What’s the psychological and moral cost to a
society that administers the death penalty? That’s the question raised in Clemency, the winner of the Sundance drama award last year.
So much more than a “death-row drama” ,
Clemency shifts the lens to the
impact of bureaucratized
human cruelty: a scathing
portrait of the toll the process of administering an execution has on prison
staff. We see how they are not executioners but bureaucratic cogs in a horrible
machine of death.
Sixty-something Bernadine (the remarkable African American actor Alfre Woodard in an Academy Award-worthy performance) prides herself on her professionalism in presiding over a dozen lethal injection executions. But the compartmentalization of her professional and emotional life is beginning to unspool. The first half of Clemency focuses on a perfectly impassive blankness and rigidity that masks Bernadine’s emotional self.
She’s experienced something no human should– a dozen times. The unnerving and opposing forces wrestling inside Bernadine’s mind begin to be magnified as we witness her heartbreaking need for redemption, etched on her face as if her feelings are surfacing for the first time. Something has broken in Bernadine. And her marriage to empathetic schoolteacher Jonathan (Wendell Pierce) is lost. She can no longer process her world separate from being a warden.
Clemency‘s central plot includes a death-row inmate’s perspective–Anthony Woods (Aldis Hodge in a career-defining performance)–who has been in prison for fifteen years: accused and convicted of killing a police officer during a robbery. As his appeals for clemency filed by his deeply committed lawyer (Richard Schiff) have been denied, Anthony Woods is also complicated and emotionally shut down. Both Bernadine and Anthony Woods are maddeningly emotionless and flawed. Bernadine’s womanhood and blackness are inextricable from her sense of professionalism, but she cannot be reduced to either. And Anthony Woods, a young black man, never rages about possible injustice. The viewer wonders: Who needs the clemency more? The warden or the prisoner? Maybe it’s both.
A lot of performances get praised for subtlety
that are merely wooden or impassive. Alfre Woodward is a phenomenon to behold! With the subtlest of
facial movements, she conveys not only what she is feeling but how it feels to
be feeling what she has to feel. In a
camera close-up lasting over three minutes, her face held this viewer in a way
both unforgettable and unimaginable. Alfre Woodard is the reason to see Clemency. She simply
possesses the space, the screen, every scene…and your heart.
Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT)—is the focus of The Report, a provocative Amazon political thriller. A Senate staff researcher, Daniel Jones (Adam Driver) is assigned by Sen. Diane Feinstein (Annette Bening) to investigate detainees held by the CIA in “black sites”. A shameful chapter of American history unfolds , where torture was re-introduced as a legitimate tool in pursuit of national security.
The Report employs flashbacks of “enhanced interrogation techniques” that are frightening and harrowing. Flashing back to 2001 immediately after 9/11, the anxiety and deep fear of another terrorist attack incites George Tenet to ramp up the Counterterrorist Center at the encouragement of President George W. Bush. Tenet hires two psychologists, Bruce Jessen and James Mitchell, to design torture methods without calling it torture. The CIA’s intention is to elicit information to capture possible terrorists. Although both men are psychologists, their educational background, professional training and experience have nothing to do with military interrogation. Not surprisingly, little useful information was collected.
Nonetheless, the CIA was impressed
with the “menu” of twenty
enhanced techniques including waterboarding, sleep
deprivation, “stress positions,” stuffing
prisoners into small boxes, and slamming
them into walls.
After political maneuvers, attempts at cover-up
and threats of countersuits by the CIA, the Senate intelligence committee releases
part of its report in 2015,. As expected,
the Department of Justice tried to table the report. This time portions of the more comprehensive
investigation, totaling 6 million pages, become public. Sen.
Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman, concludes that
“under any common meaning of the term, CIA detainees were tortured.”
Adam Driver and Annette Bening, under the direction of Scott Z. Burns (“The Bourne Identity”), deliver truly outstanding performances with gripping pacing rivaling the best action thrillers.
Note: John Rizzo, CIA acting general counsel at the time of Jones’ report,
described in his book Company Man, that the techniques were
“sadistic and terrifying.”
On October 13, 2015
the American Civil
Liberties Union filed a lawsuit
against James Mitchell and Bruce Jensen with regard to the EIT methods they
designed, claiming their conduct
constituted torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment and war crimes. A settlement was reached before trial in
August 2017.
None of
the major government officials were ever indicted and the subcontracting
psychologists who earned $81 million for EIT development and consulting were
indemnified by the US government. Some reviews have considered The Report
polemical and politically one-sided, but transcripts of the investigation
available online speak for themselves.
The multiple award-winning 1917 is inspired by “American Beauty” writer-director Sam Mendes’s great grandfather’s experience during World War I. Almost everything you’ve ever seen in a war film is here in 1917. There are several homages to the classic Stanley Kubrick film, “Paths of Glory” (1957), including the technique of tracking a long take, seemingly a continuous single-shot with no cuts, of the brutal trench warfare that cost 9-12 million soldiers’ lives. (The calculus for civilian deaths would double the total.) It is as if we’re in the trenches ourselves.
Recent British intelligence has discovered that the German army has set a trap that will slaughter an entire British battalion. To prevent the massacre we travel through the trenches with two young and inexperienced corporals Schofield (George MacKay) and Blake (Dean Charles Chapman). With the radio lines down, Blake and Schofield scramble through enemy territory, intent on saving 1600 lives.
It’s a grim spectacle. Swamps of floating corpses lie everywhere–sometimes half-submerged, sometimes hanging from barbed wire. With flies buzzing around horse carcasses and rats scurrying over soldiers’ corpses, the faces of the soldiers are all nibbled away. It’s a waking nightmare, no less so because of the unforgiving daylight. No mood lighting required. That comes later. Master cinematographer Roger Deakins really lights a bombed-out town in sepia tones reminiscent of Rembrandt. There are some staggering landscapes in 1917 conveying the hell of war.. Director Sam Mendes wants us to to see and feel the carnage in a way that is raw and traumatic, with viscous blood on our hands too.
1917 feels stylistically contrived, however, and not nearly as immersive as Mendes’s technique wants us to feel. Format and technique are front and center. Despite 1917’s mission, it is essentially a string of action scenes, with unbelievable escapes from barrages of bullets by the young soldiers. MacKay and Chapman are perfect for their roles, both convincing and immensely likable. However, there’s barely any backstory.
After a strong first half in which the two corporals are heroically fighting for each other’s survival, 1917 becomes more like an X-Men comic book drama or a video game. The thrills and spills border on ridiculous, the action in service of the testosterone-driven pacing. There is little complexity in character development and even less dialogue. Yet, there is no questioning the cinematic skill in immersing the viewer (as if in a 3-D film) in breathtaking, heart-pumping combat scenes.
Some scenes are jarring for
being disconnected from the forward
momentum of alerting the British battalion.
The most irrelevant scene involves a young French woman and her
baby. In the only scene with a female
character, the viewer is left wondering if she will reappear later on. Otherwise, why was she there in the first
place?
The film becomes plot-driven, not character-driven, but 1917 is supposedly a young hero’s journey. Then, what inspired the almost unbelievable courage of an inexperienced young soldier where others failed?
The emotional journey of Schofield should be layered as deeply as the horrific trenches of war. A strong story, interesting characters, or a reason for their motivation besides dodging bullets to survive allows us to care more about the characters than the battle. In 1917 the story is pretty inconsequential. It’s about being there in the moment with them. Sitting through 1917 was like watching someone else play a video game. For some viewers, where war is played like a game, this might be an appealing movie.
2 Replies to “1917—This Great War Is Not So Great”
An honest disagreement: I thought “1917” was an outstanding film. But let me add a bit of background to the discussion. Several critics have compared this film to “Paths of Glory” because of the World War One subject matter and the extended tracking shot through the trenches and ensuing battle that follows. But this is only a small (but vivid) part of “Paths of Glory” — which focuses most of its attention on innocent soldiers being scapegoated and ultimately executed to cover up the blunders of the generals. “Breaker Morant,” an Australian movie about the Boer War, actually is much closer in structure to “Paths of Glory” than “1917.” I’m also reminded of the Mel Gibson starrer “Gallipoli,” which more closely resembles “1817,” not to mention the grand-daddy of ’em, Oscar winner “All Quiet On the Western Front,” with its study of a young soldier (German in this case) suffering through the hells of war.
Thank you, Jerry Ludwig, for your thoughtful comments with excellent comparisons with other films. As a retired screenwriter, your analysis of movies we both watch with a gimlet-eye are especially enjoyable to read!
This Korean multiple award-nominated, SAG Globe winning movie, Parasite, has captured the critics’ minds as it delves into the income gap, greed and class discrimination between the “one-percenter” wealthy Park family and the destitute, marginally employed Kim clan. The theme of the competitive, desperate search for wealth at one end of the income spectrum versus the content, oblivious upper-class entitlement at the other end permeates South Korean director, Bong Joon-ho’s films (“Snowpiercer” and “Mother” in particular.) This difficult theme is unusual to tackle, let alone devote one’s film career to different genre for portraying the inviting and repelling ways in which humans are not aware of each other’s choices and behavior.
The wealthy Park family live the “lux life”,
mainly due to a retinue of servants and staff who allow them to pamper their
daughter and son, entertain while a flood leaves many low-income residents
homeless, and believe that no one wants to do them harm. The low-income Kim family has to fight their
invisibility. [While Parasite does not deal with ethnic strife,
it resonates with Jordan Peele’s films “Get Out” and “Us”.]
Parasite burrows deep into the dream
world of the rich and the poor: for the rich, there are no problems that money
can’t solve, or at least improve. For
the poor, their ambitions pave the way for dreams that almost certainly cannot
come true, denying that they are living off the breadcrumbs of the very rich
whose lives are supported and enabled by them. And both families live in a wormhole of
interwoven, interdependent lives. The
characters—in their respective bubbles—can’t truly be tricked unless they want
to believe. And they all do. Parasite,
however, does not evoke the many shades of gray that need to be addressed.
This is an important film, because it focuses
on a theme that others fear to tackle. Jordan Peele is a notable
exception. My hope is for more
provocative, better films in Bong Joon-ho’s future.
Note: Snowpiercer (see my August 4, 2014 review) is more memorable and soon to be made into a TNT mini-series releasing in May. Dealing with climate change as well as unconscionable income inequality, Snowpiercer’s ending takes no prisoners and has no answers.
Inspired
by a true story, Godfather of Harlem skillfully interweaves the combative and competing forces of the mafia with the battle for civil rights in the
mid-‘60s. In the riveting Epix limited series, Godfather of
Harlem, we see the character Bumpy Johnson (the exceptional Forest
Whitaker) re-enter the world of organized crime after being released from Alcatraz.
Drugs
have taken over many of New York’s poor communities, and the Italian mafia runs
most of them, now including the crime syndicate of Harlem which had been Bumpy
Johnson’s exclusive domain. Not wanting
to be a snitch, Johnson survives an eleven-year prison sentence meant for
members of the mafia. Upon release, Johnson feels he is owed back his
territory. However,
Vincent “Chin” Gigante (Vincent D’Onofrio)
refuses to give up the control of Harlem he has seized through brutal means, so brutal they fall outside the boundaries of the mafia’s own
code of conduct.
During the turf war that follows, Bumpy
Johnson forms an alliance with preacher Malcolm X and Congressman Adam Clayton Powell. This additional subplot of backroom politics and maneuvering
gives force to the civil rights movement but threatens to tear the communities
apart. And other subplots that overlay
the crime drama are a love story reminiscent of Romeo and Juliet and a saga of
dysfunctional families compartmentalized by criminal masterminds who are also
fathers and husbands. Reminiscent at
times of “The Sopranos”, Bumpy Johnson and his daughter in the finale have an
unforgettable scene.
If you
liked American Gangster with Denzel Washington, you will probably love its
prequel, Godfather of Harlem. Denzel’s character Frank Lucas was
Bumpy’s right hand until he took over the throne.
Great
ensemble cast and some extraordinary dialogue delivered by both major and minor
characters. [The co-writer Chris
Brancato also created the series Narcos.]
This is a real winner!
Nominated this year for eleven Academy Awards, Marriage Story portrays two people who really care about, respect, and love each other, and yearn for a “gentle” amicable divorce resolution. They also are determined to nurture and nourish their young son, Henry, with as little wounding as possible.
Written, directed and produced by Noah
Baumbach (of “Squid and the Whale”, another excellent film about divorce), this
film eviscerates what happens in even the best-intentioned divorces,
reminiscent of the classic 1979 film
“Kramer vs Kramer”.
Charlie (Adam Driver) is a very competitive, driven theater director
whose wife Nicole (Scarlett Johansson) has substantially contributed to his recent
success. As the leading actress and idea-generator for this theatrical company,
Nicole loves witnessing the accolades
and fame Charlie is garnering, including receiving the prestigious MacArthur
grant. (There are parallels to last
year’s hit, The Wife, here.)
Until she doesn’t.
Neither character is portrayed as
overly narcissistic (although Charlie comes close) but both are flawed. While the viewer comes to understand and
empathize with both of them wanting to pursue their dreams, we see the character arcs change
radically. The hoped-for amicable
divorce proceedings turn very ugly when lawyers get involved.
This is an emotionally raw journey
into trying to figure out how to be an independent adult and survive alone. It is so grief-stricken in impact that it is as
if the viewer’s observing the psychological amputation of the couple’s former
selves.
Charlie and Nicole’s assumptions about each other were lovingly
expressed while they were a couple, and are now weaponized. What they had been fond of in each other’s
character, turns into deep wounds and grievances.
The cast is phenomenal. Adam Driver
offers a transformative, heartbreaking performance that may surprise many. Scarlett Johansson is his equal, playing a
broken woman who wants the best for her family, but can no longer hope for her marriage
to change. Their performances are as intertwined and nuanced as they are
fragmented, and they play off each other
with rarely seen chemistry.
Marriage Story is a delicate dance and dialectic of vertiginous rage and devastating miscommunication, weaving together themes of loneliness, heartbreak, and regret acutely reflecting the imperfect and painful nature of human relationships. An unnerving capture of the complexities of character and the dissolution of a marriage between two loving people, Marriage Story will become a classic allegory for us all.
2 Replies to “Marriage Story (2019)-The Bonds of Love”
A painful film to watch at times and yet so familiar and real to many of us. Acting is superb,. This film left me feeling raw and sad wondering about how and why we change and fall apart even with the best intentions.
The Buddha taught rats first, among the animals in the Buddhist pantheon, and rats rank first on the Chinese zodiac. Though people who follow Western animal symbolism do not consider the rat either adorable or auspicious, nevertheless the characteristics of the rat are considered spirited, witty, alert, flexible, and that of a survivor. The Chinese New Year will begin on January 25, 2020 with the final celebration on February 11.
The Metal Rat Year is going to be a strong, prosperous, and lucky year for those who conduct financial research and follow through on investments. For investors in real estate, or venturing on their own to start a business or to invest money in a long-term project, major decisions on money matters will affect the entire twelve-year cycle of the zodiac–until 2032.
On the political front, those who fight against corruption will be accused of duplicity and hypocrisy. Political unrest will continue and revolutionary disruption of the establishment will gain momentum. Increased tensions and misunderstanding between allies will occur.
To avoid escalating conflict by
unscrupulous populist governments who overlook
or ignore the common interest of society, moderation, patience and compromise must
be recognized and practiced. In
addition, all nations must implement strict and disciplinary measures to
ameliorate climate change. Jealousy of
those who have polluted the plant will rise.
Here are the reviews I wrote this year with the criteria that they were available online or were at local movie
theaters, although not necessarily under broad distribution nor widely
distributed through move theaters. Of
the 43 reviews, here are my favorites. Another difficult year to make my listicle. As in past years, both television and cinema
have continued to produce phenomenal story-telling and intriguing characters.
The following list is not ranked, only
grouped by genre and date of review.
INDIES and FOREIGN CINEMA
1) Lo and Behold–Reveries of the Connected World (January 13 review)
Lo and Behold gives the viewer a spellbinding,
lesser-known walk back in time through the birth of the computer and its
subsequent impact on our daily lives.
We see extremes: medical marvels
saving lives or electromagnetic waves that debilitate. Each chapter introduces
a different positive or negative dynamic of the internet.
What the
documentary Won’t You Be My Neighbor? explores perhaps more
clearly now than at the time the show was produced is just how
revolutionary Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood actually was.
Even through the tumultuous Sixties, subjects of political violence, racial
discrimination, and the degrading messages children and adults frequently heard
were never side-stepped or sugarcoated.
In
this combination of black comedy and Nordic noir, we are treated to a series of
scenes involving gangster mobs, drug trade, a father’s revenge, kidnapping, and
snow plows. In Order of
Disappearanceis part “Fargo” and part other Coen brothers’
comedic treatment of snow country.
In
this gripping 2010 Academy Award nominated HBO documentary, Which Way Home opens with something large and bulbous
floating down the Rio Grande. The viewer soon learns it is a corpse, perhaps
that of a child, and an observer comments matter-of-factly that this happens
multiple times a day.
The
Netflix Original Always Be My Maybe gives us a reason for
watching rom-coms again. A modern riff on “When Harry Met Sally.” Set in San
Francisco, Always Be My Maybe is
a story of childhood sweethearts who go their separate ways only to meet
up fifteen years later. Sasha Tran (Ali Wong) and Marcus Kim (Randall
Park) were best friends who, as teenagers, had sex for the first time and
then stopped talking to each other.
This
comedic drama opens with the tagline: “based on an actual lie.” The
universal theme– of the gathering of a family clan harboring secrets and
lies, told and sometimes motivated by love.
7) Late Night—Women Do
It Right (November 5 review)
In Late Night we
see a notoriously, male-dominated world of late-night network TV in
which a woman–Katherine Newbury (Emma Thompson)– is the host of her own
talk show. (Think “The Devil Wears Prada” and Meryl Streep as the
“bitch-boss from hell”).
Starr
Carter, a sixteen-year-old gifted student, has to adeptly maneuver
between two worlds — her poor, mostly black neighborhood and a wealthy, mostly
white prep school. Facing pressure from all sides, Starr must find her voice
and decide to stand up for what’s right.
9) Rocketman—Seeing the Light Through the Darkness (July 28)
The
backstory of Elton John’s childhood is the emotional core defining his
self-worth and genius. Although we soon find out that Elton was a deeply
lonely child, unloved by his parents (Bryce Dallas Howard and Steven
Mackintosh), but nurtured by his grandmother (Emma Jones), he introduces
himself with a lie: “I was actually a very happy child.”
Jokeris a devastating
portrait of a rapid descent into mental illness. This Joker, nemesis to the comic book masked superhero
Batman, takes center stage with only a tangential reference to Batman and
for good reason. Now we see the masked Joker as few could have
imagined.
Three
Netflix series — Narcos, Narcos Mexico and El
Chapo– are gritty, raw, and bingeable. Each chronicles the most
powerful drug lord and his cartel at the rise of cocaine and marijuana
production in Colombia, Mexico, and other parts of the world.
Chernobyl is an HBO
historical drama miniseries depicting the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear
disaster and the unprecedented coverup that followed. The flawed
reactor design operated by inadequately trained technicians is
jaw-clenching and chilling. That lack of transparency and flagrant
disregard for human life depicts greed, lack of moral integrity, and political
corruption. Chernobyl is a cautionary tale for today’s
political climate.
A
criminal mastermind, calling himself “The Professor,” plans the biggest heist
in Spain’s history: to storm the Royal Mint and print billions of euros. He
recruits eight people who have the criminal talents he needs, knowing they have
nothing to lose.
14) Locked Up—Spain’s “Orange is the New Black”
(September 11 review)
Complete
with extraordinary writing and plotting, Locked Up‘s main
theme is unexpected consequences: the turmoil of events that turn
everything upside down.
A “Narcos” or “El
Chapo”-style drama about the rise of drug lord Teresa Mendoza (played by
the exceptional Alice Braga, niece of the renowned actress Sonia Braga),
we see a new first. Instead of a ruthless kingpin of a Mexican drug
cartel like Guzman (El Chapo), we see Teresa Mendoza. She navigates and
outsmarts a world dominated by men and machismo to become the queen (or
queenpin?) of Sinaloa.
This investigative journalistic documentary invites the viewer to take a closer look at four committed women who ran for Congress in 2018: Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Cori Bush of Maryland, Paula Jean Swearengin of West Virginia, and Amy Vilela of Nevada. First and foremost, however, Knock Down the House is AOC’s story. The former bartender from the Bronx turned first-time congresswoman needs no introduction.
Because
of director Rachel Lears’s early access
to the four Congressional candidates, she and her camera have been in the war
rooms of the campaigns right from the start, making the footage even more
compelling.
From a pool
of committed political neophytes, Lears selected four exceptional female
candidates — Ocasio-Cortez, Cori Bush, Paula Jean Swearengin and Amy Vilela —
each with an emotionally riveting back-story and a politically established,
seemingly unbeatable opponent. Their back-stories propelled them into
politics. For
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, she had to
work double shifts as a bartender to save her mother’s home from foreclosure.
After losing a daughter to a preventable medical condition because of lack of
health insurance, Amy Vilela became determined to improve America’s broken health-care system. Cori
Bush, a registered nurse and pastor, was appalled at the police shooting of an unarmed black man and
the resulting army tanks that showed up in her neighborhood. A coal miner’s daughter,
Paula Jean Swearengin, watched her
friends and family suffer from the devastating environmental effects of the
coal industry.
Except
for AOC, the other three women candidates–although giving everything they had
to win—were defeated. With a raw and blistering honesty, we see the camera
hover over their physical and emotional deflation after the results come in. All four were heavily invested personally:
“We’re coming out of the belly of the beast kicking and screaming,” Swearengin
says. But ten-year incumbents are hard
to unseat.
Ocasio-Cortez,
unsurprisingly, emerges as a telegenic,
exuberant force . She is all that and
more. In the closing credits, we see AOC
riding a scooter, circling in front of the Congressional building, enjoying the
thrill of her victory on a crisp,
January morning before the swearing-in ceremony. She’s a television cameraman’s dream: young,
attractive, and charismatic with the emotive, energetic oratorial skills of a much more
seasoned public speaker. Nothing seems
to throw her off her game, whether she’s mopping the floor before distributing
leaflets for her campaign or talking with someone who has decided not to vote
for her.
Her
social media presence alone shows why she has crossed over into pop celebrity,
whether she’s tweeting or live-streaming on Instagram while eating popcorn,
talking about staying grounded and dancing on YouTube. She is a media darling and that makes her a
political star worth watching.
Knock
Down the House will
knock you down too—with the energy that these women expended to advocate for
change.
The title character, Luce (Kelvin Harrison Jr.) is an all-star athlete and model straight-A student who is expected to achieve greatness in college. Luce’s liberal adoptive parents—physician Amy (Naomi Watts) and financier Peter (Tim Roth) adopted Luce when he was a little boy in Eritrea, a boy-soldier who experienced unimaginable horror.
A volatile and
incendiary essay he has written for an English teacher, Harriet Wilson (Octavia Spencer), is brought to the attention
of Luce’s parents. The essay inflames
the liberal-minded community and most of all, his English teacher.
Luce’s parents do
not know who to believe, –his teacher and school administrators or their son–although
their intuition and gut-reaction is to believe their brilliant, beloved Luce. Other parents slowly face the same dilemma –who do
you believe in the face of unconditional love? Luce’s personal story unfolds as an attempt to
define what is the truth to the listener–the one that is acceptable and
therefore believed, or the one that shatters values you deeply hold.
A sense of sustained menace highlights the central theme of Luce: Do we really know who Luce is and how deeply his traumatic childhood experiences have affected him?
Luce is a
gut-wrenching story of love of child versus love of spouse. This film is also provocative in terms of
Luce’s achievements validating his liberal parents’ convictions about social
justice and racial equality, about transforming the human soul. There
are no easy answers.
Race and white privilege are
examined under a psychological microscope.
Sharp-edged and gimlet-eyed,
this is a difficult film that tries to say something nuanced about racism, making
for uncomfortable viewing.
Luce is boldly
ambitious in addressing so many questions in one film: Who is “anointed” by others to succeed? The
myth of the American dream and succeeding all on your own, especially in the glowing
light of suburbia (Arlington, Virginia), is painfully dissected.
Luce closes
with a chilling and morally ambiguous
ending. The creation of your own ending may depend upon your ethnic identity and
how much it has influenced who you are now.
No one person represents an entire demographic and Luce
shouts this to the audience loud and clear.
“You never really know what is
going on with people.” (Luce)
Booksmartfollows two academic superstars and high school best friends who, the night before graduation, suddenly realize that they should have worked less and played more. Major late-blooming FOMO!
Amy (Kaitlyn Dever) and Molly (Beanie Feldstein of “Lady
Bird”) are determined to cram four years of sacrificing fun for one all-night
party. After all, some of their
“party-animal” classmates have done drugs, partied every weekend while Amy and Molly were in the library, and still
were accepted at the same Ivy League college or prestigious NGO projects that the
two BFFs sacrificed so much for. Popular vs.
Intellectual: why not both? That is the
question underpinning Booksmart.
Beanie Feldstein and Kaitlyn Dever
Directed by Olivia Wilde, Booksmart
has achieved a
film worthy of comparison with the classic John Hughes’ films Ferris Bueller’s Day
Off or The
Breakfast Club. A teen comedy with girl power, Booksmart encapsulates an inchoate female empowerment evolving without
Amy and Molly’s full comprehension. We have adolescent turmoil in which teenage angst over
every word and glance from classmates has a surprising and clever twist.
There is pain and an ecstatic thrill of female bonding intertwined with a best-friend sort of communication that embodies not only trust without question– and in a sense, first love– but also the complicated issue of sexual identity.
Booksmart has wisdom and a humorous generosity in showing a glimpse
of adulthood’s inevitable disappointments (played hilariously by Jason Sudeikis
in one scene as a high school principal moonlighting as a Lyft driver.) It’s difficult to do comedy well, especially of teenagers through
the lens of middle-aged directors and writers. Wilde gets the tone and subject
matter just right, giving Amy and Molly the material to imbue their characters
with the authentic and heartfelt voices of teenagers today. A delightful film for families with teenagers
and for all of us who remember our teenage angst when many days and nights were
both the best and worst of our lives.
In Late Night we see a notoriously, male-dominated world of late-night network TV in which a woman–Katherine Newbury (Emma Thompson)– is the host of her own talk show. (Think “The Devil Wears Prada” and Meryl Streep as the “bitch-boss from hell”). The world of late-night television is even more turned upside down when Katherine hires her first and only female staff writer, Molly Patel (Mindy Kaling) to tamp down criticism of the show’s lack of diversity– a “two-fer”: a woman and a person of color. It’s brazen “tokenism”.
The show’s ratings have steadily declined as social media and viral videos take over the discussion of current affairs and trends. As a multiple award-winning nighttime late-show legend, Katherine will have nothing to do with social media. The network’s president warns her that she will be replaced soon if nothing changes.
The network frets that Katherine’s too much of a relic representative of a vanishing demographic, and that her thirty-years of experience means little to the millennial generation. She’s a hard-nosed veteran performer. She ignores the accusations of being out-of-touch and a dinosaur. Katherine’s writing staff, all men–some of whom have never met her–slack off when they can, and write jokes that are partly the reason for her show’s growing unpopularity.
Enter Molly who has little experience in comedy (she worked in a chemical manufacturing plant) and initially struggles. Nevertheless she proves she is talented and knows what a younger audience wants to see. Katherine and Molly are from different generations and different perspectives of what comedy is and should be.
The antagonist and adamant opponent to all of Molly’s comedic efforts is Tom (Reid Scott), who is in charge of writing the opening monologues for the late show and feels far superior to Molly’s status as a “diversity hire”. Ironically he is a “legacy hire” himself. It’s such an old boy’s club that the women’s restroom isn’t truly the women’s restroom, but where guys go to take a dump.
A laugh-out-loud comedy with subversive social commentary woven into it, sometimes Late Night is so subtle the viewer might miss some of the scathingly tongue-in-cheek banter. Kaling gives this script her all as the creator and chief writer, critiquing how television works. She also – examines what makes a joke funny, the subtleties of comedy, and why something goes viral. This satirical comedy is timely and a must-see!
Hey, haven’t seen the show. Usually reading at that time. Doesn’t sound all that interesting. Yet you write good reviews which is why I still read them. Cheers.
Thanks for the thumbs up review of Late Night — and holiday blessings on Mindy Kaling for writing such a marvelously nuanced role for Emma Thompson (and another for herself).
An honest disagreement: I thought “1917” was an outstanding film. But let me add a bit of background to the discussion. Several critics have compared this film to “Paths of Glory” because of the World War One subject matter and the extended tracking shot through the trenches and ensuing battle that follows. But this is only a small (but vivid) part of “Paths of Glory” — which focuses most of its attention on innocent soldiers being scapegoated and ultimately executed to cover up the blunders of the generals. “Breaker Morant,” an Australian movie about the Boer War, actually is much closer in structure to “Paths of Glory” than “1917.” I’m also reminded of the Mel Gibson starrer “Gallipoli,” which more closely resembles “1817,” not to mention the grand-daddy of ’em, Oscar winner “All Quiet On the Western Front,” with its study of a young soldier (German in this case) suffering through the hells of war.
Jerry Ludwig
Thank you, Jerry Ludwig, for your thoughtful comments with excellent comparisons with other films. As a retired screenwriter, your analysis of movies we both watch with a gimlet-eye are especially enjoyable to read!