th Annual Kennedy Center Honors-</b>Rickey Minor-CBS</div><div><b>One Last Time: An Evening With Tony Bennett & Lady Gaga-</b>Michael Bearden and Lee Musiker-CBS</div><div><b>The Pepsi Super Bowl LVI Halftime Show Starring Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg, Mary J. Blige, Eminem, Kendrick Lamar and 50 Cent-</b>Adam Blackstone-NBC</div><div><b>Saturday Night Live-</b>Lenny Pickett, Leon Pendarvis and Eli Brueggemann-<i>"Host: Jake Gyllenhaal"-</i>NBC</div><div><br /></div><div>Wait there were two "Kennedy Center Honors" this year,- why was there-OH WAIT! I remember. Okay, eh, yeah, they only started introducing this category recently, which is already kinda insane, in of itself, but I don't know, I would've thought instead of just, Rickey Minor twice, they're through in Questlove or Jon Batiste for their respective late night shows. Oh well. Hey what's Kevin Eubanks been doing lately?</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>OUTSTANDING ORIGINAL MUSIC AND LYRICS</u></b></div><div><i>"Elliots's Song"-</i><b>Eurphoria-</b>Music/Lyrics: Labrinth; Lyrics: Muzhda Zemar-McKenzie and Zendaya-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><i>"I'm Tired"-</i><b>Euphoria-</b>Music/Lyrics: Labrinth; Lyrics: Zendaya and Sam Levinson-HBO/HBO Max</div><div><i>"Maybe Monica"-</i><b>The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel-</b>Music/Lyrics: Thomas Mizer and Curtis Moore-Prime Video</div><div><i>"Corn Puddin'"-</i><b>Schmigadoon!-</b>Music/Lyrics: Cinco Paul-AppleTV+</div><div><i>"The Forever Now"-</i><b>This is Us-</b>Music: Siddhartha Khosla; Lyrics: Taylor Goldsmith</div><div><br /></div><div>Since I don't get any other time to talk about it here, it is complete and total bullshit that this is "This is Us"'s only Emmy nomination for it's finale season. In fact, considering how great this show has been, especially both the acting and writing it's stunning how badly this show has been treated by the Emmys. Unless your name was Sterling K. Brown, you got overlooked every year, and this show was so much better than that. It lasted six years, it should've won the Best Series Emmy at least 2, maybe three times, and frankly I think is gonna to in the future be recognized for having the long-lasting importance and influence that "Thirtysomething", the drama series that I always thought most compared to it, really should've had. Also, who knew Zendaya was a lyricist. She's got three nominations this year, and she's what, 24? 25? And still can play 16 for the next decade! Fuck me! </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING ORIGINAL MAIN TITLE THEME MUSIC</b></div><div><b>Loki-</b>Niatalie Holt-Disney+</div><div><b>Only Murders in the Building-</b>Siddharta Khosla-Hulu</div><div><b>Severence-</b>Theodore Shapiro-AppleTV+</div><div><b>Squid Game-</b><i>JUNG Jae-il-</i>Netflix</div><div><b>The White Lotus-</b><i>Cristobal Tapia de Veer-</i>HBO/HBO Max</div><div><br /></div><div>Oh, I didn't know JUNG Jae-Il did the theme for "Squid Game". He was the composer for "Parasite" among other BONG Joon-Ho's work. Huh. It really is kinda freaky that South Korea was the country that broke through the language barrier, with these award shows. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>OUTSTANDING COMMERCIAL</b></div><div><b>Apple iPhone 13 Pro-</b>"Detectives"</div><div><b>AppleTV+-</b>"Everyone But Jon Hamm"</div><div><b>Change the Ref-</b>"The Lost Class"</div><div><b>Meta-"</b>Skate Nation Ghana"</div><div><b>Sandy Hook Promise-</b>"Teenage Dream"</div><div><b>Chevy Silverado-</b>"Walter the Cat"</div><div><br /></div><div>Should AppleTV+ be eligible for this category? I mean, the iPhone commercial I get, but it's a commercial for a TV channel. Shouldn't that be ineligible? I mean, the Emmys can't win an Emmy-, eh, whatever. Change the Ref btw is a non-profit political group that strives to raise awareness of mass shooting and alleviate the influence of the NRA and promote gun control and safety laws. So, two PACs, three bands knows for their work on computer or the internet, and a Chevy. (Shrugs) </div><div><br /></div><div> </div><div>Anyway, that's all the categories I think people will care about. I guess we'll see how the show will play out, and I don't have any terrible issues with the nominees themselves entirely, but still, I'm looking forward to these Emmys. I'll watch them, and definitely try to watch all these shows, but man, the Emmys have to stop becoming just, the popular-on-tv show and find a way to re-evaluate their voting systems. Look, maybe some people watch award shows just to see their favorites, I like seeing them win too, but I want awards shows that are striving to honor the best in the field, and look-, I'm not saying they correlate occasionally, but historically and traditionally, they just don't, not a regular basis anyway. It's the exception, not the rule. Often it was award honors that helped make some great shows the exception and help them get popular. I don't want the awards to just be a reflection of the general taste of the public; I don't think that should be ignored entirely, but it shouldn't just be that. There better at least variety in the winners to make me think like they're watching everything this year, that's all I'm saying. </div><div><br /></div><div>It's a shame, before this I always though the Emmys were the most trusted and consistent of the major awards in the entertainment industry. Oh well. </div><div><br /></div>
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FduY09mGgVs" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696790060036702346.post-84657869880910690202022-07-08T04:37:00.000-07:002022-07-08T04:37:07.515-07:00"AND JUST LIKE THAT...," I MIGHT HAVE TO EAT MY WORDS...: RE-EVALUATING MY OLD BLOG/THOUGHTS ON "SEX AND THE CITY" AFTER SEASON ONE OF IT'S SEQUEL SERIES....<div style="text-align: left;">Soooooo, I was gonna skip this....</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Like, I heard it was coming, I had no real intention of interacting with it. I had said my peace, years ago.... Literally....</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div>Shortly after I began this blog, one of the first blogposts I wrote was entitled <a href="https://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2011/08/dear-sex-and-city-please-die-already.html"><i>"Dear 'Sex and the City', Please Die Already. Sincerely, Big Fan"</i></a> . I wrote it, about eleven years ago, and it was one of the first blogposts that I actually remember getting quite a positive reaction. This was at a time when, despite the series being over for quite a few years, the show, continued to constantly force it's way into pop culture. It's kinda like how "Breaking Bad" won't frickin' go away, but in that show's case, we're mostly still waiting for something as good or better to come along, and has a prequel series that's really good and keeping the original show relevant, but at the point and time I was writing, "Sex and the City" was on a considerable and vehement downswing from it's critical and pop cultural heights.</div><div><br /></div><div>They had made two sequels movies that both were terrible and unnecessary, and I'd argue genuinely made the original series seem worst in retrospect; there was a prequel series called "The Carrie Diaries" that was apparently based on a popular young adult by-product of the series that was in development for CW; that show eventually did air, but didn't do particularly well, was cancelled pretty quickly and has rightfully been forgotten, and most importantly, television, network and cable, was just littered with a bunch of "Sex and the City" copies and clones, that almost none of which are actually worth mentioning or remembering now. I mentioned a bunch of them at the time, but I actually undersold how many flop attempts their were to reverse-engineer the formula. The only one I now remember remotely actually liking, and I think I was the only one who liked it was an NBC show that lasted six episodes called "Leap of Faith", and the only reasons I liked that one was because, A. it had a ridiculously amazing cast, (Sarah Paulsen, Regina King, Lisa Edelstein, Chad Rowe, Tim Meadows-, I'm not kidding, this was like, an all-star cast before anybody realized it) and also because it was the only copy that had a straight male among the four leads. It was three girls, and a straight guy, and honestly I've been in that situation enough times that I related to it to a minor extent. (I never really related to any of the failed male-equivalent versions of "Sex and the City" their were, which I also didn't even remember-to-mention the last time, but now that I look back, holy god their were a bunch of those too.) There were tons...-, not just in television, movies too; there were plenty of bad films took a shot at it too; hell, I named one of them, "How to Be Single" as my worst film of that year, that's how down anything remotely seeming like it was trying to make people think about "Sex and the City" was. Arguably, the best series that used the formula was HBO's "Girls" and that show basically was the anti-"Sex and the City"! It's a thorough and complete rebuttal of the all the glitz, ideals, glamour, and sizzle that "Sex and the City" was to many people. (And it's a better show in general, then and now! I'll take on all Lena Dunham haters, even still on this one!)</div><div><br /></div><div>The time had passed, "Sex and the City", as much as I loved it, it was not aging well, the behind-the-scenes bullshit was almost as bad as the onscreen product had become, and frankly I wanted to move on. And I was up for it! Generally, I like to move on from things; I don't want to stick to the same thing over and over again, especially when it ended already; I get bored, I get tired, and not that I feel like paraphrasing a superhero movie is apropos, since they seem to be the absolute biggest violators of this, "Never going away"-disease that certain pop culture franchise and brands are infected with, but..., sometimes it's better to die a hero then to hang around look enough to become the villain, and they were becoming the villain. And for the most part, everybody came around to my way of thinking.</div><div><br /></div><div>It might've taken a couple years more than I would've thought it would've, but while many of the groundbreaking advancements and contributions of "Sex and the City", we still are all grateful for, it's fair to say, the show was left mostly dead and buried finally, and we were better for it. I remember a TV show poll I participated in for Geekcast Radio awhile ago, where I submitted a 100 Greatest TV shows of all-time list. When the final results were revealed "Sex and the City" didn't make it. (Shrugs) It made my ballot, but in general, I wasn't surprised it missed. Which is a shame; "Sex...", along with "The Sopranos" basically were the shows that made HBO the place everybody wanted to be. But even in my defense of it at the time, I called it a time capsule of dating at the turn of the century; that's kinda backhanded honestly, but I'd argue that it was really hard to call it "timeless" at that point, or now, for that matter. </div><div><br /></div><div>So, yeah, when I heard the news that HBO was bringing the series back, with only three of the main four original cast members, my first thought, "Really? Why? Nobody cares about "Sex and the City" anymore?!" And I, like everybody else probably did, just mostly disregarded it as another desperate attempt to reboot the ratings of television's past with the shows of television's past, and frankly, didn't think much of it, and didn't plan on re-evaluating my old blog and stance. I mean, the show was ancient now; I was genuinely amazed they were even bothering. If you asked me to name an HBO show that would get a reboot in this day and age, I think I would've guessed "Arli$$" before I guessed "Sex and the City", and even if I thought that, except for maybe "Six Feet Under", I might have argued that the show was by far the most pointless to reboot. I did not expect anything to happen regarding this new show, and nor did I think anybody, including and especially me, would care if anything did. </div><div><br /></div>
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Vuy4RnopItk" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe><div><br /></div><div>"And Just Like That...", - I was proven completely wrong....</div><div><br /></div><div>So, um.... they killed off Big! They really did go there....</div><div><br /></div><div>You know, when I first heard it, I thought it was a prank or a joke of some kind, 'cause like, nah, they wouldn't actually do that, right.... But nope! I mean, it ain't Henry Blake's death or anything, but still, like, um...- huh.... Tsk...</div><div><br /></div><div>Well, clearly I have to re-evaluate my thoughts on the series.... Or do I?</div><div><br /></div><div>See, and I don't know exactly know who's plan or idea this was, but "Sex and the City" kinda did one of the smartest things I've ever seen when it comes to this kind of reboot; they-eh, they didn't do a reboot. They didn't do "Sex and the City"; they did something else entirely.... The technical term I guess is "Sequel Series" but, it's kinda different than that too; most sequel series would really try to kinda stick to their previous series' traditional formulas. "What's happening, Now" isn't really that different than "What's Happening" only the characters are a couple years older, y'know. So maybe, "Sex and the City" is, actually dead, and now, all these years later, we get something else grown out of it's ashes, that were tossed in the Seine.</div><div><br /></div><div>I mean, why not; that tends to be how I like most sequels in movies, I don't want a second version of the same story in movies, and I guess that's the same for television. I don't want to see "Sex and the City" with the characters older now either. Hell, I didn't want that the first two times they gave it to me with the movies, and this is clearly not "Sex and the City", certainly not anymore. </div><div><br /></div><div>So, instead, we get "And Just Like That..."; is it any good? </div><div><br /></div><div>Uhhh, well, I definitely liked it. It's certainly the best thing anything produced within the realm of anything "Sex and the City" since the show went off the air. Eh, I'm not gonna pretend this is the best thing ever; I don't think it's one of the very best shows on TV or anything but yeah, it is actually really good. I watched the first episode reluctantly after I heard about it all over Twitter, and I found myself compelled to keep watching when I could, and yeah, I appreciate it, and am looking forward to the next season. </div><div><br /></div><div>That doesn't mean it doesn't have problems and controversy regarding it.... And we need to talk about some of them, and also why, and how, is this so different. </div><div><br /></div><div>So, let's start with the "how"; how did they do this? 'Cause this is weirder than normal series reboots remaining good. Not the least of the reasons because Michael Patrick King is behind it. Yeah, I lied when I said I don't know who's behind it; I know exactly who's behind it, and I still can't believe it. For those who don't remember, MPK was the showrunner and the main voice behind most of "Sex and the City" for most of the series run, and he wrote and directed the two movies afterwards. He's a longtime television writer, and worked on many good shows and at times his writing was special on "Sex and the City", and he's still capable of good television. Even after "Sex...", he co-created "The Comeback", that one Lisa Kudrow series that became a cult hit that also had a one-season reboot a couple years ago. (I'm finally getting to that now, and it's as cringy as ever, maybe moreso, but it's pretty good.) </div><div><br /></div><div>Honestly though, I've gotten a sense that "Sex..." and many of other good projects tended to be good, in spite of Michael Patrick King, and at times, many of his worst instincts. </div><div><br /></div><div>On that previous blogpost, I waxed poetic about, the poetry of "Sex and the City" and why I considered that show's writing in particular to be so above it's imitators, including my personal fan theory that, we actually never, or rarely got to actually see many/most of the main four characters actual personal lives, and what we were really seeing, or being told, most of the time, was has Carrie explained or described these incidents in her sex column. (I also waxed poetic a bit about how we don't have those kinds of columnists who talk about their sex lives in local alternative magazines anymore. They were big at the time, and they basically ended around the time "Sex and the City" did.) So, my theory was always that, Carrie wasn't always as truthful in her column, often making these more exciting then they might've been, maybe taking an incident or two that happened with one friend and giving it to another friend, maybe making up some plot points to fill up space that could've been said with one sentence..., etc. etc. (Shrugs) I don't think it's a terrible theory, and I think it's a good context to explain the show to people who probably don't like it on initial glance and probably did see the series as a bunch of shallow sex jokes with a glossy Woody Allen-esque New York sheen to it, but-, based on other things King has said and did over the years, not only is that probably not accurate as a fan theory, but in general, I really don't think that King actually thought that observantly or deeply into the series as I did. </div><div><br /></div><div>There's a few things in particular I can list, but the one giant red flag for me that I don't think I'm ever gonna get over, is ironically his biggest success since "Sex..." and, by far the worst thing he's done.... </div><div><br /></div>
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aUkwxpMVW9M" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe><div><br /></div><div>I don't remember if I've brought this up before, but, ugh, I have venomous hatred for "2 Broke Girl$". Not because it's a bad show that lasted way too long, which it was and it did, but, the thing is, more than nearly any other sitcom I can think of in the last decade or so, "2 Broke Girl$" should not have sucked! </div><div><br /></div><div>King, along with the show's co-creator Whitney Cummings, who I love but has very questionable skills as a sitcom writer, came up with, basically a modern-day "Laverne & Shirley" and somehow, ended up with a show that,- ugh,- honestly, by the end of the series, I don't know what it had really become. Even MPK famously had trouble defending the series from <a href="https://www.vulture.com/2012/01/michael-patrick-king-has-a-meltdown-at-2-broke-girls-panel.html"><i>critics</i></a> when he was confronted at a panel discussion, and frankly the critics were right. I won't say that "2 Broke Girl$" was the worst thing ever, it wasn't, but goddammit, in an era where everybody was and still is fucking broke as fuck, instead of modernizing an idea that's already been proven to do well showing humor and life through despite living in the bowels of poverty, and make it an observant, funny, sharp, witty, and yes, sexually provocative, it seemed like he instead, layered every single worst instincts of his front and center. The show focused too much on race jokes, too much of crass sex jokes, way too much on stereotype humor of all kinds, and frankly, took such a flimsy look at being poor and desperate for money and having to deal with rich yuppie assholes who are better off then you! (Almost all of this, I should note, was also really hacky, in the worst sense of the word too.) Including a roommate who was a former trust fund baby, who still thinks like she's Eliza Doolittle at the end of "My Fair Lady" instead of at the beginning. </div><div><br /></div><div>And cupcakes?! Like seriously, cupcakes?! I mean, I guess it's possible for somebody to bake their way out of poverty through cupcakes, but god, for a guy who thinks he's modern he sure seemed like he was coming up with a bad sitcom cliche plotlines from the past. Like, I expect that to be a Brady Bunch kid idea, that lasts like one episode you know? Not the thing that they think can get them out of their financial whole! (And before you think about, I don't think "cupcakes" was ever code for anything; although that would've been a good way to make that show more modern.)<br /><br />"2 Broke Girl$" should've been so much better than it was; it just suffered horribly from, literally every decision Michael Patrick King made. The acting choices were wrong, (Not the actors, but the choices they made or were told to make...-; like seriously, I think Kat Dennings could make a witty joke without laughing at her own joke, so why did you tell her to laugh anyway, and all the time! BTW "Dollface" is a much better show with her, go watch that it's on Hulu.) The caricaturist side characters, especially all the ethnic stereotype ones, were just wrong, and casting them was so wrong...- (Poor Jennifer Coolidge, doing that stupid accent for five years! She was in Christopher Guest movies you shithead!!!!) It really was so many bad decisions that I think it bordered on delusion with him. </div><div><br /></div><div>Honestly, I think the failure of "2 Broke Girl$" more than anything made me rethink whether or not "Sex and the City" or most anything he was directly behind was any good at all. In particular, it made me look and more closely analyze what exactly was his thoughts were on what he was creating. Like, I still remember the DVD for the first season of "The Comeback", on one of the commentary tracks, him talking about how the sitcom within that sitcom, "Room and Board", he thought would've been like, picked up on- I think it was WB, and would've been like, a bad, but popular show on their lineup at the time..., and even then, I remember thinking, "What-, really?!" Like, Jesus, even I didn't even give The WB that little credit! Especially at the time,- The WB, was the network with a bunch of bad teen dramas and dumb reality shows,- they barely even had any sitcoms at the time, and the few they had they shoved them on Friday nights, and even the worst of those, were,- well, they were not only better than "Room and Board"; they were not remotely like "Room and Board"! Like, they're gonna pick up this dumb sitcom within a sitcom, and what, put it between reruns of "Reba" and see what happens? I was not a WB guy, at all, but even then I knew, The WB wouldn't have picked that up; even if it was good. Maybe he thought they were still airing "Nick Freno: Licensed Teacher" or something...- I don't know. I was baffled then when I heard that, and I'm baffled now thinking back on it.</div><div><br /></div><div>Honestly, in many ways, he reminds me of Chuck Lorre, another talented but very inconsistent TV showrunner, who can do series like "The Big Bang Theory" and "Mom" that are constantly evolving themselves and are full of richness and depth to them, and stayed hilarious and modern, while still doing something so stuck in their own stubborn insipidness like "Two and a Half Men" that they seemed to never be able to evolve from their hackiest points until they're forced to kill somebody off to change anything about their shows. </div><div><br /></div><div>Okay, King didn't just kill off a character,... Well, one technically but...- (Sigh)</div><div><br /></div><div>Well, I better get to this before somebody else will ask.... After Mr. Big's death on the show, a lot of things happened. "And Just Like That..." was suddenly getting "Sex and the City" back on the forefront of everybody's minds, the stock for Peloton's went down immensely, and of course, there was more focus on the longtime great character actor Chris Noth, who after forty years of playing some sexy, skeevy, handsome men in women's lives and some iconic manly characters on such longtime series as "Sex..." and "The Good Wife" and a few series of "Law & Order" he was finally at his highest peak of fame and appreciation. </div><div><br /></div><div>Then he immediately got #MeToo'd and accused of several counts of sexual assault and rape by, eh, well, by my count it's five women, right now, dating back almost thirty years, I think. </div><div><br /></div><div>(Sighs)</div><div><br /></div><div>Eh, I always knew she should've gone with Alexsandr Petrovsky instead....</div><div><br /></div><div>Alright, seriously, ehhh, yeah.... There's really not much to say there. Five women, who have come forward so far.... Maybe there was a reason he was so good at playing leches. Who knows; going through the details in the accusations, it seems like he's been a creep for awhile. I've certainly heard worst, but, eh,...- Oh, God, one of them was Kristin Davis's old stand-in on the show....- Ugh.... (Sigh)</div><div><br /></div><div>Anyway, he got cut from the last episode of the season where he was supposed to make a cameo in a dream sequence; honestly I think it was better not seeing him anyway, and he's been fired from most of the rest of the projects he was on, although he has denied all the allegations against him.... We'll see what'll happen on that end, but actually, there was another, probably more major change King made to the series. More major, and yet, shockingly, a less missing one.</div><div><br /></div><div>Of course, I'm talking about Kim Cattrall choosing not to renew her character. This means that Samantha, while not dead, has gotten into a tiff with the girls, and has since now moved permanently to London, and is only communicated, sparingly-at-best, with the girls via text messages, and even that, is only occasionally. </div><div><br /></div><div>Honestly, I didn't miss her.</div><div> </div><div>As much as I love Samantha, and yeah, she was the best character in the old series, we don't need her now. And also, that's, kinda realistic.... I read somewhere once that the average friendship, like relationships, tend to last only seven years, and not necessarily because of conflicts between two people, often, people just drift apart, sometimes they move and find themselves in a different friend circle or priorities change, life changes happen.... And besides, the obvious joke is obvious, she was the "Sex", in "Sex and the City" most of the time, and frankly, this show isn't about sex. It isn't about these ravishing elaborate characters and all the sexual prowess and liaisons they were having, according to Carrie's old column anyway....</div><div><br /></div><div>And look, for more gossipy aspects of this, there's timelines of events out there that you can find that give, perhaps way too much details about the behind-the-scenes dramas.... Apparently Kim Cattrall never got along with any of her co-stars, she didn't want to do the part anymore; she's the actual reason there wasn't a third movie, which apparently was where the original idea of killing Big and having Carrie on her own came from.... She's particularly upset at Sarah Jessica Parker and those two are not on speaking terms.... Honestly, I only kinda believe half these stories and rumors regarding these girls I don't think it's as salacious as people want to make it out. I'm sure they had issues over the years, and their relationships are fraught because of them now, but more than that, I think she just doesn't want to play the role anymore, and, you know what, fair. I don't know why she isn't interested in returning to the role anymore; it could be this personal drama, she could just not want to play the part and would rather do other things, apparently her stance on this was so strong they didn't even ask her to be apart of this series.... She's written off in the first episode, and only sporadically communicates with the other girls in the show through text messages in London. Her presence is still there, and they mention a smart way in which they describe the major rift between them....</div><div><br /></div><div>But, we just didn't need her for this. Friendships don't always last forever; why shouldn't somebody have left the group over a fight, or a change of location or whatever.... Weirdly, I think the decision is realistic, and "And Just Like That", is going for realism. Again "Sex and the City" was based around Carrie's column, and Samantha was the most eccentric and sexual friend, but there isn't a column anymore. There's not even a voiceover anymore; we're not seeing an interpretation of what these characters lives are at anymore, we're seeing, where they're at now. We're getting older, but more real characters and seeing their struggling lives and emotional evolutions, and it's not entirely surrounding the characters sex lives. </div><div><br /></div><div>So, that's two characters, essentially taken out of the show now, and both of which are vast improvements. </div><div><br /></div><div>(Actually there's three, but the last one is a little sadder, and also, was not a change that effected the writing or the series much. Willie Garson's illness and eventual passing led to them writing his character, Stanford. being written out of the show, although from I can tell it didn't actually effect the arc of the series and that the plans were unchanged in that regard [Also Sidenote to the Sidenote: It was always a stupid and wrong idea to have him Stanford and Tony get married!!!! BAD MPK! Bad!]) </div><div><br /></div><div>We get to see Carrie, long pass her single girl days having to deal with the severe grief of losing her husband, and also, having to deal with the fact that they lost one of their core members of their friend circle. One that forced King's hand, and the other, pure luck and good timing by King. This is another unfortunate comparison to Lorre, where he seemed to sometimes only evolve a series after his hand is forced as well. </div><div><br /></div><div>I mean, even as I'm writing this commentary, King is still answering questions postulating about Samantha's presence in the next season, which will ultimately be virtual, if at all, and will almost assuredly not include Kim Cattrall, and yet he's also still very much writing her. Her absence is an ever-present part of the series. I like this change to the status quo and I like several of the other changes....</div><div><br /></div><div>Including a big one that apparently I'm in the huge minority on, because there's some changes that are being vehemently criticized by the, quote-unquote "fans" of "Sex and the City". Most specifically, Che, Sara Ramirez's character, a stand-up comic who runs the sex podcast that Carrie had taken a job work, and how they ends up having a relationship with Miranda, who inevitably leaves her career path, and her marriage to Steve in order to pursue Che. It's-, it's a lot, but I like it. </div><div><br /></div><div>Miranda also, turned out to be an alcoholic, and possibly has become a pothead..., honestly, that's not handled, great..., although it does put a new thought on all those cosmos the girls had over the years. </div><div><br /></div><div>Okay, Miranda, leaving her husband, yeah, that's-, that probably should've happened a lot sooner to be fair. The whole thing with Miranda is that she's always been completely contrast to any variation of modern romance ideas and tropes, and in that sense, it's always been, somewhat questionable that she'd even get married to begin with, despite Steve being a pretty ideal partner for her. I should also note that this storyline, is actually very similar to Cynthia Nixon's own coming out. She was married for most of the run on "Sex and the City" and had two children with her then-husband, but then they got divorce and she started dating her current spouse since '04. She self-identifies as "queer" now, so this story is very reminiscent of her own life, which, I don't really think has been done much in this franchise, oddly enough. Sarah Jessica Parker and Kim Cattrall are notable for having very little in common with their characters' personal lives over the run of the show; Kristin Davis, actually did adopt a child, but after the show ended, and that's basically all that's similar to her character; in fact, she's the only one of the four in real life who's always been single and seems the most antagonistic towards marriage and long-lasting relationships in her real life. Yeah, who knew, Charlotte was the real Miranda. (That also, might be where Miranda's alcoholism came from, Davis has been public about her struggles in the past, but that could just be me speculating) </div><div><br /></div><div>This is actually quite in contrast to the original series, where Cynthia does have a flirtation with lesbianism, but ultimately decides that it wasn't for her. I should note that sometimes, MPK's attention to detail regarding continuity can be, particularly selective at times. This is why Stanford and Tony's entire marriage is just a huge WTF middle finger, 'cause it was very much clear that these two characters had no real business, ever being together in the first place. (Like, MPK, the two gay male characters you're just shoving together, after it's established they shouldn't be together! You're gay! As you've pointed out before, do you just, get married to the nearest gay guy in your friend circle as well just to have a wedding with Liza Minelli showing up!?!? Like, I'm sure you would, but do you!? Do you really!? [Ugh! I'm sorry, to keep mentioning some of this but "Sex and the City 2" was so fucking stupid...]) However, he usually kinda got away with it a lot of the time, because he could depict the characters' sudden major changes, as character growth and evolution. </div><div><br /></div><div>Sometimes, it's still kinda questionable though.... Like, there's a scene in this season, where Charlotte is accidentally caught by her daughter, about to give her husband a blowjob, which weirdly, gets made fun of by Carrie and Miranda, who, can't believe that she still does that. ([Shrugs] Maybe I'm just not in enough long-term relationships to know what the time limit on sexual acts are..., but that seems, funny, but not weird to me....) Yet, one of the very earliest episodes of the series, involves how Charlotte was a, ummmm-, I don't think this term was used as commonly as it is now, but she was essentially, a "pillow princess". I'm gonna let you guys look that up, but eventually that changed during the series, which, honestly, never felt that right with me. It kinda indicated that somebody's sexual preferences would/could evolve and/or change, because they met somebody else who they appreciated enough to do that with..., and now they thoroughly enjoy doing that sexual act.... </div><div><br /></div><div>Like,- maybe I'm in the minority on this, and others might disagree, but part of that I get, and part of that, I just feel is a little bit disingenuous. Like, I do get the idea that you would be more open to doing things you wouldn't normally do with the people you love the most, but on the other hand, it was pretty damn clear that this was just a flatout no-zone for her, and that shift was really severe. Like, it's more believable that she would change her religion for her man then she would suddenly be into giving blowjobs for her man, which, she actually did convert to Judaism for Harry, so in comparison, so I'm not pulling this out of my ass; like this seemed pretty drastic to those paying that close attention. I mean, it makes perfect sense in my fan theory of Carrie's column, but if my theory isn't correct, which it doesn't seem like it is, then that implies that MPK thinks that sexual acts that one is not interested in doing, could be overcome if the right person comes around, and that, just seems a little far-fetched to me.... I mean, maybe that's more common with blowjobs, but does Carrie also now like giving golden showers, it's just that she just wasn't able to do it for Bill, because he just wasn't the right guy for her...? Or does Miranda like eating ass now? I feel like even Dan Savage would be like, "I don't know about that..." Maybe I'm way off, feel free to tell me off on Twitter, Facebook comments or comment on this blog if this is just my imagination running amuck. </div><div><br /></div><div>Now, is Miranda's shift to being, head-over-heels dumbstruck-in-love with Che, after a few jokes, a few drinks, a few hits and a few, um, fingers..., too severe a change in the same way....? Ehh, I would argue it's not, but mainly because we've had so much time to show this evolution; I can totally see how it could be though. Especially to those who don't seem to like Che for various reasons..., I'm not even gonna comment on those fansite debates, other then to say that, mostly, I don't agree. I like Che, I don't know if they and Miranda are destined to be together, but I do think they is good for who Miranda is right now. And she even has a speech at the end, that seems to very well justify her shift. I'll quote here from the episode: </div><div><br /></div><div><i>"Am I not allowed to change a little bit? Or a lot? Or change back again, if I feel like it? Do I have to follow my own rigid rules until the day that I die?"</i></div><div><br /></div><div>It's a good question when it comes to characters with long-form narratives like television series. Do they have to stay the same as they always were? It's also oddly an interesting question, for writing these characters too though, and I can easily interpret this as Michael Patrick King talking to us, the viewers, and the critics. (And it's not the first time he'd use Miranda to express POV's like this from him, metaphorically, that's been a well-established precedent, most notably during the last season when she was the one who expressed the most concern of Carrie giving up her column to move to Paris....) But yeah, can he just simply, change a character extremely, just because he feels like it? I mean, of course the answer is, "Yes," but is there a line? </div><div><br /></div><div>This question, would be easier to answer, if there wasn't one last new threadline in the show that I haven't talked about yet. See, when "Sex and the City" came out, a lot of the frank discussions of sex was considered taboo and controversial and groundbreaking, but another aspect of the series was how much the discussion was about the modern-day aspects of dating and relationships, and especially in New York City at the time. The show was trendy in general, but it was also very aware of the sexual trends of the day, from knowing the newest drinks at the hottest places for singles on a night out on the town, to knowing what the newest and hottest sex toys were and all other aspects of sex, in-between. </div><div><br /></div><div>The big aspect of the "sex" discussion now though, isn't so much sex, as it is, gender.... I didn't mention this before, but Che, like their actress Sara Ramirez, is non-binary. What does that mean? </div><div><br /></div><div>(Google search)</div><div><br /></div><div>Hold on, I want to get this right..., what the hell does that...- It means, that Che doesn't identify as any gender. And yes, there's much discussion around pronouns. None of these common discussion points of today are actually new btw; people think they're new, but these are actually are debates that have been happening for quite a long time, it's just only now, that this discussion at the forefront of our pop cultural awareness..., and anyway it's all over the show. </div><div><br /></div><div>Partly because it's "trendy", but also, only now are we really beginning to get a real grasp on the idea of a person's genderfluidity. (Fluidity or fluidness? Gender fluidness?- I don't know....) Not just Che either, Charlotte's daughter Rose, is now, Rock, much to Charlotte's bafflement. And frankly, I'm sure a lot of peoples. It's a plotpoint that several of the kid's at Rock's school have changed their name and identity, some multiple times, and now, Rose has decided to become Rock. When it comes to kids who are trying to figure out who/what they are and where they identify on the spectrum, there's even a debate going on in the community on how serious to take teenagers who may wish to go through such things as gender-reassignment surgery and whatnot, and this isn't an easy debate. Teenagers who go through these kind of identity troubles of all kinds, sexual preference and gender identity-based have it, probably worst off than most anybody; they lead every depressing statistic you can think of regarding teenagers, and then you can add into the equation if any of them happen to be cursed by geography or their families. On the other hand, teenagers can be annoying edgelord little shits, who will do anything to shock and appall everyone around them, including doing some really stupid shit, and perhaps that does play a part in inflating some of the numbers of the rise in youths making such decisions regarding their gender and gender identity.</div><div><br /></div><div>I get both points here to be honest, and I don't think the answer is entirely one or the other, although I still have a really hard time thinking that most teenagers, even the most acerbic ones, will go so far as to change their names and genders just to piss off their parents in a trendy manner, but I could be wrong on that too, I don't really know how this is gonna play out in the future, either within the series, or for that matter, when "And Just Like That..." is looked back upon years from now, and on that note I don't want to judge. I mean, a lot of what happened on "Sex and the City" would not fly today, and they were looking at a lot of the modern trends in sex and gender back then, much of which was controversial in it's day that are now fairly common and accepted, and some that are not, so.... Besides, whether it's good or bad, I think it's always better to portray stuff that's happening at the time when creating a piece of film or television that taking place in the time that it's made..., so, in terms of the more political sides of this debate, I don't feel qualified to really discuss that more thoroughly. </div><div><br /></div><div>However, in terms of MPK's approach to writing, you could definitely see how this modern popular discussion of gender identity in all it's forms, could pretty easily be a way for him to cop out and get away with changing things pretty drastically in his work, and not get too called out for shifting things so much. </div><div><br /></div><div>Or, also, he could use it to just to be as outrageous as he wants. </div><div><br /></div><div>It's weird, when Michael Patrick King's work is good, it's almost a conundrum in how you can manage to bend over backwards being able to defend it against his truly harshest critics, and yet when he's bad, it makes you think television as a entire artistic medium might need to die, and this line is really thin. And I'm definitely not saying he always nailed it with "Sex...", or even with "And Just Like That...", there's definitely moments where his worst tendencies do creep in, especially with some of the race stuff he has Charlotte and Miranda go through in the beginning, but for the most part, this show, (And again, I do stress, "Show" here, this is still not a franchise that should ever do movies....) it seems to be his sweet spot. Even he has said, that the main reason this show is getting made, isn't because of popular demand or any monetary gains or other kinds of economic or Hollywood cynicism, it's because he just likes writing these characters. He has worked on several other projects over the years, even some really decent ones, but he keeps coming back to "Sex and the City" and I really don't think it's because we or even HBO was craving it. I mean, I'm sure they paid him and everyone else fine, but he can basically do anything he wants now, so he's bringing these characters back. </div><div><br /></div><div>(Shrugs)</div><div><br /></div><div>Alright, fair enough. I said I wanted "Sex and the City" to die; I didn't say I wanted the characters to die, and I don't. (Although now that Big's dead, I guess I am okay with his character at least dying. [Shrugs] Oh well, close enough.) But yeah, the characters are there, they've just moved on. There's still sex, and there's still New York City, but they're not stumbling through New York's dating world of young, single 20-40somethings that they were in twenty years ago; now they're having different adventures. They've become different people, and are now traversing this adult world of grief, parenthood, yes, new love and sexual evolution, and even the aftermaths of broken relationships.</div><div><br /></div><div>There's nothing left for Carrie, or anybody else to wonder about. That's not to say they know everything now, but they don't just sit around day-drinking contemplating what they don't know; they've moved on and move forward with whatever comes next. </div><div><br /></div><div>And yeah, I like that ultimately. </div><div><br /></div><div>I don't know if I'll still like it after another season or two, there's still a decent chance that they'll screw it up again but, I do like it after one season, and that's already one season more than I ever thought I would put up with, with this franchise again. It's weird, usually the risk with continuing franchises, long after their original runs is the risk that you'll retroactively hurt the original franchise in either prestige, perception, quality, or potentially all three and "Sex and the City" went headfirst down in all three when they decided to keep going before. More than most, it's kinda amazing and somewhat dumbfounding that they somehow, now, managed to turn it around so long after I, and I'm more sure most everybody else had written them off, literally, just like that.... </div><div><br /></div><div>It doesn't mean I'm not gonna remain skeptical of other franchises doing these reboots, sequel series, revivals, relaunches, etc. long afterwards,- (I know, based on the things I've heard, I'm not looking forward to finally seeing whatever-the-hell Disney apparently did to "Chip & Dale: Rescue Rangers" right now.... [I hope they at least didn't screw up Gadget...]) but it does give me some hope and potential that some of them might indeed be able to revive their franchise's brand and interest for me, in positive ways that makes their legacy more secure. A lot of them, even the good ones, are often just pointless nostalgia-bait cashgrabs, and somehow "Sex and the City" of all of them, ended up not being one. That's honestly kinda amazing. </div><div><br /></div><div>Maybe there is some stuff out there left to wonder about.... </div><div><br /></div><div>Still, definitely hoping that there's no more attempts at copycatting "Sex..." though...</div><div><br /></div>
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kIZZFhUVl8M" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696790060036702346.post-43259496243112586862022-06-26T20:20:00.007-07:002022-09-24T01:50:06.847-07:00MOVIE REVIEWS #195: "BELFAST", "LICORICE PIZZA", "SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME", "SPENCER", "I'M YOUR WOMAN", "BIRDS OF PREY AND THE FANTABULOUS EMANCIPATION OF ONE HARLEY QUINN", "BOYS STATE", "FOURTEEN" and "TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH (Kurosawa)"!<div style="text-align: left;">I never know what to write here anymore. It seems like all these opening paragraphs are just me apologizing for being so busy to see the movies I want to see, and a brief discussion about how the world is a little worst off now. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">(Sigh)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">By the way, for all who care, here in Nevada, the right to an abortion is codified in the state constitution and can only be overturned by a majority vote on a state ballot and it's not going on the ballot anytime soon, for anyone who might be interested in that information.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">But yeah, I've been busy, and I haven't been able to watch/write/publish/review at the rates I've wanted to. I don't know if it'll change any time soon either, it seems like we all have a real lot of work to do in the near future, but anyway, we're getting to a bunch of films this week. I did see one movie I didn't review, an Irish film called "Float Like a Butterfly" about a rural Irish nomad girl who dreams of being a fighter. It's okay. Not much to say on it from my end, but I had a lot more to say about a lot of these films. I'm definitely getting a few responses from this batch of reviews, but, eh, whatever, let's get to it. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>BELFAST </b>(2021) Director: Kenneth Branagh</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ja3PPOnJQ2k" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe> </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I know, that basically every religious war there's ever been, has been stupid, but the conflicts in Northern Ireland over the decades, have got to be high up there as among the very stupidest. At least, that's how it must've seemed to Buddy (Jude Hill), and many other young kids growing up during the turbulent time of "The Troubles" as it's known colloquially over in Northern Ireland. I know there was more at stake, political and civil rights at hand and whatnot, but yeah, from the ground level, it did seem, like most such conflicts, they're simply tools for those who are otherwise disturbed people to act out their more primal and violent desires, under some guise of morality or legality.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Branagh grew up in the beginning of that era, in "Belfast." I don't know how Branagh's regarded in the Isles honestly; from an American perspective, he's basically been, my generation's ideal Shakespearean actor. Very much similar to one of his idols, Lawrence Olivier, who he himself famously played in "My Week with Marilyn", I'm always half-amazed when Branagh does anything outside of Shakespeare, which is really unfair, but that's just what I think of him. He was the director and actor in four of the biggest Shakespeare adaptations of my youth, and two of those, "Henry V" and "Hamlet", I consider among the very best filmed adaptations of his work. I'm also seen him other places of course, but he's one of those performers who I just think of as this Shakespearean actor for our times. Even the negative traits I associate with him, like some of his more over-the-top hamminess in his acting, I feel like that's, a great theater actor transitioning awkwardly to the screen. But he does do other material, including some mainstream; he directed "Thor" for instance, which is still one of the very best Marvel movies. I'm actually surprised how much he has directed, I tend to think of him more as an actor who director as opposed to a director who acts, but that's probably not true. I haven't seen most of his newer films, including what seems like his very odd-looking Agatha Christie adaptations, but...- let's just say that, if you asked me what Oscar category would he finally win for last year, I think I would've guessed Best Sound before I came up with Best Original Screenplay. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Sure enough, I get why he won. "Belfast" is probably the kind of movie, structurally that would annoy most people, if it wasn't autobiographical, or took place, literally anywhere else. There's plenty of stories about a young kid having to move from his home, but I bought into it here. "Belfast", tells Buddy's story, coming from a Protestant home where Ma (Caitriona Balfe) is always at home, and Pa (Jamie Dornan) is always out-of-town struggling for work, and while the constant threat of violence from the ever-growing Protestant militants as they bully their way into trying to decry, or in their words, cleanse, the neighborhood of Christian households, he basically just, goes about living his life.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Buddy's story and goals are fairly simple. He wants to watch movies and shows, he wants to get better at school to impress a girl he likes, Catherine (Olive Tennant), who always sits near the front of the class since that's where the teacher puts the best graded kids, which...- personally I would've switched that, have the kids with the worst grades up front, and the best kids in the back, who clearly don't need to be near the front, but that's me.... He sometimes, plays with his older cousin Moira (Lara McDonnell) who seems to try to be caught up in Belfast's gang culture, as Buddy struggles to pull off simple shoplifting and other minor crimes. He also likes to hang out with his beloved grandfather and grandmother, Pop and Granny (Oscar nominees Ciaran Hinds and Judi Dench). These two are lovely together by the way, they're an old married couple, but they're a loving couple and they love to dote on their grandson and on each other too. Honestly, in hindsight in these kinds of movies, you don't normally see, happy couples as influences on the youth, and here, we actually have two. Buddy's parents are at an impasse, but you never get the sense that they themselves are troubled. Pa has to work in England and they're struggling to pay back an extensive backtax that he owes, but you know, except for the fact that he can't be with them as much as he'd want, they're a good, loving couple too. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">The big conflict is whether or not they're moving out of Belfast, if, and how. Pa recognizes that the Troubles are gonna to make the place too dangerous, but there's limited options. They have some relatives in Canada and Australian, but they're pretty distant, and they're not quite well-off enough to take such a risky journey. And besides, neither Ma, nor Buddy, for that matter, really want to leave; "Belfast" is their home after all, and why can't you be safe in your home...? Movies like these, usually benefit from being through the child's perspective, my favorite in recent years is the underrated "What Maisie Knew" about a parents divorce and the switch divergent paths both parents and therefore, their daughter takes. The movie doesn't quite stay a 100% from the child's perspective, but while the movie drifts a bit from that, especially to focus a bit more attention on Granny & Pop, it doesn't unpleasantly so. We're seeing the world, essentially as Buddy sees it, and remember. The Van Morrison soundtrack definitely helps as well; this movie harkens back to an idyllic Irish youth, but still shows an unfortunate world that's painted in black and white, while everybody struggles to exist in the shades of gray they're comfortable with, Buddy can't help but see the colorful worlds of the stage and screen, and eventually realize that there's a better, more interesting world that he's missing out on. And of course, as things get worst, Ma and Pa, just eventually realize that they gotta get out. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I came in more skeptical, hearing a lot of criticism about the pathos of the movie making it seem more sappy and contrived; I strongly disagree with this. I like how it isn't conventional at all. I've seen this story where, the parents join the fight, and the kids are caught in the middle, or where the trouble surrounding the youth's world is counteracted with the troubles at home, or how the kid, get caught up in the violence himself because there's not enough ability or love from his parents to keep an eye on him at home. I've even seen the tale about how the school system fails these kids so they end up as the street thugs that parade around controlling everybody else. It doesn't even have a scene of an old loved one dying come to think of it. This movie actually evades a lot of those cliches and still gives an emotional heart and center. I prefer this, it's more uplifting and full of life. Yeah, maybe it's too nostalgic, but it's not undermining the horrors that happened, quite the contrary, it's putting them into a more personal context. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Maybe I wouldn't care for it this much, if I didn't suspect a personal truth in the person telling it, sure, but since it does feel personal and inspirational, it works. It's not the story I ever thought Branagh would tell, or the one I most wanted to see from him necessarily, but it's the one that I'm most glad he's told us. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>LICORICE PIZZA </b>(2021) Director: Paul Thomas Anderson</span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><br /></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.thewrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/licorice-pizza-936x527.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://www.thewrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/licorice-pizza-936x527.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I had a friend on Facebook whose opinion I respect, say that he was disappointed in Paul Thomas Anderson's latest film, "Licorice Pizza", stating that, and I'm gonna quote him here, <i>"...Jane Campion made the best PTA film last year..."</i>. Well, that's an attention-grabbing statement. And I kinda get what he means, 'cause I can definitely see a world where PTA might've made a film like "The Power of the Dog", and that is ultimately a better movie. On the other hand, as to that film, being more of a PTA film than "Licorice Pizza"...? Uh, that one, I can't agree with, 'cause this might be the most PTA film I've seen yet. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">In fact, that's probably the biggest problem with the film; it's a little too much of his most insular inspirations and influences. Los Angeles, check. Something directly or tangentially related to the entertainment industry, check. 1970s, check. Kind of a elaborate but plotless narrative that stumbles to a wild finish, yeah, definite check. Hell, it's even got the strange acerbic title that you have to look up the reference to. Yeah, I didn't recognize it either, but the title has two sources, the main one being, the name of a famous small-chain record So-Cal record store back in the '70s. They took that name as a reference to an old Abbott & Costello sketch, one so old that I have a difficult time even finding video of it, but basically, they fail at selling records and one of them suggests putting corn starch on the bottom and calling them "licorice pizzas", which sounds exactly like a scheme that I'm sure Gary Valentine (Cooper Hoffman, son of the late Philip Seymour Hoffman, who was one of PTA's frequent collaborators until his passing) would've started if he had thought to come up with it. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Gary is a teenage actor, who's gotten some notable success and is a good albeit, eccentric performer, but he's much more of a business hustler than an actor. He's kind of a realistic Zach Morris, more than anything. He starts a friendship with Alana (Alana Haim), a a fellow actress and fellow free spirit who he meets at picture day at school. She looks like she could be a teenager when standing around them, but she's in her early-to-mid '20s and is still bouncing around from job-to-job trying to find herself. He then gets her wrangled into several of his side businesses, the first being as a waterbed salesman, and then later, after pinball becomes legal in California (Yes, this was a thing, it was illegal until the '70s), he opens a pinball arcade. All within the same year, and all the while he's trying to get with Alana, and Alana's trying not to get with him. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Yeah, this movie's romance plot, is kinda irksome,.... I mean, it's not like she likes these high school boys because she keeps getting older and they stay the same age or anything like that, and frankly he seems much more the adult to begin with. Even he helps get her the occasional gigs she does get most of the time. These gigs lead to their own little misadventures, like a strange surreal trip to a golf course where a movie star, Jack Holden (Sean Penn) who she almost jumps over a flaming bunker on a motorcycle with, at the drunken behest of Tom Waits, of all cameos. The most famous cameo involves Bradley Cooper as he goes nuts during a waterbed delivery that suddenly gets more and more out-of-hand and surreal. Also, this ends up involving the 1974 mayoral candidacy of Joel Wachs (Benny Safdie) after Alana ends up becoming a key part of his campaign.... </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">You might be wondering what exactly all these things have in common...?</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"> </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Honestly, not much. In fact, despite the fact that the movie never actually takes place in a record store, I get why he named it after a record store, 'cause this movie feels like we're perusing a record store and picking out many different albums and sounds out of all the sections and maybe listening into a track or two in a booth of a bunch of old records. The soundtrack of the film is amazing by the way, but the point of the movie is the randomness. It's not unusual with PTA, but usually when he does this, he has some kind of real arching theme or idea or idea at play. The easiest comparison here is "Boogie Nights", on paper, that movie does just as much jumping around to random events, characters, bullshit as this film does, and like this film, many of the events in that movie are based on real events and real people, but placing the film in the setting of the adult film world of the late '70s and early '80s, makes them all seem like they're apart of the same narrative thread.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Even "Inherent Vice" a movie based on a Thomas Pynchon novel of all things, somehow feels more cohesive than "Licorice Pizza" because of how it's got it's film noir aesthetic all the way through and the Chandleresque narrative always seems like it's going somewhere. "Licorice Pizza", is about the San Fernando Valley in 1974, a couple years earlier, but not too far removed from the late '70s, Los Angeles of "Boogie Nights", except there isn't a clear narrative or a clear through line, it's just the randomness of these two main characters and the experiences they have running into and being in a world with the random characters they run into in this time and place. I can see how some could argue how and why that makes "Licorice Pizza" better or even equal to some of PTA's best, but I'm gonna take the other limb and say that it's one of his very weakest films. I think he tried to make "Punch-Drunk Love 2" and ended up shoving in some unused discarded segments from "Magnolia"</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">There's still a lot to be impressed by. The filmmaking's great, the casting is special, even if it's just a bunch of people that PTA has known for years now, but it's focus is too just weirdly insular and narrow a focus that it ultimately makes it difficult to truly feel emotional about, and something I rarely find with PTA; even the films of his I like the least, I usually have strong feelings on, and this is one of the first times I just don't. Perhaps, this is the first time he just made something that was way too personal to him for us to truly get traction into it. I know, I had to look up a lot to fully understand this movie and get a real sense of all the characters in the film, the real people they represent and even the actors playing them have significance to this film and to PTA specifically, and yeah, that's just way too specific ultimately. I never needed to do that with any of his previous films, and it wasn't because I was familiar with all the events he was re-telling or re-imagining or any of the stories that he was adapting before. I understood them all fine without needing the extra context to feel like I had a fulfilling cinematic experience. I guess it's ultimately worth a watch, so I'll just barely recommend it, for everything good in it, and clearly the work was put in, and perhaps those who lived through this era in and around the time it took place, might relate to it more, but for me, it's just too distant. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME </b>(2021) Director: Jon Watts</span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐1/2</span></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><br /></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNzgwNTVjYWQtNTY3YS00NzIzLTg1ZDAtYTA5MDNkNWZhZjA5XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyODk4OTc3MTY@._V1_.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="422" data-original-width="800" height="338" src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNzgwNTVjYWQtNTY3YS00NzIzLTg1ZDAtYTA5MDNkNWZhZjA5XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyODk4OTc3MTY@._V1_.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Yes, I finally watched "No Way Home".</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Sorry to start with that, but I've been inundated by some, you know who you are, who couldn't believe that I wouldn't immediately just jump to see the latest "Spider-Man" movie the second it was released to theaters. I mean, I know apparently everybody else did, it's the movie that basically saved the theaters during the last few months of the Covid pandemic's most severe state. Pretty much nobody went to see anything else. I didn't go see anything else either, but I certainly wasn't going to see "No Way Home" if I was gonna see anything, 'cause I have never liked Spider-Man, in any form. Well, that's not entirely true, I've liked a couple of the movies here and there, but, no, there's really no scenario where I put "Spider-Man" anything, on or near the top of-, anything. I've been criticized many times for not liking many different "Spider-Man..." movies. I've been criticized for it, basically since the first Sam Raimi "Spider-Man" film. I never liked any of the cartoon series of his, or movies, I certainly never cared about the comics.... I always thought he just registered to me at best as "uninteresting" or "childish", especially the deeper you dive into Stan Lee's early stuff, it really is mind-numbing how simple a lot of it was. Even this movie makes a little fun of it sometimes, Doctor Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina) really is a funny name. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Childish, yeah, I'll stand by that one, but "uninteresting,"...? Well, I certainly don't think he's as compelling as other superheroes; I don't think he holds a candle to Batman or Superman, but I don't know, I can't really say he's uninteresting, can I? I mean, obviously, if we're talking about if Spider-Man is interesting, the first question is, "Well, which one?"</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I don't know why we've been so insistent over the years on Spider-Man getting the multiverse treatment. I always suspected that Peter Parker was too boring in of himself so they had to keep coming up with new Spider-Mans and new ways to bring in new Spider-Mans, and the multiple universe theory has become a convenient way for writers, especially comic book writers to explain off such drastic changes and shifts, without just saying, "I wanted to do something different than the crap we were doing." Frankly, I don't think it's actually that interesting a writing device most of the time, especially the way that it's constantly and commonly used in superhero narratives. I can think of times I do like it, like "Star Trek" I think usually uses it well, but you know, it makes more sense there since they're already literally out in literal space, looking for new universes, they'd naturally occasionally run into one or two literally. However, in the universe of Marvel, universes are just infinite for the purposes of....- um...,-...- lazy writing, and they're not founded through a scientific-based approach to exploring other worlds, they come about because, there's a warlock who has the ability to cast interdimensional spells. (You know, I used to like Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) but now I'm rethinking why he's here, other than to just, be the plothole guy. [Sigh]) But, since there are so many Spider-uh-men? Man? Spider-Men?- so many Spideys, it's kinda hard to imagine that all of them are uninteresting. And, yeah, I liked Miles Morales in "Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse" a lot; I hated that movie, but it wasn't because of him, he was a good character with an interesting backstory, and had different and interesting reasons to be Spider-Man. Different than Peter Parker (Tom Holland). </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Parker's backstory has constantly remained similar enough in these movies. He's either a teenager, or at most a very young adult, who loses both parents and grows up with his aunt and uncle, until his Uncle Ben passes away, leaving him to be raised during his most formative years by his Aunt May (Marisa Tomei). He mostly an introverted, smart, shy student until he attains these special spidey powers, usually against his will, and becomes more confident afterwards. He gets a girl, in this case, it's MJ (Zendaya), and occasionally a close confidant, this one's Ned (Jacob Batalon) who may or may not eventually turn against him and may or may not eventually find or develop his own unique special abilities in the future. Also, for some reason, he ends up getting portrayed as public enemy number one by "The Daily Bugle" editor J. Jonah Jameson (J.K. Simmons), portrayed in this world, as some kind of right-wing fringe media caricature a la, Bill O'Reilly and especially Alex Jones, which, yeah, that's- he probably would've always been that if they were invented beforehand. It's,- I guess this base origin is not terrible in of itself, variations of a theme aside; I can kinda see how being a secret teenage superhero can be just as much of a burden, if not moreso than being a secret adult superhero.... I mean, just on paper, I like it better than I like any attempts to portray Superman's teenage perils... (Yes, that includes "Smallville"; why did people like that thing? Take the worst part of Superman's origin story and stretch it for a decade! UGH!) </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">However, "No Way Home" for me anyway, is going to be the movie where I went from general indifference and befuddlement to Spider-Man, to where I genuinely started to really despise this character. And it ironically begins and ends with the most famous, and probably the best thing that's come out of "Spider-Man" in any/all forms. It's that one great line they have, "With great power comes great responsibility." I do like that line, a lot. I think it makes sense, both within "Spider-Man" and outside of it. To achieve great power, literal or figurative is one thing, but with it comes the burden of acting responsibly with that power. If you don't, then, pretty literally, you are then just, another supervillain. Spider-Man it particularly makes sense for, because for the most part, all of Spider-Man's most famous villains, The Green Goblin (Daniel Dafoe), Dr. Octupus, Sandman, (Thomas Haden Church), Elctro (Jamie Foxx), they all, like Peter, gained powers through inadvertent and unexpected means, and they all died, at the hands of Peter Parker's Spider-Man, because he is the one who uses his power most responsibly.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">(Sigh) </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Except he doesn't! And the more I think about it, it pisses me off that he doesn't! </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Spider-Man doesn't treat that saying, the way it's intended; he really morphs it, both in this movie, and many times, in the comics themselves. (I know enough to know that, "One More Day" for instance, is particularly infamous in this regard, and that that's not the only example.) In fact, now that I think about it, I think that's is ultimately the real main reason why I've never been able to grab onto this character, 'cause, he seems to be under this impression, that that statement, of great power and great responsibility, isn't so much a guideline, as it is, a mantra to live by, in order to defend his own selfishness. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Or worst than that, I think he's under the impression that those extremes always have to be in great conflict with each other...? You see, you can have great responsibility, without having great power, and unless there's something about the science in this world that I'm not aware of, logically, you wouldn't lose it by gaining a power. He acts like responsibility is a burden or challenge, but they're not, just be responsible for your actions, whether they help or hurt people, right?! You don't even have to be a superhero, the friendly neighborhood "Spider-Man" always out watching over the streets of New York City...-; that's another thing about most of his origin stories that I don't like, he becomes obsessed with the notion that he must always be out there being the savior/spokesman for the public good, when you know, it's not like you have to keep having police chatter on the CB radio on all the time. If you're in the area, fine, help the person, but you know, like, if you're not, like you don't have to keep running around saving everybody; even Superman can't be everywhere all the time. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Instead of that though,...- like, the big plotpoint in this film is that, Jameson has revealed his identity after the villain of the last film, Mysterio, left a dying message that was full of lies about him to make him seem like the hero. This causes his life to be uprooted, as well as the lives of everyone around him. He's become a pariah at school, where he's constantly followed by cameras as well as protestors. His friends are now ostracized, and all of them, himself included, rejected from M.I.T., their first choice school, because of their association with him. So, he goes to Dr. Strange, in order to cast a spell to have everybody he knows, forget that he's Spider-Man. I don't know how this will lead to erasing the videotape footage of him being revealed as Spider-Man; you'd think, even after it happens, eventually Jameson will discover his old news reports on his Youtube channel, but nevermind.... The spell, ultimately fails, but it causes a wormhole to the multiverse and all the aforementioned villains inevitably come out of them, and create havoc..., as well as eventually, a couple other Peter Parker's (Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield). Before that, this was such a stupid plan that, Dr. Strange pointed out all the obvious holes in it, and pointed out Peter's particular naiveness in not going to the head of the school to plead his case, which... (Sigh) yeah... I-eh,...tsk... </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">(Sigh) </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">You know, I always hated "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer" as well, for several reasons, but one of them that, was easy to point out for a joke, but it still does legitimately irk me about the concept of that show, is, simply, "Why does this vampire killing bitch, still care about the stupid and other bullshit school stupid, when she can just take over the damn thing whenever she wants?", and um, Holland's "Spider-Man" anyway, is getting really close to being that annoying in this movie. Like, forget that you're Spider-Man for a second, and just mention that Tony Stark endorsed you; that should get you into M.I.T. pretty easily, and then bring up Spider-Man to bring your friends in! I mean, Happy (Jon Favreau) was still dating your aunt, even without Tony, that should be enough corroboration for them? Or just, skip M.I.T., I think these three are good enough engineers to go out on your own already! </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">But no, instead of taking responsibility for his vanity and actions, he's go to literal, world-reversing, time-changing, magic, as an unnecessary last resort, to get things to be the way they were, when he thought everything was good?! Which, I might add, was shortly after, in this universe, half the frickin' planet was dead and missing for five years, because some asshole snapped his finger! So, not only does this guy have a bad system restore saved points, but he doesn't listen to his own mantra, he confuses his powers for being the source of all ills, and tries to take shortcuts to salvage them. And it doesn't frickin' work, and you end up killing your universe's best character because of it..., again, I might add, 'cause this isn't the first time this has happened to Spider-Man either! It's this idiotic common theme where he keeps having to chose between power and responsibility as though those two things are so separate that you can only do one or the other, and trying to balance between is just a tightrope that's waiting for him to slip off of. I think most people let him get away with it, because he's just a kid, but, frankly, I don't think young kids are being given enough credit here; I knew plenty of kids in his age range through all these universes of movies that would've handled the powers and the responsibilities better. And by the end of "No Way Home" he has not only sacrificed more than he ever should've, he's too chickenshit at the end to keep his promise, and just like, the end of "Endgame" everything's gone back and we've started back to where we were again....</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">(Sigh)</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">To be honest, I don't want to be this mean to this film. As I watched it- and I find this with most "Spider-Man" movies, at least the recent ones, I usually enjoy them in the moments, but once I start thinking about them, the worst and worst they get. I know some of you will say something like, "Well, stop thinking about them, movies like these aren't for great deep analyses of plot and commentaries about the the culture at large and the future of the cinema and Hollywood as we know it and whatnot, they're there to let you escape for a few hours into a different, fun world. I mean, these are movies about a kid that was bite by a radioactive spider who prances around New York City in spandex shooting webs from his arms, these films don't need to be taken so seriously!?" I see the point, I really do, I want to see that point of view with this film, 'cause while I am bashing a lot of it, there were some great action scenes, some amazing special effects, and I laughed a good deal, and I especially loved a lot of the performances. Daniel Dafoe was the best thing from all three of the Raimi "Spider-Man" films, it's great to see him, and to see them stay true to his and Doc Ock's characters too. This movie, if it does anything well, it treats these previous films and characters, and for those who care about "Spider-Man" the most, with a lot of respect. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">But, I just can't get there entirely. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Movies like these, they need to make me stop thinking; it shouldn't be my burden, and maybe it was because I don't like so much of this story for this film, or because I don't care much at all about Spider-Man, or previous "Spider-Man" films, but you know, the burden shouldn't be on me to turn my brain off, the movie should just make me turn my head off. The best movies like these are ten times as ridiculous and impossible and I don't care at the end 'cause the movie made me not care about that and made me care about the film instead. This movie, mostly made me think about it.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">And even then, I was still gonna be generous, but then there was another stupid Marvel post-credits scene, and then, even stupider, amazingly, a post-credits trailer, that I checked, was apart of the running time of the movie!!!!!! NO! Not accepting that either, I promised to knock off a half-star for every bad post-credits scene, and there's two of them, so that's a whole star in my book. As for everything else, look the movie might be technically be successful in doing in what it was trying to do, but I don't like Spider-Man, or care about these Spider-Man films, and the movie, basically doesn't remotely work if you don't have that response to those movies. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">(Shrugs)</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I don't know what to tell people here, I don't have those responses from those movies, and I don't really get why others do. I guess I'm happy if other finds more in this film than I do for them, but...-, you know, I didn't particularly care about any of the "Mad Max" movies either, and then "Fury Road" told me to shut up, sit down and love this thing, and it worked. I outright hated every "Batman" movie until Christopher Nolan told me the same thing with his films. I'm not saying it isn't hard, those are exceptional example but it can be done. I really was hopeful this would've been the one that did it for me with Spider-Man; I think this movie more than any other "Spider-Man" wanted me so much to look at this franchise(s) and character(s) that way, but, nope. It had to make me, and it just didn't.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>SPENCER </b>(2021) Director: Pablo Larrain</span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><br /></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://media.glamour.com/photos/61840b2503875b52ebb5b587/master/w_2560%2Cc_limit/MCDSPEN_EC027.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="453" data-original-width="800" height="362" src="https://media.glamour.com/photos/61840b2503875b52ebb5b587/master/w_2560%2Cc_limit/MCDSPEN_EC027.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">It was shortly after 6:30pm or so on a Saturday. Me and my mother had gone through the McDonald's drive-thru and we were returning home with food. For reasons that now escape me, my Aunt Patty was with us on that weekend. I forget where my Grandmother was, but I remember arriving home to hear the reports from my Aunt that just came in about the car accident that Princess Diana had been in. We watched the special reports news for the next few hours before I got bored and tired and wanted to watch something else. This was either around the time or after my big television had stopped working, so in order to watch something that I wanted to watch, I had to go to my Grandma's bedroom to watch television. Her television was older than the one I had that constantly burned out after a few hours, if it worked at all, and it was a smaller TV, maybe 4-6 inch black and white, big rabbit ears TV, that only played local channels. It would play diagonal snow on the screen for a little while before the whole picture of what you were watching would come in. So, while I wasn't watching "Hangin' with Mr. Cooper" I was hearing it when I turned it on. I also heard, the special report come in, not see, but heard, the report of her passing and I came out and told everyone else. My Aunt took it really hard, she idolized Princess Di. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">And that's my Princess Diana death story, and you can ask pretty much everybody my age of when/where they were when they heard the news and you'll definitely get an answer. It might seem more trivial in hindsight but trust me, it was a big deal. If you ask people older than me, they'll probably tell you where they were when they watched Princess Di's wedding, which I don't think is something that everybody will immediately know with Pippi Middleton and Prince William's wedding or for that matter Megan Markle and Prince Harry's. It's hard to explain to those who didn't live through it, just how important and major it Diana was, which I imagine is one reason why we have spent a lot of time recently trying to, especially through film and television, much to my chagrin and annoyance quite frankly, 'cause having lived through all this for most of my life, I really don't like living through it again. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">We've been making film, documentaries, and TV series about everything surrounding Diana for years now, but the explosion recently. There's been, this movie, Pablo Larrain's "Spencer" which is the best of the bunch, there's "Diana: The Musical", a Netflix documentary of a performance of the Broadway musical "Diana", which, let's count that as two entries, 'cause the broadway show is enough, and while I generally will applaud Netflix for adding more Broadway stuff, it's also clear that they made a weird first pick to capitalize on Disney+'s success with "Hamilton" with that one, and probably the most frustrating one for me, has been the last season of Netflix's series "The Crown", which goes through different eras of the reign of Queen Elizabeth II and finally won it's Best Drama Series Emmy on the season with Diana.... A season I thought was clearly the worst and most unwatchable of the series so far..., not just because I had to get retold Diana's story, once again, but it didn't help. (Also, fuck the Emmys! Go back to panel voting you populous trend-chasing hacks!) But those are just some of the many titles involving her. Some of them are good, even "The Crown" probably technically is a good telling of part of her story, and some of them are worth looking up, but it's-, it's just been a lot.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">So, when one of the bigger controversies this award season was that Kristen Stewart kept missing out on nominations for her performance in "Spencer", up until she got in at the Oscars, my thought was, "Well, yeah, we're sick of Diana!" (Also, people don't like Kristen Stewart still, some of them...- I hate those people, 'cause all they think of her is "Twilight", which is grossly insipid and unfair and was at the time, and I couldn't believe I had to keep defending her from idiot film trolls all that time.) I know, I was long sick of Princess Diana; I get why she's is fascinating, I understood it then, and I understand now why her story is still worth telling, but it is so hard to listen to it over and over again. Her story, is more complicated than it is on the surface, and we are still learning just how bad it actually was for her; I don't think that gets talked about enough. The most interesting recent story involving Diana to me, involves the controversy behind the Martin Bashir interview she gave in '95, and a lot of that just came down recently, and the more you really look into how fucked up that was.... Yikes. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">"Spencer" isn't about that moment in Diana's life, it takes place a few years earlier, at the Norfolk Sandringham Estate near where she grew up, in the Christmas of 1991. The movie admits that the film is a fictional made-up account of what could've happened there; what is known as general knowledge is that this was around the time when Diana decided to divorce Charles. The movie mostly tries to showcase what we suspects was inside her mind during this time. This, is a difficult thing to do. Like, we do know, the details of her life and her struggles and everybody can kinda get that, artificially anyway. We know that Diana suffered from bulimia for instance, but we don't just see her throw up in a toilet. We see her mentally breaking down over a bowl of soup at the table. We see her literally clutching a string of pearls that Charles (Jack Farthing) until she imagines them simply breaking off her, and trying to devour them in her soup. We see her sneaking into the kitchen after hours to gorge on the leftover desserts that chef Darren (Sean Harris) has lead his crew in the kitchen to prepare for the family's several-day Christmas excursion. We know she had issues with self-harm, we don't just see her cutting herself, we see that she's frustrated with having to wear so many outfits during the day, and through the routine that's being pressured on her by all sides of the family, but usually represented by the staff that's thrust upon her, usually Major Gregory (Timothy Spall), especially after they sent away her most trusted dresser Maggie (Sally Hawkins), all before cutting the curtains open that she was warned to close before, after photographers and other groundspeople had seen her changing. We know that she was tabloid fodder and that the press was overwhelming and all-consuming upon her for basically half her life, and that she and the family did indeed despise most of the paparazzi, although she occasionally did use the press and her image to her advantage, often for provocation. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">One thing that's kinda different here, is how she finds herself taken in by the ghosts of the past royals. In the beginning, a book about Anne Boleyn is placed on her bed, she's not sure why or by who, but there's a lot of talk about her legacy, as she was beheaded after asking King Henry VIII for a divorce, but there's other talks about royal legacies at times. She even starts imaging Anne Boleyn (Amy Manson) at times, haunting over her thoughts and fears. That's actually interesting 'cause Diana, more than most royals seemed to be very much aware of the moment she was in, as opposed to dwelling on the past, but it must've haunted her as well, especially as her mind continued to go. We rarely see her talking with any of the Royal family outside of playing with William and Harry (Jack Neilen and Freddie Spry), and occasionally to Charles. She has one strained moment with the Queen (Stella Gonet) where she talks about a dress she wore that wasn't recommended to her. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">One thing the movie does that's kinda interesting as well is show the Royal family as concerning for Diana, but the way it comes off is troubling, since all their advice seems to come from a place of acceptance of the condition that they were mostly born into. Even she admits that none of them are actually all bad in of themselves. You know, I do think they were often frustrated with Diana, but that's probably true enough; I but that they felt sorry for her because she clearly didn't belong with them, but then again, she just clearly didn't belong with them, and that was always gonna be a bridge too far for certain members of the Royals. I like that, and it gives more credence to why this one is titled "Spencer" after her maiden name and family. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">A lot was also made of Jonny Greenwood's score for the movie. I don't know if the score itself is good or not, but the movie couldn't have worked at all without the score. This is one of those movies that's so insular, and often includes shots and sequences where you're barely sure they're really happening or made up figments of the protagonist's imagined experiences that we needed the music to help tell this story. The biggest comparison film I've seen is for Pablo Larrain's other similar-styled biopic, "Jackie" which in some cases literally followed Jackie Kennedy the days after JFK was killed. "Jackie" made my ten best list that year, and I think I could talk myself into conceding that on a technical level "Spencer" probably deserves such an honor itself. I like it more than I thought I would considering how tired I've become of being reminded of the poor girl, and instantly reliving, literally everything about her life that I followed basically from my birth to her passing, but admittedly, a lot of this just feels like a bridge too far from my end. Larrain is a wonderful filmmaker, who has a couple sides to her personality, especially with stuff that's more regional to his Chilean homeland, but he does like to find subjects about people's struggles with their mind, especially in situations where it's pushed to it's outermost limit. "Spencer" on the surface, ends happily, she's left the house, with her kids, and they go out and enjoy some fast food, assure in the decision that she knows she's ultimately leaving the royal family for good, a decision based on her own free will. However, Diana also spends the entire movie, trying to find her way home. Not just metaphorically either, as she often visits and remains fascinated by her nearby childhood home, first by a huge scarecrow that guards it that becomes a running motif, but also, literally, the house literally decaying under her feet once she does manage to find her way back there. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Is it too obvious that she can never go home again? Perhaps, there's a few too obvious metaphors that get repeated here actually. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Mostly, I just came out of the film, fascinated by Diana, but confused as I was not entirely sure why they wanted to give us this portrayal of her. Like, it's definitely not trying for a realistic docudrama of what happened, but I'm not sure why I needed to get this inside her head,- or this imagining of what was inside her head. That's why "Jackie" is a lot better, to compare the two, not that I needed to know that either, but a lot of that movie was based on Jackie Kennedy's own interviews and accounts of what happened, hers and others, and the greatness in Natalie Portman's performance was being able to see her come undone and recalibrate herself to still seem altogether while the world around her was completely changing. This is a completely imaginary tale of Diana's mind unraveling while mostly everything around her, doesn't change or get altered that much. It's harder to do, and it's especially difficult with somebody this famous. I can think of movies where they try this, to get you to empathize and to feel like somebody else does while their mind is going, "Still Alice" comes to my mind right away, but a better comparison might be something like "Black Swan" , and I think it does it better, because in "Black Swan", it is a made-up character we can more appropriately put ourselves into that role in the unbelievable situations surrounding that character. As much as I do feel empathy for Princess Diana, I think it's very difficult for us to fully get into her like that. I think we'd be better off if we could, don't get me wrong, but it feels like one layered separation too many. It's a fictional depiction of a real person that we're supposed to understand from the inside out...? Honestly, I give Larrain credit for making the film work as well as it does, as well as Stewart's performance which really is extraordinary, but yeah, it works technically much more than it does emotionally, at least for somebody who has dwelled on her inner thoughts for as long as I have. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>I'M YOUR WOMAN </b>(2020) Director: Julia Hart</span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><br /></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BM2JjYzZkZGEtYzliNi00NWQ1LTk0ZmEtMmVhMjJiOTM1ODYxXkEyXkFqcGdeQWRvb2xpbmhk._V1_.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BM2JjYzZkZGEtYzliNi00NWQ1LTk0ZmEtMmVhMjJiOTM1ODYxXkEyXkFqcGdeQWRvb2xpbmhk._V1_.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I've only seen one previous Julia Hart film, but it was recent. I gave her film "Fast Color" a negative review, mainly because I didn't really know what to do with it. I kinda wanna give the same negative panning to "I'm Your Woman", also mainly because I don't really know what to do with it. These movies aren't bad, they're just not particularly special. They're both also, kinda similar, they're both about young women on the run, trying to escape from an ever-coming but vague threat that's after them. In "Fast Color", the main female protagonist had some magic powers that led her to getting chased down by some vague, violent and sinister government force. In "I'm Your Woman", the main female protagonist, is being chased down by some vague violent and sinister criminal enterprise. Well, the main protagonist, and her new baby.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I do actually remember Rachel Brosnahan originally from "House of Cards" where she got an Emmy nomination for playing a prostitute, so I think subconsciously I knew she was capable of a really dramatic performance like this, but after watching four seasons of "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel", the best show on television, it's hard to imagine that this woman is the same late-in-life whipsmart stand-up comic who I wish way more real than half the comics from today and half-century ago. Instead, she's just a struggling housewife named Jean who's husband Eddie (Bill Heck) surprises her by bringing home a kid one day. He doesn't explain where the baby comes from, but they take little Harry (Jameson and Justin Charles) in. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Then, Eddie is out on a job, when soon, Jean is informed that she and her kid, also now have to be on the run. Why? Well, something went down. Jean knew Eddie was a thief of some kind, but like most mob wives, they tend to be in the dark on their husbands most specific criminal enterprises. Even after their escapades get them in trouble, and apparently their life in danger. At first, she's taken eventually by Cal (Arinze Kene), to a supposed safehouse, but eventually she gets spotted and saved, just in time. Essentially, the movie becomes kind of a heart of darkness journey into the depths of her husband's alternate life. She doesn't quite get everything right away, and we don't either. In fact, I'm not sure we ever actually get everything, we just we're know we're in trouble, and we're being hunted and chased. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Honestly, I think that's the main appeal of Julia Hart's more adult films right now. She has this Disney side-series of movies called "Stargirl" as well; I haven't seen any of them and am kinda just going on the quick loglines I can find, but if she's not doing these intense hunted female thrillers she seems to mostly tell sell stories about high school girls and how they react to the new stimuli around them and their adventures. Again, I haven't see any of these films, including her directorial debut "Miss Stevens", so I don't have a good gauge on which set of movies that's more her sweet spot, but as to these films, they're..., they're technically proficient, but not remotely interesting. She's a very talented filmmakers, but she's one of those storytellers, who just, to paraphrase a Charlie Kaufman character, she's just really damn good at structure, but there's very little unique character to her work. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Like, I haven't thought about "Fast Color" since I saw it, and yet, on paper, there's a lot of things about that movie that are intriguing. The African American cast, the magical realism elements, the symbolic threats from the government going after a woman with special skills, and how the world around her is also against her, and has to keep her talents secrets because of it. There's a lot there, but it doesn't recall like that. I ended up comparing that film to the TV show "ALF" of all things, and that isn't really fair, but it really was something that felt more likes part of other films and formulas brought back together, and done so well, but without much else in the way of emotional resonance. "I'm Your Woman", might even be more stringent on the three-act structure narrative, and it tells it's story well too, arguably better. It reveals things at the right time in mostly the right ways, we get all the parts we technically need, but we don't really get anything else. Trying to think of things I could compare this to, to show why it lacks a little, Sam Mendes "Road to Perdition" comes to my mind. That's just a story of a parent and child evading the criminal underworld that are after them as well, but there's a lot more emotional resonance and heft in the filmmaking of it; it feels bigger. "I'm Your Woman", feels really small in comparison. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Like, it takes place in the '70s, which is a choice, and I guess it kinda matches the retro aesthetic of the movie; I could easily see this film being, an early New Hollywood movie, like, something Bob Rafelsen might've made back then, but other than that, eh, I don't really know why this film takes place in the '70s. I mean, other than mainly to give an excuse to not have the audience yelling at the characters to not stare at cellphones, and for their to be a scene at a disco at one point, but, other than that..., this is what I mean, on paper, details like the time period, or the style of filmmaking, or the location choices, it looks like there should be more to it. Without giving too much away, there's actually a lot of intertwining backstories between these characters and as it gets revealed the more intense the relationships get, but, it still feels hollow, because ultimately, we're not sure who to trust and why and we're still just going from one unknown to another unknown as we go. The effect of the reveals aren't fulfilling as say, well, to think of a more recent film that got all this way more right, the reveals in Debra Granik's "Winter's Bone" is for instance. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Yeah, all I ever find myself thinking with Julia Hart's films so far is what else these films remind me of and they're almost always either better films or more interesting films.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I still want to recommend "I'm Your Woman" ultimately, despite my questioning of the inspiration for the film. It's still technically good, and perhaps I'm just not seeing Ms. Hart's more personal work. There's great acting here, and the movie does have enough intense twists for me. It just feels intense in the moment and inconsequential afterwards. Perhaps I'm just waiting for the Hart film that really grabs me and matches her own talent in terms of narrative and inspiration, but in the meantime, I find myself feeling like I'm watching a really talented artist who's doing something that she might entirely want to do. I hope my feeling is wrong in that assessment, but even if it isn't, I hope I get to see the great film in her soul someday soon. She knows how to put these things together to make a good story; I'm just waiting for her to make more than just a good story.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>BIRDS OF PREY AND THE FANTABULOUS EMANCIPATION OF ONE HARLEY QUINN </b>(2020) Director: Cathy Yan</span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/birdsofprey1.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="396" data-original-width="800" height="317" src="https://m0vie.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/birdsofprey1.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Harley fucking Quinn... (Margot Robbie). What exactly is there to do with you?</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Actually what are you, really? Like, I know who you are. I was young in the '90s, I remember the original "Batman: The Animated Series" and was as befuddled, amazed and intrigued that Joker, or all people, had a girlfriend too. She's actually kinda distinctive, because unlike most characters in these superhero universes that the big studios keep expanding upon, for whatever reason, she actually, does not originate in comics; she was a rare DC character that was specifically created for the TV show, and then eventually was moved to comics. I do get it, she's way too interesting a character to simply limit her, and she's also quite a dark character. There's plenty of variants and evolutions of her around, but no matter how you kinda parce her, she's really a disturbing and dark character, arguably, more dark and disturbing than the darkest of Joker characters, (Well, the "Joker" characters that matter; I don't count Joaquin Phoenix) because, while it's definitely one thing to be the Joker, it's a totally 'nother thing to be in madly, sadistically, and submissively in love with the Joker. She is, for all-intensive purposes, a victim of an abusive relationship. She may not see it that way, but you know, how many actual victim do realize it, especially while they're in it. This also makes her, in any interpretation, a survivor of abuse, whether that's surviving by staying in the abusive relationship, or escaping it. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">She's incredibly complicated and interesting, and yet, I think a major question has to be, well, yeah, but what do you do with her? Like, what exactly is she, despite everything, is there more to her. I mean, if you keep her backstory, which involves her jumping/pushed into that same chemical vat that created the Joker, which...- honestly I don't love, 'cause I never did like that origin story of the Joker, (To be fair, I don't like any origin story of the Joker; I think he's far more frightening when you can't believe and/or don't know his origin) but...- (Sigh) it's hard to explain her problem, but I've gotten the sense that because she's such a malleable blank slate that she's more interesting as a concept than as a character. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Conceptually, she's interesting. In practice, I think most find her more interesting as a Halloween costume than anything else, and that itself is also a major problem with her. While she is fascinating as a complex character, I think that's a very minor part of why she's popular; the most major factor in her popularity is because of just how many fetish boxes she checks. Sexy, yes. Crazy, yes. Submissive, yes. Female version of a male, (Sigh) well, I mean, it's only that one male, but yes. Depending on the interpretation, bisexual/bi-curious, yes. Hell, she's got a psych degree, that checks off intelligence. (And if you knew the psych majors I knew in college, it also checks off crazy) I'm sure I'm missing like, ten others, but y'know, seriously, there hasn't been a mainstream comic/animated character this designed to basically be a wack-off material since..., I don't know, Jessica Rabbit, maybe. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"> </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">In terms of the DCU, she was introduced to us in "Suicide Squad" a movie that is admittedly bad, but I liked anyway, way more than the other "The Suicide Squad" movie, for which she was one of the few characters who came back to do, which was much more acclaimed, and oddly enough I actually thought was, much more bleh then everybody else did. In between those films, we got "Birds of Prey and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn". This, is actually kind of a bad sign to me, that maybe Harley Quinn isn't as complex for her own movie as we think, because while she is a compelling character, this movie, apparently, in order to create a feature-length feature around her, needed to bring in a bunch of other famous Batman female characters, who aren't villains, necessarily. Basically a bunch of characters I've randomly and sporadically heard of but I'd have to go through a shit-ton of comic book folklore to actually know about all these characters, but I'm sure their names have more meaning to others. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I'll try to narrow it down in describing the story..., basically, after Harley's been kicked out by the Joker, and she's decided to finally stand up for herself and commit herself to be her own woman, free from him, she begins having to duck, basically everybody who's got a gripe against her. It's a long list.... In the meantime, she ends up finding herself protecting a teenage pickpocket named Cassandra Cain (Ella Jay Basco) who's stolen a powerful diamond that a nightclub owner and mob boss Roman Sionis (Ewan McGregor) wants to get his hand on. In the meantime, and there's a lot of meantimes in this narrative, but anyway, a nightclub singer named Dinah Lance (Jurnee Smollet) takes a job as one of Roman's bodyguards, but she's a double agent who turning info over to a police woman named Renee Montoya (Rosie Perez). She's basically every cop movie cliche rolled into one, and she's also after Cassandra. Meanwhile, Roman is being hunted by Helena Bertinelli (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), because of an old familial grudge she holds. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Somehow this all eventually comes together, and after thinking about it, I guess it ultimately works as a movie. I think it really depends on which narrative you care about more, Harley moving on from Joker and redefining herself as a person and as a villainess, or whether you care about the other girls characters and their independent evolutions, into eventually joining together. Personally; I didn't really care about any of the other characters. (Well, I mean I care about Renee, but that's mostly because it's Rosie Perez and she just naturally makes everything better.) Harley is by far the more interesting focus of the film, but eh, I don't know. I think perhaps if I had seen this film first I might've liked that new "Suicide Squad" film a little more because of her arc in it, but I still don't think I would've recommended it. Honestly, I'm kinda on the fence in regards to recommending this film. The one appeal the movie does have is that this film is essentially all told from Harley Quinn's perspective, so we do get inside her mind and we get to see how she sees the world while she tells her own story, and the other girls' stories. It's still just weird though; half the film is Harley trying to get over Joker after the relationship's done and still having to deal with all the bullshit that keeps bringing itself back up from said relationship, and the other half is like, what an interesting modern-day "Charlie's Angels" origin story should've been like (I mean, sans a Charlie character, but yeah, that's basically it.) </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I don't know, I guess if you like Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn enough then this'll do it for you, and if not, ehhh, maybe go on HBO Max and watch that "Harley Quinn" animated series, which is honestly a way-better post-Joker Harley tale. Harley Quinn is usually better animated anyway. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>BOYS STATE </b>(2020) Directors: Amanda McBaine & Jesse Moss</span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2</span></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/E1Kh_T5ZBIM" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe> </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">If you ever wonder if seeing political rhetoric and governance, especially right-wing political governance, from kids would be any more annoying and painful to sit through then the current occupants of the governing system we have, especially when a good percentage of the kids are genuine edgelord idiot trolls, um, yeah, it is. In fact, it's actually quite worst, and in many ways very frightening. Especially since, "Boys State" decided to cover Texas's version of this, which...- ugh....- Let me start over, 'cause I've actually, heard of this, but I didn't participate in it. I was at the Las Vegas Sun Youth Forum, and that had some interesting political moments within it, but no, I never really had much interest in student government of any kind. Including this kind of mimicking of a real government, which does sound up my alley, but...- eh... It's run every year in most every state, the Boys run by the American Legion, and the Girls run by the American Legion Auxiliary, and I can understand the appeal for it on the surface. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">So, I guess I should mention that a long, long time ago, I almost went into Poli-Sci as a career path; I thought I'd be a speechwriter for Harry Reid or something-or-another, but the more you dived into politics, and the real, "game" of it, the more despondent you get. So, in that sense, I could totally see how, this class of Boys State, working in the shadow of a class that voted for succession, could be a hassle. Yes, teenage boys in Texas, presumably politically-savvy ones, vote to succeed from the union. I suspect that this movie feels a lot more horrifying after January 6th. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">In fact, it's actually really bizarre to hear kids talk about how Trump doing certain things helped him, and they begin invoking strategies around it, as though Trump ever, for one second, had any form of political savviness to, literally anything he ever did. Like, he was ever consciously able to think that many steps ahead of what he was doing.... Like, I just want to go through the screen and grab them by their shoulders and be like, "NO! That's NOT what he was doing?!" </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">It also was just, bizarre once they started talking about abortion rights...- I probably picked the absolute worst time to watch this, but yeah, a bunch of teenage boys, trying to argue why abortion should be illegal in their party platforms. Also, one of the parties was called the Nationalists; like-, I know instinctively that that word isn't inherently negative connotatively, but, they really shouldn't use that word. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">(Sigh)</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">This movie does play on a lot of my instinctual fears of the nation and the youth, but there are bright spots. The main focus is on the Nationalists Party's election for Governor. There's several election positions, first within the parties and then for the whole, eh, "Boys State", here, just like regular America of course, my favorite of the ones they focus in is Rene Otero, who convincingly won the title of Party Chairman, and almost immediately faced impeachment, mostly from a minority contingent in his party that's clearly racist in it's intent, and it's quickly shot down, although his effeminate aggressiveness, and quick-wit knowledge will definitely get under peoples' skin. And arguably cost him in the end. He's by far my favorite character; he seems like one of the future George Stephanopoulos or James Carville, only probably twice as smart as either, if he can find a way to not rub people the wrong way,.... Although honestly, I hope he just rubs people the wrong way, all the way up the political ladder. He eventually gets into a fight with the competing Federalist Ben Feinstein, who literally is basically a Ben Shapiro-type, which-, well, if were blissful enough to not have to know who Ben Shapiro was until now, I'm sorry for making you look up that idiotic Conservative hack, but yeah, Otero does the correct thing by making a politician follow the agreed-upon rules, and Feinstein goes after him for being bias, which he clearly wasn't, but whatever.... Like I said, Otero, just rubs people the wrong way, especially white people I imagine and there was a lot of dumb white boys in this film.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">One who isn't was Robert McDougall, a gubernatorial candidate, who I thought did a pretty good job convincing everyone that he was the total jock conservative type that fed into what would be the more expected crowd in this kind of group. So much so, that I was genuinely surprised when he started peeling back the curtain in the interviews afterwards, realizing that was actually far more moderate, and possibly liberal then he led on. He was a politician putting on a strategy, and he was popular at first. He eventually finds a competitor in Steven Garza, a Latino kid known in the group for being a leader on the March For Our Lives protests from before. Part of me was very skeptical of him, as he came up and talked about how he didn't have natural positions and wanted to see what all the other kids wanted and presented himself as a compromise candidate. His big stand actually was going against succession, which, yes, did come up again. His speech about respecting the military very much had the same earmarks about Obama's famous race speech about his then-pastor Rev. Wright, and for a moment, seemed just as powerful. I can very easily see him, someday running for major office as well, and succeeding, even though I suspect people might be questionable about what his real thoughts are. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Perhaps it is just, the political left cynic in me that sees the negatives in these kids much more then the positives. There were times where, when I was young, I was able to convince a few people to switch sides and rethink their own political views, and it seems like, we become less and less interested in views outside our own. It's genuinely been a very long time since I'd had a truly stimulating intellectual debate with a Conservative, and this movie doesn't make me feel like I'm gonna have a good one real soon. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I gotta say, while I did enjoy the movie a lot, and believe it gives us a lot of hope and definitely fear, about the future of our, well, country, however much longer it lasts, as well as get a really informative glimpse at our modern youths and what and how they're actually taking in from the culture at large, especially our political culture, I couldn't help but feel like I was only watching half a movie. I went to look up what, if anything, happened in the Girls State in Texas that year, but I came up short. Not that I think I wouldn't be just as scared off at the results and frustrations, but I gotta say, the movie felt a little too much like a replication of the regular politics that make this world so much more frustrating. That's why I really wish that they also got a crew together to film the Girls State as well. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>FOURTEEN </b>(2020) Director: Dan Sallitt</span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><b><br /></b></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/b7f5ed5d8a6f8cb865868eecfa4798757ab6fe03/c=0-0-2000-1125/local/-/media/2020/07/17/Lexington/ghows-NC-200609634-13073b4e.jpg?width=2000&height=1125&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/b7f5ed5d8a6f8cb865868eecfa4798757ab6fe03/c=0-0-2000-1125/local/-/media/2020/07/17/Lexington/ghows-NC-200609634-13073b4e.jpg?width=2000&height=1125&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp" width="640" /></a></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Hmmm, Hannah Gadsby has a comic routine about Vincent Van Gogh,- well, it's not actually about Van Gogh, it's about the myth of the tortured artist and about how men will often give unsolicited opinions to women, which, fair enough, and it's about how his painting "The Sunflowers" came about because he was taking an epilepsy medication that caused him to oversee the color yellow as a side effect. The guy was using it an example ironically of why artists shouldn't take medications, unaware of the source of the inspiration, actually being the medications that Van Gogh was taking, because, he was severely mentally ill. (Also, who the fuck's favorite Van Gogh painting is "The Sunflowers"! Seriously! Not any of his "Starry Nights", not any his self-portraits, "Cafe Terrace at Night", "The Church at Auvers", "Le Mousme", "The Potato Eaters", even his damn wheat fields, you picked "The Sunflowers"! [Sorry, that's-, that's something that's just bugged me ever since I heard that routine.]) I bring this up, because, it's always, slightly easier to depict and portray mental illness, from a perspective, other then the one who's actually suffering from it. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I don't want it sound like I don't think a film like "Fourteen" is therefore, invalid, or underserving of being made, because it basically does portray mental illness from a perspective that is not, the person suffering from it, that's not true at all. Friends of mentally ill people, suffer as well, and many good films have been made based on that premise. In fact, I think this movie does a pretty good job of understanding how hard that actually is, but I couldn't help but to think about it.
I also couldn't help thinking about people close to me, that I either knew suffered from a mental condition of some kind, or perhaps did and I didn't know it, or perhaps still don't know it. Maybe, they didn't know it.
"Fourteen" is titled after the age Maya (Tallie Medel) and Jo (Norma Kuhling) became friends. When the movie begins they're now in their early twenties, both of them struggling with work and with their relationships. However, Jo, has a mental disorder; what is it? It's never actually spoken what the condition is, in fact, Jo seems to barely know what it is, if she does at all. What she knows is that, she has issues. Maya, for the most part, doesn't actually see most of these issues, but there's signs occasionally, like all the nightmare stories she hears, some of the uncomfortably abrupt conversations she would have in front of her, or how they'll be talking and walking down the street and how Jo will suddenly just pop into a store for a brownie without saying anything. Others talk to Maya about their strange friendship; like she's the one person who seems to be able to calm Maya down when she's in some kind of self-inflicted crisis. (Hmm. I knew at least one person who used to call me "Valium" based on how I was able to calm them down.) Actually, a lot of this has to do with how they were friends growing up. I think we do tend to seek out friends, especially when we're coming-of-age, who are, in some ways different than ourselves, often in many ways our opposites. I know I do/did, anyway. Not that there were too many people similar to me, but the fact that kids especially did hang out in groups, or cliques, I guess, always made me skeptical, like, "Really, they're able to find so many people, similar to them? That's kinda creepy, and even if I did shares interests or characteristics, that made me far more leery of hanging out or engaging with them than others; why would I want to be around similar people to me, when I can find some people who were different and could bring/teach/show me something new?</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">But then again, what we see in some when we're young as positive traits that we would want to be around, might in fact be, more troubling traits that can lead those friends down some dark paths. The key scenes in the movie, actually happen pretty late in the film, and the timeline, it's when Mara is talking to a daughter that we've seen her have throughout the movie, (The film tells it's story over years.) and Mara telling Lorelai (Lorelai Romani) about her friend when they first met and how they became friends, only for Lorelai to realize that she was talking about Jo, at the most heartbreaking possible time for both of them. It is powerful, if nothing else. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">"Fourteen" is the fourth feature from indy writer/director Dan Sallitt; I don't really know his work 'til now, so I can't really judge the film on those grounds. Mostly what I got out of it was trying to consider the mentally ill from numerous different perspectives, and trying to figure out if and/or how many times and people I've genuinely encountered with it, at least among those people I really knew. How much of that behavior I would've admired or praised in those people, how much I might've even been inspired by them and what tortures they might've gone through in their own minds. And hopefully, <strike>wonder how</strike> hope/know that they're doing well now. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH </b>(2020) Director: Kiyoshi KUROSAWA </span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>⭐⭐⭐⭐</b></span></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/20a942b/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1024x576+0+0/resize/840x473!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F15%2F71%2F815140b5406d8a0647b353a19275%2Ftee-still1-1024x576.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/20a942b/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1024x576+0+0/resize/840x473!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F15%2F71%2F815140b5406d8a0647b353a19275%2Ftee-still1-1024x576.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I know a few people who've worked on some travel series over the years, especially locally here. Las Vegas is a popular place for travel shows to get made. I guess it's a little bit of of just, familiarity, but I always have a hard time imagining why people would photograph so much of, just,-, well, in this city, mostly buildings. I guess it makes sense in this town, considering how little regard we have to preserving many of our most famous landmarks, perhaps it's not a bad idea that we have pictures of the city the way it is now, but eh, then again, I think others have taken enough photographs for preservation. But travel shows aren't for preservation, they're for adventure. They're to give you an idea of what it's like to go to the wonderous places in the world, without having to actually go on the vacation; to make you the accidental tourist essentially. That's why they're often hosted these days by people who are, umm, not necessarily travel experts. I mean, there's occasionally travel series with more education bents to them; every time I fall asleep leaving Create on, I usually end up waking up to some old Rick Steves' travel series, usually one of his Europe ones, and while those can be endearing, they can be a little dry. That's why in recent years we've had travel and adventure series hosted by chefs, actors, authors, activists, comedians, journalists, entrepreneurs, filmmakers, and occasionally musicians. The latter is the category of travel guide that Yoko (Atsuko Maeda), a former idol singer who now has a Japanese travel show, where her bubbly, free-spirited personality makes her adventures infectious and enjoyable for viewers. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Of course, travel shows are television shows and they're just as manipulative as any other shows out there, for instance, she's not bubbly or happy-go-lucky in real life. In "To the Ends of the Earth", we essentially got a stranger in a strange land tale, of a person who's very tired and very bored of being a stranger in a strange land. She's in the middle of Uzbekistan, of all places, which-, is kind of a funny joke to me. Uzbekistan is about as middle of nowhere you can get geographically; it's the largest country in the world that's doubly-landlocked, that means, not only is it landlocked, but it's bordered only by other countries that are landlocked, and here she is, trying to find some kind of Lock Ness-like monster in one of the nation's biggest manmade lakes. But mostly, she's trying to get the right vibe in the shot while she's up to her knees in water, over and over again.</div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">It's not as bad as when she has to ride the same, what's looks like a fairly dangerous and unsafe roller coaster multiple times over in order to get B-roll of her enjoying the ride. The locals are honestly scared of her getting brain damage, and I can't disagree. I'll definitely think about that the next time I see an amusement park based travel series. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">When she's not filming some inane hosting cutaway where she has to pretend to enjoy an undercooked rice dish, or accidentally sneaking into government land illegally, she's mostly just, alone. She occasionally tries to keep track of her life in Japan, especially a boyfriend she's worried about after a huge fire in Tokyo Bay hits the news; he's a fireman and there's an oil refinery fire. She does befriend her director Yoshioka (Shota SOMETANI), eventually. And she does find a few moments, whether in real life, or in some kind of fantasy sequence, revisit her passion for singing, even pulls out some Edith Piaf at one point. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">"To the Ends of the Earth" doesn't have a lot of anything particularly new regarding this kind of narrative, except for the conceit of it being for a travel series, so this behind-the-scenes of a reality show gimmick is kinda fun and interesting. I also like how the director, Kiyoshi Kurosawa, refuses to translate the Uzbek language that everyone else is speaking. Occasionally there's a translator, but for the most part, we really all felt as lost and misplaced as the characters are. This movie could've been another one of those travelogue meditation indies where he visit a character in a location of some exotic renown and just drift into the world, or sometimes just end up lost in your own translations, but I like that there's more than just how fake and staged travel reality shows are, we get a pretty interesting character in the middle who's life is way more interesting and complex than the role she's given to perform, and seeing her struggling to deal with it. It's a look at an artist's search for inspiration, when she's in the middle of a complete inspiration block, both literally and figuratively, and I found myself enamored and intrigued. Definitely recommending this one, it's a bit of a meditation, but it's a fascinating and lovely one.</div></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696790060036702346.post-10079184469536525682022-05-31T04:41:00.002-07:002023-02-03T23:17:05.279-08:00A LOOK AT THE CONTROVERSIES OF THE ROCK & ROLL HALL OF FAME... A DEFENSE OF THE INSTITUTION..., despite the fact that, it actually has A LOT OF PROBLEMS....! <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CT7arxQoxoQ" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Hmmm.... Man..., Taylor Hawkins...- </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">(Forlorn sighs) </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Dammit.... So, like, there were two rock & roll bands last year, and I mean, bands, a group, with instruments, inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, The Foo Fighters, and The Go-Go's, and both bands had all their members live long enough to all be inducted together, which, y'know, for many obvious reasons, is pretty rare,... and like not even a year later, maybe six months, we lose one, and it's the Foo Fighters who lose a band member first!!!! The Foo Fighters! The band that like, doesn't have any bad habits; they lose the band member!!! And it's not like I love one band over the other; I love them both, but like, all the drugs and sex and parties, and drugs, and debauchery, and drugs, seriously, all the drugs that The Go-Go's did, and they're the band that's still all survived, and we lose, sweet, likeable, talented Taylor!? </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The world likes to laugh at us somedays y'know....</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">(Sighs)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">One of my annual television viewing traditions that I try every year to watch, is the Inductions/Concert for the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. I don't talk much about music here, mostly because it's not my area of expertise, which is of course, mainly film and television, but if I may go on a slight detour from those typical areas of media discussion, while I don't consider it my expertise, I definitely am knowledgeable about music, and especially rock & roll, and naturally, I like the history of music as much as the history of anything else, so yeah, if I've been able to watch the inductions and the concert, I will watch the concert. And participate, for a while now, the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame includes a fan vote, and every year, I not only participate, but I post my thoughts and my ballot on Twitter and on Facebook. <br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">All I'll say this year is that, this is one of the most difficult ballots I ever filled out, and I think, easily, most of the nominees should be in the Hall of Fame, if not already, eventually, but for those curious, in alphabetical order, I voted for Kate Bush, DEVO, Eminem, Fela Kuti and yes, despite her insistence that she didn't want to be inducted, I voted for Dolly Parton. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">This was the big story that first got reported in that, that is the first time that Dolly Parton has ever even made the nomination ballot, which, on one hand is crazy, she's been around, for like, Jesus-, she's been recording music as far back as when she was a teenager in the late '50s, and yet, she's only now on the ballot!? On the other hand, she doesn't think she belongs in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, because she's primarily promoted and thought of as a country artist. I'll get into why this argument is just bullshit, but most people who complain about the problems with the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, inevitably, have points of argument revolving around the idea that so-and-so artist, or music is not rock & roll. <br /><br />(Sigh)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Look,- I'm gonna detail a lot of, actual issues with the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, and trust me, there's a lot, and the more you actually dig into it, you begin to really question, who exactly is in charge here and why, and I don't really want to go into this triviality of what is or isn't technically Rock & Roll, mostly because I don't care, also because, whatever somebody thinks Rock & Roll actually is, they're probably wrong to begin with. I'm gonna end this now, country music, basically is rock & roll. So is rap, so is New Wave, so is Pop music for that matter. So is jazz, to an extent.... Like, if you actually know the history of rock & roll, 99% of any argument that says something modern isn't rock & rock, sounds really stupid, and yes, that includes from you, Dolly! Sorry. I love you, but sorry, if you're not rock & roll then I don't know who is. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Quick history lesson, rock & roll and country, both evolved from the Delta Blues, they literally have the same musical roots, and basically started evolving into their modern forms, at around the same time, and they often did this together, and not just on separate branches of the this roots tree. And delta blues, itself evolved from an evolution that started from slave pastorals and they evolved from African genres of folk music...- look, trying to pinpoint, what exactly rock & roll is, and where exactly it (finger quotes) "started", is kind of a fool's errand. I've heard some people argue that Elvis Presley's song "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmopYuF4BzY">That's Alright, Mama</a>" is the first "rock & roll" song, I remember at the height of Elvis, seeing footage of Fats Domino talking about how he's been doing his music for ten years, and then they started calling it rock & roll. VH-1's original poll of musicians listing their 100 Greatest Artist of Rock & Roll, had Robert Johnson on the <a href="http://www.rockonthenet.com/archive/1998/vh1artists.htm">list</a>; who died in 1938!!!!!!!!! If rock & roll Artists say he's rock & roll, then, I'm sorry, short of classical composers from centuries ago, I think rock & roll is vastly more all-encompassing then some people actually think it is, or want to believe it is. And if you still want to say, Rock and Country still aren't close enough, there's already several artists, including Elvis, in both the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame and the Country Music Hall of Fame! Hell, one of the first people the Rock Hall inducted was Hank Williams! (Sure, as an early influencer, but still....) Look, I'm not a country guy, like, at all, but c'mon, these claims just don't hold up. I mean, "Rock & Roll" itself is a made-up term by Alan Freed a DJ looking for a way to describe, what was then, this new kind of music; it's basically like how there's like fifty different variant words to describe trap music now, whatever the fuck trap music is- I don't really-, 'cause I can't tell myself what differentiates that from any other EDM or whatever.... Rock & Roll's just a term that stuck, and was controversial at the time, because it was an African-American slang word for sex, (It had others noted uses too, but that was the big one that mattered at the time) and that, along with everything else, inevitably, was "scandalous" about the so-called Devil's music. So yeah, I don't like these arguments; they're very narrow-minded and unknowing about what rock & roll actually is. That doesn't mean I think every great modern artist from every popular modern genre should be in the Hall of Fame, or is rock & roll enough to be in, but no, that argument that one genre isn't rock & roll, that only exists if you still think rock & roll has to only be four chords and backbeat, and I'm sorry, that's just dumb.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">So, yeah, all that did, was make me literally vote for Dolly more.... And she got in this year. She was seventh in the voting apparently, according to Amy Linden, the music writer and culture critic who is a voting member, and is a member of the Hall's Nominating Committee... (We'll get to them...) who announced the placement results on the podcast "<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-94-rock-hall-class-of-2022/id1473063522?i=1000559611200">ImmaLetYouFinish</a>" despite her temporarily potentially hindering her own votecount, behind the top six inductees in order this year, Eurythmics, Eminem, Pat Benatar (along with her husband/guitarist Neil Gerardo), Duran Duran, Lionel Ritchie and Carly Simon. <br /><br />I do have a lot of thoughts on that list, who got in, who got snubbed, etc. etc., but I don't want to talk about my own musical tastes and whatnot, in that respects, it's not important what I think. That said..., um, how exactly, do they pick the people to be in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame? Cause,- there is some issues here.... Like, there's really some serious accusations about the corruption of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame selection process, as well as just, some very bizarre and outright concerning issues regarding the process and frankly, the whole institution. As well as just, a lot of other controversies behind the Hall of Fame, and again, none of these are gonna regard any particular opinion on who should or who shouldn't have been inducted. It's possible that I might toss out a penny's worth of a thought on some of these as we go down some of these rabbit holes and talk about them, but the issues with the Hall of Fame are definitely not the nominees or inductees. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">In fact, before we go through these, and really paint this, somewhat disturbing picture that will genuinely make you question everything about this organization to one degree or another, I want to add, one more positive thing about the Hall, and it's something that I think is a pretty indisputable truth about the Hall of Fame, and the music industry in general, and that is that, I consider being inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, the single greatest honor given out in the music industry. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">(Shrugs) </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">No really. And I'm actually surprised more people don't think this, and yes, in many cases, I'm gonna include actual members of the Hall of Fame, who, for very good reasons, have particularly negatives and even antagonistic thoughts about the Hall of Fame, but really, what else is there? What else is actually worth a damn? Here's an award honoring, not one song, not one album, but a lifetime's worth of a career, that says that you're not only one of the greatest, most important, most essential people in our genre, so much so that, your work is worth preserving in order to tell the story of rock & roll! I mean, that's pretty big, and it's not like any other music honor or award out there is worth a fraction of that! I mean, what else can you make the argument for, Grammys? C'mon even at their best, they're one of the biggest jokes of any award shows, certainly the least credible of the EGOTs and they're still more legit then the rest of the music awards out there! Billboard Awards? BET Awards? VMAs? I mean, I guess Bob Dylan can win the Nobel Prize for Literature, or there's the Gershwin Prize, or a Kennedy Center award, but those aren't- but those are limiting, and they're not simply honoring rock & roll; what we're looking for is just an absolute true honor in modern music, and to me, that's where the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame still has a considerable amount of weight, and why we do care about who has or who hasn't been inducted and I'd say, the most weight of any other comparable recognition that's given to our greatest musicians. If you want to say that there's no honor that can be given, that giving out any kind of recognition or prize that supposedly determines a quality of art, I get that argument too, and some people have made this argument specifically with the Hall of Fame, I'm just saying that all things considered, of what we got, it's still easily number one, and that's after everything else, including everything I'm about to talk about. So yeah, I stand by this, being inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, is the single greatest honor/award one can get, in modern music; the absolutely definitive standard of a artists' greatness, importance and contributions to the art of music. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">That all said, the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame is FUCKED UP!!!!. It's shielded by some charismatic-yet-questionable standard-bearers, a distressingly secretive and possibly corrupt voting process, one that seems to include a ridiculous amount of wheeling, dealing, or in the case of some people, claims of just, outright ignoring the results to induct people that some of the heads felt, either needed to be inducted more for either publicity, public perception, or perhaps just because, and reportedly there have been reports of artists kept off the ballots and weren't inducted specifically at the behests and the biases of those "in charge" as well. Admittedly, I don't know how reliable or speculative some of these claims are, but they're happening often enough and usually involve the same people most of the time, that I gotta believe, even regarding some of the dumbest of these accusation, that there has to be a certain level of truth to everything I'm gonna bring up here, and a lot of other stories that I won't because, I could be here awhile if I did. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">For lack of a better place to "begin", let's start at the beginning. Why do we have a Rock & Roll Hall of Fame to begin with? Well, it started originally as the brainchild of Ahmet Ertegun, a legendary, promoter and songwriter who helped push the careers of, seemingly everybody from Duke Ellington to Frank Zappa, and was the head of Atlantic Records by the mid-'80s; he's the one who established the first Board and along with several other founders that consisted of other music industry executives, attorneys, and music media publishers, most notably on that last one, and the name that we're probably gonna here the most of, Jann Wenner, the famous co-founder and still, today, the publisher of Rolling Stone Magazine, Jann Wenner. (So, he's the guy responsible for those goddamn lists they put on the website every few months and those special double issues honoring, some artist from the past that you see in line at CVS but never buy.)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Now, they started inducting people right away, although most of the big deal regarding the early days of the awards, actually centered primarily around finding a location, and physically designing and building the Hall, inevitably, and somewhat controversially, ending up in Cleveland, Ohio. Believe it or not, there's still some people who are genuinely upset at this process, and the fact that the city paid out for this project. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">(Shrugs) </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I don't know, I think you could say that there's something to be said about bringing the government funding involved to finance what are private endeavors like this, and yeah, this does seem like a lot of money for a museum, but it's also, the only real reason I could ever imagine myself going to Cleveland. I would say that this is less important then some, but it strikes people the wrong way and yeah, the city actually still pays to help run the Hall of Fame, through taxes on cigarettes mostly..., you can definitely say it's manipulative, and it won't be the last time one can say that about something involving them, particularly Wenner.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Whether he actually technically is the guy (finger quotes) "in charge" or not Jann Wenner seems to have become the main arbiter of, what and who, inevitably gets inducted to the Hall of Fame, or for that matter put on the ballot. That doesn't mean that there's some illegitimate names that get in, but a lot of the names that get on the ballot, or don't seemingly...., ehhhhhh.... </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">(Sigh)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">So, the voting process of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, is,- well, it's not terrible on the surface, but...- anyway, in terms of an artist, the only real rule is that an artist has to wait 25 years after their debut released recording. That's the simple criteria. Now, as to how you get on the ballot, well.... This is where the voting procedure gets tricky.... There's no official public count, there's some disputed figures, Wikipedia claims there's about 500 voters; that about how many their were originally, but most other counts put it around the 800-1,000 members range, so we're gonna go the rounding up of around1,000 official voters for the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, but not all of them have a say on who's actually on the final ballot. Apparently there's a select group, of, I don't know how many members, and from what I can find, it seems to be a rotating group, at least, supposedly a rotating group, that comes in with there lists of names and they decide who ends up on the final ballot. Now, this group, again, there seems to be some who are apart of the group temporarily and then, there's some of the founders, and most notably, Jann Wenner, who seem to be permanent members of this group, and have at times been accused of some undue influence. This isn't specifically noted as the reason why certain artists who seem to never get on the ballot don't get on, or why others do, but in fact, the whole process seems to just be at Wenner's whim on some accounts. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">But, this nominating process to begin with, is kinda bizarre. Like, I can kinda think of some other voting groups in entertainment that have a similar structure, for instance, the Cannes voting panel is constantly changing and never consistent, but that's not like they're a permanent large group, it's only a panel judging a very limited number of film every year, and Cannes does it that way because they believe changing the panel every year leads to differing winners and decisions, so that no consistent group of the same kind of movies overtake the festival awards. But,-, like there's something weird here, like if somebody's good enough to be a voter for the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, then, why aren't they good enough to select the nominees? Like, it's not like the Emmys or Oscars where it makes sense to have actors determining the acting nominees and not, who the best sound engineers were, but, there's only one honor here... And this, nominating committee, we don't really know who's on it, and what their process is, or who controls it. I mean, they talk about them being rock & roll historians, but even historians have some biases pro and against certain artists and subgenres of rock & roll, and by every other account, I can find, it seems like while this is supposed to be a rotating group, is mostly controlled at the whims, of Jann Wenner. So, if he doesn't like someone or something, then they are less likely to get in. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">And while we're at it, what does the nominating process entail. Are there votes gathered, is it a discussion, is it a combination of the two; there's never been an answer given that's like, totally accepted, and very few people have ever admitted to being voters and even fewer have talked about this part of the process in great detail, or for that matter any part of the process. I've found one or two varied anonymous voter ballots online, but those are on the after-nominations side and, even then there's issues that I'll get to, but it's actually shocking how little transparency there is here. <br /><br />Full disclosure, I heard all this, many times before, and I still wasn't in the "Something's Really Wrong" Camp, until I was doing some research, and I decided to search for publicly-known Rock & Roll Hall of Famer voters, and while I suspect most of the people that we would think of as potential voters are in fact voters, but the first name I found, was-eh, well, kinda surprising to me.... </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div>
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GR9x4VZnB2U" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe><div><br /></div><div>Baby Booey. </div><div><br /></div><div>Seriously, Baba Booey, is a voter!!!!! In fact, he's one of the very few confirmed voters out there for the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. This sounds like a bad joke.... (Also, Jon Heim, is a voter apparently, the guy who's created with the term, "Jumping the Shark"? Whaaa?!-) </div><div><br /></div><div>Ummm, okay, to be fair, fairer then Howard Stern's actually being, Gary Dell'Abante has spent most of his career as an FM radio producer, admittedly most for Howard Stern, mostly in his New York days for I think it was WNBC and later for Sirius Radio with him, and I'm certain you don't go into that line of work without some knowledge and expertise of rock'n'roll; I mean, if you were to ask me of a group of people who should be included as voters for this, radio people, the people who actually play the music for the masses, and probably have to listen to more of it then all of us, experienced people in radio, would definitely be near the top of my list. I'm gonna say, there could be worst voters, then Baba Booey?! I guess. </div><div><br /></div><div>(Shrugs. Big, big shrugs!)</div><div><br /></div><div>Eh....</div><div><br /></div><div>To be fair, I get it, if I got the opportunity that Mr. Dell'Abate, clearly has gotten, to be a voter, no matter how unqualified I might seem, I would absolutely take it, so-eh, I'm not blaming him, nor saying that he's the reason why so-and-so is in or out, or whatever.... I'm sure, there's worst honors with worst voters out there, but.... Oh-kay, so, not only are there a lot of problems with the Nominating Committtee voters, there's definitely skepticism of the regular voters now, so, exactly how does one become a Rock & Roll Hall of Fame voter? </div><div><br /></div><div>Well, as far as I can tell, you have to be sponsored by a voter and then approved, presumably by Jann Wenner and/or whoever else is on the Founding Board, and then, wham, you're a voter, and you're a voter, presumably forever!? I don't know if there's any guidelines, or if you can lose your votership, or what,- I think they have taken away voting rights to members who just abstained or didn't vote after a few years, but, if you're sponsored, then you can vote. Other then that, I don't really know what other important criteria there is?! I mean, I'm certain that, if Elton John said he wanted to submit a ballot, nobody in the room is gonna tell him, "No," but as far as, what makes somebody qualified to be a voter, there's very little specific guidelines, and therefore, very much a lot of room to determine who's in and who's out at the top. I mean, there's a similar process to being an Academy Awards voter too, but like, even then, almost always you actually have to have, at least a few noteworthy filmmaking credits, of some kind, even if it's in a studio's bookkeeping office, or even working like, as an agent or something, as far as I can tell, with the Rock Hall, I'm not even sure there's, like, that minimum. It seems like, basically if you know somebody and they like you, you can get a ballot. </div><div><br /></div><div>But-, here's the thing whatever makeup this voting body is, whether they have any actual control whatsoever, is, kinda debatable...? Ehhh.... </div><div><br /></div><div>(Sigh) </div><div><br /></div><div>There's several claims and accounts of the voting process that, shockingly seem to contradict each other at many points, and I'm gonna outline a couple of them, and try to make sense of them, but....- it's just aggravating, looking up some of these things. Like, the first one, here, this story is infamous, and I've gone through all the details of that I can scrap together, and, I don't get it. Like, I just don't get what happened here, or why it happened...; either somebody's lying, or there's information that's missing that would solve this, but....- ugh!</div><div><br />So, apparently, in 1994, the Hall of Fame, inducted John Lennon, and Wenner eventually convinced Paul McCartney to induct him. Now, Wenner, is a huge John Lennon, fan, like, he's definitely a fanatic for John Lennon, and with his position of influence at Rolling Stone, he had gotten close to Yoko, and was known for really propagating and promoting John's work and legacy. Now, I don't blame him for this, in theory, but in practice this was apparently pretty disturbing in the nature of his arrangements, and Paul and Linda McCartney, at first at least, were not particularly intrigued by him. Eventually, for whatever reason, Wenner convinced Paul to induct John at the ceremonies, but apparently, and I still don't get this, Wenner convinced him to do so, under the promise that next year, McCartney would be inducted as a solo artist. (The Beatles were inducted several years earlier as a group, and famously McCartney skipped those ceremonies, so it was a big deal for Paul to induct John, on top of all the other obvious reasons that it would be so....)</div><div><br /></div><div>Okay, one of the links to this story is <a href="https://www.showbiz411.com/2017/10/26/how-paul-mccartney-was-lied-to-by-jann-wenner-over-his-rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame-induction">here</a>, if you want to look into it more yourself, go ahead, but like,- so, apparently Wenner, has the pull to just, induct people into the Hall of Fame, on his own whims? He has that much power? He can make such a promise, to a fucking Beatle!? And here's the kicker, apparently, he doesn't have this power, because Paul didn't get inducted the next year and in fact wasn't inducted 'til 1999, which notably, is the year after Linda's passing, for whatever that's worth.... Paul was pretty pissed off at this at the time, but apparently that's smoothed out; McCartney has shown up several times over the years to the Hall of Fame Inductions, including inducting the Foo Fighters last year, and also, a few years earlier when Ringo Starr was inducted in the Musical Excellence category, an induction that, apparently was orchestrated and arraigned, by Paul himself, according to some reports.... So, like,- I-eh,- whatever this was at the time, it's probably a lot different arrangement between all the players now, and all of them are somewhere high up, in the ether of determining the Hall of Fame.</div><div><br /></div><div>But like still, this is so headscratching to me, because it either indicates that Wenner, did indeed just lie to Paul, and he has complete control over who gets inducted and who doesn't, or he thinks he did, and apparently the committee overrode him, for years? This is the story that I find the most bizarre because, clearly, something and somebody's corrupt here, but like either way, this story just, shouldn't have happened. Either he shouldn't have promised or he shouldn't have screwed over McCartney, and either way, Wenner shouldn't be able to do either of these things. </div><div><br /></div><div>You can't be allowed to predict or preannounce who's in or not, right?!</div><div><br /></div><div>(Sigh) </div><div><br /></div><div>Well,- I know there's at least one account where a voter has confirmed that even before the ballots were counted, that three inductees were basically already confirmed for induction, which, also, how, why?! WTF!? You're only allowed to vote for up to five inductees, if for some reason three- </div><div><br /></div><div>OMG!!!!! </div><div><br /></div><div>I swear, I'm trying to sort through all this, just to get everything in, but, like-, there's seems to be like, a weird issue with everything....</div><div><br /></div><div>So, there's questions among who's overseeing the count and the inductions, and then there's how much control they have, they're questions about the legitimacy of the equality of the process,... there's a nomination process that is secretive to the point where we barely ever know who or anybody on the committee, other then Wenner, and occasionally another name or two, (Tom Morello is apparently, which, for some, might explain Rage Against the Machine's constant appearance on the nominees list the last few years [And I say that as a huge Rage fan who think they should be in sooner than later]) then, there's the controversies of the several artists who are typically left off.</div><div><br /></div><div>I know, some groups are more vocal about it than others, members of the Monkees for instance have noted several times that they feel they've been overlooked severely for consideration, not because they think they should be in, but because Wenner is personally bias against them, over some dumb arguments from literally 50 years ago, over whether or not they should count as a group or act.... (Shrugs) </div><div><br /></div><div>See, this is where that "What is Rock & Roll" argument actually does come into effect into this, not only because of Wenner's singular taste having, perhaps too much of an influence of the process, in general, but also...,- So, we gotta talk about Grandmaster Flash.</div><div><br /></div><div>In 2007, Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five became the first rap act inducted into the Hall of Fame, and this was an important and groundbreaking moment in the Hall of Fame's history for many obvious reasons.... Or, were they? According to a few <a href="https://www.salon.com/2007/03/14/rock_hall_inductions/">reports</a> after the ceremony, apparently Wenner used, what can only loosely be described as a technicality to make sure Grandmaster Flash... was inducted. Wenner claims that not all the votes were counted because some of them arrived too late, and according to some anonymous voters with insight on the counting, The Dave Clark Five, counting those votes, actually had six more votes then Grandmaster Flash...., and technically finished in fifth place, which would've given them, the automatic induction slot, but Wenner was hellbent on making sure they inducted a rap act, claiming that it was time. Again, I have no idea whether this, when-the-votes-arrive-clause matters, whether this has come up before or not but it sounds like this was completely made up on the spot. And according to this report, it's not like people were campaigning against Grandmaster Flash, or for The Dave Clark Five, or vice-versa, apparently the room wanted Wenner to put both bands in, and for the record, there's a minimum of five, but there's often a maximum of eight performers inducted annually, but he claimed that there just wouldn't be time for both....</div><div><br /></div><div>I- I don't know what-, I'm assuming he's talking about the television production, which is taped in advance, before being edited into the concert we see on television every year that currently airs on HBO and HBO Max; I mean, if it's edited, just edit it!- They've edited down whole inductions several times before;- I mean, Moby's speech inducted Steely Dan, was like 60 seconds, maybe on TV, and thank god it was, 'cause it went like fifteen agonizing minutes in real life..., and none of this was like, new at the time. This isn't like, impossible. There's very much a nonsensical manner in which these decisions are going about and being made, and it's very frustrating. Now, personally, without any other variables, if you were to simply ask me, who belongs in the Hall more, Grandmaster Flash or The Dave Clark Five, I'd pretty easily pick Grandmaster Flash, but that said, if The Dave Clark Five got more votes, then, shouldn't they have gotten in then instead? Clearly, there was support, they were inducted the next year! It's not even a matter of Grandmaster Flash, couldn't ha've waited, he had an obvious out here! Just induct them both!? I don't know what their standard of how many votes, or how many people can be inducted, or any other such rulings are, but like, it's very inconsistent from year-to-year, especially without any real legitimate explanation on how many artists get inducted every year or not, this sounds insane!</div><div><br /></div><div>That's another thing about this voting process, I don't know what exactly constitutes the results. I mean, there's voters and voting but the results, except for the fan vote, which, I swear, I'm getting to that, but except for that, none of the results are ever fully published, and more-then-that, we don't actually know what amount of the vote, constitutes induction. I was stunned when I ran across that Amy Linden podcast and she announced the order of the results; I literally don't know if that's ever happened before or since, but it's rare and it's not said out loud a lot, and even this is very incomplete. Like, let's give a comparative, example from the Baseball Hall of Fame, a generally much more-maligned Hall of Fame, even among sports Hall of Fames. Their rules are very rigid and yes their voters, which is the Baseball Writers of America, are very much under the extreme scrutiny of the public eye most of the time, but after the voting, there's a percentage of the vote that every nominee gets, and if a nominee gets a vote on 75% of the ballots for the Hall of Fame, then they're inducted, and every year, Cooperstown releases the results of the ballot. That's a surprising amount of transparency for a group that's pretty much decried by everybody who cares, and yet, the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, as far as I know, has little or no such standard. </div><div><br /></div><div>Like, I assume, whoever gets the most votes obviously gets in, but like, is there a percentage minimum, or a minimum at all!? Some years, they put in five performers, other times it's many more.... Sometimes, lately, they basically put performers into the Musical Excellence category, which, was a category originally was intended for Sidemen, people who weren't necessarily the main performers, but the big behind-the-scenes names of people who made the music that most of the general public wouldn't necessarily know.... (Think, people like Scotty Moore, who was Elvis's guitar player, or James Jamerson who's bass was the sound of Motown, or Hal Blaine who's was Phil Spector's in-house drummer, or Johnnie Johnson, Chuck Berry's pianist who basically invented boogie woogie piano, or more recently Randy Rhoades, Nile Rodgers, Billy Preston, the E Street Band, etc.) Those kind of guys, not, necessarily somebody like LL Cool J. This year, this inducted Judas Priest under that category, which, eh-, whether you think they should be inducted or not, that seems weird.</div><div><br /></div><div>Who does decide this, and how is this decided?! Some bands have been nominated for the Hall of Fame, several times, Chic most notably, has been nominated, like eleven times and never got in, but we'll never know whether they were ever one vote away, or a hundred votes away, not only because we don't ever know the full results, but we also don't know, what exactly the result they needed to get was to begin with!!!! And there's a bunch of other artists like that as well, not-to-mention groups and bands that perhaps did get in under dubious voting circumstances, that we just aren't aware of yet. And I don't know how many people, or even how many of the voters themselves are aware! </div><div><br /></div><div>So, like, okay, this is why nobody likes or trusts the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame voters, or voting process, fine. But, y'know, they put on a show, and the musicians they honor they treat well..., right?! </div><div><br /></div><div>(Sigh) </div><div><br /></div><div>So, there's several incidents involving musicians and rock & roll hall of famers themselves, who's basically just, outright disowned or rejected the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, and called them out on some of their bullshit, and you'd kinda be a little surprised, but most of their criticisms, actually stem from the fact that, unless maybe you are, one of Wenner's pet projects, (and probably not even then) they're treated pretty lousily by the Hall. It might seem on the surface that they have the artists intentions and admiration at heart and on the surface, and maybe they do in the most abstract of sense, but in terms of actually treating the inductees, they're infamously shit. That's one of the reasons there's a long list of artists, who've either not showed up for their inductions, or just flatout rejected them over the years. My favorite is the Sex Pistols, mainly because, of course they rejected it; what else would you expect of them to do!? And while, it might sound like, the most prescient one that's worth noting, particular since, it was Jann Wenner who ended up inducting them by reading their carefully-worded rejection letter that the band faxed to the Hall of Fame, which you can watch <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdnQEQhDzUc">here</a>, and they actually do make some great points, but probably the most noteworthy criticism of how the Hall of Fame treats it's members and inductees, is probably from Steve Miller, who made many headlines after he scorched the Hall of Fame after his induction. You can find a brief description of his experience getting inducted as told by Youtuber Rock & Rock True Stories:</div><div><br /></div>
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gC7WphNT22s" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe><div><br /></div><div>Okay, there's a lot here. Let's start with, the charging the artists for them to bring guests, what the hell is this about?! </div><div><br /></div><div>Well, I don't have a great answer here, but I imagine, they might defend this practice personally, by bringing up their non-profit status, and talk about all the things that the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame does, outside of just, their yearly, Induction concert. Which is true, they actually do have several other projects and charitable aspects to them, especially a lot dealing with locally as they're a major part of the Northern Ohio culture system. They have class programs for students, there's preservation efforts, they work with the local public library system; they have a lot going on. And that said, while they do make money, they are a museum and museums usually need people to, you know, donate to them. Especially if they're a contributing member of the community, and a non-profit. Think of the Induction Ceremonies every year as they're version of the Met Gala, where even after you're invited, you still need to donate money to attend; it's a high-class affair, and events like that are thrown, in order for the museum to continue on with the work it's doing. That's, you know, it's steep, but it's understandable.</div><div><br /></div><div>Except, it's not, because Steve Miller wasn't just invited, he was performing! He was one of the people being inducted! He was one of the Inductees, that they were honoring, and you couldn't give him a second seat?! WTF!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! And the way it was told by him, it seems like, nobody honored that year at least, was treated particularly well by the Hall of Fame! Like, c'mon, he's STEVE MILLER! Why aren't you giving this guy everything he needs! Like, I don't know, HIS BAND! Yeah, The Steve Miller Band, I think that's what they were called! You induct him, and not the band! He never recorded a solo album; he was always Steve Miller Band; were you guys just cheap!?!?!? They've done shit like this many times before I might add. One year, they over-corrected and inducted a bunch of famous backup bands like The Blue Caps, The Comets, The Crickets, The Furious Flames, The Miracles and The Midnights, all famous backup bands and groups that were not inducted when Gene Vincent, Bill Haley, Buddy Holly, James Brown, Smokey Robinson and Hank Ballard were previously inducted, so like, shouldn't Steve Miller be inducted as a member of Steve Miller Band? I mean, there's a bunch of members, but it's not like you've taken groups with several various members and then narrowed them down to the most important and induct, several freakin' times before!!!!! (I'm not even gonna try to list those groups; there's a bunch) </div><div><br /></div><div>I guess the second argument, one could make on behalf of the Hall, is that, while, yes, they are honoring these musicians, but these are incredibly successful musicians who can easily afford these extra tickets if they want them, and this is a gallery ceremony, why can't they buy the extra tickets for the gallery for their family?! And sure, that's true....- kinda.... Like, um, you know, not every musician, is like, rich.... I mean, go through the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, and- you'll basically every year find at least one person who got screwed by the record company, or doesn't own their own music's publishing rights, or master recordings; I mean, for Christ sake, didn't Taylor Swift just start re-recording and re-releasing all her own albums, specifically because of bullshit like this! And she's been one of the top five artists for like, forever now.... So, yeah, they- might have some money, but, some of them do not, and like even if they do, you know, just, pure decency, would let you know that, you probably shouldn't charge the people you're honoring extra money, and at least be a little more lenient on who else they might want to bring to their induction, y'know?! Two tickets per person, including themselves, really?! And you know, I'm fairly positive that they don't do this for everybody; like, I'll bet they didn't tell, all, what all eight members of the E Street Band, when they inducted them,... (Not the least of which, because Steven Van Zandt is one of the members of the board, so yeah, I'll bet a buck of two that they got a discount on bringing their loved ones....) </div><div><br /></div><div>Speaking of licensing, the-eh, the legal paperwork..., what is that about?! Believe it or not, I think most of that has to do with television. Ever since, 1997, starting airing on VH1, and inevitably ending up on HBO, the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, has been a televised event, and not everybody is a fan of this, believe it or not. This is one of those, where it's technically a television production, but also kinda, not, depending on who's legal definition you believe. But yeah, the licensing to use artists' images and music, and of course, paid to perform, on television, those are things that the Rock Hall has been notorious for skimming on. Neil Young, was the first one who really objected to this; that's why he and the rest of Buffalo Springfield didn't show up for their induction years ago, and that was back when they were only $1,500/plate nights, and he's certainly not the only one. And yeah, apparently, in really bad years, this whole production, especially since it became an annual television event, can be a real shitshow behind the scenes. And Miller in particular, was just not having any of it.</div><div><br /></div><div>There was also, the induction itself. Steve Miller complaining about The Black Keys and not knowing them as he inducted them. According to the Rolling Stone interview mentioned in the video, he wanted to call and ask Elton John to induct him, and apparently that was rejected by the Hall, and-um, I have no idea why. </div><div><br /></div><div>There's no real rule on who should/should've induct artists, into the Hall of Fame. There definitely appears to be, some kind of meaningless politics between some of this, as the Jann Wenner/Paul McCartney story foretold, but generally, sometimes it's a fellow similar musician from the same era and genre to induct the artist, often a friend of the artist, Mick Jagger famously inducted The Beatles for instance, other times, it can be a more recent musician that was heavily inspired by the musician they're inducting, Taylor Swift inducted Carole King last year, or Miley Cyrus inducted Joan Jett and the Blackhearts a couple years ago, occasionally, you get an older legendary great artist to induct somebody they inspired and in turn, they love and appreciate, Ray Charles for instance, famously inducted Billy Joel. Sometimes, it's just a famous fan, David Letterman inducted Pearl Jam a couple years ago, and last year, The Go-Go's got lifelong superfan Drew Barrymore to induct them. Occasionally, like, when an artist is dead, (or in some cases, the artist, just doesn't care enough to even acknowledge the Hall, like Dire Straits famous a few years back) and long dead at that, the Hall of Fame kinda have to do their best to figure out who to get to induct people; I remember hearing stories of how nervous Melissa Etheridge was when she had to induct Janis Joplin for instance. The point I'm making here though, is that, y'know, if the band/artist is alive, maybe they should have a little more say in it then what Steve Miller apparently had...! </div><div><br /></div><div>Like, what would've been wrong with getting Elton to induct him?! He's Steve's friend, just let him make the phone call! It's not like Elton wouldn't do it, he inducted, The Beach Boys, Dusty Springfield, Elvis Costello & The Attractions, and Leon Russell; those last three were after he himself was inducted; I'm sure if there was no other obligation preventing him from doing it, he'd gladly do it. Nothing against the Black Keys, but did it have to be The Black Keys inducting him?! Like, I kinda get it, I can see somebody arguing that The Black Keys are this generation's Steve Miller Band, but still, if he didn't want them or approved of them, and he was showing and giving a speech and performing, why should he have them induct him....-!</div><div><br /></div><div>Like, I don't know how, honoring the greatest musicians in rock & roll turns into, just, absolute dumpster fires like this;- and this is just Steve Miller account, there's several others, some have been made public, others probably have not that we may never know about. I mean, let's think about it, perhaps other artists have just not said, when they didn't want to sign away their public image, or got somebody they didn't want inducting them, inducting them.... Something wrong happened here. I don't know when or how, whether this enterprise was always this inept, corrupt and lazy, or if it was always this way, and while they put on a shiny surface it's just a complete and utter mess, whether it's all the influence of Jann Wenner, or perhaps several others of it's founders, or the people currently officially running it, but the Rock & Roll Hall of fame is a goddamn mess. An ancient, incestuous group of mostly dinosaurs who may or may not actually know about rock & roll and music, selling a brand, under a promise of preservation, and then treating the artists and history like dirt, in a vague effort to scam, literally everybody they could out of their money, that probably don't all go to all their education programs. Including the fans, who they claim to put on their annual shows and put up their exhibits for, for whom, their vote of who should be in or not, only counts for one vote, and can easily be ignored completely, depending on the mysterious voting committee that didn't release their full results, and probably fixes the results in some artists favor, or not, depending on the whims and feels of a even small, more incestuous group of sycophants run amok. </div><div><br /></div><div>Oh, yeah, I swore I'd get to the Fan Vote; the Fan Vote, while this year, it did eerily correlate with the overall votes for induction, the Fan Vote, only represents the equivalent of one ballot. Could be millions of votes for Duran Duran, or whomever, but that still only counts for one vote. So, even if an act wins the fan vote, with over a million votes totaled, it's only one vote and that act doesn't necessarily have to get inducted. (And this actually has happened, in 2020, The Dave Matthews Band won the fan poll, and they were not inducted and haven't been on the ballot ever since) </div><div><br /></div><div>I said this would ultimately be a defense of the institution, didn't I?! Ugh. Yeah, like I said, this gets a lot harder when you actually..., and yeah, I'm probably just scratching the surface. A lot of this is just what I can find out, and there's a lot of insinuation that there's a lot else that we probably should know, but don't.... I don't think it's anything vicious or like really despicably illegal; I don't want to insinuate any conspiracies that the wrong people will take out of hand, but just the general sense of incompetence that you get when you hear people who know, talking about how the organization is run.... Yeah, there's a lot of corrupt, questionable, and sometimes just odd choices that the Hall of Fame makes, sometimes seemingly randomly and with little or not much or not good explanation or reasoning. Like I haven't even brought up all the weird quirks of the Hall of Fame over the years, like that weird time they started inducting songs, and then stopped for no reason, all probably because Stevie Van Zandt was upset Link Wray didn't get inducted, this was after they already had a list of songs that they forget they had, and also previously added to...., how they may or may not remember to induct people in their other categories, and how in recent years, they've been back door ways to induct artists/people who don't get the votes as performers.... I mention how they sometimes induct backup bands, but sometimes won't and sometimes they'll induct new members of bands, but forget other past members of others.... </div><div><br /></div><div>Yeah, so in these lights, it amazes me when people complain about the Hall of Fame and their main argument isn't any of this but, how something isn't rock & roll in it or whatever,- like,- yeah, that's so not a problem with the Hall of Fame. Like, even if I agree with that line of criticism, like, no, that's nowhere near an actual problem with the Hall of Fame. Like, the real problems are so systemic within the organization, that like, really, these trivial aspects, just do not matter at all. </div><div><br /></div><div>I can think of a lot of ways to "fix" these real issues, but Steve Miller is right, first and foremost, there has to just be a complete and utter overhaul of the entire organization. I'll explain what I'd do, and how I think these changes would mitigate a lot of the problems they have, but like, even if I read tomorrow that the Hall is incorporating every single one of my recommendations, I'd bet money that they'd screw it up even more. So keep that in mind, like they can incorporate these suggestions, if they want, or not. but even if they did, at this point, there has to be a completely different regime with a different way of doing things, and has different priorities before I'd even start to say that they're on a more correct path. </div><div><br /></div><div>For convenience and sanity's sake, I'll skip the more obvious, "treat the artists better", and "don't put on a shitshow backstage", "don't charge the artists' extra for their families", give them more then two tickets, counting themselves,- like, Jesus, that's like a Brady Bunch plot with that one, WTF....- the things that shouldn't have to be said, but yeah, all that shit needs to be fixed! </div><div><br /></div><div>Anyway, first of all, we have to stop with this lack of transparency and inconsistency with the voters. Also, there should be more of them then there are. I get the exclusivity idea, and yes there's definitely questionable standards for some of the people who are voters, but that actually makes1,000 still sounds pretty low in my mind, like shouldn't there actually be more people qualified enough then that by now?! Granted, for the most part, we can kinda made educational guesses and probably figure out who most of these voters are, but they should still be adding more names, and they should announce who all the new voters are every year, just like the Academy Awards do. And, don't just announce, who the new voters are, give an explanation of why they qualify for being one of these exclusive voters, again, just like the Motion Picture Arts and Sciences do. And it doesn't have to be complicated, it doesn't have to be conspiratorial or secretive, like, say Taylor Swift gets a ballot, write down, "Musician" next to her name. Or, Music executive, or Producer, or in the case of Gary Dell'Abate, FM/Sirius radio personality/producer, or Pop Culture Critic, or Music Journalist/Writer, Music Historian,... whatever. Something that shows that there's a reason of recognition that they're selected to get a ballot, and sure, it just might be that it's because Jann Wenner just wants to give out ballots to all his employees at Rolling Stone, but enough information, that you go, "Well, okay, that's why he/she's chosen as a voter." And if you can't come up with a decent bullshit explainer like that, then, perhaps rethink why they're getting a ballot. There should easily be like, y'know, 50-100, minimum new names like that, every year, maybe 200 or so. Groups like these, need fresh blood every now and then, so constantly fill it up, y'know! </div><div><br /></div><div>Second thing, get rid of the so-called "Nominating Committees", allow every voter, to submit a ballot of 15 artists every year, that they feel are worthy being nominated for the Hall. And the fifteen with the most votes, get on the ballot. That's simple. (And if you want to make it more, say, top 15 or so, and anybody who's vote count is within a predetermined percentage of the 15th/last slot, in the final vote count, then sure, that'll work too.) Stop with these rotating committees, that may or may not actually be rotating that much, and having this mysterious commission that picks who should be on the ballot. This is just dumb. Like, I do understand in certain situation such a group can be useful, I'm on board with recommending we bring back voting panels for the Emmys, but that's sorting through entire year's worth of television, which is bigger then ever, and even then, I'm not in favor of, just, the voting panels, and in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame's case, we've gotten at least 25 years of time to sort through all the possible nominees, so the appropriate time and available resources to determine a qualified entrant is actually already there for us, even those who aren't rock & roll historians or the like. It's not a step that's remotely needed here; it's an attempt to control the voting then it is an attempt to judge the quality of the works, and that just means it needs to stop. </div><div><br /></div><div>Now that said, while I don't think the Hall should reveal the complete results of the vote for the nominations, what they really should absolutely do, is after they announce their fifteen or so nominees, is also announce, every artist who receives at least one vote! You don't have to say how many votes they got, but if they really want to talk about their supposed transparency as an organization, then let's actually see it. Besides, wouldn't it be nice to know, that say, Slayer does indeed have at least somebody in there on their side? Or see if someone like Chic is still getting votes after all those times they fell short? Or maybe there's somebody like Johnny Ace, who hasn't been on the ballot since 1987, maybe it'd be nice to know if somebody's holding a candle for him. And, we'll find out if there's some asshole troll in the mix who keeps voting for Milli Vanilli or Vanilla Ice, or somebody like that. Wouldn't that be nice to know? Maybe they do this a couple years, and we see some names, we realize they're getting votes, the public looks back on them, and then they're like, "Oh, yeah, they were good, weren't they? They do belong in the Hall" and then the groundswell starts and then eventually enough voters start realizing they were good and eventually, they do get them in?! Or, that happens to somebody who, let's say, doesn't get any votes, who should. Like, what if turns out that nobody's voted for Foreigner, at all! That would be fuck'd up, and I'm sure somebody's gonna say something about it. I can think of a bunch of scenarios that we actually find out if this happens, and frankly it's in the Hall of Fame's best interest to really be as public and transparent with their process, as much as possible, and I don't think this is an unreasonable amount of transparency at all. </div><div><br /></div><div>Now, after we get to the final fifteen or so who are nominated; let's go to the fan vote. Now, while I do like the fan vote, I usually am not particularly fond of fans having sway over honors like these. That said, that usually applies to other art mediums like film and television, and usually most of these honors are for yearly honors, and frankly, most people barely have the time or desire to look through every available TV show and/or film during that time period, and besides those are industry or critics awards mostly, and besides that, music is far less subjective than most those genres, but even if it wasn't, this is a narrowed shortlist of fifteen artists and we've had, a minimum of 25 years to sort through their work; I think even fans can sort through that with that much time, and you know what, the Hall of Fame is for the fans anyway. So, yeah, they should have a huge sway in this. Not all the sway, but I'll say this, if you have a fan vote, then the vote has to mean something, and something more then one single ballot. </div><div><br /></div><div>So, first thing's first, whoever in #1 in the fan vote, no matter what, should automatically be inducted. In my headcannon, this would retroactive induct The Dave Matthews Band, since they were first in the fan vote in 2020, and somehow were not inducted. Frankly, whether you think they belong in or not, that's ridiculous, so, yeah, congrats, Dave Matthew Band, in my mind, you're already in the Hall. (And yes, there's been some questions about the validity of the fan vote as well, perhaps some bot out there might be determined to bump up an artists chances or whatever, but I seriously think that's mostly minimum, but even still, like, there are defenses to identifying and considering such actions into the overall scoring,... yada, yada, yada, Fan Vote winner, gets in automatically, that should be a new rule.)</div><div><br /></div><div>After that, then I think the fan vote should simply have more of a say in the overall total. Like, it shouldn't just be one ballot. So, my proposal would be that, for top five winners in the fan poll, they should receive one fan vote to be inducted, per every 100,000 voters. So, let's say ARTIST A got 1,000,000 votes, now he's the winner and is automatically in, but in that case, that should be ten votes for ARTISTS A. Now, let's say ARTIST B gets 900,000, and that's a lot, so they get nine votes. and so on and so forth, for the top five. </div><div><br /></div><div>(You can also count more then just the top five by giving leftover votes on ballots to the other artists based on how they finished. Like, ARTIST A got 1,000,000 ARTIST B gets 900,000, ARTIST C and D both get 700,000 and ARTISTS E gets 500,000. So, we get ten ballots, and the first five are the top five artitsts, but there's still a ballot slot open, so, let's say ARTISTS F, just missed, got 400,000 votes, then on the next ballots, ARTIST F, takes up the slot now empty because ARTIST E, didn't get more then that. And then go to ARTIST G and H, based on their vote count, when C & D finish up their seven, and so-on and so-forth. This way is arguably even better and gives the fan vote even more overall accuracy towards the true voting results represented in the overall voting, but either of these ideas are fine.)</div><div><br /></div><div>Okay, so that's the fan vote, so ideally, how should they count the ballots? Like, how do you determine these results? So, first thing first, they should announce this process, and detail it.... Whether it's this process, or something else, they should say what it is, and explain why they're doing it this way. (This is also one of those rules I shouldn't have to say, but apparently I do....) Second, in terms, of my hypothetical, we're discounting votes for the fan winner, since they're already in. Now the current status quo for the Hall is that, a minimum of five artists, with the potential for more can get in every year. So, again, discounting the fan vote who's in already, the next five with the highest amount of votes in the total count, they should then automatically get inducted. (So, the minimum's gonna change from five to six, but there's still five elected, after the fan vote. So, the fans gain power, the official voters don't lose any of their choices.) Then, I would consider a rule that allows everybody else who can get within, a certain percentage, of the fifth place inductee's vote, would also get inducted. (A similar rule could/should also be applied to voting for the nominees as I mentioned earlier)<br /><br />Let's say, in this examples, 2%. So, there's about 1,000 or so, ballots, including fan votes, let's that the fifth place finisher was on, 425 ballots. So, 425 divided by two equals 8.5, so anybody whoever else was on the ballot that got 417 votes or more, would also get inducted, and let's say it was closer this year and 6th place got 422, and 7th place got 418, they would also be inducted. but 8th place, got only 399, they'd be out. (Note: I wouldn't object to say, using 2.5% or even 3% as well, even 5% maybe; if you want this Hall to be as inclusive as possible, without everybody just getting in. I'm just using 2% as an example to show how it could work, but some small, but significant enough percentage.)</div><div><br /></div><div>Now, maybe they do that percentage system already, maybe they don't; it sure sounds like they don't have a consistent ruling or standard regarding this. Consistency is definitely the first step. Whatever they want to do, their lack of consistency is just off-putting and frustrating to those who follow and confusing and scattered to those who only glance. Anyway, that's how I'd suggest they change, but again, none of these matter until there's some kind of real overthrow of the power in the organization and there's a complete reorganization of how this group is run, or else, none of these, or several other changes, like actually using the Musical Excellence category for people who fit the profile again, and instead of just as a backdoor way to induct performers, (And put the acts like LL Cool J and Judas Priest in as performers, like they should be....) </div><div><br /></div><div>I'd also recommend that for the Early Influencer, Ahmet Ertugan Awards, and the Musical Excellence Awards, there should also be a full vote from the voters for people to consider. Everybody should have the option of naming up to five artists/names/people, who should be considered for each of these categories, if they want to. </div><div><br /></div><div>Now, I don't think a fan vote, would help much here, and I also don't think there should be a full ballot for these category, especially a fan ballot for everybody would kinda miss the point of these categories, but I think all the voters should be able to come up with up to five people for consideration every year. Then, I think there should be committees that determine these honors; and we should know, generally who's on those committees. Ideally, I'd have primarily historians on the Early Influencer category, musicians on the Musical Excellence category, and-, well, generally you'd think producers when the award is named after Ahmet Ertugan, but that's- that's not technically all the category represents. </div><div><br /></div><div>Yeah, I was going to skim over this one, but before the award was named after Ertugan after his passing in 2006, the category was actually "Non-Performers"; now there are performers and musicians that have been inducted, but generally the category is for, basically anybody who's work is non-performing in the music industry. This year for instance, they're inducting among other Allen Grubman who is an entertainment lawyer.... (Shrugs) I mean, he is an important one, who happened to be one of the founders of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, and he's far from the first member of that group to be inducted, but my point is that basically anybody from songwriters to disc jockeys, to journalists to record executives, qualify for this category. So, this category is a hodgepodge of a lot of different groups of people,- honestly as much as I like the tribute to Ertegun by putting his name on this award; I kinda wish they'd go back to calling category "Non-Performers". Every time I look through the list, I keep wondering why Phil Spector and Dick Clark's name are in the same field,- but- yeah, this is a category that needs a little bit of everybody involved. Producers, songwriters, executives,- just other people for whom the story of rock & roll can't be told without, even though they're contributions were often, outside the realms of performing. </div><div><br /></div><div>This is also an award that's ridiculously inconsistent; sometimes, like in 2010, they give the award to six different people, and then they'll go like, years without giving the award out at all!? Like, I kinda get how Early Influencer might not necessarily be a thing every year, (Although I think Kraftwerk and Wanda Jackson are some questionable entries in those categories..., especially Wanda Jackson, should probably be in as a performer instead....) but there's a lot of non-performers I can think of who probably should be mentioned and named in these categories and aren't, so yeah, like, I'm not sure who should be on these committees, but they're decisions should be independent from other main influential bodies within the Hall. (Or perhaps separate categories, for the types of non-performers. Like, non-performers but people like producers who are directly involved with the creating of music, like producers or songwriters, and like a separate committee for others who weren't directly involved in creating music, but are still pivotal in telling the story of rock & roll.) Anyway, these categories themselves, are fine, as long as they're not just used by the heads who just want find some backdoor way to induct artists that those at the top want to manipulate into inductions, and yeah, to start that, all voters should be able to suggest/recommend up to five names every year for all these categories. </div><div><br /></div><div>And yet, all this said, I'm still gonna watch the special. Hell, I might even tweet it like I did last year. Despite all this bullshit with the organization itself, the honor itself, it still holds up, still legitimate, and I certainly don't think it's worth diminishing the actual accomplishments of the artists they honor. Even those who don't want it, or don't care, it's still nice to see them honored and their artistic contributions forever preserved. I don't begrudge the artists being honored and I don't think we should take away from their accomplishments because the people making the decisions to honor them are, sketchy as fuck. Besides, despite everything, I hope their actual goal is really sound and still pure. (I know, it's probably wishful thinking but...)</div><div><br /></div><div>When I vote in the fan poll, and I don't know how everyone else votes, but the way I do it, is I think about the story they're telling. They're telling the story of Rock & Roll. It's a never-ending tale that's going to keep growing and evolving as the years go by, and sure, what that term means to some might not be reflected in the inductees to others, but it's a long story, with a lot of different end roads and evolutions as it goes on. When I fill out my ballot, I look at the names, and I try to decide, "Okay, of these names, if I'm telling this story of rock & roll, which of these names do I most need in order to tell a more complete story of rock & roll. Sure, some may think some names are more important than I do, we all have some biases, that would be the case if there was absolutely nothing wrong or skeptical or corrupt about the organization, but in terms of that overall objective, I think it's hard to argue that, they're at least trying to do their best. (I mean, their best still sucks ass, eh, but, it's not like there's anybody in the hall who I can't make an argument for their induction.) </div><div><br /></div><div>So yeah, as bad as the people running it are, and are in desperate need of a complete overhaul, I still think the Hall itself is a good idea, and maybe it's just because of their original strict 25 years afterwards original debut standard, but I certainly like the idea of a place where we can go and see and hear all of the most iconic images of rock & roll's past and in many case, it's present. Music is one of the few art forms that historically hasn't been able to be preserved; it wasn't that long ago, when most music preservation in the past, used to be in the form of sheet music. We'll never know exactly what it sounded like to actually hear what Mozart when he played piano. Even early movies were mostly silent, only had live music accompanying them, not recorded music; music is one of the least preserved art forms we have. Rock & Roll is one of the few musical genres where we really can document, pretty much to it's fullest, including a great deal of the music that directly influenced rock & roll. Any attempt at trying your damnedest to preserve that, and honor those who created it, and those who are the best of it, it should be encouraged. Like, I can kinda see the argument that putting any kind of standard of determining quality, especially in an art form as subjective as music is inherently flawed and just wrong, but I can't see the argument that that's not a good thing in general to honor and preserve those artists and their works that matter the most to us? Why the fuck not? In the grand scheme of things, there's no negative to this; there's no harm, why just be against it entirely? That I just don't get. </div><div><br /></div><div>So yeah, I don't like the people in charge of operating the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, and it is absolutely fair that we call out them for all their bullshit, and I swear, I've barely scratched the surface of their bullshit; one of the reasons this post took so long is that every time I kept searching for something new, the more I dug, the more I found, but, y'know, we can still honor the artists and others who they honor. (Maybe honor them better then they do sometimes, it seems) We can still have the fun arguments about who should/shouldn't be in but y'know; we can take it seriously and have fun with it. Watch the ceremony every year, see how they put the show together, listen to some great music, see some performances you might never see again. You think just because of all of this shit behind the people putting on the show that I'm not gonna potential watch an Eminem and Dolly Parton mashup duet of "Islands in the Stream" and "Stan"; fuck no! I want to see that; you want to see that! And then I want to see Judas Priest perform after that, and I want to hear Annie Lennox doing a medley of her best songs. (Oh, Dolly, Annie and Pat, doing "Sisters Doing It For Themselves"!) I want to see what other artists or names get to induct them and possibly perform with them, or perform instead of them, if that's the case. And I like knowing that there's this strange pyramid in Cleveland of all places, I could visit and see the displays of some of the most iconic stuff associated with these great artists, and knowing that their music is getting passed down from one generation to another. That's how these people can get away with much of this bullshit, 'cause however they end up getting to there, that's really cool. </div><div><br /></div><div>So yeah, I'm watching the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Inductions this year again, and a lot of the Hall of Fame's past inductions and performances, especially ever since they started broadcasting the induction ceremonies and concert, is available to seek out on Youtube and other such places, I don't know, maybe I'm in the minority on this, but I appreciate it, for all it's faults, it's the best home we have for our music history and yeah, maybe some artists don't consider it much of an honor to be inducted, but, it's a museum that's supposed to be for the fans, and well, in this case, I think the fans have a better point, so... yeah, too bad. I'll say this in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame's defense, whether the artists have good points or not, and they very much often do, I think they've always been right to absolutely not care about their own wishes on their inclusion or inductions. You don't want to be honored by us, screw you, we want to honor you anyway, and we're gonna do it, and damn them if they don't care. The Hall of Fame ultimately ain't for the artists, it's for the fans, and in this case, I'm on the fans side. </div><div><br /></div><div>(Devil horns) </div><div><br /></div><div>(Sigh) </div><div><br /></div><div>Still, though, they should be treating the artists way the fuck better than they do. The people running this thing are atrocious-; we gotta get them the hell out of there. They really are ruining it for everybody, including the fans. Like, Jesus,- is there anybody they're not fucking over over then themselves? Where's Jeff Jarrett to smash a guitar over people's head when you frickin' need him....</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WA55d3lwV4w" title="YouTube video player" width="640"></iframe><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0