#ANY genre would be good. i realize I’m severely lacking comedies/horror | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

xoruffitup · 3 years

Text

Annette: The AD Devotee Review

So I saw Annette on its premiere night in Cannes and I’m still trying to process and make sense of those 2.5 hours of utter insanity. I have no idea where to begin and this is likely going to become an unholy length by the time I’m finished, so I apologize in advance. But BOY I’ve got a lot to parse through!!

Let’s start here: Adam’s made plenty of weird movies. The Dead Don’t Die? The Man Who Killed Don Quixote? There are definitely Terry Gilliam-esque elements of the unapologetically absurd and fantastical in Annette, but NOTHING comes close to this film. To put it bluntly, nothing I write in this post can prepare you for the eccentric phantasmagoria you’re about to sit through.

While the melodies conveying the story – at times lovely and haunting, at times whimsical, occasionally blunt and simple – add a unique sense of the surreal, the fact that it’s all presented in song somehow supplies the medium for this bizarre concoction of disparate elements and outlandish storytelling to all coalesce into a single genre-defying, disbelief-suspending whole. That’s certainly not to say there weren’t a few times when I quietly chortled to myself and mouthed “what the fuck” from behind my mask when things took an exceeding turn to the outrageous. This movie needs to be permitted a bit of leeway in terms of quality judgments, and traditional indicators certainly won’t apply. I would say part of its appeal (and ultimately its success) stems from its lack of interest in appealing to traditional arbiters of film structure and viewing experience. The movie lingers in studies of discomfiture (I’ll return to this theme); it presents all its absurdities with brazen pride rather than temperance; and its end is abrupt and utterly jarring. Yet somehow, at the end of it, I realized I’d been white-knuckling that rollercoaster ride the whole way through and loved every last twist and turn.

A note on the structure of this post before I dive in: I’ve written out a synopsis of the whole film (for those spoiler-hungry people) and stashed it down at the bottom of this post, so no one trying to avoid spoilers has to scroll through. If you want to read, go ahead and skip down to that before reading the discussion/analysis. If I have to reference a specific plot point, I’ll label it “Spoiler #___” and those who don’t mind being spoiled can check the correlating numbers in my synopsis to see which part I’m referencing. Otherwise, my discussion will be spoiler-free! I do detail certain individual scenes, but hid anything that would give away key developments and/or the ending.

To start, I’ll cut to what I’m sure many of you are here for: THE MUSICAL SEX SCENES. You want detailed descriptions? Well let’s fucking go because these scenes have been living in my head rent-free!!

The first (yes, there are two. Idk whether to thank Mr. Carax or suggest he get his sanity checked??) happens towards the end of “We Love Each Other So Much.” Henry carries Ann to the bed with her feet dangling several inches off the floor while she has her arms wrapped around his shoulders. (I maybe whimpered a tiny bit.) As they continue to sing, you first see Ann spread on her back on the bed, panting a little BUT STILL SINGING while Henry’s head is down between her thighs. The camera angle is from above Ann’s head, so you can clearly see down her body and exactly what’s going on. He lifts his head to croon a line, then puts his mouth right back to work.

And THEN they fuck – still fucking singing! They’re on their sides with Henry behind her, and yes there is visible thrusting. Yes, the thrusting definitely picks up speed and force as the song reaches its crescendo. Yes, it was indeed EXTREMELY sensual once you got over the initial shock of what you’re watching. Ann kept her breasts covered with her own hands while Henry went down on her, but now his hands are covering them and kneading while they’re fucking and just….. It’s a hard, blazing hot R rating. I also remember his giant hand coming up to turn her head so he can kiss her and ladkjfaskfjlskfj. Bring your smelling salts. I don’t recommend sitting between two older ladies while you’re watching – KINDA RUINED THE BLATANT, SMOKING HOT ADAM PORN FOR ME. Good god, choose your viewing buddy wisely!

The second scene comes sort of out of nowhere – I can’t actually recall which song it was during, but it pops up while Ann is pregnant. Henry is again eating her out and there’s not as much overt singing this time, but he has his giant hands splayed over her pregnant belly while he’s going to town and whew, WHEW TURN ON THE AIR CONDITIONING PLEASE. DID THE THEATER INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE BY 10 DEGREES, YOU’RE DAMN RIGHT IT DID.

Whew. I think you’ll be better primed to ~enjoy~ those scenes when you know they’re coming, otherwise it’s just so shocking that by the time you’ve processed “Look at Adam eating pussy with reckless abandon” it’s halfway over already. God speed, my fellow rats, it’s truly something to witness!!

Okay. Right. Ahem. Moving right on along….

I’ll kick off this discussion with the formal structure of the film. It’s honestly impossible to classify. I have the questionable fortune of having been taken to many a strange avant-garde operas and art exhibitions by my parents when I was younger, and the strongest parallel I found to this movie was melodramatic opera stagings full of flamboyant flourishes, austere set pieces, and prolonged numbers where the characters wallow at length in their respective miseries. This movie has all the elevated drama, spectacle, and self-aggrandizement belonging to any self-professed rock opera. Think psychedelic rock opera films a la The Who’s Tommy, Hair, Phantom of the Paradise, and hell, even Rocky Horror. Yes, this film really is THAT weird.

But Annette is also in large part a vibrant, absurdist performance piece. The film is intriguingly book-ended by two scenes where the lines blur between actor and character; and your own role blurs between passive viewer and interactive audience. The first scene has the cast walking through the streets of LA (I think?), singing “So May We Start?” directly to the camera in a self-aware prologue, smashing the fourth wall from the beginning and setting up the audience to play a direct role in the viewing experience. Though the cast then disburse and take up their respective roles, the sense of being directly performed to is reinforced throughout the film. This continues most concretely through Henry’s multiple stand-up comedy performances.

Though he performs to an audience in the film rather than directly to live viewers, these scenes are so lengthy, vulgar, and excessive that his solo performance act becomes an integral part of defining his character and conveying his arc as the film progresses. These scenes start to make the film itself feel like a one-man show. The whole shtick of Henry McHenry’s “Ape of God” show is its perverse irreverence and swaggering machismo. Over the span of what must be a five minute plus scene, Henry hacks up phlegm, pretends to choke himself with his microphone cord, prances across the stage with his bathrobe flapping about, simulates being shot, sprinkles many a misanthropic, charmless monologues in between, and ends by throwing off his robe and mooning the audience before he leaves the stage. (Yes, you see Adam’s ass within the film’s first twenty minutes, and we’re just warming up from there.) His one-man performances demonstrate his egocentrism, penchant for lowbrow and often offensive humor, and the fact that this character has thus far profited from indulging in and acting out his base vulgarities.

While never demonstrating any abundance of good taste, his shows teeter firmly towards the grotesque and unsanctionable as his marriage and mental health deteriorate. This is what I’m referring to when I described the film as a study in discomfiture. As he deteriorates, the later iterations of his stand-up show become utterly unsettling and at times revolting. The film could show mercy and stop at one to two minutes of his more deranged antics, but instead subjects you to a protracted display of just how insane this man might possibly be. In Adam’s hands, these excessive, indulgent performance scenes take on disturbing but intriguing ambiguity, as you again wonder where the performance ends and the real man begins. When Henry confesses to a crime during his show and launces into an elaborate, passionate reenactment on stage, you shift uncomfortably in your seat wondering how much of it might just be true. Wondering just how much of an animal this man truly is.

Watching this film as an Adam fan, these scenes are unparalleled displays of his range and prowess. He’s in turns amusing and revolting; intolerable and pathetic; but always, always riveting. I couldn’t help thinking to myself that for the casual, non Adam-obsessed viewer, the effect of these scenes might stop at crass and unappealing. But in terms of the sheer range and power of acting on display? These scenes are a damn marvel. Through these scenes alone, his performance largely imbues the film with its wild, primal, and vaguely menacing atmosphere.

His stand-up scenes were, to me, some of the most intense of the film – sometimes downright difficult to endure. But they’re only a microcosm of the R A N G E he exhibits throughout the film’s entirety. Let’s talk about how he’s animalistic, menacing, and genuinely unsettling to watch (Leos Carax described him as “feline” at some point, and I 100% see it); and then with a mere subtle twitch of his expression, sheen of his eyes, or slump of his shoulders, he’s suddenly a lost, broken thing.

Henry McHenry is truly to be reviled. Twitter might as well spare their breath and announce he’s already cancelled. He towers above the rest of the cast with intimidating, predatory physicality; he is prone to indulgence in his vices; and he constantly seems at risk of releasing some wild, uncontrollable madness lingering just beneath his surface. But as we all well know, Adam has an unerring talent for lending pathos to even the most objectively condemnable characters.

In a repeated refrain during his first comedy show, the audience keeps asking him, “Why did you become a comedian?” He dodges the question or gives sarcastic answers, until finally circling back to the true answer later in the film. It was something to the effect of: “To disarm people. It’s the only way I can tell the truth without it killing me.” Even for all their sick spectacle, there are also moments in his stand-up shows of disarming vulnerability and (seeming) honesty. In a similar moment of personal exposition, he confesses his temptation and “sympathy for the abyss.” (This phrase is hands down my favorite of the film.) He repeatedly refers to his struggle against “the abyss” and, at the same time, his perceived helplessness against it. “There’s so little I can do, there’s so little I can do,” he sings repeatedly throughout the film - usually just after doing something horrific.

Had he been played by anyone else, the first full look of him warming up before his show - hopping in place and punching the air like some wannabe boxer, interspersing puffs of his cigarette with chowing down on a banana – would have been enough for me to swear him off. His archetype is something of a cliché at this point – a brusque, boorish man who can’t stomach or preserve the love of others due to his own self-loathing. There were multiple points when it was only Adam’s face beneath the character that kept my heart cracked open to him. But sure enough, he wedged his fingers into that tiny crack and pried it wide open. The film’s final few scenes show him at his chin-wobbling best as he crumbles apart in small, mournful subtleties.

(General, semi-spoiler ahead as to the tone of the film’s ending – skip this paragraph if you’d rather avoid.) For a film that professes not to take itself very seriously (how else am I supposed to interpret the freaky puppet baby?), it delivers a harsh, unforgiving ending to its main character. And sure enough, despite how much I might have wanted to distance myself and believe it was only what he deserved, I found myself right there with him, sharing his pain. It is solely testament to Adam’s tireless dedication to breathing both gritty realism and stubborn beauty into his characters that Henry sank a hook into some piece of my sympathy.

Not only does Adam have to be the only actor capable of imbuing Henry with humanity despite his manifold wrongs, he also has to be the only actor capable of the wide-ranging transformations demanded of the role. He starts the movie with long hair and his full refrigerator brick house physique. His physicality and size are actively leveraged to engender a sense of disquiet and unpredictability through his presence. He appears in turns tormented and tormentor. There were moments when I found myself thinking of Conan the Barbarian, simply because his physical presence radiates such wild, primal energy (especially next to tiny, dainty Marion and especially with that long hair). Cannot emphasize enough: The raw sex appeal is off the goddamn charts and had me – a veteran fangirl of 3+ years - shook to my damn core.

The film’s progression then ages him – his hair cut shorter and his face and physique gradually becoming more gaunt. By the film’s end, he has facial prosthetics to make him seem even more stark and borderline sickly – a mirror of his growing internal torment. From a muscular, swaggering powerhouse, he pales and shrinks to a shell of a man, unraveling as his face becomes nearly deformed by time and guilt. He is in turns beautiful and grotesque; sensual and repulsive. I know of no other actor whose face (and its accompanying capacity for expressiveness) could lend itself to such stunning versatility.

Quick note here that he was given a reddish-brown birthmark on the right side of his face for this film?? It becomes more prominent once his hair is shorter in the film’s second half. I’m guessing it was Leos’ idea to make his face even more distinctive and riveting? If so, joke’s on you, Mr. Carax, because we’re always riveted. ☺

I mentioned way up at the beginning that the film is bookended by two scenes where the lines blur between actor and character, and between reality and performance. This comes full circle at the film’s end, with Henry’s final spoken words (this doesn’t give any plot away but skip to the next paragraph if you would rather avoid!) being “Stop watching me.” That’s it. The show is over. He has told his last joke, played out his final act, and now he’s done living his life as a source of cheap, unprincipled laughs and thrills for spectators. The curtain closes with a resounding silence.

Now, I definitely won’t have a section where I talk (of course) about the Ben Solo parallels. He’s haunted by an “abyss” aka darkness inside of him? Bad things happened when he finally gave in and stared into that darkness he knew lived within him? As a result of those tragedies, (SPOILER – Skip to next paragraph to avoid) he then finds himself alone and with no one to love or be loved by? NO I’M DEFINITELY NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT IT AT ALL, I’M JUST FINE HERE UNDER MY MOUNTAINS OF TISSUES.

Let’s talk about the music! The film definitely clocks in closer to a rock opera than musical, because almost the entire thing is conveyed through ongoing song, rather than self-contained musical numbers appearing here and there. This actually helps the film’s continuity and pacing, by keeping the characters perpetually in this suspended state of absurdity, always propelled along by some beat or melody. Whenever the film seems on the precipice of tipping all the way into the bleak and dark, the next whimsical tune kicks in to reel us all blessedly back. For example, after (SPOILER #1) happens, there’s a hard cut to the bright police station where several officers gather around Henry, bopping about and chattering on the beat “Questions! We have a few questions!”

Adam integrates his singing into his performance in such a way that it seems organic. I realized after the film that I never consciously considered the quality of his singing along the way. For all that I talked about the film maintaining the atmosphere of a fourth wall-defying performance piece, Adam’s singing is so fully immersed in the embodiment of his character that you almost forget he’s singing. Rather, this is simply how Henry McHenry exists. His stand-up scenes are the only ones in the film that do frequently transition back and forth between speaking and singing, but it’s seamlessly par for the course in Henry’s bizarre, dour show. He breaks into his standard “Now laugh!” number with uninterrupted sarcasm and contempt. There were certainly a few soft, poignant moments when his voice warbled in a tender vibrato you couldn’t help noticing – but otherwise, the singing was simply an extension of that full-body persona he manages to convey with such apparent ease and naturalism.

On the music itself: I’ll admit that the brief clip of “We Love Each Other So Much” we got a few weeks ago made me a tad nervous. It seemed so cheesy and ridiculous? But okay, you really can’t take anything from this movie out of context. Otherwise it is, indeed, utterly ridiculous. Not that none of it is ever ridiculous in context either, but I’m giving you assurances right now that it WORKS. Once you’re in the flow of constant singing and weirdness abound, the songs sweep you right along. Some of the songs lack a distinctive hook or melody and are moreso rhythmic vehicles for storytelling, but it’s now a day later and I still have three of the songs circulating pleasantly in my head. “We Love Each Other So Much” was actually the stand out for me and is now my favorite of the soundtrack. It’s reprised a few times later in the film, growing increasingly melancholy each time it is echoed, and it hits your heart a bit harder each time. The final song sung during (SPOILER #2), though without a distinctive melody to lodge in my head, undoubtedly left me far more moved than a spoken version of this scene would have. Adam’s singing is so painfully desperate and earnest here, and he takes the medium fully under his command.

Finally, it does have to be said that parts of this film veer fully towards the ridiculous and laughable. The initial baby version of the Annette puppet-doll was nothing short of horrifying to me. Annette gets more center-stage screen time in the film’s second half, which gives itself over to a few special effects sequences which look to be flying out at you straight from 2000 Windows Movie Maker. The scariest part is that it all seems intentional. The quality special effects appear when necessary (along with some unusual and captivating time lapse shots), which means the film’s most outrageous moments are fully in line with its guiding spirit. Its extravagant self-indulgence nearly borders on camp.

...And with that, I’ve covered the majority of the frantic notes I took for further reflection immediately after viewing. It’s now been a few days, and I’m looking forward to rewatching this movie when I can hopefully take it in a bit more fully. This time, I won’t just be struggling to keep up with the madness on screen. My concluding thoughts at this point: Is it my favorite Adam movie? Certainly not. Is it the most unforgettable? Aside from my holy text, The Last Jedi, likely yes. It really is the sort of thing you have to see twice to even believe it. And all in all, I say again that Adam truly carried this movie, and he fully inhabits even its highest, most ludicrous aspirations. He’s downright abhorrent in this film, and that’s exactly what makes him such a fucking legend.

I plan to make a separate post in the coming days about my experience at Cannes and the Annette red carpet, since a few people have asked! I can’t even express how damn good it feels to be globetrotting for Adam-related experiences again. <3

Thanks so much for reading! Feel free to ask me any further questions at all here or on Twitter! :)

*SYNOPSIS INCLUDED BELOW. DO NOT READ FURTHER IF AVOIDING SPOILERS!*

Synopsis: Comedian Henry McHenry and opera singer Ann Defrasnoux are both at the pinnacle of their respective success when they fall in love and marry. The marriage is happy and passionate for a time, leading to the birth of their (puppet) daughter, Annette. But tabloids and much of the world believe the crude, brutish Henry is a poor match for refined, idolized Ann. Ann and Henry themselves both begin to feel that something is amiss – Henry gradually losing his touch for his comedy craft, claiming that being in love is making him ill. He repeatedly and sardonically references how Ann’s opera career involves her “singing and dying” every night, to the point that he sees visions of her “dead” body on the stage. Meanwhile, Ann has a nightmare of multiple women accusing Henry of abusive and violent behavior towards them, and she begins growing wary in his presence. (He never acts abusively towards her, unless you count that scene when he tickles her feet and licks her toes while she’s telling him to stop??? Yeah I know, WILD.)

The growing sense of unease, that they’re both teetering on the brink of disaster, culminates in the most deranged of Henry’s stand-up comedy performances, when he gives a vivid reenactment of killing his wife by “tickling her to death.” The performance is so maudlin and unsettling that you wonder whether he’s not making it up at all, and the audience strongly rebukes him. (This is the “What is your problem?!” scene with tiddies out. The full version includes Adam storming across the stage, furiously singing/yelling, “What the FUCK is your problem?!”) But when Henry arrives home that night, drunk and raucous, Ann and Annette are both unharmed.

The couple take a trip on their boat, bringing Annette with them. The boat gets caught in a storm, and Henry drunkenly insists that he and Ann waltz in the storm. She protests that it’s too dangerous and begs him to see sense. (SPOILER #1) The boat lurches when Henry spins her, and Ann falls overboard to her death. Henry rescues Annette from the sinking boat and rows them both to shore. He promptly falls unconscious, and a ghost of Ann appears, proclaiming her intention to haunt Henry through Annette. Annette (still a toddler at this point and yes, still a wooden puppet) then develops a miraculous gift for singing, and Henry decides to take her on tour with performances around the world. He enlists the help of his “conductor friend,” who had been Ann’s accompanist and secretly had an affair with her before she met Henry.

Henry slides further into drunken debauchery as the tour progresses, while the Conductor looks after Annette and the two grow close. Once the tour concludes, the Conductor suggests to Henry that Annette might be his own daughter – revealing his prior affair with Ann. Terrified by the idea of anyone finding out and the possibility of losing his daughter, Henry drowns the Conductor in the pool behind his and Ann’s house. Annette sees the whole thing happen from her bedroom window.

Henry plans one last show for Annette, to be held in a massive stadium at the equivalent of the Super Bowl. But when Annette takes the stage, she refuses to sing. Instead, she speaks and accuses Henry of murder. (“Daddy kills people,” are the actual words – not that that was creepy to hear as this puppet’s first spoken words or anything.)

Henry stands trial, during which he sees an apparition of Ann from when they first met. They sing their regret that they can’t return to the happiness they once shared, until the apparition is replaced by Ann’s vengeful spirit, who promises to haunt Henry in prison. After his sentencing (it’s not clear what the sentence was, but Henry definitely isn’t going free), Annette is brought to see him once in prison. Speaking fully for the first time, she declares she can’t forgive her parents for using her: Henry for exploiting her voice for profit and Ann for presumably using her to take vengeance on Henry. (Yes, this is why she was an inanimate doll moving on strings up to this point – there was some meaning in that strange, strange artistic choice. She was the puppet of her parents’ respective egotisms.) The puppet of Annette is abruptly replaced by a real girl in this scene, finally enabling two-sided interaction and a long-missed genuine connection between her and Henry, which made this quite the emotional catharsis. (SPOILER #2) It concludes with Annette still unwilling to forgive or forget what her parents have done, and swearing never to sing again. She says Henry now has “no one to love.” He appeals, “Can’t I love you, Annette?” She replies, “No, not really.” Henry embraces her one last time before a guard takes her away and Henry is left alone.

…..Yes, that is the end. It left me with major emotional whiplash, after the whole film up to this point kept pulling itself back from the total bleak and dark by starting up a new toe-tapping, mildly silly tune every few minutes. But this last scene instead ends on a brutal note of harsh, unforgiving silence.

BUT! Make sure you stick around through the credits, when you see the cast walking through a forest together. (This is counterpart to the film’s opening, when you see the cast walking through LA singing “So May We Start?” directly to the audience) Definitely pay attention to catch Adam chasing/playing with the little girl actress who plays Annette! That imparts a much nicer feeling to leave the theater with. :’)

#Adam Driver #Annette #Cannes 2021 #driverdaily #Annette spoilers

112 notes · View notes

meimae · 3 years

Text

Look at me, not being on time for my April Immersion Overview as is the usual. (・w・;

First, little blog updates to get out of the way:

I reached 100 followers! Got an influx of people checking out my 1 year update post, and got plenty of nice compliments on my data collection.

For those of you wondering just why I keep up with so much data, it's mostly because it can get really hard to notice how much you're improving in a language especially with something like immersion learning that for people who don't get it feels like a waste of time or a time sink.

Graphs showing consistency, improvement in reading speed, increasing vocabulary counts, and generally just seeing numbers grow turns language learning more fun and motivating for me, and if as a bonus, it encourages someone to try immersion learning then that would be cool!

With that said, whether you're here as a fellow language learner, graphs enthusiast (笑), or just want some Japanese media recommendations, ようこそ!

Also, made a tiny DP change - it’s チト from 少女週末旅行. Pretty sure it’s the first manga series I ever finished in Japanese (not the first one I started since ちはやふる is still ongoing), and I always felt a bit of a ☆connection☆ with her - between her book-loving personality and being a no-nonsense kind of person, there was no way for me not to enjoy her character. Great beginner anime/manga if you’re not into most beginner recommendations.

-☆-

April has been a pretty good immersion month, as I was able to dip my toes in a variety of media. A bit competitive, too! The club I joined has been pulling all the stops to get to the Top 20 Immersion Leaderboard in it’s first month. I was able to snag the 9th spot among a bunch of people of different comprehension levels (the majority being N1+ since they’re able to comprehend much more and in turn stand longer immersion hours). Lots of tiny complaints though of potential “whitenoising” content (”listening” and “reading” but not comprehending very well just to get a large number to post), but really what can you do? People lie all the time on the internet. Besides, it’s internet points that doesn’t do anything beyond being a little shiny I guess.

Enough about that, let’s get into the nitty-gritty details you came here for!

ANIME

フルーツバスケット

Might need to rewatch this one. Felt like I didn’t connect with the characters the way the rest of its fandom has. I’m kinda sad about it, since I normally love Slice of Life and Fantasy, and I know this is one of my friend’s diehard shows.

ラブライブ! School Idol Project S2

A filler anime to watch tbh. Nice and easy enough to follow for beginners. Pretty good songs. With regards to it being a show about music and moe, I still 100% prefer K-On! if I’m going to be honest, but for a show about non-toxic idols, it’s good!

魔法少女まどか☆マギカ

First read this as English translated manga when I was 13 or something. Mistakes were made. Let’s all just agree to throw キュウベえ into a pit of fire and never talk about it again. Great ending and a show that really reworked the magical girl genre. But seriously, I was traumatized by マミ’s death then and now, help.

四月は君の嘘

Already knew what was going to happen even before watching this so I didn’t ugly cry like I was expecting. Still got that awful sinking feeling though. 10/10 would recommend for a good cry. Also, I’m planning to read the manga, might enjoy that more, because I’ve always liked it more than anime actually. *shocked pikachu face*

ホリミヤ

Watched before I even finished the manga which felt like a mistake at first until I realized that it perfectly stops where I stopped reading. Nice and comfy anime, the kind I would have loved as a teen. Fun animation too, making parts very dramatic even though it wasn’t really that deep of an issue even in the manga. Just teens feeling feelings. Still salty that we lose bad boy styled 宮村, but I get why it had to happen.

AUDIOBOOKS

氷菓

Second re-listen. I understand it fine, but it’s very easy to drift off when you can’t catch all the words so I had to replay often. Will have to mine more from the anime/book.

君の名は

I mined from the anime, and was really pleased to be able to follow all 6 hours of this audiobook perfectly fine. Will need to read the book, because I realized just how seamless reading it would be after listening to it with hardly any issue.

BOOKS

キッチェン

Completed! Read my thoughts about it and see my stats on this post.

君の膵臓を食べたい

Still trudging on with this one. It’s not a bad story, it’s pretty well written actually, I just made the mistake of watching both the anime and live adaptation first, so I know exactly what’s going to happen and it’s killing my motivation to keep reading. I guess reading the book first before watching the movie still applies in any language with me. Really need to 頑張れ and finish so I can move on.

三日間の幸福

Started reading towards the end of the month, mostly because I realized that every chapter is only 5000-15000 characters long, and I was able to read up to 40k in a day with Island most days. Only two chapters read so far though because I got distracted by manga, but it’s shaping up to be a really good plot and potentially a really sad one, too, so I’m interested.

DRAMA

花ざかりの君たちへイケメンパラダイス

Heard this was a classic so I gave it a try. Loved 生田斗真’s character in this one the most especially all his internal dialogue acted out. Also, 小栗旬 in anything is bound to be a good watch. Simple and fun watch. They dragged the ending so much though lmao

ごくせん

Look, I see 松本潤, I click. Definitely the kind of show you should watch for some great life advice. Planning to watch the 2nd and 3rd seasons even if there is a terrible lack of 松本潤, because I love my strong female protagonists, and man, ヤンクミ is such a great character. Need to read the manga, too, if I can find it.

極主夫道

Oof, this was kind of hard. The yakuza talk was throwing me off, but the rest of it was enjoyable. Not really plot heavy as I thought it was going to be. The comedy side of it was fun and predictable after the first few episodes. Overall, pretty good slice of life, family story with a twist.

MANGA

Read a bunch of manga this month, mostly because I am struggling to find the next vn to read.

おやすみプンプン

Read a couple of volumes (6-7). This manga is so good, but it’s so depressing I need to stop to take a breather every once in a while. Please don’t leave any spoilers. The club has been reacting to me reading this, and it has mostly been a lot of crying emotes. It’s both been enjoyable to see and really worrying. 笑

チ��ンソーマン

Club recommendation. Only read the 1st volume so far. I really need to get into more 少年 anime/manga. That’s currently my 苦手 genre which is awful because literally all the top anime/manga is 少年 help. I just can’t enjoy it much still even though it’s comprehensible to me.

ちはやふる中学生編

Read Vol. 1, chill read to me at this point after reading 45 volumes of the regular manga. Look, it’s my favorite 幼馴染 manga in baby format, of course I’m going to read this! 太一 has been a flake way before season 3 confirmed. Don’t come at me たいちはや stans bc I also like his character.

約束のネバーランド

Volume 7. I’m taking my sweet time with this one, because I heard the anime for season 2 sucked, so I’m avoiding it like the plague. This is 少年 how am I enjoying this and not everything else what.

ヲタクに恋は難しい

Enjoyed the anime hated the movie why did they make it a musical that sucked (ps i normally love musicals hated this one)

The オタク jargon is kinda hard to read suprisingly but I do enjoy this ship very much. It’s a lighthearted take to otaku culture which is great because seriously it’s scary out there.

ツバサ -RESERVoir CHRoNiCLE-

It’s my childhood ship, obviously I will read this again (read in English several years ago). Still as plot twisty as I remember it being (now at a bonus hard level reading it in Japanese 笑). Really enjoyed reading this one (I finished it this May).

-☆-

I’m starting to really dislike furigana in manga. It was a great help as a beginner, but now it’s like training wheels that you can’t take off. I feel like the gains I’m getting from manga is much lower than it was when I first started which makes me both proud of how far I’ve come, but also sad because I love manga. Sad that I might have to start choose VNs over it, because it’s not going to challenge me as much going forward. I mean it didn’t stop me from reading a lot of it this month, but you get the picture.

VISUAL NOVELS

ISLAND

Completed! See my stats and read my long spoiler filled post here.

ファタモルガーナの館

Picked up this VN and finished two doors (15 hours) before stopping. On the fence about it, because it has been kind of predictable so far, and I don’t particularly enjoy the horror genre. That said, this is more psychological than anything, so it’s probably not that that’s putting me off. The language is not exactly difficult, too - maybe some oddly specific words because it is after all historical fiction (which is one of my favorite genres, btw), and 敬語 is definitely interesting to read for once after encountering so many お嬢様 characters in anime/drama so far.

I think maybe it’s the conversations that are kind of dull - dots (silence) every few clicks that keeps breaking the flow of reading. Probably judging it really harshly too early, because it’s rated so high everywhere, and I just have high expectations. Definitely not dropping it yet though, just taking a break and testing a couple of other VNs before I settle with whatever I end up choosing. It is, after all, going to be another 50+ hour read, and I just don’t want to not enjoy the process, because having fun with the process is a huge part of immersion learning.

Let me know if you’ve read Fata and if I should continue!

-☆-

That’s it for this month!

If you have any suggestions on what to watch and read next, please send me a reply, especially for VNs because I’m struggling over here.

39 notes · View notes

buzzdixonwriter · 4 years

Text

My Five Most Influential

Someone asked: Who are the most influential writers in your life?

Good question.

The broad answer is that one gets influenced many different ways by many different sources. I enjoy poetry and song lyrics because they find ways of conveying the strongest emotional content in the most concise manner, music brings a sense of dramatic rhythm and fulfillment, the visual arts suggest ways of subtly adding many insights to a single strong idea, etc., etc., and of course, etc. (and that is also an example of a creative influence in my work).

But…to boil it down to those whom I most consciously made an effort to emulate, we find ourselves facing five creators that primed the pump.

This is not to say others whom I began following after them didn’t wield a lot of influence (thanx, Ernie, Bert, Jack, Bob, and Hank!) but these are the foundation of everything I’ve done in my career.

(And to those who notice a lack of diversity, I know, I know…but to be honest I have to acknowledge the truth, and the truth is for whatever reason, by chance or by choice, by fate or by fortune, these five dominated my sensibilities. I trust that I’ve grown and expanded my horizons since then, but they’re the hand I got dealt.)

. . .

Carl Barks

I loved ducks as a kid and my grandmother and aunt would always bring me a passel of duck-related comics when they came to visit.

There were some Daffy Duck comics mixed in there but while I know I looked at and enjoyed them, none of them stick in my mind like the Donald Duck and Uncle Scrooge stories of Carl Barks.

Typically my grandmother would read these comics to me and I’d imprint the dialog and captions in my brain, replaying them as I looked at the pictures over and over again.

Barks never wrote down to his audience, and his stories covered a vast array of genres, everything from straight domestic comedy to oddball adventures to screwy crime stories.

Donald and his nephews encountered dinosaurs more than once (another big favorite of mine), and Uncle Scrooge setting out to explore the asteroid belt in order to find a new home for his fabulous money bin was another tale I loved literally to pieces, but A Christmas For Shacktown remains my all time favorite graphic novel.

I’ll concede there are better graphic novels, but none of them warm my heart the way that Christmas story does.

Barks showed it’s possible to combine heart (not to be confused with sentimentality or =yuch!= schmaltz), vivid characters, and strong, intricate narrative. His plots where typically filled with unexpected twists and turns but his characters were always deeply involved in them, not just along for the ride.

He’s one of the greatest storytellers in the 20th century, and his work remains timeless enough to last for several centuries to come.

. . .

Ray Bradbury

The first Ray Bradbury story I remember encountering was “Switch On The Night” in its 1955 edition, read to my kindergarten class towards the end of the school year.

This would place the event sometime in the spring of 1959.

“Switch On The Night” captivated me because it was the first story I’d ever heard that showed what could be seen in the dark that couldn’t be seen in the day.

Even as a child, it made me realize the night wasn’t scary, but contained wonders and insights we miss in the harsh glare of day.

I don’t recall if the kindergarten teacher told us the name of the author, and if she did it didn’t stick, but boy howdy, the story sure did! Did it open the doors of the night for me, or was I already inclined to be a night person and it simply confirmed that as a valid identity?

I dunno, but I’m typing this right now at 12:24am.

And the thoughts Bradbury planted in little Buzzy boy’s brain stayed and grew and flowered, as you can read in my poem, “The Magic Hours Of The Night”.

The next time I encountered Ray Bradbury’s writing was in grammar school, certainly no later than junior high. I was already interested in science fiction by that point, and had read “The Pedestrian” in one of my school English books (we weren’t taught the story in class; the teacher skipped over it for whatever reason but I read it anyway then re-read it and read it again and again).

Anthony Boucher’s ubiquitous 2-volume A Treasury Of Great Science Fiction was in my grammar school library and in it was Bradbury’s “Pillar Of Fire” (which I would later learn was one of his alternate Martian Chronicles and a crossover with Fahrenheit 451) and in that story he offered up a veritable laundry list of outré and outlandish fiction to be tracked down and read, authors to dig up and devour.

Oh, man, I was hooked.

So of course I began looking for all the stories and writers Bradbury listed in his short story but I also began looking for Bradbury’s own work and before you could say, “Mom, can I get a subscription to the Science Fiction Book Club?” I’d read The Golden Apples Of The Sun and A Medicine For Melancholy and R is For Rocket never once dreaming that at some point in the future the roadmap Ray plopped down in my lap would eventually lead to us being co-workers (separate projects, but the same studio at the same time) and friends.

There is a beautiful yet deceptive simplicity to Ray’s work, and even though he wrote his own book on writing (The Zen Of Writing) that has lots of good insights and professional tricks & tips, he himself wasn’t able to explain how he did it.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a good Ray Bradbury parody.

I’ve seen parodies that clearly are intended to evoke Ray Bradbury, but only in the same way a clumsy older relative might evoke Michael Jackson with a spasmodic movement one vaguely recognizes as a failed attempt at a moonwalk.

But, lordie, don’t think we didn’t try to emulate him, and while none of us fanboys ever came close, I think a lot of us did learn that less is more, that the right word carries more impact than a dozen paragraphs, and that there’s magic in even the most ordinary of things.

And of course I discovered the film and TV adaptations of his work, and in discovering them I also discovered that there are some things that just can’t be translated from one media to another, and that the light, effortless appeal of Ray’s work on the page (paper or pixel) can at best be recaptured with a good audio book reader but even the best dramatic adaptions -- even those by Ray himself -- are cold dead iron butterflies compared to the light and lively creatures flying about.

So eventually I stopped trying to write like him, and instead picked up the valuable lessons of mood and emotion making an impact on a story even if the plot didn’t make much logical sense.

Decades later I would become a fan of opera, and would learn the philosophy of all opera lovers: Opera doesn’t have to make logical sense, it just has to make emotional sense.

Ray Bradbury, opera meister.

. . .

H.P. Lovecraft

As noted above, Bradbury’s “Pillar Of Fire” tipped me to numerous other writers, first and foremost of which turned out to be Howard Phillips Lovecraft.

Okay, before we get any further into this, let’s acknowledge the woolly mammoth in the room: H.P. Lovecraft was a colossal asshat racist.

He was a lot of other terrible things, too, but racist is far and ahead of the rest of the pack.

It’s a disillusioning thing to find people one admired as a youngster or a teen later prove to have not just quirks and eccentricities and personal flaws, but genuinely destructive, harmful, and offensive characters.

I’ve posted on that before, too.

How I wish it were possible to retroactively scale back that hurtfulness, to make them more empathetic, less egregiously offensive (in the military sense of the word), but that ain’t so.

We have to acknowledge evil when we see it, and we have to call it out, and we have to shun it.

Which is hard when one of its practitioners provides a major influence in our creative lives.

Here’s what I liked about Lovecraft as a kid: He was the complete opposite of Ray Bradbury.

Bradbury’s instinctive genius was in finding the right word, the simple word that conveyed great impact on the story, drawing the reader into the most fantastic situations by making them seem more familiar on a visceral level.

Lovecraft achieved the exact opposite effect by finding the most arcane, bedizened, baroque, florid, grandiloquent, overwrought, rococo verbiage possible and slapping the reader repeatedly in the face with it.

If Bradbury made the unreal real, Lovecraft made the weird even more weirder.

And let’s give this devil his due: The Strange Case Of Charles Dexter Ward and The Dunwich Horror are two masterpieces of horror and serve as the bridge between Edgar Allen Poe and Stephen King, not to mention his creation of Cthulhu and other ancient entities existing beyond the ken of human knowledge…

…oh, wait, that’s where the story simultaneously gets messy yet provides a convenient escape hatch for fans.

While Lovecraft created Cthulhu, he did not create the Cthulhu Mythos.

That was primarily the invention August Derleth, a writer / editor / agent and H.P. Lovecraft’s #1 fanboy.

Lovecraft had some loosely related ideas in his stories and several themes he revisited repeatedly (in addition to racism).

He also had a circle of fellow writers -- including such heavy hitters as Robert “Psycho” Bloch and Robert E. “Conan” Howard -- who picked up on his ideas and, as way of a tribute, incorporated them in some of their stories.

Derleth took all this and Lovecraft’s unfinished manuscripts and short ideas he jotted down and turned it into a whole post-mortem industry, linking all of Lovecraft and other writers’ tales.

And he did a damn fine job of it, too.

So much so that the Cthulhu Mythos has taken on a life of its own, and pretty much anybody can play in that cosmic sandbox now (including Big Steve King and a ton of Japanese anime) and so Lovecraft’s works have an enormous influence on pop culture…

,,,but Howard hizzowndamsef can be -- and is -- cancelled.

Derleth and various biographers downplayed Lovecraft’s virulent racism for decades, and I don’t think Ray Bradbury was ever aware of the scope and tenor of Lovecraft’s bigotry when he name checked him in “Pillar Of Fire” and other stories.

In a similar vein Bradbury didn’t know -- because thanks again to overly protective literary executors, nobody knew -- just how big a racist asshat Walt Whitman was, either. It is one thing to call shenanigans on a Bill Cosby or a Harvey Weinstein or a Donald Trump because their egregious behaviors were noted long before they were held accountable, but quite another to do so on a creator who died while hiding their most awful behavior from thousands if not millions of fans who felt inspired and uplifted by their work.

It’s one thing to call out a contemporary bigot and not support them by not buying their work, it’s quite another when their bigotry has been shielded from view and fair minded, decent people have used their work to draw inspiration into their own creativity.

Of course, I had no way of knowing all this when I was in junior high and seriously began tracking down Lovecraft’s work.

He possessed a flair of the horrific and unearthly that to this day is hard to match (but easier to parody). He was a tremendous influence on my early writing (truth be told, I zigzagged between Bradbury’s stark simplicity and Lovecraft’s overarching verbosity, giving my early oeuvre a rather schizophrenic style) and the ideas he sparked still reverberate to this day.

If only he hadn’t been such a giant %#@&ing asshat racist …

. . .

Harlan Ellison

In a way, I’m glad neither Harlan nor his widow Susan are alive to read this.

I cherished Harlan as a friend and greatly admired his qualities as a writer.

But damn, by his own admission he should have been thrown in prison for aggravated assault on numerous occasions (he was courts martialed three times while in the Army).

We’re not talking about arguments that spiraled out of control until a few wild punches were thrown, we’re talking about Harlan by his own admission stalking and ambushing people, knocking them unconscious or causing grievous bodily harm.

We’re talking about sexual abuse and humiliation.

We’re talking about incidents he admitted to which if true put people in life threatening situations.

And yet ironically, in a certain sense Harlan (a bona fide Army Ranger, BTW) was like the U.S. Marine Corps: You’d never have a greater friend or a worse enemy.

I became dimly aware of Harlan in the late 1960s as I started diving deeper into literary sci-fi, transitioning from monster kid fandom to digests and paperbacks. Harlan first caught my attention with his macho prose (years later a similar style also drew me to Charles Bukowski) in stories like “Along the Scenic Route” (a.k.a. “Dogfight on 101”) in which Los Angelinos engaged in Mad Max motor mayhem but soon it became apparent the macho posturing was just a patina, that the heart and soul of much of the work reflected great sensitivity and often profound melancholy (ditto Bukowski).

Harlan was a fighter, and again by his own admission, he acknowledged in his later years that he was not a fighter because his cause was just, but rather sought out just causes because he knew he would be fighting regardless of his position, yet possessed a strong enough moral compass to point himself in the direction of a worthy enemy…

…most of the time.

He hurt and offended a large number of innocent and some not-so-innocent-but-certainly-not-evil people.

He also helped and encouraged a large number of others, people who had no idea who he was, people who had no way of adequately reciprocating his kindness and generosity.

He defended a lot of defenseless people.

He also mistakenly defended a lot of terrible people.

If someone tells me Harlan was a monster, I’ll agree: Monstre sacré.

What made his writing sacred was that no matter how outlandish the situation, Harlan dredged up from the depths emotions so strong as to be frightening in their depiction.

Skilled enough not to lose sight of humanity, outlandish enough to conjure up ideas and emotions most people would shy away from, Harlan hit adolescent Buzzy boy like an incendiary grenade.

Unlike my first three literary influences, Harlan was and remained active in the fannish circles where I was circulating at the time. He regularly wrote letters and columns for various fanzines, including a few I subscribed to.

In a literary sense he stood, naked and unashamed, in full view of the world, and that willingness to go beyond mundane sensibilities is what made his work so compelling.

He certainly fired me up as an adolescent writer, and proved an amalgam of Bradbury and Lovecraft that got my creative juices flowing in a coherent direction.

I don’t think I ever consciously tried to imitate him in my writing, but I sure learned from him, both in how to charge a story with emotion and how to fight for what’s right regardless of the blow back.

I loved him as a friend.

But, damn, Harlan…you could act so ugly...

. . .

H. Allen Smith

Who?

Most of you have never heard of H. Allen Smith, and that’s a damn shame.

I’d never heard of him either until I stumbled across a coverless remaindered copy of Poor H. Allen Smith’s Almanac in a Dollar General Store bin in Tennessee in the late 1960s (it was a memorable shopping expedition: I also purchased Thomas Heggen’s Mister Roberts and Let’s Kill Uncle by Rohan O'Grady [pen name of June Margaret O'Grady Skinner]).

Reading Smith’s editorial comments (in addition to his own essays and fiction he edited numerous humor anthologies) I realized I’d found a kindred soul.

Smith had a very conversational tone as a writer; his prose seemed off the cuff and unstructured, but he slyly used that style to hide the very peculiar (and often perverse) path he led readers down.

He sounded / read like a garrulous guy at the bar, one with a huge number of charming, witty (and delightfully inebriated) friends in addition to his own bottomless well of tall tales, pointed observations, and rude jokes.

Of all the writers mentioned above, that style is the one I most consciously tried to emulate, and one I seem to have been able to find my own voice in (several people have told me I write the same way I talk, a rarity among writers).

Smith was hilarious whether wearing an editor’s visor or a freelancer’s fool’s cap. If you know who H. L. Mencken was, think of Smith as a benign, better tempered version of that infamous curmudgeon (and if you don’t know, hie thee hence to Google and find out).

Compared to my other four influences, Smith didn’t need to add the fantastic to his fiction: The real world was weird and wacky and whimsical enough.

A newspaper man turned best selling author, Smith became among the most popular humorists of the 1940s-50s-60s…

…and then he died and everybody forgot him.

Part of the reason they forgot is that he wrote about things that no longer seem relevant (TV cowboys of the early television era, f’r instance, in Mr. Zip) or are today looked upon askance (and with justifiable reason; the ethnic humor in many of his anthologies may not have been intended as mean spirited, but it sure doesn’t read as a celebration of other cultures, viz his succinct account of an argument following a traffic accident between two native Honolulu cabbies rendered in pidgin: “Wassamatta you?” “’Wassmatta me’?!?!? Wassamatta you ‘Wassamatta me’? You wassamatta!”).

I’m sure I picked up a great many faults from Smith, but Smith also had the virtue of being willing and able to learn and to make an effort to be a better person today than he was yesterday, and better still tomorrow.

I’ve certainly tried applying that to my life.

Smith’s style was also invoked -- consciously or not -- by other writers and editors, notably Richard E. Geis, the editor of the legendary sci-fi semi-prozone, Science Fiction Review (among other titles). Smith died before I could meet him, but while I never met Dick Geis face to face we were pen pals for over 40 years.

Geis certainly sharpened specific aspects of my writing style, but the real underlying structure came from H. Allen Smith.

Smith’s work is hard to find today (in no small part because whenever I encounter one in the wild I snap it up) but I urge you to give him a try.

Just brace yourself for things we might consider incorrect today.

. . .

So there’s my top five.

With the exception of Carl Barks and Ray Bradbury, none of them are without serious flaw or blemish (though Smith seems like a decent enough sort despite his fondness for X-rated and ethnic humor).

In my defense as an impressionable child / teen, I was not aware of these flaws and blemishes when I first encountered their writing (primarily because in many cases efforts were made to hide or downplay those aspects).

The positive things I gleaned from them are not negated by the negative personal information that came out later.

I can, for the most part re the more problematic of them, appreciate their work while not endorsing their behavior.

Ellison can only be described in extremes, but his fire and passion -- when directed in a positive direction -- served as a torch to light new paths (his two original anthologies, Dangerous Visions and Again, Dangerous Visions, pretty much blew the doors off old school sci-fi and belatedly dragged the genre kicking and screaming into the 20th century).

Lovecraft I can effectively ignore while finding entertainment value in the Cthulhu Mythos.

But I must acknowledge this isn’t the same for everyone.

For example, as innocuous as I find H. Allen Smith, if a woman or a member of a minority group said, “I found this in particular to be offensive” I’d probably have to say, yeah, you’re right.

But I can still admire the way he did it, even if I can no longer fully support what he did.

. . .

By the time I reached high school, I’d acquired enough savvy to regard to literary finds a bit more dispassionately, appreciating what they did without trying to literally absorb it into my own writing.

I discovered for myself the Beat generation of writers and poets, the underground cartoonists of the late 60s and 70s, Ken Kesey, Joseph Heller, Philip K. Dick, Ursula K. LeGuin, and a host of others, some already alluded to.

Some, such as the Beats and Bukowski, I could enjoy for their warts and all honest self-reflection.

Yes, they were terrible people, but they knew they were terrible people, and they also knew there had to be something better, and while they may never have found the nirvana they sought, they at least sent back accurate reports of where they were in their journeys of exploration.

By my late teens, I’d become aware enough of human foibles and weaknesses -- every human’s foibles and weaknesses, including my own -- to be very, very cautious in regarding an individual as admirable.

While I will never accept creativity as an excuse for bad behavior, if a creator is honest enough and self-introspective enough to recognize and acknowledge their own failings, it goes a long way towards my being willing to enjoy their work without feeling I’m endorsing them as individuals.

It’s not my place to pass judgment or exoneration on others bad behavior.

It is my place to see that I don’t emulate others’ bad behavior.

Every creator is connected to their art, even if it’s by-the-numbers for-hire hack work.

Every creator puts something of themselves into the final product.

And every member of the audience must decide for themselves if that renders the final product too toxic to be enjoyed.

#how this writer's mind works #writing #Carl Barks #Ray Bradbury #HP Lovecraft #Harlan Ellison #H Allen Smith #influences

3 notes · View notes

loadinggrab724 · 3 years

Text

Cast Of The Movie Knives Out

The new murder mystery movie Knives Out is filled with famous actors many audiences already know and love. But there's one face in the cast who might not be as familiar to fans. For now, at least. In Knives Out, Johnson will play Richard Drysdale, the husband to Jamie Lee Curtis' Linda. Recently, the Tin Cup actor went on The Deep Cut podcast and raved about his experience on set. Knives Out features a massive ensemble cast including Daniel Craig in Knives Out, Christopher Plummer, Chris Evans, Ana De Armas, Jamie Lee Curtis, Don Johnson, Michael Shannon, Toni Collette.

Axelle/Bauer-Griffin/FilmMagic/Getty Images

The new murder mystery movie Knives Out is filled with famous actors many audiences already know and love. But there's one face in the cast who might not be as familiar to fans... for now, at least. Ana de Armas, who plays Marta Cabrera in Knives Out, is a total standout in the film, and has audiences excited to see more of her (which they will).

In Knives Out, De Armas' Marta is the protagonist and caretaker of the famous and wealthy author Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer). When Harlan dies suddenly and gruesomely, Marta is forced to deal with his greedy extended family — and a big secret of her own — while a team of detectives investigate the whole situation. Even among the big, stacked cast, which includes Daniel Craig, Jamie Lee Curtis, Katherine Langford, Chris Evans, Toni Collette, and more, the relative newcomer stands out in her dynamic role.

With Knives Out as well as another major upcoming blockbuster, it's been a busy time for de Armas. 'I’m not complaining, because it’s taken me a long time to get here, and I’m living my dream,” de Armas told the Los Angeles Times. 'This is exactly what I want to be and what I want to do — but gosh, I’m tired. I feel like I repeat that a lot. But I’m tired. I think 2020 will be the year for me to sleep a little bit more.”

The actor might be going to sleep in 2020, but that'll be the year audiences will definitely be seeing a lot more of her. Here are the key facts you need to know to get ready for what's shaping up to be the Year of de Armas:

1. When She Arrived In Hollywood, She Didn't Speak English

De Armas was born in a small town just outside Havana, Cuba, in 1988. At age 18, she became a TV star in Spain, and she then moved to the U.S. in 2014 to take on Hollywood. She didn't speak English when she arrived, so she did months of intensive language studies before landing roles in movies like War Dogs and Blade Runner 2049.

2. She Initially Turned Down 'Knives Out'

The character description for de Armas' character Marta simply said she was a 'pretty Latina caretaker,' and, unhappy with that description, she decided she didn't want to be involved with the project. She explained to The Hollywood Reporter:

Getting an email that described the character like that — without any more information or a script attached because it was high-profile and secret — just really didn’t speak to me. So, because of the character description, my imagination immediately went to a portrayal that was not necessarily very positive or exciting in relation to Latin culture.

Luckily, she learned Marta was much more nuanced. She said to THR, 'When I finally read the script, I realized that the description didn’t fit at all because Marta is so much more than that.”

3. She's Co-Starring In A Film With Ben Affleck

De Armas and Affleck are playing a wife-andohusband duo in the upcoming thriller Deep Water. The movie is expected to come out toward the end of 2020.

4. She's The Next 'Bond Girl'

James Bond is known for having a badass woman by his side in each movie, and de Armas is going to play the part in the upcoming No Time to Kill. Unlike some Bond films of the past, however, the Los Angeles Times reports there will be 'a very different dynamic' between 007 and his co-star this time around.

Knives Out is in theaters now.

By/Nov. 18, 2019 6:18 pm EDT/Updated: Oct. 19, 2020 12:01 pm EDT

After directing critically-acclaimed films like Brick, Looper, and Star Wars: The Last Jedi, Rian Johnson turned his attention to the murder mystery genre, giving us the star-studded Knives Out. The movie currently sits at a lofty 97 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, which is quite the accolade, and Vox's Alissa Wilkinson describes the flick as 'a delightful Agatha Christie-style whodunnit made for 2019 America.'

Perhaps the film's most obvious asset is its wildly talented cast, consisting of former superheroes, super villains, super spies, a few legendary Hollywood superstars, and everything in between. But while watching a murder mystery movie, the only thing you want to be trying to solve is who the killer is, not who the actor or actress playing the killer is and what other films you've seen them in before. So, before you watch the movie, here's a handy who's who for Rian Johnson's whodunnit, Knives Out.

Daniel Craig steals the show as Detective Benoit Blanc

Unless you've been living under a rock for the past decade, chances are good that you're familiar with Daniel Craig and his prestigious body of work. The English actor's breakout role was that of the iconic 00 Agent, James Bond, in 2006's Casino Royale. It was a role that, thanks to multiple sequels (four to date), landed him on Forbes' World's Highest Paid Actors list in 2015. However, the handsome Brit is far from a one-trick pony. Over the years, Craig has excelled in a vast array of genres, ranging from dramas like 2002's Oscar-winning Road to Perdition to comedies like 2017's Logan Lucky. He's certainly come a long way from playing a love-struck stableboy in Disney's mid-'90s medieval stinker, A Kid in King Arthur's Court.

In Knives Out, Craig plays Benoit Blanc, a private detective brought on to investigate the apparent suicide of a famous crime novelist. Craig was actually the first actor to sign on to the project, and he was apparently flattered to have been offered the part. As he explained to Cinema Blend, 'I hadn't read something like that (screenplay) before, and I was just over the moon that he (Johnson) offered it to me.' With a lead like Craig, it's no mystery why so many critics are crazy about Knives Out.

Chris Evans stars as Ransom Drysdale

Agatha Christie lovers ... assemble! Although the MCU's Captain America obviously won't be making an appearance in Johnson's murder mystery, Chris Evans, who's played the star-spangled Avenger several times since 2011's Captain America: The First Avenger, will be. The Boston-bred hunk has flexed his dramatic ability in films like Before We Go and Gifted, but not as often as he's flexed his impressive physical physique in action flicks like Push, The Losers, and Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.

With an apparent affinity for playing 'the good guy,' Evans has played not one but two different superheroes, first starring as the Human Torch in the Fantastic Four franchise. His role of Ransom Drysdale in Knives Out, however, will be quite the opposite. Speaking with Entertainment Weekly, Evans explained, 'I'm usually tasked with playing guys who are a little more noble, and this guy is a little bit more vile. It's fun.'

Toni Collette is Joni Thrombey in Knives Out

Although it didn't exactly light up the box office, 1992's The Efficiency Expert, starring acting legends like Anthony Hopkins, Russell Crowe, and even a young Ben Mendelsohn, marked the film debut of Toni Collette. In the decades to come, the Australian actress would enjoy a highly successful career, most evidenced by her massive award-season love.

Cast Of The Movie Knives Out

In 2009, she was cast as the lead role (or, perhaps more appropriately, lead roles) in Showtime's United States of Tara. As Tara, a mother coping with dissociative identity disorder, Collette earned wins at both the Golden Globes and the Emmys. On the big screen, the actress has excelled in dramatic comedies like Little Miss Sunshine and About a Boy. However, she's perhaps most recognized for her work in a pair of iconic horror flicks: 1999's unforgettably twisty The Sixth Sense and 2018's disturbingly dark Hereditary.

In Knives Out, the decorated actress plays Joni Thrombey, a 'lifestyle guru' (drawing obvious inspiration from Gwyneth Paltrow and her company, Goop) and daughter-in-law of murder victim Harlan Thrombey. When speaking to Deadline, Collette showered the murder mystery's script with praise, saying, 'It was all in the writing. In reading it, it just kept opening up and changing, and it was so swift, and so smooth, and so surprising.'

Katherine Langford appears as Meg Thrombey

What Katherine Langford's filmography lacks in quantity, it makes up for in quality. At the ripe age of 20, the young Australian actress landed the role of ill-fated high school student Hannah Baker in the Netflix smash series 13 Reasons Why. Langford stole the show as Hannah, even earning a Golden Globe nominee for her performance. Her newfound stardom landed her parts in two movies in 2018, The Misguided and Love, Simon.

Although she'd previously worked with some fairly big names, such as Jennifer Garner and Josh Duhamel, Langford was admittedly quite starstruck when seeing her Knives Out co-stars in action. Talking with Yahoo! TV, Langford said, 'I get so in awe of everyone. ... I've watched all of these people.' While sharing the screen with A-listers like Daniel Craig and Chris Evans must've been incredible, the young starlet, who plays Meg Thrombey in the whodunnit, went on to specifically give praise to her fellow Aussie actress. 'Toni Collette, who plays my mom in this film, she's a legend in her own right. To work a lot with her is amazing, and to work with everyone is amazing.'

Knives Out features Michael Shannon as Walt Thrombey

Michael Shannon has quietly evolved into one of the most well-rounded actors in Hollywood. The two-time Oscar-nominated actor has appeared in a plethora of movies over the past 20 years, ranging from action blockbusters to dramatic thrillers. The first movie he ever popped up in was actually 1993's classic comedy, Groundhog Day, but he's really made much more of a name for himself in serious roles, such as the mentally disturbed John Givings in 2008's Revolutionary Road.

You might also recognize Shannon from parts he played in films throughout the 2000s, including Vanilla Sky, 8 Mile, and Bad Boys II. He's given notable performances for director Jeff Nichols in movies like Take Shelter andMidnight Special, and on HBO's Boardwalk Empire, he portrayed Nelson Van Alden, an agent for the Bureau of Prohibition. He even went toe-to-toe with Henry Cavill's Superman as General Zod in 2013's Man of Steel.

In Knives Out, the Kentucky-bred actor plays Walt Thrombey, the new CEO of his father's publishing house. In an interview with Slash Film, Shannon mentioned how great it was to work with Rian Johnson on the set, saying, 'I had a blast, man, that was so much fun. ... Also, Rian is a super, super sweet guy.' Having a sweet boss must be a major plus on a movie production.

Ana de Armas is playing Marta Cabrera

Although her official acting debut came in a Spanish film in 2006, Ana de Armas' Hollywood career really started in 2015, starring alongside Keanu Reeves as Bell in the dark thriller Knock Knock. After that, she played Miles Teller's girlfriend, Iz, in War Dogs, and then the holographic Joi in the trippy Blade Runner 2049.

Although she's starring alongside Daniel Craig in 2020's new Bond film, No Time to Die, the gorgeous Cuban starlet first shared the screen with him in Knives Out. As Marta Cabrera, the recently deceased Harlan Thrombey's live-in nurse, de Armas is one of the prime murder suspects. But while de Armas admittedly had a wonderful experience on set, shooting in Boston had one particular downside. As she explained, 'It was my first time in Boston. It was freezing, for a Cuban especially.' The actress may have been cold, but is she actually Knives Out's cold-blooded killer?

Jamie Lee Curtis is showing up as Linda Drysdale

Jamie Lee Curtis is truly an American treasure. The California-raised actress has appeared in so many films and TV shows through the years that it's hard to keep track of them all. If you're a horror fan, you probably know her best as Laurie Strode in John Carpenter's Halloween franchise. However, she's so much more than a scream queen. Curtis has starred in action classics like True Lies, kids' movies like Freaky Friday, and a slew of feel-good comedies, including My Girl and You Again.

With an ensemble cast as star-studded as that of Knives Out, it's hard to imagine any one person really standing out. However, when speaking to Entertainment Tonight, director Rian Johnson had a clear cut MVP: Jamie Lee Curtis as Linda Drysdale. The award-winning actress would show up early to set every day, even when she wasn't scheduled to be in the scene. 'I was like, 'Jamie Lee Curtis is here! Film her!' She got into scenes she wasn't even supposed to be in — just because she was there!' Talk about being in the right place at the right time!

Knives Out stars Don Johnson as Richard Drysdale

Detective James Crockett has certainly aged well. Don Johnson, who won a Golden Globe for his portrayal of the snazzily dressed, undercover detective in the classic '80s TV series Miami Vice, remains a big name in Hollywood, still popping up in movies while well into his 60s. Since 2010, the Missouri-born actor has starred in a few Western-themed action flicks, such as Machete and Django Unchained, as well as a couple of romantic comedies, including The Other Woman and Book Club. He's also been an apparent go-to-guy for HBO, starring in both Eastbound & Down as Kenny Powers' father, Eduardo Sanchez, and more recently as police sheriff Judd Crawford in Watchmen.

In Knives Out, Johnson will play Richard Drysdale, the husband to Jamie Lee Curtis' Linda. Recently, the Tin Cup actor went on The Deep Cut podcast and raved about his experience on set. He also disclosed that he was able to see an early screening of the film, and it blew him away. 'Actually it's so good that I am super proud of it.'

Christopher Plummer is playing Harlan Thrombey

Canadian actor Christopher Plummer solidified his status as an acting great by taking home an Oscar for his portrayal of Hal, a closeted gay man, in 2010's Beginners. With acting credits dating back to the 1950s, Plummer has enjoyed an exceptionally long and fruitful career, and it's still going strong. In 2001, he played Dr. Rosen in the Oscar-winning A Beautiful Mind, and in 2017, he played J. Paul Getty in the Oscar-nominated All the Money in the World. He certainly has a knack of being attached to prestigious projects, going all the way back to The Sound of Music.

In Knives Out, Plummer is playing Harlan Thrombey, a famous mystery author who's found dead. In the film, Harlan is tended to by his live-in nurse, Marta, played by Ana de Armas, and it sounds as though the two performers really developed a strong relationship on set. When The Hollywood Reporter caught up with Plummer at TIFF, the Barrymore actor was asked, of all the people in attendance at the film festival, who he would most like to be stuck in an elevator with. And the man replied, 'Apart from my wife, I think Marta (de Armas), our beautiful lady who is such a good actress. ... That would be very pleasant.' It's safe to assume that most guys would agree with Plummer's response.

Jaeden Martell is taking on the role of Jacob Thrombey

He may look young, but don't make the mistake of thinking Jaeden Martell isn't already the man. He's not even 20 years old yet, and he's already starred in a couple of major movies and TV shows. Before playing Bill Denbrough, the leader of the Losers' Club, in 2017's It, the young star shined alongside Bill Murray in 2014's St. Vincent, and he also played Johnny Masters in Showtime's often raunchy drama, Masters of Sex. (He was also the title character in The Book of Henry ... although the less said about that particular film, the better.)

Cast Of The Movie Knives Out Full

In Knives Out, Martell plays Jacob Thrombey, the internet-trolling son of Michael Shannon's Walt. Interestingly enough, this isn't the first time Martell and Shannon played father and son on the big screen. In 2016, the duo co-starred in the thrilling sci-fi mystery, Midnight Special. It must be nice to have a father figure like Shannon on set.

Movie Knives Out Cast

Lakeith Stanfield will try to solve the mystery as Detective Lieutenant Elliot

Life has been especially good for Lakeith Stanfield over the past ten years. The California-raised actor's first big break was getting cast as Marcus in Short Term 12, alongside Brie Larson. He then was cast as Jimmie Lee Jackson in 2014's Oscar-winning Martin Luther King Jr. biopic, Selma. Since then, his career has really caught fire. Although he's appeared in popular films like Get Out, Sorry to Bother You, and Netflix's Death Note, perhaps his most recognizable role is that of the philosophical stoner Darius in Donald Glover's comedic drama Atlanta. Then again, he also portrayed a young Snoop Dogg in 2015's Straight Outta Compton, so you be the judge.

For Knives Out, Stanfield is playing Lieutenant Elliot, a detective investigating Harlan Thrombey's death who initially believes it to be a suicide. However, as more clues begin to surface, his character starts to suspect something more sinister is afoot. The award-winning actor will, much like the audience, try to solve Rian Johnson's whodunnit.

Cast Of The Movie Knives Out Netflix

Riki Lindhome will be appearing in Knives Out as Donna Thrombey

Who Is The Cast Of Movie Knives Out

Riki Lindhome is undoubtedly one funny chick, but she doesn't limit herself to just comedy. Although she and fellow comedian Kate Micucci make up the comedy duo Garfunkel & Oates, Lindhome's first on-screen part was as Mardell Fitzgerald in Clint Eastwood's Oscar-winning Million Dollar Baby. After that, she landed the recurring role of Juliet in the sixth season of the Gilmore Girls, as well as parts in films like My Best Friend's Girl, Changeling, and The Last House on the Left.

Cast Of The Movie Knives Out Cast

In Johnson's murder mystery, the Emmy-nominated actress is playing Donna Thrombey, the wife of Michael Shannon's Walt and mother of Jaeden Martell's Jacob. In addition to working with some major movie stars, Lindhome has certainly enjoyed the movie's many twists and turns, telling Yahoo! Entertainment, 'You see a lot of movies, and they'll have like one big twist. With Knives Out, there's just one after the other after the other. ... By the end everything's woven together in this sort of masterful puzzle.' Count us in!

1 note · View note

doomonfilm · 3 years

Text

Ranking : John Carpenter (1948 - present)

If one were to name off ten American directors from the past half-century or so in rapid fire fashion, I’d be willing to put money on the table that a vast majority would have the name John Carpenter on that list. His impact on horror, suspense and psychological thriller films is undeniable, and his prolific ability to score his films with iconic music he creates puts him in the realm of legends. For a director that dwells in the areas usually set aside for disposable box office fodder, it is surprising that at least five of his films (and possibly more, depending on who’s doing the debating) could be consider bonafide classics.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about putting this list together was the discovery and true understanding of just how much range that Carpenter is capable of, even if his films are distinctly his both in terms of genre-based elements and directorial style. When it comes to the films Memoirs of an Invisible Man (a personal favorite from my pre-teen years) and Starman, I didn’t even realize they were John Carpenter films because they were so different from what I’d come to know him for. Revisiting the films I was familiar with gave me great joy, and taking in the films I’d overlooked or passed on gave me a deeper understanding of John Carpenter not only as a creative spirit, but as a man trying to stake a claim to his voice in an industry famous for conformity.

With that being said, I took all eighteen of John Carpenter’s feature length films and ranked them in terms of my personal enjoyment and opinion. As always, the floor is open for discussion, so feel free to share your thoughts and open up a dialogue, and enjoy!

18. The Ward (2010) I’m going to be 100% honest with you all… coming in to this list, I pretty much had already decided that Ghosts of Mars was going to anchor this list. Fifteen movies in, it felt like my prediction would come to be. But then, something funny happened… The Ward showed up in my mailbox courtesy of Netflix DVD. I watched the film, and so many other films came to mind : Girl, Interrupted… One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest… Shutter Island… Session 9… Unsane… The Jacket… the list goes on and on. That’s the thing about this film… nearly 40 years in, the last thing you’d expect John Carpenter to be is derivative. The Ward really wants to be an asylum thriller, a revenge-based ghost story and a period piece, but it never really commits to any of its aspirations, and what we’re left with is 90 minutes of Amber Heard, and in an information age obsessed with cancel culture, what’s going on in her personal life is infinitely more compelling than what she’s going through in The Ward. There are some good shots of fire in the film, and Mamie Gummer is acting circles around everyone she shares the frame with, but otherwise there’s not much to this one. Hopefully this won’t be the last film of Carpenter’s career.

17. Ghosts of Mars (2001) If nothing else, Ghosts of Mars is an ambitious film. What it lacks in coherency, it makes up for in its amalgamation of ideas. The film is all at once a prisoner transport film, a film about a team of crack operatives, a film featuring a revolt and a tale about respecting the land that you intend to exploit for its resources. It sets itself up to be a John Carpenter take on Rashomon, with a number of stories being told through a singular unreliable narrator (due to the lack of those left to tell their own story). While there are some good ideas present in this film, not to mention some wonderful examples of non-traditional casting for an action movie, Ghosts of Mars falls short in its need to be everything to everyone. The film has garnered a cult following since its release, but as someone who saw this in theaters during its initial run, it still doesn’t do it for me.

16. Vampires (1998) If From Dusk till Dawn isn’t enough to satisfy your Vampire Western cravings, then I humbly submit to you John Carpenter’s swing at the mixture in the form of Vampires. All the earmarks of both genres are present : a crack team of experts hit hard and early, an undercurrent of religion that neither praises nor damns it, a seemingly insurmountable antagonist with a single-minded blind focus, and even a damsel in distress forced to rough it with the roughnecks. Like many of his films, the Carpenter score plays unofficial star against the bananas series of events laid out. Speaking of crazy events, leave it to the likes of James Woods and Daniel Baldwin to take what could be best classified as pulp material and elevate it into the realms of honest entertainment. While not as flashy or fantastic as some of his previous films, the special effects work is effective (no pun intended), with a nice batch of memorable kills sprinkled throughout the film. If this film would’ve been made in the 1980s, I would argue that it could’ve been timeless, but unfortunately, it screams of the 1990s in all the ways that make a film dated, which is even funnier when you consider it was released near the end of the decade. Vampires is fun, but I’d be lying if I called it a classic.

15. Assault on Precinct 13 (1976) Assault on Precinct 13 marks the proper feature debut for John Carpenter, with Dark Star essentially being a glorified student film. Interestingly enough, the film has a ton of representation across the board in its casting, making it one of the more diverse films released on a major level with its Black lead and strong supporting cast featuring women, Black and Hispanic actors/actresses. At the time the film was released, the gang problem was going from an underground and isolated situation to more of a widespread panic, and Assault on Precinct 13 provides plenty of subtext in terms of how gangs are viewed, the perception of their impact on the community and, most importantly, their everlasting struggles with the police. Speaking of the police, there are some subtle jabs at the inept practices of police in terms of administration and the way the handle prisoners, all of which lead to a perfect storm of despair for our protagonists.

14. Escape from L.A. (1996) This film marked the final collaboration between Kurt Russell and John Carpenter, and what an odd one to finalize such a rich and fruitful collaborative relationship. There are some things about the film that definitely work… Snake Pliskin is (and always will be) magic on the screen. Los Angeles certainly had the landmarks and the culture suitable for stylizing into a post-apocalyptic labyrinth of dangers. The statements the film makes on the moral majority and the isolation of people over cultural and ideological differences works as a harbinger for what could be in an extreme example, and has only become more relevant as time has passed. That being said, this film seems to not know whether it wants to be a comedy on the sly, or whether it’s just accepting of taking the often occasional odd detour for seemingly aesthetic purposes, which makes sense when one realizes that the film spent a decade in development hell simply because Carpenter was afraid to pull the trigger on a script he felt was “too light, too campy”. While a departure in comparison to Escape from New York, and definitely a tonal shift from the vast majority of the Carpenter films, it does have its moments… unfortunately, the moments are not frequent enough to put this one in the upper echelon of Carpenter’s work.

13. Dark Star (1974) For a debut film, Dark Star already had enough elements to be distinctly John Carpenter… the use of an ensemble cast, DIY special effects, a John Carpenter score, and hilariously, a Kurt Russell facsimile in the form of Cal Kuniholm. Oddly, this is really the only proper science-fiction film in the Carpenter canon (outside of the flop turned cult semi-classic Ghost of Mars), with several pieces of machinery requiring voice casting due to their intelligence and autonomy. Dark Star is also unique within the Carpenter legacy due to its reliance on wit, logic and humor more so than star power and wild premises, making it one of the more cerebral films made by Carpenter. On a personal note, my old friend Thomas spent YEARS trying to get me to watch this film, and after finally taking the time to do so, I’d love to have those years back to commit to the fandom of this film. It’s sadly been a bit lost to time, but it’s one of the John Carpenter films that I like to recommend the most, as it definitely deserves to be remembered.

12. The Fog (1980) After a massive hit like Halloween, I’m sure expectations from viewers and critics alike was sky high. With his follow-up after his first foray with fame, John Carpenter released The Fog, a supernatural affair with a much more deliberate pace than anything he’d previously released. Perhaps it was this slower, more methodical approach, combined with an extremely powerful use of subtle practical effects, that makes The Fog feel more like an uneventful slow burn than it actually is. More so than any film he’d released previously, The Fog pulls you in over your head into its tone and mood, and while nothing much on the fantastic side occurs, there are levels to visual stimulus used to engulf viewers in an emotion matching those within the world of The Fog. The sound design for The Fog does a great bit of the heavy lifting as well, which is something that should be noted, as it is some of the best work in that realm that Carpenter and company executed for any of his films. A subtle masterpiece, but it feels like the victim of being made on borrowed time, kind of like an album made by a band while in the midst of touring their breakout release.

11. Prince of Darkness (1987) In-between two of John Carpenter’s most outstanding and wonderfully outlandish offerings came Prince of Darkness, a deeply methodical slow burn that parks itself firmly in the intersection of science and religion and mines it for horrific fodder. Tinges of science fiction, mystery, horror, espionage and the supernatural are all working in tandem to create a literal house of horrors filled with intellectuals blind to the proof right in front of their eyes. As the midpoint of Carpenter’s self-appointed Apocalypse Trilogy (which also features The Thing and In The Mouth of Madness), it certainly continues the tradition of unfolding mysteries and threats that transition from vessel to vessel. Carpenter’s score is doing overtime in terms of setting the mood, nearly establishing itself as a physical presence in the manner that it accents what is presented visually, and the use of color is a bit more expressive than what is normally found in the Carpenter production style. The insect motif is also a nice touch, as it serves to literally make your skin crawl moments before traditional scares occur.

10. Christine (1983) On paper, the combination of a Stephen King story told through the lens of John Carpenter sounds fantastic, and Christine is definitely the type of Stephen King story that can fit the Carpenter bill. Being a teenager can be a frustrating section of life, and for the vast majority, the day that you own a car symbolizes an important step towards maturity and freedom. Stephen King took this ages old scenario and made it a deeper story about finding yourself outside of the protection and orders of others (be it dictator parents, picture perfect friends or a possessed vehicle), and John Carpenter picks up on every nuance of this subtext. Outside of Harry Dean Stanton, the film is cast mostly absent those in the realms of star power (and with all due respect, calling Stanton a traditional star is a stretch)... for my money’s worth, I imagine that Carpenter did this consciously in order to let Christine be the star of her story. Halloween proved that Carpenter knew a thing or two about horror films, and Christine shows that he can apply that formula with such precision that an inanimate object becomes terrifying.

9. Starman (1984) Starman is one of those movies that I’ve always been familiar with, but never took the time to seek out and watch… so much so that I didn’t even realize that it was a John Carpenter film until I started working on this list. Tonally, the film differs from other John Carpenter offerings, as it has more Spielberg energy to it than it does Carpenter stylings (although it does embrace the use of practical special effects, albeit outside of a battle or shock-based context). The invasiveness of an alien lifeform morphing into your lost love one right before your eyes is certainly jarring, but it makes for a stellar hook that yanks the viewer right into the heart of the narrative matter. By using Jeff Daniels’ Starman as a surrogate for someone with no understanding of human customs, Carpenter is able to extoll core human values without coming off as holier than thou or preachy, all the while setting up a buddy road trip scenario in order to accelerate the interaction between his leads and capture some countryside photography along the way. For a director known for doing the most, Starman is a surprisingly tender venture, succeeding via the use of less from a director associated with always doing more.

8. Village of the Damned (1995) The best thing about Village of the Damned is how much it feels like John Carpenter hitting the randomizer button and striking gold with every bit of output. Do you dig small creepy towns? How about unexplained weather anomalies? Strange occurrences and phenomena? A cult made up of psychic kids with mind control abilities that woke up and chose violence? Maybe even a little conspiracy and paranoia? This film has all of that and then some. The film actually stands out as one of the best looking in the Carpenter canon, with a surprisingly vivid use of color implemented that offsets the shades of grey the children are bathed in. Everything about this movie is drenched in a heavy creep factor, especially the performances of the children, who manage to be so pitch perfect in their characterizations that it is genuinely unsettling. Watching this story unfold is one of the most enjoyable experiences presented by Carpenter, and it stands as an example of when a fascinating concept is met with brilliant execution.

7. Memoirs of an Invisible Man (1992) Memoirs of an Invisible Man came out at an interesting crossroads between my budding interest in film, the idling of John Carpenter’s career, and the downward spiral that was Chevy Chase’s career. Looking at it through an objective lens is rough, but time (and the task at hand) has allowed me to do so, and I find that I still enjoy this film as much now as I did then. The special effects at the time were downright jaw-dropping, and many of them still hold up. The practical effects help sell the illusion, so much so that the illusion is implied in points that it would be a budgetary burden and still manages to not distract. With Chase in the lead, one would imagine that the film would be funny, and while not a comedy, it does allow for several beats of well-timed comedic moments. At the time, the film’s narrative was panned for being uninspired, but in my opinion, some of the harsh judgement may have come from the expectations set by the careers of Carpenter and Chase. While not your standard John Carpenter affair, the film does showcase his ability to “play the game” and create solid work, even if it continues to be harshly judged and misunderstood.

6. Escape from New York (1981) When it comes to actors connected to directors, it’s usually not long before the pairing of Kurt Russell and John Carpenter comes up, and Escape from New York marks the genesis of this cinematic bond. With his traditional good looks, no-nonsense attitude and penchant for sharp wit, Russell was the perfect leading man for Carpenter’s vivid cinematic exploitation ventures. As for Escape from New York, the city had yet to undertake its Disneyfication of the 1990s, and the movie stands as a bleak vision of what the crime and moral dissonance of the city (and era) could lead to if taken to the extreme. Creating the worst place in America as an inescapable pit to drop the President into immediately sets the stakes high, and with little to no background, we are given the one man seemingly capable of achieving against impossible odds in the form of Snake Pliskin. Like some kind of urban Mad Max, Escape from New York gets wilder and wilder as the minutes tick away, making it one of the most iconic New York films to date, and one of the strongest offerings from John Carpenter during his legendary run.

5. Halloween (1978) The first of many John Carpenter classic films, and arguably the most iconic of the bunch. Three films in, John Carpenter not only managed to turn one of the biggest profits in independent film history, but he created one of the all time great movie monsters in Michael Myers. The film put Jamie Lee Curtis on a rocket to success, turning her from a burgeoning television hopeful to a certified rising Hollywood star in just one role. In terms of pure production, the trend of growth continued for Carpenter as his cinematography gained more freedom of expression, the performances from his actors and actresses felt more natural, and quite possibly most importantly, his scoring ability was hitting maximum resonance, with the main theme of Halloween being equally as iconic as Michael Myers himself. The film has become an October staple for the masses, but manages to be enjoyable any time of the year due to its sheer ability to entertain and frighten audiences. If one were looking for a singular example of the John Carpenter aesthetic, Halloween stands out as a smart choice. Bonus points to John Carpenter for giving the Howard Hawks produced version of The Thing a shoutout two whole films before remaking it.

4. In the Mouth of Madness (1994) Films about collective psychosis are nothing new… be they fodder for popcorn consumption such as Fallen or Identity, or teetering on the realms of art like Jacob’s Ladder, they are always a strong foundation for something memorable. Maybe that’s why In the Mouth of Madness seems at once exciting and familiar while watching it, as collective psychosis provides John Carpenter with plenty of ingredients to make his trademark-worthy best. Building an entire referential lore around fictional fiction writer Sutter Cane builds all kinds of abstract immersion layers to explore, especially with direct references (and delightful digs) at Stephen King and his Multiverse. Sam Neill and Julie Carmen take us by the hand and yank us through the innovative twists and turns with wonderful chemistry, with Neill giving an especially cavalier performance. The film has a billion and a half production touches that put the creep factors on overdrive, with some of the directing choices nearing the realms of Lynchian. It’s also a nice touch to hear Carpenter back in the scoring chair (even in a shared capacity). Films like this one aren’t done justice via rumination, review or commentary… it’s best to just dive in and deal with the repercussions on the other side of it all.

3. They Live (1988) John Carpenter has made some amazing films in his time, but there are a small chosen few that contain genius-level writing and execution. Of this upper class of films, it’s arguable that They Live is both the most entertaining and the most thought provoking in terms of what it is saying (not to mention how much more relevant that message has gotten over time). A damning examination of capitalism, mass consumption, class divides, media influence and the use of police state tactics, Carpenter paints his science fiction with bold strokes of relevant facts that many often choose to ignore. The action in the film is top notch (including quite possibly one of the best fight scenes ever captured on film between Roddy Piper and Keith David), the makeup work on the aliens is instantly iconic, and the story not only sticks with you, but contains aesthetic elements reminiscent of Jenny Holzer’s influential artwork while being used for an identical purpose. If this list centered solely on John Carpenter minor box office successes that became top tier cult classics, They Live would likely occupy the top spot.

2. The Thing (1982) The Thing is one of those movies that works on so many levels that it’s hard to fathom. The shorthand used to set up the story gives you a clear understanding of the situation with minimal use of exposition that is replaced by loads of character and world building. The threat is initially unclear, but the indication of its eventual impact kicks off the film with context that is only understood after your first complete viewing. John Carpenter turned over the scoring helm to Ennio Morricone, perhaps the only individual who could score a Carpenter film better than Carpenter himself, and the results are classic. The special effects work is brilliant, as it is not only initially shocking to see the terrifying transformations the creature undertakes, but it is deeply traumatic in a way that sticks with viewers permanently. Carpenter could not have asked for a better ensemble cast, especially considering that it seems like everyone came prepared to play team ball rather than try and outshine one another. It’s always fascinating to me that this film was widely rejected both critically and at the box office upon release, as it took me way too long to get around to this one (and I was only 3 at the time of release). I’ve always encountered nothing but deep fandom for the film, and rightly so, as this film is a masterpiece that deserves every piece of praise it receives.

1. Big Trouble in Little China (1986) What doesn’t this film do right? Kurt Russell is giving his all as Jack Burton, and the film beautifully wraps itself around him in a hurricane of action-based slippery slopes. Setting the film in San Francisco automatically gives it a memorable aesthetic, and locking down the majority of the film in iconic Chinatown is nothing but cinematic gold. We’re told that we’re going to get an unbelievable story, then we meet our everyman that will guide us along on our journey, but very quickly his expectations (and by extension, ours) are blown clear out of the water, and things continue to escalate at an exponential rate. Memorable runs in high quantity and quality for this venture… some of the most quotable John Carpenter film lines come from Big Trouble in Little China, his score for the film ranks high among the canon, the special effects are electrifying (pun intended), the action is high octane, and the martial arts is treated with complete respect in its presentation. Outside of They Live or Vampires, this is arguably the most fun film of the Carpenter collection, and is almost guaranteed to turn the unfamiliar into fans.

0 notes

roseisread · 6 years

Photo

Oscar Nomination Reactions and Thoughts, 2018 Edition Plus, my favorite films and performances of 2017

Today, the Oscar nominees were revealed and overall there was much rejoicing (from me, at least). A lot of really incredible films and people were nominated. Some crazy barriers were broken (go Rachel Morrison, first EVER woman to be nominated for cinematography). Genre films got recognized in the best picture category (sci fi/fantasy! horror! comedy!). A comic book movie got nominated for a writing category. Music from the likes of Sufjan Stevens and Radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood got recognized. Love stories of many different types (queer/interracial/S&M/interspecies?) were on equal footing for once. People of color showed up in acting, writing, directing, and best picture categories, and several of them are the odds on favorites to win. All that being said, I still have plenty of thoughts and wishes about this year’s crop of nominees. So let’s dive in.

Best Picture I have to caveat that I have not yet seen The Post or Darkest Hour; the rest of the nominees I have seen and either like or love. My personal fave here is Get Out; closely followed by Call Me By Your Name and Lady Bird. Those are my top three movies of the year. My personal list for best picture would also include:

The Big Sick Colossal The Florida Project Good Time Logan Lucky Wonder Woman

I realize that some of these have not even been in the awards conversation, but those were my favorite films of 2017. In particular, I’m really sad that with ten possible slots, the Oscar voters didn’t find room in their hearts for Wonder Woman here. It received both positive critical acclaim and major box office love. I personally found it incredibly moving and inspiring, to an extent I can’t say I have ever felt about another superhero movie. In a year where Hollywood is trying to right many of the wrongs women have experienced, Diana is this amazing symbol of female power and goodwill. I know the movie itself is not perfect--the ending in particular faltered a bit for me--but a movie with a female director and star that did well with audiences worldwide... seems like a no-brainer. Especially when we have not one but two movies about the plight of British men in World War II nominated for best picture this year.

Best Director So so so excited for both Greta Gerwig and Jordan Peele here. Also, despite my personal lack of investment in Dunkirk as a movie, I am really happy for Christopher Nolan since he has never been nominated despite being one of the best filmmakers working. Likewise, while I prefer their earlier films to this year’s offerings from both Paul Thomas Anderson and Guillermo Del Toro, I’m a fan of both those guys. Nonetheless! I still would’ve filled out my own ballot a bit differently, honoring Dee Rees for Mudbound and Sean Baker for The Florida Project. Both of them brought a lot of personal vision to their films, and put in the work to get the details right.

Best Actress My money and my love are on Frances McDormand here. She’s a badass lady and totally killed it with this role. I also admire the other actresses on this list, in particular Saoirse Ronan as the title character in Lady Bird. That being said, once again my own picks diverge from those of the Academy. So here’s who I’d be nominating instead:

Anne Hathaway, Colossal Charlize Theron, Atomic Blonde Vicki Krieps, Phantom Thread Brooklynn Prince, The Florida Project

Also worthy of consideration: Haley Lu Richardson in Columbus, a subtle yet wonderful performance.

Best Actor I am thrilled for Daniel Kaluuya and Timothee Chalamet in particular here, even though smart money is on Gary Oldman to win. I can’t comment on his Churchill performance yet, so perhaps I should reserve judgment, but of the ones I have seen, here’s who would fill out the other three spots in my bracket:

Robert Pattinson, Good Time Hugh Jackman, Logan Andy Serkis, War for the Planet of the Apes

Best Supporting Actress I have my fingers crossed so hard for Laurie Metcalf on this one. She’s so real and raw as the mom in Lady Bird, making a potentially unlikable character sympathetic. I will jump for joy if she wins. However, it’s leaning toward Allison Janney, another actress I adore in a role that felt a bit one-note to me. I’m stoked that Mary J. Blige is on this list, and I would also be thrilled if she won. I have no beef with Lesley Manville (who is superb in Phantom Thread) or Octavia Spencer (who doesn’t have much to do in Shape of Water)... but my list would have to include Holly Hunter for The Big Sick and Tiffany Haddish for Girls Trip. I mean. Come on. I’d take those two over Spencer and Janney in a heartbeat. Kelly Marie Tran would have been a nice inclusion also, for her memorable turn in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.

Best Supporting Actor This is the category with the snub I’m the most mad about: Michael Stuhlbarg in Call Me By Your Name. Even though I knew it was a possibility, I can’t believe he got shut out. He’s easily the best part of that wonderful, beautiful film--peaches and Armie Hammer dances aside. As for the ones who did make it in, I am happiest about Willem Dafoe. The others are fine but I’d swap out Woody Harrelson for Jason Mitchell (Mudbound) and Richard Jenkins for the aforementioned Stuhlbarg. It’s hard for me to say anything negative about one of my all-time favorites Sam Rockwell, but I’d have been a lot more excited if Daniel Craig had made it in for his hilarious turn in Logan Lucky or if Patrick Stewart had gotten a well-earned nod for Logan. Other Observations In cinematography, my biggest joys are Rachel Morrison and Roger Deakins. I would’ve also loved to see Vittorio Storaro for his gorgeous work on Wonder Wheel, and Elisha Christian for Columbus. I’m bummed Colossal didn’t get any acknowledgement for writing, since it was a super original concept. Likewise, I think Logan Lucky deserved some love in the writing categories but I suppose that was a pretty stacked group. In documentary features, I only saw one: Kedi. I loved it though--it’s about cats! So maybe it was only worthy in my eyes, but you should see it and decide for yourself. For film editing, I’m glad Baby Driver got in and wish Good Time had. That movie kept up such a frenetic pace and I think my heart was still pounding a good ten minutes after the credits rolled. That’s all my Oscar Thoughts for now! Chime in with your own, and join me in watching all the awards get handed out on March 4th.

#oscars #oscars2018 #movies #getout #lady bird #call me by your name #the big sick #colossal #the florida project #good time #robert pattinson #logan lucky #wonder woman #columbus movie #girls trip

24 notes · View notes