Thursday, June 8, 2017

Hit Me With Your Best Shot: "The Parent Trap" (1961)

*This post is part of the "Hit Me With Your Best Shot" blogathon at The Film Experience*

I grew up watching the The Parent Trap a lot. Not the 1961 version starring Hayley Mills, which is the subject of this post, but rather Nancy Meyers' surprisingly faithful 1998 remake that introduced the world to Lindsay Lohan. I'm not even sure that I remember why: I don't think my family owned it on VHS, but I distinctly remember seeing it frequently. In any case, I know that version well enough that, watching the 1961 original for the first time, I was struck by how well I could remember the remake and play "spot the difference" even though it's been at least a decade since I've seen Meyers' version. But "spot the difference" isn't the reason we're here, is it?


The Parent Trap stars Mills, then coming off her starmaking performance in Pollyanna the previous year, in the dual role of Susan Evers and Sharon McKendrick, twins separated shortly after they were born who are reunited by chance at summer camp. Susan lives in California with her father, Mitch (Brian Keith), while Sharon lives in Boston with her mother, Maggie (Maureen O'Hara). After realizing that their single parents are in fact their parents, the girls set in motion an elaborate plan to reunite the broken family by switching places. Their plan faces a major obstacle, however, when Mitch reveals his engagement to Vicky (Joanna Barnes), who wants to marry into Mitch's considerable fortune.

The film is an eclectic mix of genres: a screwball farce, a romantic comedy, a family drama, all wrapped up in a Disney-approved family-friendly bow with a few nods to teen rock 'n' roll flicks to boot. What's perhaps most surprising about the film is how the film shifts between these modes fluidly while maintaining the distinctions between them. The film is never really so much a genre blender as it is a genre buffet: some exaggerated mischief here, an emotional realization there, but not letting anything on the metaphorical plate touch.

More after the jump.

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Hit Me With Your Best Shot: "Moonlight" (2016)

*This post is part of the "Hit Me With Your Best Shot" blogathon at The Film Experience*

I apologize for the short length of this post. I'm trying to get back into the groove of blogging now that I'm officially a Master of Fine Arts (supposedly) and beginning my transition into a doctoral program. I have a lot of thoughts on this film, an excellent choice for the return of my favorite TFE series, that I will hopefully post later.

Moonlight is a radical film. Not necessarily in narrative or aesthetics, though the former masterfully builds on the cumulative evolution of the characters and the latter are evocative and beautiful. The film is not even that radical in representation - there have been films about black gay men before. But Moonlight is radical in that it is a film about black gay men that captured mainstream attention, playing in more theaters than its predecessors and winning awards, including the Academy Award for Best Picture. It's not new - it's just new to this level of national exposure.



For the uninitiated, the film follows Chiron through three periods of his life. In the first act, "Little" (Alex R. Hibbert) meets Juan (Mahershala Ali), a drug dealer who takes Chiron in with his girlfriend Teresa (Janelle Monáe). In the second act, teenage Chiron (Ashton Sanders) struggles with his drug-addicted mother (Naomie Harris) and bullying at school, which leads to a riff between him and best friend/crush Kevin (Jharrel Jerome). Act three, "Black," follows adult Chiron (Trevante Rhodes, revelatory) as he returns to Miami to meet with Kevin (André Holland) after years without contact.

The main throughline of the film is desire; namely, Chiron's desire for Kevin and his inability to put that desire into words. It's here that the film is radical in one very significant, but under-examined, facet: child sexuality.

More after the jump.

Saturday, January 21, 2017

Quickie Final 2016 Oscar Predictions

For the first time in a couple of years now, I entered Film Actually's annual Oscar prediction contest. So, taking a quick break from thesis writing, here is a rundown of my final predictions for each category. I don't have any commentary or pictures, but feel free to discuss these choices in the comments. And don't forget: the nominations will be announced this Tuesday, January 24!

BEST PICTURE

First five in:

Manchester by the Sea
Moonlight
La La Land
Hell or High Water
Arrival

Next five in (in order from most to least likely):

Lion
Fences
Hidden Figures
Silence
Hacksaw Ridge

BEST ACTRESS

Emma Stone, La La Land
Natalie Portman, Jackie
Isabelle Huppert, Elle
Amy Adams, Arrival
Ruth Negga, Loving

BEST ACTOR

Casey Affleck, Manchester by the Sea
Ryan Gosling, La La Land
Denzel Washington, Fences
Viggo Mortensen, Captain Fantastic
Tom Hanks, Sully

The rest of the nominees after the jump.

Monday, January 16, 2017

The 7th Annual Jarmo Awards

Earlier, I posted my top 10 list, which you can find here. Now for the Jarmo Awards, my annual awards for the film year that, for some reason, none of the winners have yet come to claim. The offer still stands, folks!

Anyway, check out this year's winners below. There's even a new category this year, Best Use of Music, because a memorable pairing of music and image can make all the difference for a film. Enjoy, and feel free to tell me why I'm wrong about every one of these!

BEST ACTRESS


(tie) Laura Dern, Michelle Williams, and Lily Gladstone, Certain Women

Runner-up: Kate Beckinsale, Love & Friendship
Finalists: Sonia Braga, Aquarius; Felicity Jones, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story; Emma Stone, La La Land

I've handed out plenty of ties in the past, typically one a year, and most of them have been for performances in the same film. I've never, however, done a three-way tie before, but damn me if Certain Women doesn't deserve it. The film wouldn't work if not for the phenomenal performances that Dern, Williams, and Gladstone give. Dern seems revitalized by the role of Laura, a beleaguered lawyer exasperated with her client's over-the-top behavior. Williams, a regular of director Kelly Reichardt's films, is fascinating as Gina, a prickly mother with a single-minded goal: obtain the materials for the foundation of her dream home. The true revelation, however, is Gladstone. In her first onscreen role, Gladstone is astonishing as an unnamed rancher who, out of boredom, ventures to night classes and finds herself attracted to the new law teacher (Kristen Stewart). With very little dialogue, Gladstone mesmerizes purely through her subtly expressive visage, and sells the film's most emotionally-charged scene with sturdy aplomb. All three women were superior, and thus all three are winners.

BEST ACTOR


Colin Farrell, The Lobster

Runner-up: Adam Driver, Paterson
Finalists: Ryan Gosling, La La Land; (tie) Alex R. Hibbert, Ashton Sanders, and Trevante Rhodes, Moonlight; Nilbio Torres, Embrace of the Serpent

Colin Farrell is vastly underrated. Anyone who's only seen his big-budget turns in Alexander (2004), Miami Vice (2006), and the misguided Total Recall remake (2012) would think that Farrell is simply a pretty face that Hollywood insisted could be a movie star. But such reasoning would disqualify the fantastic work he does when he's energized by the material: his one-two-three breakout punch of Tigerland (2001), Phone Booth (2002), and Daredevil (2003), for example, or his auteurist years with In Bruges (2008), Ondine (2009), and Seven Psychopaths (2012). Yet nothing he showed in these films truly prepared me for his performance in The Lobster. As David, Farrell doesn't just soften his voice and sport a truly awful mustache; he carries himself lack a man living without choice nonetheless bemused by his curious fate, he snuffs out the mischievous glint in his Irish eyes and replaces it with deadened combination of curiosity and defeat. David doesn't "move" the plot of the film so much as go along with it, but Farrell refuses to make him an amorphous cypher, instead imbuing him with a rich interiority that's enrapturing to witness. It's because of Farrell that the film's final scene holds such queasy power, and it's because of him that the film succeeds at such a high level. Underestimate Farrell at your own risk from now on.

More winners after the jump.

The Entertainment Junkie's Top 10 Films of 2016

The feeling, by and large, was that 2016 was awful. From the losses of too many luminary talents to the election of the least qualified, most terrifying president in the history of US democracy, I have to agree with that feeling - except at the cinema. There were many great films released last year; sure, the summer blockbuster season sagged under the critically-reviled Independence Day sequels and DC superhero flicks, but there were bright spots even there (Captain America: Civil War, for example, made a massive superhero free-for-all exactly as fun as it sounds). In fact, it proved exceedingly difficult to pare down this list only to ten films.

But it is, as always, a top ten, and so sacrifices had to be made. The following ten films have lingered in my thoughts more than any other films I've seen this year (in a positive way, at least). At least four of them are out-and-out masterpieces from auteurs who are decidedly outside of the mainstream, but, as you can see, there were pleasures to be found in studio fare as well. These certainly aren't the only great films released last year, but they are the ones that stand above the rest.

Since only films that received a US release were eligible, I have to extend my apologies to the following great as-yet-unreleased films: Strike a Pose, Sonita, Down Under, Goldstone, Barakah Meets Barakah, Zach's Ceremony, The Year We Thought about Love.

Find out who made the list after the jump.

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Short Take: "The Wave" (2016)

As the world becomes more globalized, so does cinema. Big-budget blockbuster films, once seemingly the sole provence of Hollywood, are now regularly produced in China and India, and other film industries around the world are starting to create their own blockbusters. European films are no longer necessarily the personal auteurist projects that Americans associate with Godard, Bergman, and Fellini; those films are now joined by bigger films meant to please crowds more than provoke intense introspection.


Norwegian filmmaker Roar Uthaug's The Wave is billed as "Norway's first disaster movie," and it was a huge hit in its native country, finishing at the top of the 2015 box office (by ticket sales, one in every six Norwegians saw the film in theatres). Based on a true scenario, the film follows geologist Kristian (Kristoffer Joner) on the day is family is due to move away from Geiranger, a coastal tourist town in Geirangerfjord. Seismic activity along one of the mountain, however, triggers a landslide that results in an 80-foot wave thundering toward the town, with only ten minutes to evacuate everyone. Kristian must race against time to save his family before the wave destroys the town.

Uthaug obviously studied the art of the disaster film: his film follows all of the standard beats (occasionally to a fault), including a lengthy prelude establishing Kristian's family life and marking which characters are clearly doomed once the wave comes pummeling through the fjord. Yet the film is more than a boilerplate blockbuster, as the main characters are complex and achieve meaningful development over the course of the film, in addition to Uthaug's canny eye for stunning images. Of course, the film hardly had the budget for Hollywood-caliber effects, but Uthaug and director of photography John Christian Rosenlund create breathtaking images of disaster without the need to digitize everything. Most imporantly, Joner's performance anchors the film, imbuing his hero character with genuine awe at his tragic situation and concern for his family. It's more than just a great genre performance, it's a great performance, period. The same can be said of the film. B+

Thursday, September 1, 2016

Short Take: "45 Years" (2015)

Does a memory ever truly leave us, even after years of dormancy? How do you navigate the influence of the past on a loved one, particularly a past that you were not a part of? Does remembering the past alter the present?

These are questions raised by Andrew Haigh's magnificent, long-awaited second feature, 45 Years. This quiet drama is about a couple, Geoff (Tom Courtenay) and Kate (Charlotte Rampling), approaching their 45th wedding anniversary when Geoff learns that the body of his missing former flame, Katya, has been discovered frozen in the mountains. The revelation brings back a flood of memories about Geoff, and Kate discovers more about the man she married and his life before her.


The above plot description is intentionally sparse, because the film itself does not sensationalize this premise (other films surely would play up the soapy development that sets the plot in motion). Instead, Haigh focuses his film on the relationship between Geoff and Kate and how this discovery impacts them separately and together. Courtenay and Rampling each give phenomenal, understated performances that highlight their characters' interior lives and their inability to gain access to the other's. Together, they present a marriage that feels lived-in, complete with a sense of history between them.

More than anything, this is a film about memory. The spectre of Katya hangs over the entire film: though she is never seen, her presence is felt in every scene. Haigh doesn't spell this out or underline anything, however. He trusts his actors and himself to convey the intimate, achingly human truths of the film. Like his previous masterpiece, Weekend (2011), 45 Years is heartbreaking and engaging, a truly human document. A+

Short Takes: Catching Up on the 2015 Foreign Language Film Oscar Nominees

The 88th Academy Awards were handed out over half a year ago, but there's no reason we can't keep talking about them! I recently completed viewing the nominees for Best Foreign Language Film, so below you'll find capsule reviews of all five films along with how I would have ranked them if I had a ballot. I'll post ballots for the eight major categories (Picture, Director, Acting, and Writing) at a later date.

Son of Saul (dir. Laśzló Nemes, Hungary)


It's no surprise that this harrowing Holocaust feature won the Oscar. The film is the story of a Hungarian prisoner (Géza Röhrig) assigned to the Sonderkommando (charged with burning bodies) at Auschwitz who believes one of the bodies may belong to his son. Nemes films Saul's efforts to provide a proper Jewish burial in tight close-ups, with the camera rarely leaving its position just over Saul's shoulder. It's a terrific directorial trick: by keeping the literal focus on Saul, the film avoids the easy exploitation of the horrors of the concentration camps that so many other Holocaust films traffic in. Instead, Saul's dangerous plight and his emotional journey is the heart of the film, and it's no less distressing. Though Saul remains something of a cypher throughout, the film itself stands as a powerful and unique entry into the Holocaust film canon. A

The other four nominees after the jump.

Monday, August 29, 2016

Oscar Predictions August 2016: The "Shot in the Dark" Predictions

The Academy Awards page is now officially the predictions page for the 89th Academy Awards, happening February 26, 2017. Of course, that's a long way off, and most of the films that will be contending then haven't been seen yet (and in some cases, may not even be finished filming yet). So a lot can happen, but that's not why we do these predictions. We do them because we are 1) certifiably insane and 2) Oscar nuts through and through. And so, a brief explanation of my thought process; you can see the predictions and commentary at the Academy Awards page (click that link or the tab labeled "Academy Awards" under the banner).

BEST PICTURE

There are several really big question marks in terms of films awaiting release dates. Mike Mills, director of Beginners (2011), supposedly will have 20th Century Women - starring Annette Bening, Greta Gerwig, and Elle Fanning - ready by the end of the year. John Cameron Mitchell (Hedwig and the Angry Itch, Rabbit Hole) should have the Neil Gaiman adaptation How to Talk to Girls at Parties ready as well. And Denzel Washington's adaptation of August Wilson's play Fences is also set to be released in December. However, we haven't seen much from any of these films beyond set photos and a few stills, so there's no indication that they'll be ready in time.

Silence

Fences is a big one, but the biggest question mark as far as release dates go is Silence, Martin Scorsese's new film about Christian missionaries in feudal Japan. The film is still pegged for a November release, and it's been in post-production since last year, but there's no sign that it will make its intended release date yet. Now, this isn't the first time Scorsese's dropped a long-awaited (and very long) film quickly: The Wolf of Wall Street was a big question mark until late in 2013, and it went on to multiple Oscar nominations including Picture, Director, and Actor for Leonardo DiCaprio. For now, I'm leaving the film out of my predictions on the assumption that it's moving to 2017, but if it does come out this year, expect it to contend in most of the major categories.

As for what I did predict, I'm probably over-estimating Lion and under-estimating Loving at the moment, assuming that the former tearjerker will draw more attention than the racial drama (I will also admit that I didn't care much for Midnight Special, so I'm a little cool on director Jeff Nichols right now). I may be under-estimating La La Land too; Damien Chazelle is clearly a director they admire, given the reception of Whiplash, and Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone are terrific leads (even if they only have two nominations between them). But I find it difficult to believe that the Academy will go for an original, contemporary musical in a major way. We'll wait and see.

Acting categories and more after the jump.

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Crisis and Confusion: What "Goldeneye," "The Rock," and "Independence Day" Say about the Blockbuster Then and Now

Twenty years ago, in the summer of 1996, the Hollywood blockbuster was a different beast. Unlike today, the multiplex was not flooded with superheroes, sequels, spinoffs, "reimaginings," or some combination of those. Films were not prepackaged as franchises (or "cinematic universes"). And there was arguably still credence in "star power," where casting the right actor or movie star would result in instant box office success. The mid-1990s were also a time in which serious, made-for-adults films could also be some of the biggest hits of the year: Forrest Gump (1994), Apollo 13 (1995), and Jerry Maguire (1996) all finished in the top 10 at the box office of their years. Perhaps even more telling, during those same three years, only four sequels placed in the their year's top 10 at the box office: Batman Forever, Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls, Goldeneye, and Die Hard with a Vengeance (all in 1995). By the same measure, 17 sequels finished in the top 10 of their year in the past three years.


This is nothing new, of course. We're all very aware of Hollywood's need for mega-expensive sequels and reboots in their effort to compete at the global box office, especially with China swiftly rising as a world film power (in box office if not necessarily in production, though they are catching up there too). But looking back at three films in particular - Goldeneye, The Rock (1996), and Independence Day (1996) - provides us with a fascinating look at the historical context of the blockbuster in the mid-1990s, as well as a glimpse into just how different the form is today.

Historical Implications: Wither the Red Scare?

Notably, all three of these films are action films beefed up with big-budget spectacle. All three of them also represent the biggest challenge this particular genre faced in the 1990s: who are the villains?

More after the jump.