Tag: screenwriting

Categories
Uncategorised

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019)

Marielle Heller’s third feature A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is a poignant glance into the morals of Fred Rogers, known as Mister Rogers, an icon of American children’s television. The film follows Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys), journalist who holds onto the darkness of his past which shapes his pessimistic outlook on life. When tasked with interviewing Mister Rogers (Tom Hanks) for a profile in Esquire magazine. A sharp contrast to her previous films The Diary of a Teenage Girl (2015) and Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018), A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is a wonderful film that allows Heller to incorporate her realist storytelling with hints of art and quirkiness through the use of puppetry. The film marks Tom Hanks first Oscar nomination in 19 years (he was last nominated for Cast Away in the Best Leading Actor category) and features a welcome lead performance from Welsh actor Matthew Rhys who is more known for his TV work. A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is a quieter film than its award season competitors but its message on love and forgiveness speaks volumes. What Heller manages to do is bring the softness of Mister Rogers’ personality and apply this to Vogel’s life, creating a friction and discomfort to Vogel’s character. 

During an award season that has seen female filmmakers snubbed in the directing categories, it seems that Heller has yet again been overlooked. When comparing Heller’s vision to some of the contenders in the Best Director category, I do think she is more deserving. Her film seems simultaneously grounded and innovative at the same time bringing an effortless flair. What Heller does so well is drawing out the best from both her lead and supporting actors (see Bel Powley and Kristen Wiig in The Diary of a Teenage Girl and Melissa McCarthy and Richard E. Grant in Can You Ever Forgive Me? as prime examples). I think that Heller has really come into her own and on her third feature, has managed to show us how varied her talent is and her fearlessness in tackling various genres and topics. Despite being overlooked, I think that Heller will continue to wow in her future projects and she’ll only receive more attention and acclaim.Matthew Rhys (Finalized)Performance-wise, the cast is really strong, particularly from Rhys and Hanks. Rhys brings out the protagonist’s inner conflict where the hurt that he feels is overshadowed by the anger. In fact, it seems that Vogel is more of an antagonist in the first act but as he lowers his guard, we begin to understand why he is how he is. It is ultimately a film about forgiveness and acceptance and no revelation is more important than the moment when Vogel accepts himself and his situation. The moment when he confronts his mum is heartbreaking and provides a bittersweet release for him as he allows himself to move forward with his life and enjoy the life that he has. I think that Rhys provides a side of his acting that we have not seen before and although Hanks is undoubtedly the highlight of the film, I think that Rhys will only get better from now on and has managed to successfully break into mainstream films.

In the supporting role, Hanks excels as Mister Rogers and was the big draw for critics and audiences alike and with good reason. From the moment he enters the screen, he is charismatic and gentle and truly becomes Mister Rogers. Admittedly after watching this, Hanks became my favourite for the Best Supporting Actor Oscar, although I completely appreciate that Brad Pitt was nothing short of phenomenal in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. There was something about Hanks’ performance that harked back to the 90s when he was King of the Silver Screen that is a stark reminder that he is capable of truly captivating performances. I love Hanks in everything he does (I even compiled a top 10 which you can read here) and will admit that I find the Dan Brown adaptations entertaining but A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is among his best. 

Another aspect of this film that I adored is the costume design. Simply and quintessentially American, Indian costume designer Arjun Bhasin does a brilliant job at encapsulating the late 90s style and mixing it with a nostalgic 70s feel when it comes to Mister Rogers. Particularly, the standout for the costume department is the iconic Mister Rogers cardigan. As an avid knitter, I was interested in reading about the conception and process of the knitting process for this film. Yasemin Esmek spent nine weeks making each cardigan and the results are amazing. The craftsmanship is so good and the details are beautiful. The costume designs overall are simple but it was important that they get the cardigan correct due to its association with Mister Rogers. I think that the costume team deserved award recognition for their work but it wasn’t to be and hopefully this only continues the interest in handmade knitted costumes in film. Much like the puppetry used for scene transitions, I love the craftsmanship and passion that was brought to the costumes and production design and feel that it is a shame that this wasn’t praised as much as other films were that were less creative. rogers3.0I wasn’t expecting to love A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood as much as I did as I thought it was going to be run-off-the-mill Oscar bait but I left the cinema feeling a mix of emotions. It was funny, dramatic, heartbreaking and hopeful all rolled into one. Despite being set in the 90s and reminiscent and nostalgic for the 70s, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood feels fresh and seems to be a new kind of family film. It isn’t afraid of delving into dark topics while remaining appropriate and light at the same time. It stayed with me long after the credits rolled and is among my favourites of awards season. It is a shame that the film didn’t garner more than its single Oscar nomination because Heller’s direction and Nate Heller’s score are brilliant and deserved the recognition. 

What did you think of A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood? Let me know in comments below!

 

Categories
Uncategorised

Uncut Gems (2019)

I have said this once and I will say it again. When Adam Sandler puts his mind to it, he can turn out a star-studded performance that most dramatic actors can only dream of. He did it in Paul Thomas Anderson’s 2003 Punch-Drunk Love and he’s done it again in the mind-warping Uncut Gems, directed by Josh and Benny Safdie (commonly referred to as the Safdie Brothers). Following Howard Ratner (Sandler), the owner of a luxurious jewellers in the Diamond District in New York and his inability to function as a normal human would. Crippled simultaneously by debt and a gambling addiction to boot, Howard is an awful human being and the Safdies make this no secret. The audience isn’t supposed to like him and yet we do because he is charismatic and pathetic at the same time. When a priceless gem is delivered to him and loaned to basketball star Kevin Garnett, Howard finds himself on the brink of self-destruction as he struggles to get the stone back and at the auction house where he expects to earn millions. Produced by powerhouse studio A24 and distributed on Netflix, Uncut Gems is the film equivalent of an anxiety attack thanks to the unrelenting actions of its protagonist who doesn’t know how to relax. Featuring a variety of celebrity cameos including The Week’nd, Tilda Swinton and Natasha Lyonne, there is also a strong supporting cast led by Lakeith Stanfield as Howard’s assistant, Demany and Julia Fox as Howard’s girlfriend, Julia.

The Safdie Brothers’ vision comes across brilliantly on the technical side. Known for their collaborations with Ronald Bronstein who cowrote the script with both Safdies and also co-edited the film with Benny Safdie. This is a film that needed more than one mind behind the vision and the result is crisp and sleek. The writing is sharp and to the point which is crucial as there are many characters and plenty of scenes in which lots of characters populate the screen. It’s a film that benefits from its direct nature meaning that there are few speeches and little emotion. When the film does delve deep into serious emotion, it feels almost disingenuous because the characters are so self-absorbed. It is the deeply flawed characters that gives the film its grit. What I love most about this film is how fantastical it feels in terms of the tone as Howard lives a luxurious life and yet the violence he is exposed to grounds the film. There is a disconnect between the life Howie should have and the life that he does have. Despite his wealth, he is constantly viewed as an outsider for a multitude of reasons. One such reason is his Jewish faith which is constantly remarked on by his clientele, friends and those he deals with when betting. Another such reason is his inability to maintain sustainable relationships. His paranoia overtakes his love for Julia because he cannot truly fathom that a woman like her could truly love a man like him. His insecurity is a constant throughout the film and is the main reason for his instability.

uncut-garnett-sandler-1576518581

Adam Sandler is nothing short of brilliant in this film and should have been nominated for all of the awards including the Oscar. His performance is manic and seems lucid but the amount of work Sandler put into this character is clear. Howard is deeply complex. He is fully aware of his issues and yet doesn’t do anything about them. The film is constantly moving up and down as Howard’s rollercoaster way of living reflects the wins and losses he experiences in gambling. This film has become instantly quotable with gifs and memes flooding the internet. Howard’s sleaziness only adds to his dark humour and helplessness. The film is from Howard’s perspective meaning Sandler is onscreen for the vast majority of the film’s 135 minute running time. What makes the character of Howard so hypnotic and engaging to watch is that he acts like an unreliable narrator at times. We hope he pulls through but at the same time his flaws often outweigh his strengths. The climactic scene in which Howard is watching the final basketball game that he has bet all of his earnings on is deeply intense and yet he seems relatively calm. His certainty that he will win when his first bet was reliant on a coin toss is unbelievable. If there was an award for the most frustrating character in film history, Howard would definitely be up there but that is exactly how he is meant to be. He is one of the most unlikeable likeable characters I have ever come across and I think it’s credit to Sandler’s skill that he manages to pull that off.

The score provided by Oneohtrix Point Never is a showstopper. The tone that the score gives is in a similar vein to Jóhann Jóhannsson’s brilliant score for the 2018 film, Mandy. Much like Jóhannsson’s score, Oneohtrix Point Never’s score has also proven divisive but I think that Uncut Gems is a film that doesn’t hold back in its performance, script and subject matter. The music is futuristically nostalgic, merging various genres and sounds to create a soundtrack that is unique. Much like the protagonist, the score doesn’t seem to settle and keeps crashing through, heightening the tension and making for an anxiety-ridden audience experience. The score category in awards season was very strong this year but I still think it was a shame that the Uncut Gems soundtrack wasn’t at least recognised. The fact that it clashes with what you see on the screen adds to the jarring effect that the film brought.

uncutgems

Uncut Gems lives up to the hype and delivers brilliance in spades. It’s a shame that it wasn’t recognised this awards season but I believe that Sandler’s performance specifically will not go unnoticed. If anything, Uncut Gems has opened the door for Sandler to continue tackling challenging roles and it makes me excited to see what the Safdie Brothers have planned next. It’s a film that isn’t afraid to make light of the dark topics it explores such as addiction and violence. It’s reluctance to fit into a specific box of film makes it a stand out in the same way that Parasite is and I think it was stronger than a lot of contenders this awards season.

What did you think of Uncut Gems? Let me know in the comments below!

Categories
Uncategorised

1917 (2019)

1917 is a World War I epic that seems to be the one to beat when it comes to the Best Picture award. Co-written, directed and produced by Sam Mendes, the film acts as a tribute to his grandfather, Alfred Mendes, based on stories that he would tell about the war. Following two young soldiers, Schofield (George MacKay) and Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) who are tasked with travelling across enemy lines to warn off a British attack before they fall into a trap set by the Germans. The film has become well-regarded for its flawless editing, designed to look like two continuous shots. As well as beautiful technique, 1917 also boasts a stunning cast that includes well-loved actor of the big screen such as Colin Firth and Benedict Cumberbatch as well as TV favourites such as Daniel Mays and Andrew Scott. As expected, Mendes delivers and the continuous shots and editing only exemplify the non-stop nature of war. There is only one point in which the audience is allowed to relax at the start of the third act of the film. The writing is simple as Mendes lays focus on the physicality and the atmosphere rather than the dialogue. There are few monologues and those with speeches such as Andrew Scott’s Lieutenant Leslie are at rare moments of stand still. Co-written by Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns, the script is minimalist in dialogue. Even when following the two Lance Corporals on their journey, we never really hear Schofield’s backstory because he is so withdrawn. One brilliant scene is when Schofield is picked up by a passing British unit and they are sat in the back of a truck. Schofield sits silently as the soldiers around him comment on their various backgrounds, imitate their General and comment on whether occupying other countries is worth the damage. It’s a poignant scene which brings in a humane aspect that is often missing from World War films.

The performances are impressive, particularly by George MacKay who is always on camera. He carries the film in the same way that he carries the message to the troops. It is no easy feat as an actor to hold so much pressure from such a big film but MacKay has shown promise from the early days in his career and his subsequent breakout performances in Pride (2014) and Captain Fantastic (2016). 1917 exploits MacKay to a mainstream audience that he won’t have been subject to in such a way previously. His Lance Corporal Schofield is reluctant to go on the mission and keeps his cards close to his chest but his determination to see it through is fearless, particularly in the final scenes as he runs through the trenches. Schofield and Blake appear to have different takes for their mission at the beginning. Blake is insistent on setting off immediately whereas Schofield logically believes in waiting until dark. Because of the emotional stake that Blake has in the mission (his brother is among the troops heading into the trap), Schofield has to ensure that Blake’s heart doesn’t lead his head.

1917

The two protagonists balance each other out as Blake risks his own life to save Schofield when a bomb is set off in a German trench. Chapman is also fantastic as Blake who appears naïve due to his sentimental nature. When encountering a German soldier whose plane was shot down in a dogfight, Blake’s gut reaction is to assist and get the soldier some water to ease the pain whereas Schofield doesn’t hesitate to shoot at the enemy. As mentioned before, the supporting cast is littered with stars from the small and silver screens. Admittedly, the supporting cast are granted one scene each so it’s more of a cameo, but each actor makes the most of their moments. Andrew Scott particularly delivers a brilliant monologue as a Lieutenant who has little hope in winning the war whereas Benedict Cumberbatch’s Colonel Mackenzie views he retreat from battle as a sign of defeat. The fleeting appearances from the supporting characters is thanks to the perfectly linear narrative of the film itself. We see the two Lance Corporals setting off to warn the Devonshire Regiment and ending with Schofield sat beside a tree in a mirror image of the opening shot.

It would be a big misjustice not to mention the revolutionary cinematography and editing provided by Roger Deakins and Lee Smith, respectively. Both men are at the top of the game in their respected fields and they work fantastically as a team. What these men have managed to achieve feels as claustrophobic and in your face as the war itself. There are many comments from people saying that the continuous effect took some getting used to but for me it felt natural and flowed perfectly. The editing is in a similar vein to the technique used in Birdman but on a bigger scale. What Deakins does so brilliantly is simultaneously provide big explosions shots filled with action while also maintaining great focus on the individual protagonists’ faces. Despite everything that is going on around the soldiers, the audiences’ eyes are fixated on the characters. Deakins’ colour palette is muted as expected in a war film with greens and browns. There are no exaggerated colours or futuristic spectacles. Deakins ensures that the film is very much grounded in its reality. Together, Deakins and Smith manage to create a film that is visually captivating and stunning, making the best use of the environment given and its limited landscapes.

19172

On the musical side of things, Thomas Newman’s score for this film is beyond incredible and has deservedly earned him his 15th Academy Award nomination. This year has seen a strong competition in the score category with both Thomas and Randy Newman pulling punches for their scores for 1917 and Marriage Story, respectively. Undoubtedly, the Best Original Score gong will go to Hildur Guðnadóttir for her stellar work on Joker making her the first woman to walk away with the award. It shouldn’t go unnoticed, however, that Thomas Newman’s score is among his best. Much like the editing, the film is reliant on its score which acts like a thread connecting the scenes. Needless to say, if Newman does end up winning, I wouldn’t be disappointed.

Overall, 1917 has proven to be a much better film than I had originally anticipated and I found myself moved and stunned by the technical and artistic achievement that Mendes has managed to pull off. I’m not sure if it’s a film that you need to watch more than once as I personally got everything out of the film that I needed in one go. I imagine that in time, it will become renowned and known for its technical aspects and the uniqueness in that field rather than the characters.

What do you think of 1917? Let me know in the comments below!

Categories
Uncategorised

Yentl (1983)

Barbra Streisand’s directorial debut follows the titular character (Streisand), a young woman living in an Ashkenazi Jewish community in the early 20th century who disguises as a man to study in a Yeshiva after her father passes away. Based on the short story by Isaac Bashevis Singer and cowritten by Streisand and Jack Rosenthal, Yentl is a film about subverting the cultural and societal norm as well as conflicts between religion and morality. Yentl Mendel is constantly questioning the way of life in her village and is looked down upon by the townspeople for being unmarried with no prospect of settling down. It is only when she disguises as a man called Anshel that she finds a place of belonging and her views are accepted and even celebrated. Problems occur when Yentl begins to fall in love with her mentor, Avigdor (Mandy Patinkin) who is in love with his ex-fiancée Hadass (Amy Irving) who then in turn falls in love with Anshel. It is the very definition of a love triangle and allows the film to have some lighter moments such as Anshel and Hadass’ wedding night. Winning Streisand a Best Director award at the Golden Globes making her the first and to date only woman to win the accolade, Yentl marks a huge step for female filmmakers in the mainstream thanks to its star appeal and critical and commercial success.

Streisand as director is really remarkable. You can sense the passion that she has for this film. Although there are trademark comedic moments and musical numbers that are identifiable with a Streisand picture, there is no doubt that the dramatic elements and aesthetic allow Streisand to explore a darker approach that we hadn’t really seen from her on film previously. Streisand’s female gaze gives this film a new perspective that we haven’t seen before in film. Instead of condemning Yentl’s choices, we view Anshel as a sensitive man who isn’t afraid of his vulnerability despite living in a male dominated environment. Where it not for Streisand’s feminine interpretation, the performance of Anshel could have slipped into caricature and taken away from the mature themes that the film discusses. Streisand lends a heavy feminist focus as she disputes why a woman cannot have the same outlook and expectation of a man while still appreciating the jobs that the women do. Yentl can be viewed as a crossover between genders and she doesn’t really fit in and altering her gender isn’t an issue. The pursuit of knowledge and equality overtakes the ideals expected of her. There are so many different readings that could be made when watching this film. It has been argued that Yentl could be considered as a queer film thanks to its discussions on gender and sexuality which adds a more progressive meaning to the story.

yentl.jpg

In terms of her performance, it’s best to view Streisand as playing two roles rather than one such is her success in distinctly differentiating the two. Her Yentl is typical Streisand: sassy, witty and strong with an ambition to subvert the norm. This is the Streisand that we have grown to love in her previous cinematic outings. What is different about Yentl is that she is aware that she is trapped within her local community. When reciting the Talmud at her father’s funeral, it becomes such a scandal and causes widespread gossip. The transition period between Yentl and Anshel comes from her journey to the Yeshiva which includes her heartbreaking rendition of “Papa, Can You Hear Me?” where Yentl begs her father for forgiveness for her decision to disguise as a man in pursuit of an education. She sits alone in the forest at nighttime with nothing but a candle for light and it is then when the realisation of what she has done comes to fruition. It is also the point where she knows that there is no turning back and thus has to embody the identity of Anshel. Streisand’s Anshel takes a bit of getting used to in the same way as Yentl getting used to her new identity. We witness Anshel practicing his tone of voice and mannerisms, making sure not to appear too feminine without risking his integrity.

Mandy Patinkin does a wonderful job as Avigdor, Anshel’s friend and mentor at the Yeshiva who is initially engaged to Hadass. Avigdor isn’t afraid to be vulnerable to Anshel and his other male friends but the idea of being vulnerable to Hadass or her mother disgusts him. He doesn’t allow himself to get involved in any confrontation and is always calm when in her company. Avigdor seems so progressive when we are first introduced because he is so accepting of Anshel but it is easy to forget that Anshel is Yentl and he has no idea. When he spouts ideas about a woman’s true place in the home and that Hadass cannot think for herself, it comes across as a shock and ignorant but despite his intelligence, Avigdor is still a product of an environment that looks down on women. In another brilliant supporting turn, Amy Irving was deservedly nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in her role as Hadass. When we first meet Hadass, she appears to fulfill all the criteria of the perfect woman and seems to do everything at the men’s commands. What we don’t realise is that she has successfully supressed any feeling of rebellion and it is when she is married to Anshel that she shares her aspirations to learn more. Yentl is in the middle of these two characters and yet it is because of Yentl that they are drawn closer together and allow themselves a more progressive and happier life.

yentl2.png

The amazing music is composed by Michel Legrand, one of the best composers that the film industry had to offer. From his imagination we were given the incredible song “Papa, Can You Hear Me?” composed by Legrand with lyrics written by Alan and Marilyn Bergman. The trio won an Oscar for Best Original Song Score and Its Adaptation or Adaptation Score. In true Legrand fashion, the music is whimsical and brings an essence of fairytale to the story. The musical numbers are far and few between but the score itself is wonderfully subtle when you compare to Legrand’s catalogue such as the music for Les Parapluies De Cherbourg (The Umbrellas of Cherbourg). The songs are suited to Streisand’s amazing vocal range, especially the aforementioned song but rather than being full of show-stopping numbers like the ones in Funny Girl, Legrand makes use of Yentl’s male identity and gives the songs a lower key register so Yentl is singing as if she were a man herself.

Overall, Yentl is a film that has helped pave the way for female filmmakers in mainstream cinema. It is a film not without flaws but it has beauty in its ability to discuss ideas that are considered taboo. Even within the Orthodox setting in the early 20th century, there are still similarities that Streisand is able to get across to link with the modern day. Yentl is not a film that Streisand wishes to make all about herself despite directing and starring in it but the story of how women are often subjected to misogyny and not afforded the chances of their male counterparts. It is equal parts drama and musical and a smaller part comedy which encapsulates Yentl’s character.

What did you think of Yentl? Let me know in the comments below!

Categories
Uncategorised

Bombshell (2019)

One film that has brought much buzz among the acting categories is the Fox News centred biopic Bombshell. Following numerous women working at Fox and their experiences of sexual harassment at the hands of their boss, Roger Ailes, the audience follow the lives of three women at different levels of their careers are observed. At the top of the game there is Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron), then there is recently fired anchor, Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) and at the bottom of the tier is newcomer Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) who is based on a culmination of women who worked at Fox. This was not a film I thought would be as gripping or exploitive as it was but this film contains some very upsetting material that shows the trauma that women are forced to endure in order to be successful. The event that acts as a catalyst is Kelly’s encounter with Presidential candidate Donald Trump who tweets various misogynist insults her way after a challenging exchange during the Presidential debate. We see Kelly’s world turned upside down as her and her family’s livelihood is at stake at the hands of a ruthless paparazzi and a passionately threatening audience. Simultaneously, Carlson is fired from her position and seeks to sue Ailes for sexual harassment which is described as a money grab from those at Fox. Overall, it is a film that shows the hardship of women and how dangers in the workplace seep into their personal lives. Directed by Jay Roach and written by Charles Randolph, Bombshell allows its female protagonists to develop and grow while showing their vulnerability and resilience in their quest to end the patriarchal harassment that has humiliated women at Fox over the years.

Charlize Theron is so brilliant as Kelly. In the same vein as Monster, Theron transforms into her subject and manages to perfect every detail about them. Completely deserving of the nominations that she has received, Theron’s Kelly is poised, collected and observant. She is a woman who will not be messed around. This makes the scene in which she opens up about her experience with Ailes shocking considering her strength and influence in the workplace. During the conflict with Trump, Kelly doesn’t make any vengeful comments back and instead is aware that Fox’s access to Trump during the Presidential campaign is crucial. She is able to put her own motivations to the side. It is when she puts herself first that a wave of women from Fox come out and discuss their experience. It’s no surprise that Theron has garnered her third Oscar nomination for her portrayal as this controversial figure. She has this command when she is on the screen and a strength that makes it even more shocking when comments about her menstruating are used as an excuse for her challenging nature. She is constantly given a harder time because she is a woman and not taken as seriously as her male counterparts. Equally, Kelly has respect for Ailes and when the accusations come to light, she faces a struggle between her genuine loyalty to him and the truth. In the end, she realises that she must go with the latter but this isn’t a decision that comes easy or without consequence.

In terms of our supporting protagonists, we are given Margot Robbie and Nicole Kidman as newcomer Kayla Pospisil and fired anchor Gretchen Carlson, respectively. Robbie is beyond outstanding in support and continues a stellar year. The scene in which her character is harassed and forced to show her crotch to Ailes is extremely upsetting and difficult to watch. We see Robbie’s brilliantly layered expression as she is clearly distraught and uncomfortable herself at having to do this but she knows she must grin and bear it for risk of being fired. Kayla is a fictional character but the development of her character and the depth that she is portrayed with feels very real. The idea to accumulate multiple women into one has served Randolph’s script well as it allows various perspectives to be shown without confusing or overloading the audience with too many characters. Robbie gained an Oscar nomination for her portrayal and it is so deserved. Time and time again, Robbie is showing us her range and has managed to compile a really impressive filmography following her departure from Australian soap opera Neighbours. Kayla is a character who shows a side of Robbie that we haven’t been able to see before and makes it all the more exciting to see what roles she will take on in the future.

On the other hand, Kidman is definitely underused but packs a punch when she is onscreen. I understand that with three prominent protagonists, it can be tricky to prioritise whose story to go more in depth on but it would be wrong to underestimate Gretchen’s important in this narrative. She is the initial driving force and brings this story out to public knowledge. The opening scene shows other female anchors following the rules followed by a collection of clips of Gretchen being told that her outfits are lovely as well as comments on her body with Gretchen looking uncomfortable but laughing it off. She is immediately presented as an outsider from the get go. When confronted by a woman in the supermarket who tells her that her show and Fox News are a disgrace, Gretchen doesn’t understand and twists it back on the woman. The performance doesn’t require the same level of depth and development that Theron and Robbie have to bring because Gretchen is already at the stage of rebellion but Kidman loses herself in the role. We don’t see Kidman, we see Gretchen. It would also be wrong not to mention the eerie performance from John Lithgow as Ailes. It isn’t easy to play a role like Ailes as someone who seems kind and respected but so manipulative and abusive beneath the surface. Despite having limited screen time, Ailes has a horrifying and lingering presence over the whole film and that is thanks to Lithgow’s intimidating command that he has when he is onscreen. He is very much a puppet master.

Bombshell was a surprisingly intense and thrilling film to watch. The limited use of location, primarily the Fox studios makes for a claustrophobic experience that reflects the entrapped environment that the woman work in. The intriguing part about it is how the women start speaking out without really talking to one another for fear of being outed as a traitor. Thanks to its controversial subject matter and triple female protagonist set-up, it probably will have limited success at awards season but the fact that it has received nominations is a great achievement. Theron, in particular, really brings her A game and delivers her best performance in years.

What did you think of Bombshell? Let me know in the comments below!

Categories
Uncategorised

The Two Popes (2019)

The first film I watched this decade is a surprising choice in the form of biopic The Two Popes following the conservative Cardinal Ratzinger (Anthony Hopkins) who becomes Pope Benedict XVI and his eventual friendship with the more liberal Cardinal Bergoglio (Jonathan Pryce), who later becomes Pope Francis. Directed by Brazilian director Fernando Meirelles with a script written by Anthony McCarten based on the latter’s novel The Pope, The Two Popes manages to successfully avoid falling into the trap of becoming another studio churned out biopic. There is no doubt that the two leads are the stars of the show and contribute a lot to the film’s overall acclaim but Meirelles control on the tone of the film and McCarten’s deeply intense script make The Two Popes a thrilling watch, particularly scenes when it is the two gentleman by themselves. The film’s strength comes in its constant shift in dynamic. The opening scenes follow the death of Pope John Paul II and the deciding vote on who will be his successor and the differences between the two eventual popes are crystal clear. Cardinal Ratzinger does everything in his power to become Pope and succeeds by persuading his fellow Cardinals during breaks from voting whereas Bergoglio is discomforted by the prospect of becoming pontiff. There seems to be a projected rivalry on the two men which Ratzinger seems to act on but Bergoglio is perplexed by this narrative.

The power from this film comes from the brilliant screenplay by McCarten. His script reads like a power struggle at times as the dynamic shifts between the two popes’ favour throughout. The inclusion of flashbacks and context into their histories also helps the film to avoid being just a simple story of one Pope’s decline and another’s ascension. There is no bias for either one as we are just presented with facts such as Ratzinger’s admission that he knew about the molestation within the Church before the scandal came to light. Despite the two men being a part of the same religion, they have completely different viewpoints. Ratzinger feels that resigning is the only way to seek absolution whereas Bergoglio thinks that he should remain Pope and see the scandal through to the end. Bergoglio’s upbringing and story is filled with a lot more turmoil than Ratzinger who seems to have had a more privileged upbringing. Their conflicting interests and differing politics result in Bergoglio coming across as more compassionate than Ratzinger because he is more accepting and open to change. The ending scene with the two men watching the football is funny to watch and makes for a light tone to suggest that their friendship is on good terms.

The two leads excel in their roles as expected. Jonathan Pryce is absolutely brilliant in the leading role as Bergoglio who is the quietly outspoken of the two. Constantly having to justify his stance on controversial topics that differ from the conservative Church teachings, Bergoglio is seen equally as a disgrace and a revolutionary within the Church. It comes to light that this has been the case all his life with his complicated background during the Argentinian militaria regime. Whereas Ratzinger revels in the tradition and opulence of the Catholic Church, Bergoglio is happy with what he has. He doesn’t understand why those high up in the Church live in such luxury. Pryce is perfect casting in both his appearance and his characterisation, truly becoming the future pope. You never know what he is going to do or say next because he is unpredictable. One minute he will be conversing in Latin with Ratzinger and the next he will be teaching him how to tango.

Anthony Hopkins’ performance is his best in film for years. Bringing out mannerisms subtly with an understated accent and acting that seems effortless but is really meticulous, Hopkins is fantastic as the newly elected Pope. Ratzinger is not necessarily a likeable character because he is so set in his ways and has many dated opinions that don’t fit in with the times. He is clearly a highly intelligent man and extremely well-read but also detached from modern society. In some ways Bergoglio tests him to embrace the present world more and try to adapt. We don’t see as much of Ratzinger’s background as Bergoglio’s but Hopkins gives us enough to know that he has always been a lonely figure. The scene in which Ratzinger gives Bergoglio his confession is fantastic. The audience lingers on Hopkins’ words as he reveals his difficult time growing up and being saved by God.

In terms of awards buzz, The Two Popes has garnered attention for Pryce and Hopkins’ performances. I don’t think either will win due to strong competition in both categories but they are deserved nominations. I didn’t think I would find this film particularly enjoyable but I was pleasantly surprised. The performances alone are enough to the grip the viewer but it proved to be even more. It’s not a film about religion but more of a character study about two very men who are connected because of that religion. There were many gripping scenes filled with tension as the two popes debate about various aspects of the church. I also wasn’t expecting the film to have so many funny moments as well and it doesn’t feel too heavy in subject matter. I think following it primarily from the point of view of Bergoglio was a smart choice as we see the events from both the inside and the outside depending on what is happening.

What did you think of The Two Popes? Let me know in the comments below!

Categories
Uncategorised

Jojo Rabbit (2019)

One of the most controversial films to come out this awards season is Taika Waititi’s World War II comedy, Jojo Rabbit. Set in Germany during the last years of the War and follows 10 year-old Jojo Betzler (Roman Griffin Davis), a Nazi fanatic whose imaginary friend is Adolf Hitler (Taika Waititi). He lives with his mum Rosie (Scarlett Johansson) who is anti-Nazi and Jojo discovers that his mum has hidden a Jewish girl called Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie) in the attic. In true Waititi fashion, the film is full of dark humour and quirkiness galore and if you’re a fan of his previous films then you shouldn’t be disappointed. That being said, I understand the negative reaction this film received and wasn’t sure that I would find it funny myself but Waititi’s Hitler is portrayed as a spoilt and childish brat who is the butt of the joke throughout the film. We are laughing at Hitler rather than with him. I was surprised at how little Waititi is in the film and I think this is a smart choice. There is more focus on Jojo and his relationship with Elsa. Waititi’s direction and screenplay are as kooky as ever as he makes the best use of the film’s star power and big budget. It’s a film with numerous moving parts but a heavy focus on its two leads, Jojo and Elsa and does a brilliant job in showing their development.

Davis does a fantastic job as Jojo. Not only does he have brilliant comedic timing in his line delivery, but the confusion as Jojo questions his own extremist beliefs. When he first encounters Elsa, he is surprised at how normal she looks. Because of the lies spouted by Nazi officials, Jojo is convinced that she is a monster and is reluctant to trust her. He equally cannot let his mum or anyone else know that he is aware of her presence because he doesn’t want his mum to get in trouble. Immediately his fanatic morals are conflicted with personal interest and it is because of this that allows him to get to know Elsa as a person and begin to realise that he has been fed lies. There are many moments of true maturity in Jojo but he is 10 years old at the end of the day and the script reflects this. When repeating anti-Semitic remarks and insults that he has heard from Nazi adults, it doesn’t sound true because he doesn’t really understand what he is saying. Jojo begins to realise this himself as he develops feelings for Elsa and he finds it hard to justify his blinded hate when applying the mindset to an actual human. Jojo doesn’t understand why he feels the way he does but manages to do what he believes is right, even if it puts himself at risk. 

jojorabbit3.jpg

Thomasin McKenzie is one of film’s highlights as Elsa, the Jewish girl hiding in Jojo’s attic. Elsa is a secretive and feisty character who lets Jojo go off on his tangents and enjoys making fun of him and his beliefs. Eventually, she is more open to Jojo when he begins writing letters pretending to be her fiancé in Paris. She realises that there is more to him than his hatred and that he can change. Her initial scene shows her in complete defensive mode both physically and mentally as she fights with Jojo and steals his knife. She drops her guard down and stays in her hiding place less and less. McKenzie portrays the loss and gain of freedom perfectly as Elsa doesn’t know how to react when she steps outside in the final scene. It seems strange watching her stand in the street as a free woman because we have become so used to seeing her hiding. Her scenes with Johansson demonstrate her range as we see her without the bravado. Her fears for the future and admiration for Rosie come across in a few short minutes which gives us a different perspective to how she acts around Jojo. McKenzie is definitely one to watch and has a promising career ahead of her.

Leading the supporting cast is Scarlett Johansson who is spectacular in what can only be described as a fantastic year for her career. Johansson caps off a phenomenal year in film with her take on Jojo’s mum, Rosie. Rosie is confident, bonkers and brilliantly outspoken. She doesn’t allow men to treat her how they want and spends her time empowering Jojo and allowing his imagination to run off with him. She disagrees with his Nazi fantasies and spends a lot of her screen time trying to capture the child in him by acting childlike herself. The character is also one of much complexity as she misses her husband as he has been missing in Italy for two years but keeps a strong front for Jojo’s sake. In one such dramatic scene, Rosie acts as both mother and father to distinguish how each one treats Jojo. With a simple smear of ash from the fireplace, Johansson becomes Jojo’s father. Her performance in Marriage Story is more defined but this shouldn’t detract from the brilliant work that she does here. Also in support is Waititi as Hitler which is the most controversial character for obvious reasons. His Hitler is clingy and desperate for attention and adoration. Seeing him in his final scenes as a pathetic man begging a child to show him some admiration is the nail in the coffin for his character and solidifies him as the punchline. Waititi is cartoonish and a complete buffoon in this role and at times is completely over the top to the point of ridicule but that’s what makes the balance work in the film. Waititi’s Hitler is created from the perspective of a child who has viewed him from the media. Because of this, Hitler’s personality is magnified to the max.

jojorabbit1.jpg

The film was enjoyable and I liked it a lot more than I thought I would. Particularly the performances from the leads as well as the characterisation of Jojo’s best friend Yorkie (Archie Yates) who is oblivious to what is going on and isn’t at all bothered about Jojo hiding Elsa. The film doesn’t pack the same punch that Waititi’s 2016 film, Hunt for the Wilderpeople did but it’s an entertaining watch nevertheless. I’m looking forward to seeing where Waititi takes his career next and hope that Sam Rockwell is in all of his future projects.

What did you think of Jojo Rabbit? Let me know in the comments below!

Categories
Uncategorised

mother! (2017)

This is a film that you will either love or hate. There really isn’t an in between on this one. Darren Aronofsky’s mother! is a biblical retelling through the unconventional setting of a home as the sole location. Featuring Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem as mother and Him, a married couple who live in a huge house built by the former while the latter works on his writing. mother is decorating the home and longs for a family but this is refused by Him, who is consumed by his own work to care about what mother wants. Compared to previous offerings by Aronofsky such as Black Swan, mother! is a literally and figuratively contained film. At no point do we lose sight of mother as we follow her perspective as chaos ensues. At first, the house seems open and spacious but this quickly shifts to a claustrophobic palace of mayhem as mother’s space is literally invaded by outsiders. When mother falls pregnant, she is forced to endure the increasing attention for her husband and the exposure that leaves no stone unturned in the house.

Directed and written by Aronofsky, mother! is a film that plays out like a mystery. Because we don’t see the outside world, we don’t know what or who will come next. This makes it one of the most shocking films to watch, especially when the first casualty plays out. Definitely one of the best filmmakers today, Aronofsky leaves the meaning of the film and his own intention to the imagination of the author. One can watch it from religious, feminist and even mental health angles. It’s a film that is left wide open for interpretation. There is a clear argument for the conflict between mankind and nature. The brutality and expressionist approach to the film can make it uncomfortable for viewers which is probably why it split critics and audiences alike. However, I was one of the viewers who was left in awe from the brilliance in every aspect.

Jennifer Lawrence draws out a brilliantly and fully dramatic performance that we haven’t seen since Winter’s Bone. In between the aforementioned and mother! there was an increased focus on characters with a comedic side with Lawrence starring in dark comedy-dramas as well as protagonist Katniss Everdeen in the Hunger Games franchise. It’s a performance that demands a lot on expression and physicality as mother is a character of few words. We see her initial comfort turn into catastrophe and panic as more and more people invade the house and ruin what she has built. Javier Bardem is yet again fantastic as the villainous Him. He is perfect at playing such a manipulative character whose motivations are inspired only by himself for himself. Him is careless and seemingly the reasonable one but even as he loses control, he cannot let go of the admiration of the visitors. Their love for him is more important than the love given to him by mother.

The supporting cast is led by Michelle Pfeiffer and Ed Harris as woman and man, respectively, who both pull off menacing performances as the initial outsiders who enter the house. Immediately, mother is discomforted and disturbed by their visit and Him’s insistence that they stay for as long as they like. Pfeiffer particularly is so magnetic and draws in a deeply sexual performance that equally disgusts and intrigues mother, who is puzzled by their lax attitude towards sex and openness in conversation. As mother observes, we see woman and man worship Him whilst simultaneously break house rules and venture where they shouldn’t.

There are so many scenes worth delving into but none left me speechless in the way that the shot following mother as the house descends into chaos did. Each room has a different form of punishment with herod (Kristen Wiig) shooting people in one and a SWAT team bursting through the windows and beating people up. Despite the increasing tension, the bloody violence still comes across as shocking and unexpected. Equally as heartbreaking is the scene that follows after mother gives birth. As we witness her descent into madness and the end product that the destruction has had on the house, the realisation that there is no way to repair what has happened is still heartbreaking. It’s a film that knows its pace and doesn’t desire to fit into the mainstream.

Overall, mother! is a film that allows Aronofsky to be experimental and reject the basic beginning, middle, end linear structure with a clear plot. I think it is a film that shows Aronofsky at his best. He has always been great at developing complex female characters with an expressionist approach to direction. He has a classical eye when it comes to inspiration and is inspired by music, art, ballet, film. He is brilliant at finding beauty in the ugly and drawing that out, contrasting what we are seeing with new ideas. This is evident in mother! as the mere inspiration and idea of seeing the Holy text contrast with the horrific events is something that hasn’t been done before.

What do you think of mother!? Let me know in the comments below!

Categories
Uncategorised

Moonlight (2016)

One of the best Best Picture winners in Oscar history, Barry Jenkins’ coming of age tale follows Chiron, a young black man coming to terms with his homosexuality through three key stages in his life. Split into three segments: Little (Alex Hibbert), Chiron (Ashton Sanders) and Black (Trevante Rhodes), we follow Chiron’s ascendence from bullied child to a successful drug dealer. Sadly, the infamous confusion between the true winner of the Best Picture award when La La Land was wrongly announced. Moonlight’s win was monumental for being the first film to openly discuss themes of homosexuality as well as featuring a predominantly black cast. Aside from its record-breaking and importance in film history, it holds merit as a captivating piece of cinema with innovative direction, emotionally charged writing and characters that hold influence for the entirety of the film despite limited screen time. This is a film that will be remembered for the ages.

It’s incredible that this is Barry Jenkins’ debut feature. It is one of the best debuts in film history and caused a lot of hype going into awards season. Jenkins’ vision comes across fantastically by presenting Chiron as an outsider in his own community. This is important because Chiron’s story is ultimately about being in a minority within a minority (gay within the black community). Moonlight is made up of shorter scenes that give us a glimpse into Chiron’s life. Following Chiron limits our view of the world at large but we still get the struggles across as we see him attending high school and being badly bullied. Jenkins doesn’t feel the need to explain a character’s absence and allows this to come out naturally in the script. Jenkins co-wrote the play with Tarell Alvin McCraney based on the latter’s unperformed play, In Moonlight Black Boys Look Blue. Together they reflected on their upbringings in Miami and were able to apply their own experiences into the script to ensure that it was as real and human as can be. Because of the authenticity and the knowledge of the area and its people, Moonlight doesn’t fall into the trap of including stereotypes that are often seen in films.

The cast all do a superb job of telling Chiron’s story, particularly Mahershala Ali as Juan, a drug dealer who takes Chiron under his wing at a young age. Juan is living with his girlfriend Teresa (Janelle Monae) and the two act as surrogate parents as Chiron’s mother becomes more abusive and neglectful. Juan subverts the tropes that drug dealers are given in film. He is wise, thoughtful and considerate. More importantly, he is sensitive and completely understanding Chiron’s situation almost immediately. Despite only featuring in the first part of the film before his untimely death, Juan’s presence is felt through the film. Ali’s performance is one of tenderness and paternity. What also comes across is Juan’s confidence in himself and his identity. Jenkins is subverting stereotypes and showing a perspective that is needed and long overdue.

The score by Nicholas Britell is among the best of the century so far. The soundtrack is brilliant mix of rap, classical excerpts from composers such as Mozart and original music. The original music is truly stunning with beautiful use of single violin solos to exemplify Chiron’s loneliness. What Britell does is give a separate theme for the three Chirons we see in the film. The themes aren’t distinctly different but feel like an evolution through the film until we get to Black’s theme much like Chiron’s development and understanding of his own self. At times it feels as if the music reflects Chiron himself in the specific scenes as the pace quickens in moments of adrenaline and then eases off in moments of relaxation. Chiron and the music go hand in hand making the music an entire experience through Chiron’s eyes.

Moonlight is a film that stays with you and one that is difficult to forget. It doesn’t shy away from showing the brutality of modern society and the struggles that minorities face. Jenkins solidified himself as one to watch with this film and followed it up with the excellent If Beale Street Could Talk. Moonlight is truly in a league of its own and has brought a new voice to cinema that is needed and valid. Scenes in which Chiron is rejected by his own mother (Naomie Harris), an abusive drug-addict, are revealed bit by bit as they coincide with Chiron’s own understanding of the situation. As his mother uses homophobic slurs against him, Chiron too becomes accustomed to that way of thinking and distances himself from his desires as an adult. Moonlight is one of those films that you can watch time and time again and find something to admire while reaping in the rewards of this cinematic masterpiece. It’s not often when smaller films are exposed to high levels of publicity but Moonlight thoroughly deserves it and is such an important film to note in the way of diversity in its cast and crew, providing a new perspective and a new wave of films that make way for different cultures told by those from those cultures.

What do you think about Moonlight? Let me know in the comments below!

Categories
Uncategorised

The Shape of Water (2017)

From the incredible mind of Guillermo del Toro comes the Best Picture winning The Shape of Water, an adult fairytale following mute Eliza (Sally Hawkins) who works as a cleaner in a government lab and falls in love with a creature (Doug Jones) who is held captive for experiments. Working with various parties including her neighbour Giles (Richard Jenkins), best friend and colleague Zelda (Octavia Spencer) and scientist Robert Hoffstetler (Michael Stulbarg) Eliza seeks to break the creature out and escape with him despite the efforts from the evil Richard Strickland (Michael Shannon), the man who captured the creature in the first place. There are a lot of moving pieces in this film but that’s not to say it’s difficult to follow. It gives the film multiple layers and changing motives and sides makes it exciting to watch. The film is definitely del Toro’s best since Pan’s Labyrinth and has become an instant classic. His direction and script are beautifully sharp and consistent with the universe he wants to create. Everything has been carefully thought through from the Baltimore setting to the oceanic colour palette. It’s no coincidence that we first see Eliza in a room of deep green hues and Richard covered in bright red blood. It’s a striking visual representation of which characters are good and evil.

The characters are fantastically developed, particularly Eliza. Hawkins brings a career best as the movie loving dreamer who longs to find love. Eliza leads a simple life which we gain a glimpse of as we view her morning routine which consists of boiling eggs, running a bath and masturbating. The genius of this character is that Hawkins physicality allows Eliza to be expressive and can communicate her emotion with a simple glance. Eliza is fearless when encountering the creature. She is unfazed by the blood and threatening build of the creature and instead encourages it to get close to her so she can teach it sign language and music. One of the most intense scenes comes when she is asked where the creature is and she signs “FUCK YOU” to Strickland. The latter is naturally confused as her signing as he does not understand and it creates a truly terrifying moment as Eliza takes control of the situation. Eliza knows when to take advantage of her condition and is deeply observant of those around her. Her main development comes in the form of rejecting everyone else’s wishes and learning to do what she wants. She subverts the traditional idea of love and finds her identifying more with the creature than humans because they can communicate and understand each other in ways that Eliza can’t with other humans.

The supporting cast also perform a stellar job and there isn’t a particular highlight because everyone does a fantastic job. The support cast is male-dominated due to Eliza’s job working in a government facility in 1920s Baltimore. Working in the facility are Strickland and Hoffstetler on opposing sides of the creature’s treatment. Shannon is truly evil in his role bringing the scariest performance of his career. His presence onscreen immediately brings silence as there is an unpredictability to his character. He is strict on control and when Hoffstetler threatens the slightest bit of control, this bothers him. Stulbarg’s performance is one of tenderness and concern. He winces at the sight of violence and blood which is unusual for a man with his profession. Stulbarg’s performance is layered with multiple characters and motivations. His stance and reasoning is even more unpredictable than Strickland’s. On the other hand there are Zelda and Giles who reluctantly go with Eliza’s plans. Earning Oscar nominations for their Supporting performances, Spencer and Jenkins provide Eliza’s voice at times when she needs it. Each actor is cast perfectly as they embody their roles perfectly. Zelda and Giles are also members of minorities themselves with Zelda being black and Giles being openly homosexual. Together, the trio help to support each other in a society that is dominated by the straight white men.

Music is such a crucial part of this film as it gives Eliza a voice when she doesn’t have assistance. In scenes where she communicates with the creature, she uses a record player to convey her emotions towards him. The soundtrack is a mix of classical original score and songs from the 1920s that were used in television specials and films. Not only does it give the film it’s chronological context but it also allows del Toro to delve into his own love of Old Hollywood and push this personal perspective to the front. In terms of the score, we are treated to a fantastic selection of pieces composed by Alexandre Desplat. Just like the film, the score is a mix of genres taking mainly from fantasy by adding in the whimsy of musical and light and dark tones to reflect comedy and drama. It’s a truly captivating soundtrack and well worth the second Oscar that Desplat received.

As I have mentioned before, the cinematography is fantastic. The film is quintessentially del Toro with his distinctive use of colour and impeccable ability to build his own universes. The audience is immediately immersed from the first shot when we see Eliza’s apartment underwater as Giles narrates in a fairytale manner. What works so well is that del Toro easily merges the fantasy with the real by making his world as realistic as possible but adding whimsical qualities. There are some gory scenes in the film and as expected, del Toro doesn’t shy away from showing the audience this but it’s because of the film’s primary genre being fantasy, it doesn’t feel overwrought or overwhelming to those who don’t like horror films. The film feels suitable for any genre because the topics are so universal and the vision so distinctive.

There are few films that impact me so much immediately but after I viewed The Shape of Water, I completely fell in love with everything about it. It was wonderful seeing del Toro deliver a film that feels so personal and poignant. The film feels like del Toro’s love letter for films and the many influences such as The Creature from the Black Lagoon are really felt here.

What do you think about The Shape of Water? Let me know in the comments below!