This is the first acting review I’m writing for a film’s villain. Tamiroff played General Yang. True, he was a pretty standard bad guy, a foreign military dictator, who they put opposite the all-American boy Gary Cooper. By today’s standards, his character might have bordered on offensive, as he was such an obvious Chinese stereotype, but 1936 was a different time. As it was, he played the part he was given, and he did it with conviction, so props for that, I guess.
Another thing that the role would have received criticism for today was the fact that Tamiroff was not Asian. He was Armenian-American. But the makeup artists did a pretty good job making him appear Asian. It was mostly in the eyes. But just to make him appear even more evil, they gave him a scar running through his left eyebrow and the fu-manchu moustache. He looked very menacing and dangerous.
I actually think he did a pretty good job with the script he was given, though the character was a bit one-dimensional… maybe two, every now and then. He was just a psychotic leader of a thug army. The way his troops followed him loyally was akin to something like a cult, where they were willing to commit suicide at his orders for causing offense. That was a little scary. But it didn’t happen. That might have been too much for a 1936 audience.
But despite the lackluster writing, Tamiroff gave the character of General Yang a little bit of dimension. He was a tyrant, but through Tamiroff’s acting, I don’t think he thought of himself as one. He may have thought of himself as a nice guy. When he was in control of a situation, he behaved with easy civility, smiling and making jokes… as long as everything went his way. That was well-done. The scene where he is fishing and Cooper was his prisoner, was particularly good.
And then there was his death scene, which took place at dawn, of course. We knew that would happen. It’s in the title of the film. He gets stabbed in the gut a few times by Fred Mertz. His death is slow and drawn out, and Tamiroff milked if for all it was worth. It was a great scene that probably earned him his nomination.
The movie, as a whole, was fairly average. But there were a few stand-outs among the cast who distinguished themselves with their outstanding acting. Unfortunately, I didn’t feel that Walter Huston was one of them. I’m not saying he did a bad job. Far from it. He played the part of Sam Dodsworth competently. But for the most part, the roll just wasn’t worth the nomination. If I was to nominate any member of this cast for an Oscar, it would have been Mary Astor or Ruth Chatterton, neither of whom were honored with an Oscar nod.
You see, the character of Sam Dodsworth didn’t have very much of a character arch, he didn’t go through a very wide range of emotions, and I didn’t feel that Huston was stretched or really challenged as an actor. He only had two real emotional personas in the film, which he vacillated between. There was happy and annoyed. I know I’m oversimplifying his performance, but those were the two that stood out to me. Sometimes his happiness bordered on excited, and his annoyance touched on anger, but that might have just been part of his character. He wasn’t supposed to be emotionally erratic.
That being said, he played the part properly. He never got too overworked, whether he was discovering a new passion or confronting his wife about her infidelities. He was always on an even keel, where any normal man would have been much more animated. The problem is that this translated as a little passionless, and not terribly difficult for an actor to portray. But again, I don’t think this was Huston’s fault. It was just the role, itself, and the way it was written.
His scenes that stood out to me as his best were the ones in which he displayed a little more emotion than normal. There is one where he returns home from Europe alone, and is angered that his home doesn’t feel right without her in it. Another is where he returns to Europe to politely and calmly confront his wife and her lover. And yet another is where he finally declares his love for Edith. But even in these pivotal scenes, the emotions he displays are calm and subdued, and though I hate to use the word, a bit passionless. It’s too bad, because Huston was a fine actor.
Well, another year of fantastic movies has come and gone, and another film has taken the top prize. This year, it is a smaller, more intimate film. It is a bit of a niche film, focusing on a very small group of people who, like all minorities deserve to have representation and a voice. That group is actually named in the title of the film. CODA is an acronym that stands for child of deaf adults. So it is appropriate that the film is a coming-of-age story about a girl who can hear being raised in a completely deaf household.
Interesting topic? Sure, why not? But powerful or deep? Not particularly. There was never much conflict in the film, so the victories were never too sweet, nor were the defeats too traumatic. The young girl’s name is Ruby, played by Emilia Jones. She grows up in a loving household with loving parents, Frank and Jackie, wonderfully played by Troy Kotsur and the always amazing Marlee Matlin. She even gets along with her supportive brother, Leo, played by Daniel Durant.
There were only three other characters in the movie that really affected the plot. First was Gertie, Ruby’s best friend, played by Amy Forsyth. Next was Miles, Ruby’s love interest, played by Ferdia Walsh-Peelo. And finally, there was Bernardo Villalobos, Ruby’s choir teacher, played by Eugenio Derbez, otherwise known as Mr. V. So the cast was small, the drama was small, and the story itself was small… I’m sorry, but if I was an Academy voter, I wouldn’t have voted for CODA. I mean, as a film, it was good, but I don’t think it was great.
It just didn’t have enough power. Now, I know, power is not a necessity for a Best Picture winner. There have been other small films that have taken home the Oscar for Best Picture, that were completely deserving. But now that I’ve seen all the other movies that were nominated this year, I think I would have voted for King Richard. It was just a more engaging movie. CODA was too mild, too predictable, and just too small. But I don’t want it to sound like I didn’t enjoy the movie, because I did. I just enjoyed the other film more.
So what was it about CODA that earned it the Best Picture Award? Well, for one thing, it was the positive representation of the deaf characters. When most of us think of deaf people, we think of them as being handicapped, almost putting them on the same level as blind people, people who have a certain level of difficulty functioning in normal society. But CODA, while it is really Ruby’s story, is almost more about showing the audience how normal, functional, independent, self-sufficient, and capable deaf families really are. There were times in the film where Ruby’s story, the main plot of the film, felt almost secondary, as if the film was about this deaf family and the difficulties they faced, instead of a coming-of-age movie. And I don’t think that was intentional. Fortunately, that didn’t happen too often, but it did happen.
In a mild little twist to the overall narrative, Ruby, whose parents and brother are deaf, finds that she has talent as a singer. As she learns to develop her talent, she starts to learn that she can have a life outside of being her family’s interpreter, their connection with the speaking world. As a result, she feels torn between her loyalty to her family who depends on her, and her desire to become her own person.
One of the most interesting things in the film was a scene where Ruby is trying to express her love of singing to her mother, who is dismissive of Ruby’s feelings. Jackie mistakenly sees Ruby as a daughter who is just being rebellious. She even asks, “If I was blind, would you want to paint?” As a mother, she doesn’t understand that her daughter’s aspirations are not about herself. But again, the fight never got too intense. It was a simple argument, and there was no schism in their relationship.
One of the themes in the movie was that Ruby had a difficult childhood. The popular girls made fun of her because of her family. But Ruby seemed to deal with them in a mature fashion, so no real conflict there. Although, I did find it interesting to learn that many CODAs face a similar problem in school. During their early years, they do not have parents who can teach them to speak. They learn sign language, but when they make it to school, they can’t speak like the rest of the children. I’ve never thought about that, but it makes sense. Actually that might have made for a more interesting story, one about a CODA going through that struggle. But that would be a different movie.
Another little interesting fact was touched on, and that is that deaf people cannot enjoy music, a misconception that many people believe. In fact, they can, just not in the same way that hearing people can. For example, Frank liked rap music because of the heavy base that can be felt. But the movie touched on a number of those little details about deaf people that I actually never gave much thought to. The problem is that while those little facts were interesting, they weren’t terribly engaging or draamatic.
So again, I come back to the question, why was this film given so much acclaim? And the only answer I can come up with it the quality of the acting. To start with, It is important to note that Troy Kotsur won the Academy award for Best Supporting Actor. He really did a fantastic job. There is a great scene where Frank and Jackie go to see Ruby perform in a concert. There is a moment when Ruby is singing a duet with Miles. The camera pans around Frank and the sound cuts out. At first I thought the look on his face was confusion. But that wouldn’t make sense. He knows what being deaf is. So really it was a complex combination of wonder, understanding, and acceptance, as he sees how the other members of the audience have a real emotional response to his daughter’s voice in a way he thinks he cannot. But then later that night, he asks Ruby to sing the song for him as he puts his hands on her throat, and feels the vibrations made by her voice. He is nearly brought to tears, and it was a beautiful scene.
Interesting note: As a well-known actress who happens to be deaf, Marlee Matlin was the first cast member brought on board. When the producers wanted to hire hearing actors to play other deaf roles, Matlin threatened to pull out of the film, insisting that they hire deaf actors to play opposite her. Good for her.
And Matlin is one of those actors who I’ve always loved. I don’t think of her as a deaf actor. I think of her as an actor who happens to be deaf. What I mean is that she is a very talented actress, first and foremost. The fact that she is deaf is inconsequential. She is just a great actress. If you have any doubt of that, just watch her in 1986’s Children of a Lesser God, or even one of my favorite TV shows, The West Wing.
And finally, there was the third actor who was deaf, Daniel Durant. I loved him and I loved his character. He was the first in his family to stand up for Ruby’s desire to be a singer, saying that the family could get by without holding her back by insisting that she stay with them forever to be their link to the hearing world. He recognized that such a situation was only in the family’s best interest, and not in Ruby’s. He is the one who pushed her to follow her dream, even if it took her away from them. He played a young man who wanted the world to deal with him on his own terms, and not the other way around. And I have to say, he was pretty nice to look at, too. I liked how they romantically paired him up with Ruby’s friend Gertie.
There’s something else I liked about the movie that I think needs to be mentioned. The family was a professional fishing family. They owned their own boat. However, there was a scene in which they are fishing, and Ruby isn’t with them. When the Coast Guard tries to contact them on the radio, and even when they approach them in the water, Frank and Leo cannot hear them approach. Because of this, their fishing license is suspended. The film almost tries to make us feel sorry for them, but I have to applaud the reality of that situation. And the reality is that if you cannot hear the Coast Guard, then you are a potential danger to yourselves and to others. But I think the point of the scene was that either Ruby should have been with them, or they should not have gone fishing. It emphasized how much they depended on Ruby for their living, no matter what she wanted for herself.
Interesting note: According to Wikipedia, there was a certain amount of criticism from the deaf community, itself, saying that “The film’s depiction of the hearing child interpreting for her parents even in settings where professional interpreters would be required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, such as a court hearing and medical appointments, received widespread criticism as being misrepresentative.”
But I have to remind myself that this wasn’t a movie about the challenges faced by deaf people. It was a coming-of-age story. And what’s one of those without a young romance. But I’m sorry. The romance wasn’t particularly intense, passionate, sweet, or even engaging. It was there, and it was nice. But unfortunately, I didn’t get much out of it. There was an amusing moment where Ruby and Miles are in her room practicing their duet when they hear Frank and Jackie having sex. Being deaf, they weren’t particularly aware of just how loud they were being. Ruby is forced to interrupt them by going into the room and flashing the lights on and off. Not knowing what else to do, Frank and Jackie sit Ruby and Miles down and tell them, in sign-language, to use protection when they have sex. It was a pretty funny scene.
And lest I forget, I have to talk about the character of Mr. V. I can’t decide if I liked him or not. As a teacher, he was kind of a jerk, at first. He talked down to the students and came close to making fun of them individually during the first choir class. I didn’t like him until he decided to take Ruby on as a personal voice student. Then, he was very unsympathetic about her and her personal situation. But in a way, that, at least, was realistic. I have been in choirs all my life, and most of them, from school teachers to professional directors, have the opinion that if you are in their choir, then your commitment to the choir comes first, before everything else in your life. If it is the most important thing to them, then it should be the most important thing to you. Fortunately, by the end of the movie, we end up liking him.
Interesting note: In doing a little reading about the film, I found it interesting to learn that they are planning a stage version of the movie, and of course, they want it to be a musical.
That being said, yes, there was music in the film. There had to be, as Ruby’s whole story arc revolves around her being a singer. As for that, Emilia Jones and Ferda Walsh-Peelo did their own singing, and I have to say I was rather unimpressed with their voices. They weren’t bad, but I think I would place them on the high end of average. When Ruby goes to her big audition to get into Berkley School of Music, she sings a song which I have always liked. She sang Both Sides Now by Joni Mitchell. I’ve always loved the gentle and yet almost profound lyrics. It is a beautiful song, and Jones sang it competently. I question whether an admissions panel would allow the audition to continue if the candidate’s family is in the theatre. Maybe they would, but they shouldn’t, especially if none of the other candidates were allowed to have their families there.
So she signs the lyrics to the music, and sings to her family, which gives her the confidence to sing the song beautifully. And lo and behold, she makes it into Berkley School of Music. That was a bit predictable. They wanted to have that feel-good ending. They wanted that wonderful shot of the family in a group hug before she is driven away to college. It was nice, but that was about it. It just wasn’t that profound for me. I think I was supposed to get a little teary, but I just didn’t. There was nothing wrong with the ending, but it didn’t grab me like a Best Picture winner is supposed to.
Still, was it a good movie? Yes. It wasn’t great, but it was good. Is it important to have positive representations of deaf people in films? Of course it is, and this one did a fine job of that. But should it have won Best Picture? Like I said… I would have voted for King Richard. Despite the important deaf angle, King Richard was just a better movie.
This was a small and intimate film which was directed by Kenneth Branagh. It was a very personal film for him, and was somewhat based on his own childhood and experiences, growing up in Norther Ireland, right around the time when The Troubles started. And just to get it out of the way, I’ll mention here that the film seemed to imply, at times, that the terrible conflict and the riots were religiously motivated, the Protestants and that the Catholics were fighting each other, but in truth, The Troubles was a political struggle, which the movie didn’t really address.
But I suppose that was appropriate. Most of the narrative was told from the perspective of a nine year old boy named Buddy, excellently played by Jude Hill. In that respect, a child wouldn’t really understand the politics of the situation, but the simple difference between the two religious denominations would be easier for him to grasp. There is even a scene where Buddy is talking with his cousin, Moira, played by Lara McDonnell, about how to tell the difference between a Protestant and a Catholic, which to the children, is apparently by their family name.
But the real conflict in the film is the fact that Buddy’s father, known only as Pa, and played by Jamie Dornan, and his mother, Ma, played by Caitriona Balfe, disagree about whether to remain in Belfast, which is becoming more dangerous by the day, or to leave, and go to England, where Pa has a good job. Ma is so set against leaving because she has always lived in Belfast in a community where she, the kids, and the extended family, grandparents, cousins, aunts, and uncles, are all looked after by the whole community. This conflict is only resolved at the climax of the film, where a known, if not trusted neighbor, Billy Clanton, played by Colin Morgan, nearly murders Pa in the street during a riot, over his refusal to take a side in the political struggle of The Troubles. Ma finally sees that her home is no longer safe, and the next time we see them, they are leaving Belfast.
And lest I forget, I have to mention four other characters who were important to the film. There was Buddy’s older brother, Will, played by Lewis McAskie. While Will wasn’t really crucial to the story, he rounded out the family nicely. But then there was Buddy’s classmate, Catherine, played by Olive Tennant. She was the smart girl who Buddy had a crush on. She was the focus of a cute and almost romantic subplot that ended when Buddy’s family left for England.
But very important to the story was Buddy’s grandparents, Pop and Granny, beautifully played by veteran actors Ciaran Hinds and Judi Dench. Hinds was like the philosophical voice of romance and reason in the film, offering Buddy sage advice about love and passion, while Granny was a strong and independent soul who showed pragmatism and determination in the face of struggle, a stereotypically Irish trait, one might say. And I happen to think that Judi Dench is one of those actors who can do no wrong. Once again, she was wonderful.
There are several themes in the film that were apparent to me as I was watching. One is that there is real value in being part of a community that looks after its own. Another is knowing when that community is no longer functioning in that capacity. It was a difficult lesson for the family to learn, and yet to recognize that the dreams of your childhood don’t always suffice to keep what you love safe in an adult world. Another theme that was beautifully and lovingly touched on was that of acceptance, something that was driven home as the Protestant family is waiting at the bus-stop at the end of the movie. Pa takes Buddy to say goodbye to Catherine, who happens to be a Catholic. Pa tells his son that if the Catholics are good people, their religion makes no difference, and they would always be welcome in his home.
The movie was mostly filmed in black and white, but it was an interesting directorial choice to have color at key moments. In the beginning, as the opening credits are being shown, a modern day Belfast is being shown in color, but as soon as we are taken back to the late sixties, everything goes to black and white. But even then, whenever Buddy is watching a movie, or going to a play, the fictions within the movie are in color. For example, the family went to a production of A Christmas Carol, and the actors in the play were in color. Or when they went to see Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang, the image on the screen of the movie house was in color. I’m guessing this was supposed to show how the young Kenneth Branagh’s childhood… I mean Buddy’s childhood, was elevated by the movies he saw.
This movie’s strength was in its really powerful performances by it fantastic cast, namely the child actor who carried most of the film, Jude Hill. He was a natural. He seemed to be at ease in front of the camera, and was able to keep up with the rest of the cast, even in small in intimate scenes with the likes of Judi Dench and Jamie Dornan. The movie was only a little more than an hour and a half long, but I feel that I really got a good sense of who Buddy was, and that tells me he did his job well. If I had any complaints, it would only be that I wish they had shown more actual danger because of The Troubles. It might have given the light drama a little more weight, if I had felt a stronger sense of danger for the family.
When I sat down to watch this movie, I really didn’t know what to expect, other than a Western. It was certainly that, but it was very complex, transcending the Western genre. The setting just happened to be in a Montana cattle herding community in the mid-1920s. But I can almost see how the story might have easily been translated to just about any other time and place, if not for the ending. The climax of the film was pretty specific to the setting.
The narrative had several different themes. One explored the extremes a son would go to in order to protect his mother. Another examined homosexuals in a typically straight and macho environment. There were themes of desire, regret, love, and understanding. The problem, is that for the first half of the movie, it was difficult to tell what those themes were. Director Jane Campion did a pretty good job, taking her time in that first half, to establish characters, and letting us get to know them on more than just a surface level.
Benedict Cumberbatch played Phil Burbank, a college educated man who chose to live the rough and uncouth life of a cattle rancher. He is a hard man who established his dominance over everyone around him by being mean and constantly putting people down. Even his own brother, George, played by Jesse Plemons, is a victim of Phil’s acerbic demeanor. He calls George Fatso, a nickname that the gentle and kind-hearted George just accepts.
George falls in love with the lovely widow, Rose, played by Kirsten Dunst. Rose’s almost comically effeminate son, Peter, played by Kodi Smit-McPhee, is a medical student who is clearly gay. His very presence seems to violently irritate Phil. When George marries Rose in secret, and brings her to be the lady of the Burbank homestead, Phil believes she is a gold-digger who is only after the Burbank family’s money. He refuses to accept her as his sister-in-law, and makes her feel like an unwanted interloper in her own house. His treatment of her drives her to become a terrible alcoholic, the worst kept secret at the ranch.
But later on, we discover that Phil, himself, is a closeted homosexual, who once had an undefined, yet possibly physical relationship with his old mentor, Bronco Henry. After Peter accidentally discovers Phil’s secret, Phil changes his attitude toward the boy, and begins to mentor Peter in how to be a rancher, and the two become strange friends, something which horrifies Rose. Unable to get away from Phil’s abrasive attentions, she sinks deeper into her self-destructive addiction. That much story brings us to nearly two thirds of the way through the film. I was following the story, but I didn’t really understand what the point of the narrative was. I didn’t get it. I was trying to figure out why this movie received so much attention. Why did it receive eleven nomination at the Academy Awards? Yes, the acting was good, but what was it about the story that earned a Best Picture nod? I mean, the characters were pretty well fleshed-out but the plot just wasn’t very gripping, and the slightly slow pace of the film didn’t help. But then the last part of the movie brought it all together, and the power of the story was revealed.
So here’s the big spoiler. It is a question I have to ask because when the movie was over, I spent some time thinking about it. And when I came up with the answer, it all made sense. It made the story good, and the drama great. The question was, did Peter purposefully murder Phil, and the answer is a resounding yes. In order to save his mother from the dangerous Phil, Peter, being a medical student, knowingly exposed Phil to anthrax, despite the man’s obviously growing affection for him. It was a strange ending to the movie that turned out to be powerful, showing Peter as a much stronger character than he had been portrayed to be. He manipulated Phil, allowing him to believe in a bond made out of their shared sexualities, and then murdered him for driving his mother to drink. And after Phil’s death, it is shown that Rose sobered up. The fact that Peter only handled the lasso while wearing rubber gloves proved that he knew what he had done. Watch the movie and you’ll know what I’m talking about.
The ending surprised me. I wasn’t expecting murder, but like I said, it made complete sense, and elevated the film from vaguely bland and slightly confusing, to deep and complex. And the acting from the ensemble cast was fantastic. Of course Cumberbatch was incredible, but then, he pretty much always is. I was actually really impressed with Plemons and Dunst, as well. Dunst has come a long way since the first time I ever saw her on film, in Interview With a Vampire. But Plemons, who I have only seen in a few films, and always in supporting roles, was perfectly cast, and he did a great job.
As I mentioned, before watching The Power of the Dog, I had no idea what the movie was about. But now, it is a movie I’m glad I watched. It is a movie that was very well made, and I’m surprised that out of its eleven Oscar nominations, it only took home one. That was the Best Director award for Jane Campion. It was a well-deserved Oscar, but honestly, I’m surprised it didn’t win for Best Cinematography or Best Score. Both were stunning.
Before seeing this movie, I was really questioning why a remake needed to be done of such a great film from 1961. The earlier version was so good that it took home the Oscar for Best Picture. The dancing was beyond incredible. The music was fantastic. What more could a modern filmmaker bring to the table? But now that I’ve seen the film, I get it. I understand why it was done, and I loved it!
There are three kinds of remakes that I can really appreciate. First is the kind that follows the original so closely that it is like an homage. The second is the kind that can use modern visual effects and filmmaking techniques that the original could not have done. And then there is this. Directed by Stephen Spielberg, the only thing about this movie that was not updated in a significant and fantastic way was the music and lyrics. If you change those things, it is no longer the same show, and I wouldn’t exactly call that a remake. And besides, Leonard Bernstein and Stephen Sondheim’s work can’t really be improved upon, as it is pretty much perfection.
But the book was updated, in very large and significant ways. A few songs were put in different places in the show, so that while the music and lyrics were exactly the same, they took on completely new meanings. Minor characters who were important to the plot were given more fully fleshed out personalities, allowing their actions to have more weight. Major characters were given plausible backstories, making their story arcs more meaningful and relatable. The aesthetics of the film were given a more modern and gritty makeover, making it seem no longer like a filmed stage-play, but a completely realized movie grounded in the real world. It was fantastic, and completely appropriate, because the basic story remained the same. Even all the dialogue was modernized, while keeping the story the same.
For example, the street gang, the Jets, were depicted as dirty, tough, juvenile delinquents. They were actually scary because their fights weren’t choreographed dance fights. In the fight at the beginning of the movie, and at the rumble, later in the film, they tried to beat the crap out of their rivals. The vandalized public property. They habitually stole things from local stores. And yet they were kids. The sharks were actually portrayed as more civilized and home oriented.
But here they were given aspirations and dreams. They were given relationships and realistic motivations. They went from being two-dimensional characters to realistic three-dimensional people. For example, in the 1961 film, how much did we really know about Bernardo? He was leader of the Sharks, and he was Maria’s brother, and Anita’s boyfriend. But here he is a professional boxer. He is in America, though not by choice, acting as the head of the household, in which he and the two women all pay rent.
But there were two minor characters who were brought out into the foreground a bit and we got to know them and their motivations. One was the character of Anybodys. Here, they made her a trans-boy, a girl who thinks of herself as a boy, and so, is attracted to women. I think it was brave and smart to turn the tomboy into a trans-boy. It modernized the character without changing his function in the narrative, and it was great to have the minority represented in such a positive way.
But for me, the most significant character update was that of Chino. In the original, he was barely there. He was an afterthought. But here, they made him Bernardo’s best friend with plans to be a respectable accountant. They gave him a likeable personality, giving weight to his decisions, emotions, and actions. They showed how his feelings were hurt when Maria left him at the dance. It allowed us to understand why he hunts down Tony and murders him in the story’s climax. And it allows us to feel bad for him as he is taken into custody by the police.
And those weren’t the only two minor characters who got fleshed out. The character of Doc was changed to Doc’s wife, and was played by Rita Moreno, who of course played Anita in the 1961 film. They also gave the song There’s a Place for Us to her, as a serious and touching backdrop to the terrible things that the street gangs were doing, all in the name of hate and intolerance. It was very well done.
But I also have to make mention of another significant difference in this wonderful remake. They used Latino actors to play the Puerto Ricans, not white people with dark makeup. And here, their modernized staging put a ton of extras as regular background actors, a realistic, busy New York, something that was strangely missing from the 1961 movie.
But I would be remiss if I didn’t name some of the wonderful actors like Ansel Elgort as Tony, Rachel Zelger as Maria, Ariana DeBose as Maria, David Alvarez as Bernardo, and Mike Faist as Riff. They all did a great job, and boy, could they dance, especially Alvarez and DeBose. And I’ll say it again, I loved Josh Andres Rivera as Chino and Iris Menas as Anybodys. I loved all the wonderful updates that made this a worthy remake that I wouldn’t mind owning in my personal collection.
I honestly didn’t know what to expect when I sat down to watch this movie. The trailer made it look like a psychological thriller set in a gothic and mysterious carnival freak-show, and there was that element to the narrative. But it was a lot more. There was no supernatural element to the story as I had expected, which actually worked very well. In fact, the story goes out of its way to show you how some of the mysteries work, the trickery used by the carnies to guide their audiences into fooling themselves. But that’s just the setting.
The movie is actually about how one man, through greed and hubris, caused his own downfall. Bradley cooper played Stan Carlisle, a drifter in 1939, who wanders into a carnival, where he takes a job from the owner of the carnival, Clem, played by Willem Dafoe. Cooper turns in yet another great performance, and I have yet to see Dafoe not act the hell out of whatever part he is playing. Other carnival performers are Toni Collette, playing Madame Zeena, and her husband Pete, played by David Strathairn. He falls for Molly, the electric girl, played by Rooney Mara, and meets her guardian, Bruno, the strong man, played by Ron Pearlman.
The second act of the movie moves to Buffalo and the wealthy elite, where Stan and Molly start their own show at a fancy nightclub. They are so convincing that they attract the attention of psychologist Lilith Ritter, played by Kate Blanchette, Judge Kimball and his wife, played by Peter MacNeill and Mary Steenburgen. Also the super-rich Ezra Grindle, played by Richard Jenkins. So there are quite a few big names in the ensemble cast, which is always pretty impressive. The actors all knew what they were doing and did a great job. No complaints there.
But I have to make special mention of Toni Collette. I have never seen her turn in a bad performance, and she really stood out to me here. She had this strange serenity about her that made her draw my focus. She was perfect as the tarot-reading Madame Zeena. The first movie I ever saw her in was Muriel’s Wedding, which came out in 1994. I also loved her in The Sixth Sense in 1999. But she also proved she could play a common woman in a great comedy in 2006, in Little Miss Sunshine. She was great in those films, and she was great in this one. She has come a long way, and she’s doing great. Good for her!
Something else I loved about the film was the aesthetics. In the first half of the movie, there was the dark and mysterious carnival, which has a gothic charm all its own. But the second half of the movie switched gears, and had a gorgeous Art Deco style that has always grabbed my attention in a good way. From the set designs, to the costumes, to the hair and makeup, I love the look of everything. And the haunting score by Nathan Johnson was a wonderful backdrop to the dark and sometimes horrifying narrative, something that is fairly indicative of director Guillermo del Toro’s style. He seems to have a knack for those dark themes with disturbing images, and I generally like what he directs.
As I consider about it, I think one of the themes in the film are the dangers of temptation, not only from greed, but also of alcohol. In the beginning, Stan makes a point of staying away from drink, like an alcoholic who has sworn off liquor. But through his criminal con-artist association with Lilith Ritter, he begins to drink again, which leads to his eventual catastrophic and horrific downfall. Even the supporting character of Pete is shown to have ruined a successful career as a side-show mentalist because of an addiction to alcohol. And he ignored Pete’s rule of never making people believe you could talk to the dead. Only bad things could come from that, and boy, did they ever.
But if I look at the film in a different way, it is also a bit of a study about the dangers of the seven deadly sins. At one point or another in the movie, Stan falls prey to each one of them, greed, lust, wrath, pride, sloth, envy, and gluttony, as long as you can substitute alcoholism for gluttony. And the choices he makes, only lead him further and further down into a spiral of self-destructiveness. He falls so far that in the end, in order to get that next drink, that next sip of alcohol, he puts himself on a path of self-pity and misery that can only end in his own horrifying death. The ending was just chilling. And it emphasizes the idea that Stan is a man who just doesn’t know when to quit. As a lead character he goes on that journey and has a powerful story arch. From low to high in both love and success, and back down to low, all because he didn’t know when to walk away from his con.
So really, this movie wasn’t at all like I expected, but I really liked the story. It was unique and well-written. But apparently, it wasn’t as original as I had thought. it took very little reading on my part to discover that this is actually a remake of a 1947 film of the same name, which, in itself, was based on a novel by William Lindsay Gresham. I was actually a little surprised by this because there were some pretty disturbing themes in the film, and I wouldn’t have thought that a film from the 1940s would have tackled the dark subject matter. Now, I’m curious to find that original film version, just to see what the differences are. And I can only imagine what kinds of things had to be left out from the original novel.
I find myself thinking of the quote by Mark Twain. “My books are water, those of the great geniuses is wine. Everybody Drinks water.” Drive My Car is the wine. It was a deep and complex movie that explored themes of grief, loss, and regret. It had some really beautiful cinematography and a very somber and dramatic score. The problem is… I’m not terribly fond of wine. Some film critics call this movie a masterpiece by Director Ryusuke Hamaguchi and it has a high score on film aggregation websites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. But my goodness, it was so slow, making it feel like they were just trying way too hard to be deep.
The movie was three hours long and it felt like six. The pacing of the movie was glacial! I’m not saying it needed to be as fast paced as an action film, but there were too many lengthy establishing shots, scenes that could have been shortened, dialogue that could have been cut. I think a film with this little actual story would have been just fine with a two hour run-time, but maybe I’m wrong about that.
So here’s the plot, in a nutshell. Yusuke Kafuku is a theatre director, played by Hidetoshi Nishijima. His wife Oto, played by Reika Kirishima. Kafuku knows his wife cheats on him regularly, but he still loves her, and knows that she loves him. Unfortunately, one day, she dies of a brain hemorrhage. Two years later, he agrees to direct a multilingual production of Chekov’s Uncle Vanya in Hiroshima, and a condition of the theatre company is that the director must have a hired driver. He is not allowed to drive his own car. We then meet Misaki, a young girl who is a professional driver, played by Toko Miura.
As fate would have it, one of his wife’s lovers, Koji Takatsuki, played by Masaki Okada, auditions for a role. Yusuke casts him in the lead, and the two men get to know each other. But Koji is forced to leave the production when he is arrested for murder. Yusuke must take on the demanding role himself, but in order to do so, he must first get past his grief over Oto’s death and the regret he feels for never having confronted her about her infidelities. We also learn that Misaki had issues with an abusive mother. Together, and seemingly in a single two-day period, Yusuki and Misaki face the demons of their past and overcome them. That’s the bare bones of the narrative.
So, on the surface, it is a simplistic plot. But the overall feeling of depression that permeates the story is strong, and it is interesting to see how Yusuke deals with his emotions, or I should say, how he doesn’t deal with them. He seems to ignore his own feelings. He had every right to be outraged, or at the very least hurt, by his wife’s habitual cheating. But in order to keep his perceived balance in their marital relationship, he allows her behavior without comment or complaint. And when she died, he had every right to feel cheated by fate. Yet accepts her death with a kind of sad resignation. The only other indication he is upset is that he cannot continue his performance as the lead in Chekhov’s Uncle Vanya.
And it isn’t until the cathartic scene in the end, which he shares with Misaki, that he puts his anger with his wife and his anger with her untimely death into words. It was a powerful scene. I often think of it as a common trait of Japanese people and culture to strictly keep one’s emotions to one’s self. So it is always pretty intense when someone who is a part of that culture breaks down in tears. And Nishijima did a great job letting us see that side of his character that is normally so guarded.
Misaki’s story was given far less attention and so her catharsis seemed a little less important to the narrative than it could have been. Her mother used to beat her. But having a kind of split personality, would take on the persona of a young child, the same age as her daughter, to console Misaki in her pain. Then when an avalanche crushed their house, and the young girl escaped, she made a decision not to save her mother. Thus, in allowing the abusive mother to die, she also killed the sweet comforter. But the films ends making it clear that after their shared catharsis, they were both able to move on with their lives. And apparently, as a symbol of the bond that was created between them, and as a way to leave his past behind him, Yusuke gives his beloved car to Misaki. So, happy ending, I guess. It just took so long to get there!
One thing that the filmmakers did that I found interesting was to put the opening credits in a strange place. They put them about forty minutes into the movie, during a traveling montage that took place in the two years following Oto’s death. I’m not sure that worked for me. It was distracting me from the story a bit, though I suppose it could be thought of as a way to divide the story between the past and the present, as if the first forty minutes was a prologue.
Two other actors who deserve to be recognized are Jin Dae-yeon playing Gong Yoon-soo, one of the program directors at the theatre company, and his wife Lee Yoo-na, played by Park Yu-Rim, who acted her part in Uncle Vanya in Korean sign language. I liked their characters. As I think about it, I wonder if I would have understood the drama of the film better if I knew Chekov’s play Uncle Vanya.
Before watching this film, I was talking about it with a friend who told me that it was a really good movie. I said that I just wasn’t terribly interested in the subject matter. I’ve never been a tennis fan, and I never followed the careers of Venus or Serena Williams. But he replied that that didn’t matter, and insisted that it was just a good movie, despite my lack of interest in the sport. I’m happy to say that he was absolutely right. I enjoyed the drama of the film, and even found myself getting into the tennis aspect, as well.
First of all, this movie was about more than just the superstar tennis players, the Williams sisters. And it was even about more than the inspired father who guided the girls into greatness, after whom the film was named. This was a movie that was inspirational and had that feel good quality. At the end of the film, you just feel good about the story. It not only tells the story of how Venus and Serena began their spectacular careers, but how they did it with great attitudes, grace, humility, and respect for themselves and the game. I don’t mean to sound hokey, but they were clean in spirit and that really stood out to me, and I think that was part of what made the movie special.
Will Smith played the lead as Richard Williams, the patriarch of the family. If the film is to be believed as historically accurate, and according to the filmmakers, it is, he conceived of a plan to make superstars of his kids before they were even born. One of the first things he talks about in the movie is his seventy-eight page plan for his daughters and their tennis careers. He spends their lives training them on the public tennis courts in Compton, California, bringing them to a level of skill where a professional trainer can take them on for free because of their unlimited potential. The coach’s payment would come out of their future earnings, which, per his plan, would be in the millions. It’s an ambitious plan.
As always, Will Smith turned in a fantastic performance, and honestly I hope it won’t be his last. Unfortunately, I can’t write this review without mentioning what has become known as the Oscar Slap. I’ll try to be brief. After Smith won the Oscar for Best Actor for his role in King Richard, Oscar host Chris Rock made an incredibly insensitive joke about Jada Pinkett Smith, Will’s wife, and Will lost control of himself. He walked onto the stage and smacked Rock in the face. I won’t comment on whether it was right or wrong, or if it was justified or not. What I will say is that I haven’t seen his name in any new film roles since then, and I hope he hasn’t ruined his career, because he really is a fantastic actor.
But he wasn’t the only great member of the cast. I was also very impressed with Aunjanue Ellis who played Richard’s wife, Oracene Price. She was a great match for Smith and did a great job in both the argument scenes and the tender moments. She played the strong mother and the devoted wife with equal conviction, and I loved her performance. And I can’t forget the children. There were five in all. Oracene’s three children from her first marriage, Tunde, Isha, and Lyndrea Price, played respectively by Mikayla LaShae Bartholomew, Danielle Lawson, and Layla Crawford, were good.
But it was the two girls playing the young Venus and Serena who were, of course, the heart of the narrative. Saniyya Sidney played Venus, who the movie really focused on, as it was Venus whose career began sooner than her sister. But I can’t ignore Demi Singleton, who played Serena. They both did a fantastic job, but for very different performances. In the film, Venus got all the attention, and Sidney had to play with that dynamic. But Singleton had to play the sister with just as much talent and potential, who had to live in Venus’s shadow.
I felt really bad for the character of Serena because it was true. She seemed to be getting the short end of the stick. Now, we all know that Serena made just as big a name for herself as her sister did, so we always know her turn will come, but the timeframe of the film was before that happened. One of the best little scenes in the movie is where Richard joins Serena on the sidelines and explains to her that yes, for now Venus is going to be the best tennis player in the world. But he confidently tells Serena that she is going to be the best there ever was. To me, that scene was so important.
And I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the two coaches: Tony Goldwyn, playing Paul Cohen, and Jon Bernthal, playing Rick Macci. They both did a great job, especially Bernthal. They both had to portray the same difficulty and exasperation of dealing with Richard who, though his plan was unconventional and, quite honestly, presumptuous, was ultimately right. They saw the talent and potential in the girls, and went out of their way to help them.
This was a good movie. It doesn’t matter if you are a tennis fan or of you are a fan of the Williams sisters. It was just a good movie, and I’m glad it was nominated for Best picture. This movie, to me, seems to embody what a Best picture nominee should be. It was historically accurate, dramatic, inspirational, wholesome, well-acted, well-directed, intense, heart-warming, and easy to watch.
OK, I don’t get it. Whatever it is about this movie that earned it a Best Picture nomination, I don’t understand. First, and foremost, I found the movie pretty close to dull and uninteresting. I wasn’t invested in any of the characters, and when I mention the characters, I mean there were really only two, but I’ll get to that in a moment. This is a coming-of-age movie, a genre that has rarely held much interest for me in the first place. But to get me invested in the story, the movie lacked the benefit of having relatable or even likable characters. The actors were fine, but the parts they played were just… jerks.
The film followed the young romance between the fifteen year-old Gary, and the twenty-five year-old Alana, played by Cooper Hoffman and Alana Haim. It is important to note that this was the debut film for both actors, and they played their parts quite admirably. I don’t know if I was supposed to like the characters they played, but I just didn’t. Alana was mean and manipulative. Gary was like a sleazy sexual predator who objectified women. And by the end of the movie, I just didn’t really care if they ended up together or not, though you knew they would.
And as I mentioned, these were really the only characters in the film. Every other actor in the movie was either a walk on role with a minimum of screen time, or a character who was often on the screen, but rarely addressed or acknowledged. And that’s a strange thing because some very recognizable names were in the movie, like Bradley Cooper, Sean Penn, Maya Rudolph, Tom Waits, and Mary Elizabeth Ellis. You’d think that with names like that, they would have used them a little more. As it was, they each got a very minimal amount of screen time. They were like glorified cameos, appearing in a single sequence, and then never seen again. The only story arc that lasted more than a single scene was that of the two leads, Gary and Alana.
Another thing I didn’t particularly care for was the plot. The movie depended a little too much on the will they or won’t they trope. They’re friends, they’re fighting. They’re friends again, they’re fighting again. And we all know they were going to end up together because right near the beginning of the movie, Gary tells his younger brother, “I just met the girl I’m going to marry.” So I never really doubted that his prediction would come true.
I think that one of the things that the movie, as a whole, banked too much on was the whole nostalgia angle. The story took place in 1973, and the clothes, the hairstyles, the cars, and the general aesthetics were all very period specific. But unless you were already culturally aware that year, none of the nostalgia had much meaning. The movie was written, directed, and produced by Paul Anderson. In my reading, I learned that most of the film directly reflected his own childhood and experiences, or those of a friend of his. I suppose there’s nothing wrong with that, but I just didn’t find his childhood experiences that interesting to watch on-screen.
As for the performances of Haim and Hoffman, I’d have to say that they were both good, but there were moments when Hoffman was great. He played a teenager who seemed to have the maturity, ambition, and charm of a man in his twenties, and Hoffman pulled it off well. When his face first appeared on the screen, I immediately recognized his resemblance to his famous father Philip Seymour Hoffman, and it was clear he inherited some of his dad’s skills as an actor. Haim was competent, but nothing to really write home about.
And I also have to make note of Bradley Cooper, playing the part of Jon Peters, who was, in 1973, dating Barbara Streisand. His scene was funny because cooper played the movie mogul as a womanizer who was high on something. He was actually pretty funny. But again, he was in a short sequence of the film and then never seen again. We never saw anyone playing Streisand, but we did see Christine Ebersole playing Lucille Ball, though in the credits, she is listed as Lucy Doolittle, though why they had to change her last name is beyond me, especially since they were very specific about other historical figures.
And finally, I have to comment on the film’s title. Licorice Pizza. Why was the film titled Licorice Pizza? It was never mentioned, nor was it ever made reference to in the movie. Well, it is because the director, Paul Thomas Anderson, was quoted as saying “If there’s two words that make me kind of have a Pavlovian response and memory of being a child and running around, it’s ‘licorice’ and ‘pizza.’ It instantly takes me back to that time.” The problem is that if you weren’t aware that there was a chain of record stores in Los Angeles called Licorice Pizza Record Store, then the title would mean nothing to you. It wouldn’t bring back memories or inspire nostalgia. It would just be confusing, like it was to me.
But I’m not saying this was a bad movie. It just didn’t really stand out to me as Best Picture material. It had some good acting, I suppose, and it had a good 70s and earlier rock music soundtrack, and a couple of interesting cameos. But for me, that was about it, and I wanted something more. And when you put it next to some of the other nominees for 2021, it just didn’t compare.
