squish them together and you get llewyn davis

We live in a state of nature, redux

So I’m going to try and tread VERY CAREFULLY, but the fact of the matter is I am an old, white cis-woman and I have not actively read any philosophy since college, and mostly get it from The Good Place and Breadtube philosophy channels (Philosophy Tube’s recent video “The Hidden Rules of Modern Society” is what set me thinking about this in the first place. I highly recommend; she’s absolutely brilliant), so I am prolly not the person who should be talking about this. Should I slip, I invite criticism.

That said, it is objectively weird to put the phrase “We live in a state of nature” in Jim’s mouth, right?

On the one hand, it’s just a silly joke playing on “We live in a society…” as the “state of nature” is the theoretical state in which humans exist naturally (“nasty, poor, brutish, and short” per Thomas Hobbes, “man is born free” per Jean-Jacques Rousseau), and “society” is all the rules, responsibilities, and (theoretical) benefits we (theoretically) collectively agree to overlay in order to control and channel those natural impulses. On the other hand, well…

The inherent lawlessness of the “state of nature” is what permitted the Siete Gallos to take what they wanted without fear of consequence - to steal the fruits of Jim’s family’s orchard because they wanted them and had the means to enact their will, to slaughter Jim’s father when he got in the way.

Isn’t it strange that Jim would uphold the “state of nature” that took from them everything that was dear?

The “state of nature” is also the way white colonizers justified (justify?) imposing their version of “society” on native inhabitants - native peoples being assumed to be living in a “state of nature'', and therefore be in need of “civilization.”

Jim’s light, but still brown, skin and mother tongue mark them as the product of Spanish colonization, but not considered white enough to enjoy all the benefits of the white colonizer.

Isn’t it strange that Jim would perpetuate the lie of the colonizer? Isn’t it strange they would say it to the one black character who has a full, non-colonized name?

Jim’s Nana is a nun, the product and perpetuation of the colonizing force of missionary work. To a nun, the “state of nature” would be synonymous with man’s fallen state of original sin.

Isn’t it strange that Jim, having been raised and trained by Nana, would glorify the antithesis of the state of grace that would have been central to Nana’s Catholic belief system? Maybe Nana is not your typical nun, but the whole original sin thing is a pretty central tenant of the Catholic faith. Like, literal wars have been fought over it. Pretty sure you can't be a nun and not believe in it.

This show’s writer’s don't strike me as the type to make a thoughtless throw-away joke. Is this meant to be a satirical critique of the supposed freedoms afforded by the lawlessness of the “state of nature”, the way “We live in a society” was originally meant to critique the contradictions and deficiencies of the social contract (went down a whole internet rabbit hole researching that. Do NOT recommend unless you have a strong stomach)? Is it meant to signal the cognitive dissonance Jim has to employ in order to justify their “oodles of justice” vengeance quest, and thereby foreshadow their ultimate abandonment thereof?  I mostly feel like maybe there’s something I’m not getting. Can someone smarter than me please take this one out of my hands?

Quarantine Movies, Part 3

OLD BOYFRIENDS (1979) dir. Joan Tewkesbury

Not often I watch a movie and feel like “What the fuck is happening?” but I did with this one, written by Paul Schrader and directed by the screenwriter of Nashville. Talia Shire stars as a woman getting back in touch with her old boyfriends. She’s… recovering from a nervous breakdown? Sort of out for revenge? One ex hooks up with her again, and then, once abandoned, hires a private detective to track her down. A little boring at first, and then becomes baffling for most of its middle. John Belushi’s in it, playing a kind of pathetic schlub that feels convincingly like “the real Belushi” to me in the sense of me finding it uncomfortable to watch. I think maybe the film can be understood as a take on feminine psychosis in contrast to the masculine psychosis found in Schrader’s Taxi Driver screenplay. The psychosis here being this lack of self-knowledge that leads to manipulating people ostensibly towards the end of finding love.

KLUTE (1971) dir. Alan Pakula

Feel like I got the impression this movie was a joke from somewhere? Some Murphy Brown reference or something, playing to consensus of losers. (Edit: The joke’s in Wet Hot American Summer, but doesn’t really contain a value judgment about the movie.) It’s not great by any means but it’s not particularly tawdry given the subject matter. It is confusing that the movie is mostly about Jane Fonda’s call girl character, but the movie is named after Donald Sutherland’s character, who’s a detective. Maybe the joke was always just that people thought Jane Fonda played Klute. Movie digs into the sex worker’s psychology in a way that feels contemporary, except contemporary discourse doesn’t really allow for psychological insight, in favor of empty gestures towards representation. Sutherland’s out to solve a mystery, Fonda falls in love with him: I really did think this was smart in depicting a relationship where person was uncomfortable with the act of falling in love as running counter to their techniques of emotional distancing, except, I guess, for the fact that this is depicted in scenes of Fonda talking to her therapist that spell out what’s happening rather than depict this in a more organic way. But that it feels sort of shoehorned in is cool because the movie then largely has this mystery narrative it’s about. It is a little dull and could stand to be shorter, though the musical score does some nice grooves with dissonant elements on top, vaguely Morricone-style, though of course he’s got a deep body of work.

EYES OF LAURA MARS (1978) dir. Irvin Kershner

Criterion’s description of this chracterizes it as an “American giallo,” which seems about right. About a woman (Faye Dunaway) who takes violent/erotic photographs (shot by Helmut Newton) that coexist in both advertising and art gallery contexts. She starts having psychic visions of murder, the police are investigating her because some murders seem modeled after her photos, although that is not the case with any of the murders she has visions of, which then start to involve people she knows. So, like a giallo, there’s a lot happening, an interest in lurid style, and a disinterest in internal consistency as things ratchet up, and the twist ending (that the cop she started dating has multiple personality disorder) falls within that pattern as well. Not as good as the best Italian giallo, (which would I guess be Argento’s TENEBRE) or for that matter, the slasher movie HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME, which is an American movie insane enough to exist in the same conversation.

THE GETAWAY (1972) dir. Sam Peckinpah

Steve McQueen gets out of prison and is immediately set up by the prison official, who his girlfriend (Ali MacGraw) slept with, to rob a bank. He gets double-crossed, and then goes on the lam with his girlfriend. While in the past I sometimes feel like I am listing the names of the actors as endorsements, I’m not really doing this with the cast of this movie or Old Boyfriends. Good action sequences and suspenseful moments. Feel like the iconic images in this are McQueen with a shotgun, blowing up cop cars. Peckinpah directs from a Walter Hill screenplay adapting a Jim Thompson novel. This predates Walter Hill directing movies for himself, but it’s interesting how much more flash there is to the action here than there is in The Driver, you can sort of detect certain elements as being Hill’s interest (like the suspense of being pursued) and other stuff being Peckinpah, like the baroque explosions of violence. I like all of it.

KATE PLAYS CHRISTINE (2016) dir. Robert Greene

This isn’t very good. One half adaptation of the Christine Chubbuck story with a documentary about Kate Lyn Sheil. Sheil’s good in other things, this feels like a failed experiment. Weirdly this came out at pretty much exactly the same time as a movie about Chubbuck starring Rebecca Hall? The Rebecca Hall movie’s pretty great, and is an interesting performance, I would be interested in watching a conversation between the two actresses.

BRINGING OUT THE DEAD (1998) dir. Martin Scorses

A rewatch. Nicolas Cage plays an ambulance driver, Scorsese directs from a Paul Schrader screenplay. I like Nicolas Cage a lot, I like the cinematography in this one. I knew I would enjoy this, didn’t remember John Goodman being in it, Mary Beth Hurt is really good in it, mentioned her being good in Light Sleeper too, didn’t realize she’s Paul Schrader’s wife. Insanely hectic energy, shot through with hallucinatory holy light. Patricia Arquette is probably the weakest link in the cast, though it is her different energy that enables her to seem like a potentially redemptive figure for Nicolas Cage.

RAGING BULL (1980) dir. Martin Scorsese

This one’s a classic, but I didn’t like it the first time I saw it, over fifteen years ago, I think on account of being hungry at the time. Still, probably not my favorite Scorsese. The dialogue is interesting, due to De Niro’s character having a high level of aggression and paranoia, where pretty much everything that gets said to him he responds “Why do you say that?” which lends short scenes this circular quality. This reveals his character, in an efficient way, even though it makes the scenes feel insane and somewhat circular.

HOPSCOTCH (1980) dir. Ronald Neame

I liked this one a lot when I saw it years ago, didn’t really know the director’s pedigree came from doing Alec Guiness comedies. I don’t normally rewatch movie but my memories of this were very pleasant in a way suggesting it would be comforting. Walter Matthau plays a spy who is retiring but who gets everyone mad at him, which makes this kind of Prisoner-adjacent. He runs around, being the smartest guy in the room, having fun at being able to outsmart intelligent agencies. All of the globe-trotting of a James Bond kind of thing, but with none of the bloodshed. No one dies in this, uptight people just get mad at Walter Matthau being cool.

NIGHTFALL (1956) dir. Jacques Tourneur

Tourneur directed the original Cat People, which I love, and Out Of The Past, a classic noir I was not fond of when I saw it in college. This one’s good too, adapting a David Goodis novel. I know Goodis from a piece in Jesse Pearson’s magazine Apology, that makes the case he’s the best writer of crime fiction, on a sentence level. The dialogue’s good in this, but there’s also a cool structure: Following different characters, with it being fairly unclear what their relationship is to one another for a while, some flashbacks reveal things. The characters in this are pretty likable, Anne Bancroft is the female lead and the romance is believable. She plays a model, it’sf ascinating to watch movies made by a studio and realize they have the same woman designing gowns for all of them. Like they have the glamour provided in-house because it’s recognized that’s part of what people go to the movies for, but the the films don’t become ads for the designer or anything, like the way Jean Paul Gaultier’s designs function in The Fifth Element or something. Theme song is sung by Al Hibbler, who cut a LP with Roland Kirk.

5 AGAINST THE HOUSE (1955) dir. Phil Karlson

Criterion Channel has a collection of noir films Columbia put out, this is one of them, with a pretty good-sounding premise: Kim Novak is a part of a group of college friends that set out to rob a casino, but one of the group’s PTSD sabotages it. It ends up not really working as a heist film, for a number of reasons, one is that the “perfect crime” they engineer is not that intricate, the other, more important element is the characters are unbearably smug in a way that makes them really hard to deal with. Novak’s good in it, but no one else is: While the men are supposed to be funny, but aren’t, Novak sort of just has to be beautiful. She sings songs in this, and maybe there’s a voice double, but it seems she has a good singing voice. You can probably skip this one.

THE BIG HEAT (1953) dir. Fritz Lang

Not as masterful as the films Lang made in Germany, but still really good. A cop investigating a murder quickly gathers that a conspiracy is afoot, people make mysterious phone calls immediately after he interviews them, he gets his life destroyed, but keeps going. Gloria Grahame (who’s also in Nicholas Ray’s amazing In A Lonely Place) is great as a gangster’s party-girl-who-loves-money girlfriend who has her beauty and then her life taken away from her. There is an element of feeling like you’re seeing cliches be run through their paces, but I don’t mind, given the pacing. It’s mean enough you don’t know how dark it’s going to get. Jocelyn Brando, Marlon’s sister who also appears in Nightfall, gets a nice role in this.

MURDER BY CONTRACT (1958) dir. Irving Lerner

Oh, this one rules! Although I knew none of the people involved in it, everybody’s great. It feels slow as you watch it, it’s deliberately paced and seems to appreciate every scene on its own terms as a point of interest, rather than rushing through a plot. The score seems like it’s very close to just one instrumental piece, being used over and over again. About a dude, (who’s also in Kubrick’s The Killing, it turns out) becoming a professional hitman, and then flying out to California for a bigger job, where he has two people minding him. The hitman’s psychosis is not over the top, he just seems very self-contained, in a way that gets a lot of (almost) comedic mileage out of his interaction with other people

INVENTION FOR DESTRUCTION (1958) dir. Marel Zeman

This movie looks REAL weird and I have no idea how they got the effect? The degree of artificiality is highly distracting, in a way I don’t have a problem with in Guy Maddin or whoever. The whole thing sort of looks like the portraits of people that run in The Wall Street Journal? There are lines on EVERYTHING, like the sets are being made in this patterned way to replace color values. Everything looks artificial, but also collaged together. “Freely adapted” from Jules Verne, this involves boats, explosions, heists, etc. but all done in this sort of deep-focus theatrical staging that seems to combine animation and live action but in a way I can’t work out but also isn’t enveloping or convincing.

MAY FOOLS (1980) dir. Louis Malle.

I like a lot of Louis Malle, this seems vaguely like a deep cut, as I believe it’s unavailable on DVD. It takes place in France during the May ’68 protests, but is about a family getting together for a funeral/reading of a will. It’s suffused with weird free-flowing sexual energy, like everyone’s down to commit incest? Sort of in the name of revolution, but understandable as a movie in terms of being very french, and maybe something of a light comedy. (While Murmur Of The Heart also has incest in it, and is not a comedy, it’s very French.) People flirt with each other a lot, this is a pleasant watch if you are under quarantine and are fantasizing about casual sex or the overthrowing of the political class.

MON ONCLE D’AMERIQUE (1980) dir. Alain Resnais

This, too, is very French. The spine of the movie is Henri Laborit lecturing, lending the film an essayistic aspect, illustrated with footage of lab rats, but also footage of people wearing mouse heads and human clothes, the best parts. The guy’s theories seem agreeable to me but I don’t know what other people think about them. They’re illustrated by the fictional life stories of three characters, whose lives intersect eventually in their adulthood, though the film starts with them as children. Resnais is interesting, I’ve seen very few of his films but they’re all radically unique, though united by this intellectual edge.

FUGITIVE KIND (1960) dir. Sidney Lumet

Lumet also had a long and varied career, but I essentially view him as a highly-skilled journeyman, I guess due to snobbish bias gleaned from secondhand takes. I’ll watch pretty much any of his movies though, and so I watched this Tennessee Williams adaptation. Not sure I’d seen Marlon Brando in anything before, though I thought it was funny to say I possessed “the raw sexuality of a young Marlon Brando” in college. This whole movie is about how hot Brando is, and how all women want to fuck him and how all the men resent him. You would think the heterosexual male default would be to not notice how hot a dude is, but Brando is both physically ripped but with a feminine face that makes me “get it.” There’s a poetry to his sensitivity, but also an element of threat to how basically everyone who gets along with him is at odds with the racist, patriarchal, and parochial attitudes of the small towns he travels through.

MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS (1974) dir. Sidney Lumer

This is an Agatha Christie adaptation, where Hercule Poirot is played by Albert Finney, amongst a large cast of huge stars who are both hamming it up and not really doing anything. After watching two movies with Natasha Richardson, was nice to see her mom Vanessa Redgrave in something, though it’s a small part. The ending, where the detective works out that everyone schemed to commit the murder together and then decides that he will let them all get away with it, is fun, though by and large the “comedy” here feels a bit dated. This kinda feels like something that you would’ve seen already after having caught bits and pieces of it on basic cable growing up.

Time is running out for Jim Gordon and Gotham, and nobody is more acutely aware of that fact than Ben McKenzie, the actor who has portrayed the flinty Gordon for five seasons on the Fox series that shares its name with Batman’s hometown. “It’s a lot to take in,” McKenzie said about the Gotham series finale that airs tonight. “It really is one of those bittersweet moments. But the show was never an open-ended proposition.”

Tonight’s finale is titled “The Beginning…” but the name isn’t quite as ironic as it sounds. That’s because the drama was built to be a sort of “prequel procedural” that leads up to the familiar Batman mythology that DC Comics has been publishing since 1939. The narrative window would begin in Bruce Wayne’s youth with the murder of his parents, and effectively end with his first forays as a costumed crimefighter: Gotham would end when Batman begins. That graduation moment arrives tonight with the show’s 100th episode, the first to feature an appearance by the Caped Crusader in action.

Gotham fans are more than ready to see the Dark Knight in all his cowled glory, but the show’s creative team hasn’t shared that eagerness. Just the opposite. Executive producer Bruno Heller, the British producer best known for The Mentalist and Rome, has said he would never have developed the show if it was a traditional costumed-hero franchise. “I don’t think Batman works very well on TV,” Heller said back in 2014. “To have people behind masks? Frankly, all those superhero stories I’ve seen, I always love them — until they get into the costume.”

That has made Gotham an eccentric entry in the superhero sector, but not an entirely unprecedented one. Smallville (217 episodes, 2001-2010) still reigns as the longest-running television series ever based on DC Comics heroes, and creators Alfred Gough and Miles Millar shared a similar aversion to costumed exploits. Their early mission statement was “no flights, no tights,” and the series held out until its final episode to put Clark Kent (Tom Welling) in Superman’s iconic suit.

For Heller and his team, the key to making a compelling Gothamwithout a Batman was to spotlight the hero’s trusted friend, James Gordon, the dedicated lawman destined to become the police commissioner of a city defined by its lawlessness and celebrity criminals. Gordon was introduced in the first panel of the first page of the first Batman comic book ever published, Detective Comics No. 27, the landmark issue that reached its 80th anniversary last month. Gotham added a key element to its version of Gordon — when Thomas and Martha Wayne are murdered, Gordon is the detective who handles the investigation.

Gordon is the good cop who holds on to his morals in a bad city that loses its marbles. The show found the man for the job in McKenzie, who had memorably portrayed LAPD officer Ben Sherman on the highly regarded (but lowly rated) Southland, which aired 2009 to 2013 on NBC and TNT. Before that, the Texan portrayed Ryan Atwood, a scruffy outsider adopted by a wealthy Newport Beach couple and the central character on The OC, the frothy Fox teen drama that aired for 92 episodes from 2003 to 2007.

“I had some things in common with the character,” McKenzie says with a shrug. It’s true, the 23-year-old actor trekked west from dusty Austin (instead of rural Chino) to Southern California, and bought himself a eye-catching Cadlliac DeVille that already had logged 17 hard years and 228,000 long miles. “That’s lot of miles.”

McKenzie has covered a lot of distance in his personal life while channeling the role of Gordon. In 2017, for instance, McKenzie married his Gotham co-star, Morena Baccarin, who has portrayed Dr. Leslie Thompkins on the series (and is well-known for her role in the Deadpool films as the mutant anti-hero’s love interest). The couple now have their first child.

For McKenzie, the end of Gotham closes a pivotal chapter in his screen life. But he’s also hoping that the final seasons will also someday represent a prelude to a different career story — one writing and directing. The actor directed the sixth episode of Season 5, and also directed one in each of the previous two seasons. McKenzie has also written the screenplay for two Gotham episodes: “One of My Three Soups” in Season 4 and “The Trial of Jim Gordon” in this final season.

McKenzie, the writer, didn’t exactly go easy on his fictional screen persona. The cop took a slug in the chest and hovered near death for much of the episode, stuck somewhere between “the here” and “the hereafter” in an existential courtroom where he had to defend his life.

‘I actually feel no sympathy for him at all,” McKenzie said with a chuckle. “The less sympathy you feel, the better, I’d say. The more pain you inflict upon the protagonist, hopefully, the higher the stakes are and the more emotion gets elicited. So I had to be a bit of masochist. Putting him through the ringer and having this existential crisis, this dream, where he’s on trial for his crimes and faces the loss of everything: the love of his life and his child at the same time. I think we got there. That’s about as high stakes as you can get. I think, ultimately satisfying, with the kind of emotional payoff we were looking for.”

That seems to apply to the season as a whole. The final episode is an epic send-off, too, with a story that flashes forward a decade (long enough for Gordon to sport a new mustache) and finds the Penguin (Robin Lord Taylor) returning from prison and Bruce Wayne returning to his ancestral home after years in self-imposed exile. It also coincides with the rise of the show’s off-kilter version of the Joker (Cameron Monaghan). “It’s fitting that he comes into conflict with Gordon and Wayne right at the end,” McKenzie said. “Cameron has been amazing and there was room for one more big flourish with the role.”

Most of the reviews have veered from good to great, encouraging news for the cast and crew of a series that had been uneven or over-the-top at times. “Everybody’s been very enthusiastic and positive,” McKenzie said. “The final season has been wrapping things up in the way the audience hoped we would.”

Gotham City is arguably the most famous city created in American popular culture since the Emerald City in The Wizard of Oz (although Metropolis, Springfield, Mayberry, Twin Peaks, and Riverdale are other prominent spots on the map of un-real estate). Even without Batman, the city zoned by greed, paved in corruption, and mapped by trauma seems to have no limits as far as its story range.

“It’s extraordinary when you think about it,” McKenzie said. “The city itself is a character. There’s a lot of stories to be found in Gotham City. There’s a lot of stories being told from Gotham, too.”

It’s true, Gotham City will be the site of Batwoman, the pilot on The CW this fall, and for a string of upcoming feature films including Joker, The Batman, and the Birds of Prey project.

Also this year: a Harley Quinn animated series and Pennyworth (a series about Batman’s loyal butler) on Epix. Pennyworth and Gothamare unconnected in their story continuity, but both are from the tandem of executive producer/writer Bruno Heller (The Mentalist) and executive producer/director Danny Cannon (CSI franchises).

A passing reference in the 2016 film Suicide Squad identified Gotham City as a major metropolitan hub in the Garden State. The city’s location had been a vague matter for decades, but now it is officially part of New Jersey’s map, and Springsteen isn’t the only local hero named Bruce.

On Gotham, the city feels more like Al Capone’s Chicago than Dracula’s Transylvania. “There’s a specific look and style that Gotham has that sets the show apart. It’s visual identity is distinctive and it was really interesting to work within that as a director.”

Has McKenzie inherited anything Gordon, anything he will take with him forward? “Maybe. We have some things in common, too. He’s living in the same city I live in, New York, but just the slightly more dramatic version.  He’s had to figure things out on the fly and his life has changed and met the love of his life and had a child. There’s a lot of similarities there. But I haven’t bought a gun and I don’t go around shooting one. And I’m more a jeans and t-shirts guy. Although Gordon’s given me an appreciation for a good suit, that’s for sure.”

McKenzie said he’s learned a lot from the creative team he’s worked with, and he believes his acting has made his directing better and vice versa, as well. There’s several new projects that looks promising for McKenzie, both as an on-screen presence and writer or director. Still, saying goodbye to Gotham has been a sentimental exercise for the man who plays the taciturn detective.

“It’s hard. I’ve been through it a couple of times before. I’ve been on two shows before, so it’s been less daunting then before. I’ve built really strong bonds with these folks. We spent more time together than we do with our families for nine months a year. It’s been a joy and a experience I will never forget. I can’t forget.  I wake up every morning to my wife and child who happened during it. So yes, it’s been a city without limits for me.”

Episode 1 Review, Part II: Jacques’ Vintage 1630s Wedding Party

I meant to post this on Halloween, but this post took much longer than expected and I was too tired from work yesterday to write. So happy belated Halloween to anyone who is reading this and I hope that you find it interesting.

In my review of Episode 1, I wrote that I wanted to analyze the flashback from the episode in a separate post “because, despite being only a minute and a half long, there is a lot to unpack and I want to critique the costumes in addition to analyzing the content.” I am publishing this a little later than I originally intended (as the first part of this review took longer than I expected to write), but I don’t think that anyone minds.

Unlike the more famous Gothic soap opera Dark Shadows, which ran extended flashback arcs that lasted months, the flashbacks on Strange Paradise all lasted only a scene each and were infrequent. Maljardin had only three (although Ian Martin had planned at least one more (spoilers)), and the first half of Desmond Hall had none. Desmond Hall Part II had a lot, but none of them were costumed if the screencap slideshows I’ve seen from them are any indication. (I haven’t seen any episodes from 131 onward yet save some short clips, because I don’t currently have access to them. I have, however, read the synopses of 131 through 160 on this website and 161 through 195 on this old Yahoo! Group and looked at all the screencaps I could find, so I’m at least familiar with what happens and what the characters look like in the final arc.)

So let’s look at the first flashback, shall we?

Flashback

The flashback opens at a ball on Maljardin at some point in the late 1680s, with Jacques drinking from a huge red goblet while cheesy fake harpsichord music plays in the background. “Zounds, mon cher Jacques des Mondes,” a man in a beard and very obvious wig teases, “you are a poor chevalier! You marry a young beauty like this, but stand off in a corner drinking by yourself. That’s damned unchivalrous!” (I was about to write, “He might have said ‘monsieur‘ and probably meant to, but the guy’s French pronunciation is so bad that he honestly could have said either one.” However, I just pulled up the script to this scene* and discovered that he does indeed say “mon cher.” So I was right the first time.)

Madame Huaco des Mondes and Bad Wig Guy.

“And unromantic,” Madame des Mondes (Patricia Collins) adds, fluttering the feather fan she is holding despite Jacques obviously not paying attention to her. According to Episode 6, her first name is Huaco and the original draft of the script that I linked to in the last paragraph indicates that she “might be an Inca princess.” (The first two Paperback Library novels confirm this. while the third mistakenly calls her an Aztec princess.) Presumably, this means that she is of Inca royal blood and would have been a princess had the Spanish not defeated the Inca Empire in 1572, more than a century earlier. Or, alternatively, it could mean that Chevalier of Worlds Jacques traveled back in time to marry her, perhaps using the des Mondes family’s magical clock that is mentioned in a later episode.** There is also the possibility of a critical research failure on the writer’s part, but I love this show in spite of all its glaring flaws and so I want to try to justify this blatant anachronism.

Jacques--who is still clearly uninterested--approaches her and kisses her hand. “You do me wrong, my pigeon,” he says, comparing her to the likes of Speckled Jim. “To question your husband’s devotion?”

The newlyweds. Huaco looks really pretty in this shot, and Jacques is dashing as always.

“How could I not, when my eyes see your eyes on every woman in the room?” I’m not sure who talks like this. Presumably it sounds more natural in Huaco’s mother tongue. Either way, this is the first indication that Jacques is a womanizer.

“To compare, my dove,” he responds insincerely. “Your loveliness. So far above theirs.”

“Is it then my turn to bed?” she asks, grinning widely in a questionable acting decision that pushes this flashback to David Wells levels of so-bad-it’s-goodness. How many women has he bedded already on what is presumably their wedding night? Or before, to her knowledge?

Jacques, however, has other ideas: “First, let me show you the cliff heights at sunset,” he says, leading her outside. “And then my undying love.” This is followed by Bad Wig Guy laughing about the bed being in the other direction (when Jacques clearly said that he was going to show her the cliffs first), then the close-up of his smouldering face from the last entry, which seems to imply that he at least was contemplating pushing her from the cliff. I, however, doubt that he pushed her that day, considering that Bad Wig Guy’s dialogue implies that he just got married and that this is his wedding ball, and, by the time of the next flashback, Huaco (who is still alive then) has given birth to Jacques’ heir.

Costumes

Ever since I watched this show for the first time, I have wanted to take the flashbacks from Episodes 1, 6, and 20 and give them the Frock Flicks treatment. I’ve even thought about requesting a real Frock Flicks review of the flashbacks, but I fear that they’d judge the show too harshly, especially given the complete absence of the late 17th-century full-bottomed wigs they love so much. I, on the other hand, find full-bottomed wigs ugly, so I don’t mind their absence. In fact, I don’t really mind the absence of anything even remotely resembling what a French nobleman like Jacques Eloi des Mondes would have actually worn in the 1680s, because I’m not fond of most men’s fashions from the Louis XIV period.*** (If you are fond of them, good for you! There’s nothing wrong with liking periwigs or anything else that was fashionable in the Louis XIV era; they’re just not my taste. I prefer men’s styles with no/more naturalistic wigs and a broad-shouldered/narrow-waisted silhouette.) Nevertheless, I shall try to review the costumes as objectively as possible--and I shall try to keep it brief, because the amount of time I have already spent writing about Episode 1 alone has gotten me seriously questioning my life choices.

In late 17th-century France, fashionable dress for men consisted of a long coat called the justaucorps which reached to around knee length, a vest of equal length underneath, silk stockings, a lace cravat tied at the throat (sometimes with a ribbon to hold it in place), and an enormous long, curled periwig which, from 1675 until the 1690s, increasingly featured curls piled high on the crown of the head. Judging by this series of engravings of Louis XIV, who set the fashions of the era, noblemen’s justaucorps cuffs were often huge with voluminous shirt sleeves underneath. If you want more images of real 1680s men’s fashion, see this gallery on Kipar.org or this category and its subcategories on Wikimedia Commons.

Obviously, this style bears little resemblance to the clothes that Jacques and Bad Wig Guy wear, which are clearly patterned after styles from their grandparents’ generation. They most closely resemble the clothing popular in France in the 1630s, particularly post-1633 when Cardinal Richelieu passed an edict outlawing excessive decoration. (Source: Tom Tierney, Jacobean and Early Bourbon Fashions, p. 31.) Compare their outfits to that of Henri II de Guise (the grandson of that Duc de Guise) or this unnamed courtier. Obviously, there are some differences, most notably the higher waistline and the sleeve openings on Jacques’ doublet being on the outside of the sleeves instead of the inner seams like they are in every painting I’ve seen from this era. Jacques also has a massive baldric (the belt over his shoulder, which noblemen of the era used to hold their swords) compared to the men in the period images linked to above. But the aesthetic overall is very 1630s-esque, and it may be that Jacques and his friends are into 1630s vintage. ;)

From Episode 20, carefully cropped to avoid spoilers. Jacques’ baldric is much wider and his waistline a few inches lower than that of Henri II de Guise or the courtier in the Bosse engraving. For some reason, he wears a baldric but not a sword, which is weird.

As for their hairstyles, they are not historically accurate. Jacques’ hairstyle is just a messier version of Jean Paul’s 1960s combover and not 17th century at all. Bad Wig Guy’s bad wig is about the right length for the 1620s (see here and here), but not curly enough. It goes without saying that neither one resembles a late 17th century periwig in the least. (Thank the Great Serpent! *makes wavy hand motions in air*)  Bad Wig Guy’s beard is a very early 17th century style that I associate with King Henri IV of France, who died in 1610. It is also very much not the aesthetic of the Louis XIV period, when most men either shaved or wore a small mustache.

The best screencap I could get of Huaco’s dress.

Huaco’s outfit also bears little resemblance to 1680s French women’s dresses. In that period, fashionable French noblewomen wore dresses called manteaux that were cut in one piece (as opposed to as a separate bodice and skirt) over petticoats and conical corsets designed to push up their breasts. Necklines were low-cut and did not have collars, in contrast to styles in the first half of the century. (Source) In the late 1670s, Louis XIV’s mistress the Duchesse de Fontanges invented the fontange, a style that consisted of curls piled on top of the forehead and topped with a distinctive ruffled headdress. Here is a good engraving showing the style. See also this gallery on Kipar.org and this one on WIkimedia Commons.

The most noticeable differences between Huaco’s dress and the actual fashions of 1689 are (1) the lace collar and (2) the separate bodice and skirt, with tabs on the bodice. Both of these are more characteristic of English styles from earlier in the century, particularly circa 1630-1640. Compare the screencap of her dress above to this 1632 painting of Queen Henrietta Maria of England and her daughter Mary’s dress in this 1640 portrait (no tabs, but otherwise very similar). Also, I don’t think that she is wearing a 17th-century-style corset underneath, because her torso is not a rigid conical shape and her breasts are in their natural position. So, in short, more vintage 1630s for Madame des Mondes.

Her hairstyle is...fascinating, to say the least. It appears to consist of a bouffant decorated with large faux pearls and white ribbons and/or strings of more faux pearls, with tight curls around her face, pigtails resting on her shoulders and some loose hair hanging from the back of the bouffant. The decoration may have been inspired by images of early fontange hairstyles like the one from 1682-83 in the center of the first row on this page, but it does not resemble the more common fontange look. While there are some examples of beehive-like hairstyles in 17th century paintings with a similar shape (take Anne of Denmark for example, or the Spanish lady in this Velázquez painting), they are from much earlier in the century and don’t involve pigtails. Her makeup is definitely 1960s and not even close to any authentic 17th-century European looks, which rarely used noticeable eye makeup.

The best view that I could get of her hairstyle.

I think that Huaco’s bouffant may have been intended to imitate a head shape created by artificial cranial deformation, which the Incas practiced at least until the Spanish outlawed the practice in 1585. (More evidence, perhaps, for my “Jacques traveled back in time to marry Huaco” theory?) Alternatively, she could just have a bouffant because the pilot was filmed in the 1960s and TV shows and movies back then tended to put bouffants on characters in inappropriate historical periods. But I like my theory better, so I’m sticking with it.

In conclusion, the costumes in the flashback are a loose hodgepodge of styles from the early to mid-17th century, with some elements that are not from the period such as Jacques’ and Huaco’s hairstyles and Huaco’s makeup. I’m not certain whether the costume designer knew or cared that the styles weren’t even remotely accurate to the 1680s. Even so, I am only slightly ashamed to admit that I prefer this loose adaptation of 1630s men’s fashion to the styles that Jacques would more likely have actually worn were he a real person in 1689.

With this post, I am done writing about Episode 1, save perhaps to post more screencaps. My post about Episode 2 should be up sometime next week.

Notes

* This link is part of a series of webpages comparing the original draft of the pilot script to the final screenplay for Episode 1. Bryan Gruszka, the author of StrangeParadise.net, has some interesting commentary about it.

** Episode 60, to be exact (which was written by Cornelius Crane). Why the writers never did anything with the magical clock idea is beyond me.

***Now I feel like a hypocrite for making fun of the men’s “Elizabethan” costumes on A Discovery of Witches on my other blog for the lack of ruffs and trunk hose, when I have less of a problem with the historically inaccurate costuming on Strange Paradise. (Still, there is a huge difference between a modern high-budget drama based on novels written by a professional historian and a low-budget soap from the 1960s hastily thrown together to compete with Dark Shadows. One expects historical accuracy from the former but not the latter.) While Colin Fox probably would have still looked cute in a full-bottomed wig and 1680s justaucorps, I prefer his vintage 1630s(-esque) outfit.

{ <-- Previous: Episode 1, Part I   ||   Next: Episode 2 --> }

Movie Review: Deadpool 2 (Spoilers)

Spoiler Warning: I am posting this review the weekend after the movie is released in the U.K. So if you haven’t yet seen the movie don’t read on.

General Reaction:

Pop culture references, or "Meta-Referencing" as it's called in some circles, has become such à staple in both movies and television that it is hard to know who originated it. But in terms of who owns it, that largely is Fox as their animated TV shows, such as Family Guy and American Dad, are built around it. However, Deadpool as a character is a meta-referencing construct. Spouting pop culture satire is what he has been known for since his creation, being the "Merc with the Mouth" and fans may worry that if he didn't have that, would he be a quality character.

Well if Deadpool 2 is anything to go by, I'd say that's a yes. Yes there are still meta-references spread throughout this movie, but the movie doesn't rely on them and instead becomes a fully-rounded comic-book action movie. In my opinion more so than the first Deadpool movie and even Avengers: Infinity War in terms of story.

Yes the plot is pretty much ripping off Terminator but it does Terminator how you would expect Deadpool to do Terminator. Not only does it satirically play homage to that movie but also the amount of pot shots it takes both at the MCU and DCEU is fantastic.

My two critiques with the meta-referencing in this movie is 1) There is a joke made about child molesting early on in this movie that hinders on that line of very poor taste and 2) They missed some very obvious chances to make fun of some of the movie's cast that they had no reason to miss. When your main character wears a mask covering his mouth, then the writers and director have no excuses when watching this movie in post and saying "Hey we missed an obvious Billy Skarsgård as Pennywise joke and a joke about Orange is the New Black, Black Panther and Wonder Woman, no worries we can have Ryan Reynolds dub over" but alas there is nothing.

As a fully rounded movie however, there is one thing I never expected to see in a Deadpool movie and that is a genuinely emotional scene, in this case Vanessa's death, yes the first movie had Wade discovering he had cancer, but with this scene there were one or two moments I felt would be used to turn the scene satirical, both with the microwave pinging and Wade's emotional reaction but surprisingly they just kept to the reaction...it was somewhat watered down at the end when Wade went back in time and saved her but I'll get into that when I talk about Vanessa further down.

Cast:

On the subject of characters, much like the first movie this cast proves to be a great support in a movie that is solely the Ryan Reynolds/Deadpool show, unlike the first movie though this cast do just seem to be supporting players.

Ryan Reynolds was born to play Deadpool just as Hugh Jackman was born to play Wolverine and Krysten Ritter was born to play Jessica Jones. What he does with this character is nothing short of magic. I cannot describe just how much I love this actor in this role, this is coming from a guy who has never been a Ryan Reynolds fan...at all.

I love the fact they finally embraced Pansexual Deadpool as he was clearly in a committed relationship with Vanessa but he did have some flirtatious banter with Colossus and even Cable, I mean he used his crotch in Cable’s face as an offensive attack.

Reynolds’ physical comedy is upped in this movie, not only does he have that brilliant crouched over through the legs on a moving car bit that I found quite funny but also the that prison break scene when Wade falls from the walkway smack onto a table with his body effectively bent over was really gross and really cool. I haven’t seen physical comedy this funny since Jim Carrey in the 90s; think Ace Ventura or The Mask, even The Grinch, that is what I was reminded of watching Ryan Reynolds in this movie.

As I said, everyone else was effectively a supporting player but the next two with the biggest roles were Josh Brolin as Cable and Julian Dennison as Russell Collins aka Firefist. What is interesting about both these characters is I have only ever seen them in the 90s X-Men animated series. Cable was a recurring player in all four seasons while Russell was named Rusty and only appeared in one episode during Season 3.

Josh Brolin as Cable was surprisingly very good and the fact he is still appearing as Thanos in Avengers: Infinity War was not a distraction because both characters are very different and with the CGI on Brolin for Thanos, there is a definite distinction between the two.

They definitely didn’t spend enough time establishing Cable as a character in his own right, outside of the fact his wife and daughter Hope were killed by an adult Russell which is why he traveled back in time there was no real character development. There was a minor scene when Cable is looking in the mirror at his body and it does seem he’s pained over the fact the techno-organic virus that is never mentioned is trying to take over his body but other than that there is really nothing defining other than the fact he was a formidable threat.

The fact he chose to stay at the end of the movie wasn’t exactly a shocker because Deadpool 2 was a back-door pilot in setting up X-Force, even though he saw that his family were alive because his daughter Hope’s teddy bear that he carries with him which was burned but then looked like new when they fixed the timeline which was a stereotypical time-travel trope but a good one, he decides to stick around for no real reason. When Wade says a line earlier in the movie saying “That’s just bad writing” I was thinking Cable’s ending was more sloppy.

As for Russell Collins aka Firefist, I really didn’t get on board with this character. Yes he was the troubled youth that had trauma in his past and being a Mutant in this universe is never good for anyone of any age, but he was just angry. Yes he had one or two funny lines but most of the time his motivation as a character did not seem genuine. In fact, Russell here reminded me of Jamie Foxx as Electro in The Amazing Spider-Man 2, a character needing to be needed.

Whereas Domino I felt I did not get enough of, genuinely mostly everything we have seen of the character in this movie was in the trailers. She had one or two more good lines particularly with the truck chase but outside of that I was left underwhelmed as a fan of Domino’s because I wanted her to be a scene-stealer similar to Black Widow, Deadpool even calls her “Black Black Widow”.

Colossus again proves to be quite a comedic and competent character despite his earlier appearances in the original X-Men trilogy. The only issue is, we never see him outside of being metallic and yet again Deadpool makes the joke about the studio not being able to afford more X-Men than Colossus and Negasonic Teenage Warhead.

Although there is a fantastic cameo from the X-Men: Apocalypse X-Men team while Deadpool is making this budget speech as the shot cuts to a profile shot of Wade showing a classroom with that team played by those actors in. In the room there is Beast, Quicksilver, Nightcrawler, Storm, Cyclops and bald Professor X all of whom were played by the same actors who portrayed them in X-Men: Apocalypse. It was interesting to see that neither Sophie Turner nor Jennifer Lawrence made an appearance as Jean Grey and Mystique respectively but literally the show was a blink and you will miss it type of shot.

Circling back to Negasonic Teenage Warhead, and I’m going to call her Ellie because it’s easier and that’s her civilian name, again like Domino most of what we’ve seen from her we saw in the trailers but what was confirmed in this movie was her LGBT status.

Now it is not confirmed if she is bisexual or a lesbian but she is in a relationship with Yukio, who I think is supposed to be Surge from the comics but her name is Noriko not Yukio and Yukio is in fact from The Wolverine portrayed by Rila Fukishima in which case I am frustrated with this character because I loved what Rila did with it. Regardless, I applaud this movie because I have recently written up a Research Project for my university course about the lack of LGBT representation in Marvel and this movie gave me hope that maybe they are turning a corner, both with the teenage lesbian lovers and Deadpool’s pansexuality.

I did have the opportunity to meet Brianna Hildebrand at Comic-Con in March but opted out in favour of Yondu but I continue to be happy with her role in these movies.

Then X-Force as a team, the biggest tease I have seen for quite some time, I haven’t seen such a tease lacking followup since The Amazing Spider-Man 2 and the promise of the Sinister Six. Almost every trailer in this movie promoted the X-Force team starting in this movie but what the trailers failed to say was that they’d be seen for a grand total of five minutes and then literally be killed off save for Deadpool and Domino.

When you have the likes of Terry Crewes and Bill Skarsgård in the movie, particularly with Billy coming off of such a success with It, yet barely have them speak and don’t really have any screen-time or development before killing them off just to say “We’ve had X-Force” it’s a waste. I mean I get only having Lewis Tan for a glorified cameo as he is more of a stuntman and he was playing a character that would have been all stunts mainly but again it was such a wasted opportunity.

Although the one thing the team did right was give us a bigger shock cameo than Matt Damon in Thor: Ragnarok and I am talking Brad Pitt as Vanisher. Now for most of the time Vanisher was invisible however when he fell down onto the power-lines and got electrocuted to reveal himself as Brad Pitt, the audience I saw this movie gave the biggest reaction all movie. It was such a surprise and such a non-commitment type of role that Pitt didn’t have to do it but either did 20th Century Fox a favour or Ryan Reynolds a favour, either way it actually made me respect him more.

Outside of that brief cameo, the biggest shock for me was the reveal of Juggernaut. I was actually very surprised to see him in this movie. When they “foreshadowed” the character, I genuinely did not know who it was going to be but the fact it was Juggernaut and looking more like Juggernaut than Vinnie Jones did I was loving it. Although I wasn’t so keen on the fact that Ryan Reynolds provided the voice, again Vinnie Jones was great vocally and physically in the role it was just how they styled him I had a problem with. Also the fact he was defeated by essentially having an electric enema was a little bit in poor taste, again there’s a line and Deadpool both as a character and a franchise dance very finely on it.

Then as for Vanessa, I really like Morena Baccarin as an actress but currently I am not entirely sure she knows what role she wants to commit to. Yes she is a mainstay on Gotham and has been fantastic on that all season and it is clear she was not in the first few episodes because of filming this, but then there is the fact she is back voicing Gideon on The Flash which is a minor voice-over role and then there was this but it is such a watered down version of the character from the comics to the point where she was never revealed as a mutant or had her appearance from the comics. Although interestingly enough the character did first appear in the comics as Domino before revealing herself properly.

The end-credits scene which saw Ellie fix Cable’s time-travelling device and stupidly giving it to Deadpool allowed him to go back and save Vanessa, meaning she’s not dead, which if you follow time-travel lore means the events of this movie should not have happened but even so I digress.

Deadpool’s Future:

My final thoughts are on the future of Deadpool in terms of movies because of course there is a pending merger that could threaten that.

I do think that when you consider the fact Fox is in the midst of having it’s movie and television properties going over to Disney, one has to consider if Deadpool and the X-Men have a future. Yes Kevin Feige is going to want to capitalize on Deadpool’s box office to add to his own gross and they have confirmed that Deadpool will stay R-Rated. but the meta-referencing to the MCU may have to be taken out if the character becomes part of the MCU and also if Ryan Reynolds does not continue to have control over the character as he does now then we lose something special.

Now they have said that Deadpool 3 will in fact be an X-Force movie and it is already in negotiations, however I do not believe that any development in terms of script, casting or filming will take place until this merger is confirmed. While I think Deadpool is meta enough to be the only surviving character from Fox in this merger, I do think making the movie as Fox but then either part way through or even at the point of premiere becoming a Disney property would mess up what is currently one of the best comic-book movie franchises out there.

Overall I rate this movie a 9/10, it’s not the best movie I have ever seen however both as the type of comic-book movie it promised and the type of character actor Ryan Reynolds is it is a perfect movie. It just isn’t higher because I do not feel the immediate urge of a rewatchability factor.

So that’s my review of Deadpool 2, what did you guys think? Post your comments and check out more Marvel Movie Reviews as well as other Movie Reviews and posts.

Best Films of 2017, Part III

Part I is right here. Part II is right here. Let’s keep it moving. PRETTY GOOD MOVIES 67. Kingsman: The Golden Circle (Matthew Vaughn)-  Exactly, eerily, as good as the first one. Make a hundred more of these stupid candies and wrap them individually in wax paper. 66. Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond (Chris Smith)-   As a movie about the effects of fame: 5 stars As a movie about the inherent lie of acting: 4 stars As a movie about making a movie: 2 stars As a well-structured documentary of its own: 1 star 65. The Wall (Doug Liman)- War movies often topple under the weight of their messages, but that's not The Wall's problem. To his credit, Liman is worried about making this a thriller first, even as he's showing off the competency of the soldier at its center. There's no music, and the camera plants you subjectively in Sergeant Issac's field of vision. (The John Cena character is named Shane Matthews, but he ain't even SEC). Even at 80-something minutes, however, the film feels long, telegraphing its way from one plot point to the next, and its dark ending comes off as a too-clever shrug. If your movie is about the war, then make it about the war. If it's using the war as a backdrop, then make it about something. 64. Fist Fight (Richie Keen)- Once you start thinking about its logic on any level, it falls apart. (The whole reason schools are bad is that they can't find good teachers, so why would they be so intent on firing the ones they have?) And it's full of fake problems. (Oh my God, he might not make it to his daughter's talent show in time!) But this worked for me overall. Some jokes fall flat, but there are so many that you can just wait for the next one to land, particularly if it's from the salty mouth of standout Jillian Bell. The script, full of meticulous callbacks, creates a full, satisfying arc for the protagonist as well. 63. Brad’s Status (Mike White)-  A confused movie that is an easy, sort of Italian watch in the way that it so literally spells out its emotions. Even five years ago, this tale of a middle class White man's entitled bellyaching would have been told straight. Now it exists only because it weaves into the narrative people who check the Stiller character's privilege. Because the character's jealousy is communicated so truly and fiercely, it almost seems as if Mike White wants to tell a story but knows he shouldn't. That sounds like faint praise, but it's a fascinating experience. 

62. Beach Rats (Eliza Hittman)- For about an hour, this felt like a movie I had seen before. "Oh, why can't I get it up? I, uh, must have had too many drugs. Definitely not because I'm gay 'cuz I'm not." It was, due to the underplayed performances and the careful composition, better than some versions of that movie, but not by much. Then, the last leg of the film gets mission-focused. Without giving anything away, rather than being just about heterosexual performance, it becomes about homosexual performance and heterosexual performance at the same time. The protagonist is challenging his straight friends within the rules of what they've determined and outside of them. Those layers pile on until the bravura final shot. I just wish it had hooked me sooner. 61. I Don’t Feel at Home in This World Anymore (Macon Blair)-  I preferred the Encyclopedia Brown fumbling at the beginning to the violent consequences at the end, but I realize that's how amateur detective movies work. I probably would complain if the film didn't open up in scale. The story is fairly simple, which, coupled with an assured visual style that is open to mystery, suggests that Macon Blair might have a real future as a director. He's not trying to do too much. Lynskey is absolutely perfect by the way. 60.  Life (Daniel Espinosa)-  Cool enough at the beginning and the end to excuse a few logical missteps in the middle. Still, without giving anything away, I'm recalling a fork in the road in which the film could have gone the easy, dumb way, and it went the more difficult, realistic way. I hadn't seen Espinosa's other movies, but he shows an assured hand here, especially with the rapturous gore. I can't say the same about Ryan Reynolds, who sleepwalks through a role that might as well be called You Know, a Ryan Reynolds Type.   59. The Zookeeper’s Wife (Niki Caro)-  It goes pretty hard for PG-13, and there isn't much wrong with it--the passage of time gets haphazard in the second half maybe. But personally, I think I'm all good on Holocaust stories. 58. Landline (Gillian Robespierre)- It's basically a Woody Allen movie if Woody Allen had an affinity for rollerblades instead of bad jazz. Most of the laughs come from the '90s milieu; in fact, I'm not sure if this movie would even be a comedy without the setting. Despite some of those easy laughs (and some laborious ribbon-tying at the end), the screenplay does a few difficult things well. I'm thinking in particular of a scene in which Falco and Turturro have to confront and punish their daughter. We've already been told that she gets forced into the bad-cop role, and he skates above the fray as the favorite parent. But to actually see that dynamic in action during this scene, which begins with him whispering that the mother is coming, is kind of thrilling. The performances are good: Slate is dialed up to a higher pitch than she was in Obvious Child, and newcomer Abby Quinn comes through when asked to carry long stretches. At first, I wondered why John Turturro had signed up for such a nothing part, but as his arc blossoms in the film's second half to become a quiet MVP. He gets to remind us that no one else can play an unrealized sad sack quite like him. 57. The Unknown Girl (Jean-Pierre Dardenne, Luc Dardenne)-  I wish I had a unique take on this, but everyone else is right: It's a minor work from great filmmakers. There's some real psychology here--a woman in transition sublimates her upward mobility into a search for truth. And as a mystery, it works fine. But there's a tedium and a distance, despite the usual Dardenne tricks, that keeps it from hitting home. 56. The Glass Castle (Destin Cretton)-  There are too many characters in real life too, I guess. Far less focused than Short Term 12, The Glass Castle is an admirably sincere piece with some powerful sequences, but it gets way out of hand in the last twenty minutes. Recommendations for a movie that finishes with the point "It's okay to hate your dad"? 55. The Disaster Artist (James Franco)- James Franco reveals himself to be a workman-like director, a brilliant actor, and the best real-life brother of all time. Having a James Franco performance like this but giving top billing to Dave Franco is kind of like eating birthday cake but giving top billing to the plate. Playing a clown-fraud like Tommy Wiseau exposes an actor to artifice. Commit too much, and it's a stunt; commit too little, and it's a wink. I don't know exactly how he does it, but James Franco walks the tight-rope precisely. Dave Franco, playing a nineteen-year-old for some of this, is in over his head. If you've ever seen a well-done amateur Shakespeare adaptation, you know the electricity that comes from the company's freedom, when they realize they can do what they want with this supposedly sacrosanct work. So imagine how much fun professionals are in re-staging a work that is objectively terrible. At its worst, The Disaster Artist feels like a trifle. At its best, however, that feeling of putting-on-a-show is what comes across well.

54. Manifesto (Julian Rosenfeldt)- I knew this was various incarnations of Cate Blanchett--a homeless man, a conservative housewife, a broker--performing artistic manifestos. But I didn't know the most clever twist, which is that the manifestos are blended into one another, so that a line of Marx alternates with a line of Tzara with a line of Soupault. That dynamic approach brings to light how confrontational and immature all of these types of writings are, not to mention the collaborative spirit most of those writers had. Your mileage may vary based on your tolerance for intellectual bullshit, but I scratched my chin contentedly. The pairings of the manifestos to the settings are clever, and my favorite was probably a eulogist talking about dadaism at a literal funeral. As artificial as what I'm describing sounds (and yeah, by the eighth or ninth one, you'll check your watch), Blanchett finds an observational truth. The performative posture of a schoolteacher, the pause for fake laughs of a C.E.O., the paper shuffle of a news anchor: She remains the real thing. 53. Brawl in Cell Block 99 (S. Craig Zahler)-  Now that I have taken a shower to wash off the movie's bleak grodiness, I appreciate its solid plotting and grindhouse super-sizing. Like Bone Tomahawk, Zahler's previous film, Brawl in Cell Block 99 takes about an hour to get where it's going. (The inciting incident is technically at 1:08.) I assume the fat is there to develop the protagonist, but I think about twenty minutes could be shaved off. Zahler's rhythms might make for an excellent TV show, but something about that '70s exploitation poster makes me think we won't find out. 52. Columbus (Kogonada)- Columbus wrestles with the balance of information and inspiration. The Cassandra character prevents the Jin character--I'll ignore the gross name symbolism--from looking a date up on his phone because she wants to be able to recall it herself. Earlier than that, the Jin character tries to impress her with knowledge of a building, but she blows him off when he admits that he memorized it from a book he had read earlier in the week. Would that thought be somehow more pure if he had retained it over years? I think that type of calculus is what the film is concerned with, so it makes sense that it centers on architecture, an art of identity as much as it is a science of measurements, an expression as much as it is a utility. If the paragraph above makes it sound as if the movie is up its own ass, running on Sundance fumes through its meth subplot, then you'd be right. I had just enough patience to admire it as a promising debut. 51. The Book of Henry (Colin Trevorrow)- Colin Trevorrow's best film is always compelling--for different reasons in the compassionate first half than it is as it's careening off the rails in the final third. But it's always compelling. You can't complain about all studio movies being the same, then not appreciate something this fundamentally godless and bizarre. 50. Kong: Skull Island (Jordan Vogt-Roberts)- People rag on the DC Universe films for being too serious and dark, but there's no limit to how dark a movie can go as long as it's balancing that mood with something else. Vogt-Roberts gets that, and Kong: Skull Island is a cut above most of these entertainments because he has a deft handle on tone. The film can get scary because it's so silly and fun at other times. Plus, if you have Jackson, Reilly, and Goodman selling your lines, they can be as dumb as you want. Even if the other sequences never reach its level, the first helicopter setpiece is dope, in part because the actual fighting of the monsters is dynamic. Skull Island is pretty far from Brazil, but Kong's chokes, holds, and throws owe a lot to jiu-jitsu. It seems like a consistent piece of design at least. Can we talk about Tom "The Tight Sweater" Hiddleston though? Vogt-Roberts has no idea how to introduce him properly, but he is an absolute zero in the role that is supposed to be heroic. The script doesn't do him any favors--the American army is taking orders from this British mercenary because...--but he is a vacuum of charisma. He's not dangerous in any way, and his blah blah my dad died backstory is delivered with no conviction. I don't get it. 49. T2: Trainspotting (Danny Boyle)- It's a perfectly pleasant experience to see these characters twenty years later--Boyle has a few nostalgic tricks up his sleeve--but "pleasant" is a backhanded response to something as vibrant and essential as the original.There's a meta-reading of T2 that admits that everyone involved is struggling with the same issues as the characters, but even that is kind of like returning to your middle school and realizing that the basketball rims weren't actually that tall. And how do you mess up the music?

48. Brigsby Bear (Dave McCary)- There are some huge ideas on Brigsby Bear's mind. The weight of nostalgia versus genuine affection is there. Caring versus pitying is there. Then there's the idea that drives it: If you're the only person who appreciates a work, does that diminish it in some way? How important is collective experience to art?Those ideas are suggested by the screenplay by Kyle Mooney and Kevin Costello, but they aren't wrestled with directly. Especially in its structure, Brigsby Bear is more conventional than its mysterious introduction and Mooney's bonkers comedic sensibility would have suggested. 47. Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (Martin McDonagh)- Three Billboards flew by for me, and I loved Sam Rockwell's iceberg of a performance. But I was held back by the same elements that hampered Martin McDonagh's other work. There's some profundity lurking in the Harrelson voice-over, and you can't tell me that you didn't get the chills from McDormand's raw scream as her son holds her back from putting out a fire.But it's over-written in the first half--"HOW RESPONSIBLE ARE WE FOR OTHER PEOPLE?" might as well be on a storefront on Main Street. And McDonagh, a real poet of the profane at his best, is so willing to go for the easy joke that he undoes a lot of his own subtlety. Even before the dreadful final five minutes, there's too much plot and too many characters.Perhaps it's an issue of expectations--this would have been a satisfying video store find back in the day, but I'm not sure something so out-of-control should be up for All the Awards.   46. Call Me by Your Name (Luca Guadignino)- For me, this is Guadignino's third straight film in which an emotional urgency underneath never quite equals the lush, meticulous, yet inert exterior wrapping. That being said, Chalamet's performance forces nothing, and the character is a uniquely novelistic creation: knowing everything, practicing mystery, but wearing his confusion on his sleeve. Despite an overall shapeless quality, the film brings everything home in the poignant moments near the end. One of those moments is a five-minute "it gets better" speech by Michael Stuhlbarg. By that point I think most of my audience was willing to go there, but I hesitated to buy it. You can't spend two hours being a movie about what isn't said, then switch over to a movie in which everything is laid out on the table. Then again, that's my exact Guadignino problem. 45. Battle of the Sexes (Jonathan Dayton, Valerie Faris)- Dayton and Faris show as little tennis as possible because they don't know how to make it look interesting. Carell sleepwalks through his role. There's a lot of "Here's plot point A" type dialogue. We're told about King's dedication to the game, but we aren't really shown it. Unfortunately, the whole thing is a Clinton-Trump allegory, and Dayton-Faris expected Clinton to win like everyone else did. But Battle of the Sexes still goes down smooth, mostly because of the tender love story between Billie Jean King and Marilyn Barnett. In fact, every time the film cut to something else, I wanted more of those women discovering each other. I'm a student of Movie Stardom, so I've given Emma Stone her due as a Movie Star. But this is the first time I forgot I was watching Emma Stone. The scene in which Billie Jean and Marilyn meet is an impressionistic, sensual haircut. Marilyn calls Billie Jean pretty, and based on the complicated reception of that compliment--a stumble but not a stammer--you can tell Billie Jean didn't get that much. As written, King is a strange mixture of inward flailing and outward tenacity, and Stone breaks hearts with it. It's not often that one performance can give a movie a reason to exist, but that's why they play the games. 44. King Arthur: The Legend of the Sword (Guy Ritchie)- It's hard to remember a film more uninterested in its own storytelling, and it's even harder to remember a time when I saw that as a strength. If nothing else, the permanent fast-forward button that Guy Ritchie holds feels like a fresh corrective against other self-serious origin legends. I say "origin," but this movie actually feels like a trilogy unto itself, with the excellent initial twenty-five minutes covering about thirty years at a breathtaking pace. The score, which incorporates human breath, makes that literal. Ritchie fashions King Arthur into a scrappy orphan story, so there's a bit of his underdog imprint, but he also sort of assumes that we know the basics of the King Arthur story and yada-yadas a lot. Merlin gets mentioned only by name, Excalibur never gets named, and Arthur literally cuts in line to pull it out of the stone. By the end some of the visuals look like Killer Instinct for the N64 with a code to turn CGI embers all the way up. But I prefer this to the three-hour version that the studio accountants no doubt expected to receive.

43. War for the Planet of the Apes (Matt Reeves)- For better or worse, this movie plays for keeps. Aided by Michael Giacchino's second masterpiece of a score (after Up), the film lets the action speak for itself, going for long stretches without any dialogue. It culminates in the exact go-for-broke ending that I keep asking for. But am I the only one who feels a bit of cognitive dissonance with these movies? The audience I saw it with applauded at the end, but it's hard for me to buy in that way for something that is so dour and self-serious while also being goofy. Like, I'm really supposed to learn about the lessons of work camps from CGI apes? The commitment behind the apes' design is admirable--how has this series not won any effects Oscars yet?--but is the storytelling strong enough to transcend those tricks? It's novel, but I'm not sure it's new. Matt Reeves crams the film with Apocalypse Now allusions, and though I was thoroughly entertained, I couldn't help but think this was Apocalypse Now for people who will never see Apocalypse Now.

do you have any good star trek novel recommendations? (tos please!!)

Yes! I do! I’ve been meaning to make a post about this for…so long, whoops, but I’ll answer this ask instead! (might still make the post someday, idk tbh. I probably should though because since I have so many Trek books I haven’t read yet, I might like more enough to rec them, haha.) Okay, anyway… (By TOS I assume you mean the original Enterprise crew, I hope it’s okay that not all of these actually take place during TOS, aka the five year mission.)

Sarek by A. C. Crispin You might have seen me mention this one the other day on my blog; I really love it. It takes place post TUC, Amanda is dying and Sarek is uncovering a plot that’s way bigger than anyone realizes at first… Also there’s some stuff about Jim’s nephew Peter (from the episode with the farting flying pancake aliens? lol.) and yeah, it’s a great read. All the parts with Sarek and Amanda are lovely and sad and the plot is interesting and it’s just all around enjoyable.Definitely recommend.

Collision Course by William Shatner This is the other one I mentioned on my blog already, and this one is probably my favorite Trek novel. Spock is nineteen and Jim is seventeen when they first meet, and they’re both too smart for their own good and get into trouble and…well, all the things you expect from Jim and Spock. It was originally supposed to be the first in a series, but for various reasons, there probably won’t be any more (CRIES) but this one is so good. And it doesn’t end on a cliffhanger so it’s okay. I especially enjoyed tbh how Bill appreciates what an effect Tarsus would have had on Jim (this is only three years later, after all) and it’s still very visible on lil’ Jim. Not a spoiler, bc a reference is made to Tarsus on…literally the very first page. Lol. Anyway, this one is really fun and sometimes sad (bc Tarsus) and just really great! Also, at least one of the plot twists genuinely surprised me, which is rare… I normally see them coming a mile off in Trek novels. ;) (Which doesn’t usually take away from my enjoyment, tbh!) But I really appreciate when they can surprise me.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (novelization) by Gene Roddenberry You knew this was coming. This is an absolute must read if you’re a Spirk fan, tbh. I’m not all the way through with it so far, about halfway done, but I can tell you it’s a much better way of telling the story of TMP than TMP. Lol. The movie has this simple feeling and Jim rushing to Spock on the bridge and saying his name like a prayer and other things, but it also has all those dreadful special effect sequences. And the novel has its own gay to offer. I don’t necessarily agree with the way Gene wrote Jim (in fact, it’s been forever since I picked it up but I distinctly remember being bothered by it), but…yeah, at least borrow a copy from someone and witness the gay parts for yourself, haha.

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (novelization) by Vonda McIntyre I’m going to go ahead and say right now that if you’re going to read the novelizations, go for the ones by Ms. (Mrs? idk) McIntyre. She wrote 2, 3, and 4. I haven’t read 3 yet, but I have read 2 and 4 and I like that she actually adds in scenes and stuff that weren’t in the movies. It makes me feel like I’m actually getting something additional for my time even though I’m reading a novelization of a movie I’ve already seen. I like this one, because there was quite a bit that wasn’t in the movie (I have a hunch the extra scenes, at least some of them, might be based on the script? because the scene with Sulu’s great….something or other grandfather as a child meeting Sulu is in the book, and I know they tried to put that in the movie but never managed to. anyway.) But yeah, there’s actual stuff in there that’s not in the movie! that’s the way it should be. Also…she ships Saavik/David pretty clearly. :P Like I said, haven’t read TSS novel yet, but I know she was working it into 2, and it’s mentioned in 4 as a thing. Anyway…good stuff! This is the one where the whole “Vulcans get drunk on chocolate” thing comes from btw :))) (Avoid the novelizations by JM Dillard! Avoid!!! I’ve read them and they’re not good.) (Oh and pretty much everything I’ve read by Vonda McIntyre I’ve enjoyed, she’s a good Trek writer.)

Dwellers In The Crucible by Margaret Wander Bonnano Margaret Bonnano is another writer I just generally recommend bc I like all the stuff by her that I’ve read, too. Anyway… okay so let me say that this book’s main characters are not Jim and Spock. I know, I know. But wait!! It’s so worth a read!! Jim and Spock are in it, not much, but when they are they’re literally so married and explicitly confirmed to be t’hy’la… :)) it’s great. okay anyway. The main characters are a human named Cleante and a Vulcan named T’Shael. They are ladies. THEY ARE GAY AF. OKAY. THAT ALONE MAKES IT WORTH A READ. it’s so glorious.I mean the book only says they’re friends but…in the same way Jim and Spock are friends in canon. they’re super freaking gay. and also there are like a thousand incredibly obvious parallels between our human and vulcan lady and Jim and Spock. it’s fun. also Sulu goes undercover as a Romulan. :D yeah, just…read it. it’s great. (it made me angry at one point. I’m still angry. but I recommend it.)

Ishmael by Barbara Hambly This one was, for me at least, just a genuinely good read. I really enjoyed the plot. So…Spock goes back in time to 1867, not willingly I don’t think. And he gets amnesia. So right there are two tropes I ADORE (time travel and amnesia, I don’t care, I LOVE THEM.) He lands in North America, in Seattle if I remember correctly. And that’s the plot pretty much. Haha…okay, there’s a Klingon plot, the Enterprise crew searching for Spock, Spock trying to adapt and hide he’s an alien while bonding with the members of the community he lands in. Also Jim and Spock’s reunion is a bit gay. (Warning for spoilers if you click that? it’s pictures of when they find him near the end, so. Yeah.) I just really enjoyed the book in itself, the plot and everything. Fun!

Enterprise: The First Adventure by Vonda McIntyre In light of the tv series called Enterprise, the title of this one might be a little confusing… But it’s most definitely TOS and has nothing to do with Enterprise, haha. The premise is that it’s the first voyage of the Enterprise with Jim as the captain. And the mission is…to transport a theater troupe. It’s ridiculous and so silly, I know, but it’s really fun. There’s a winged horse, a really un-Vulcan Vulcan (I think he’s Spock’s cousin? I don’t really remember tbh), Spock heckling the theater troop, Uhura being a good friend to Janice…that’s all I remember off the top of my head, but I remember really enjoying it when I read it! 

Unspoken Truth by Margaret Wander Bonanno Remember what I said about those two writers? Lol. Okay so this is a Saavik-centric book. I really love Saavik, okay? So, as you might know, Saavik is half Vulcan, half Romulan. Well in this book (actually, in a bunch of books, by at least three different writers, it seems to be her accepted backstory in the novels) she was the result of a terrible experiment by Romulans, and when it didn’t work out, she and a bunch of other children were abandoned on a planet called Hellguard, and…some really horrible things happen. Anyway, Spock saves her, mentors her, and Amanda and Sarek basically adopt her (literally, she calls them mother and father, IT’S MY FAVE), well anyway, years later, either after or during TVH, she learns things are happening to the survivors of Hellguard…and the story goes from there. This was really good! Intense tbh. I loved it, but then, I love Saavik. If you don’t like her… But if you do, you’ll enjoy this one!!!!

Doctor’s Orders by Diane Duane Diane Duane is another must read author. All her books are excellent. In all honestly, I don’t remember too much about the plot of this one, but I know I liked it! Dr. McCoy is like “you can’t make me take command on the bridge” and Jim is like “uh actually I CAN” so he does and of course on McCoy’s very first day watching over the bridge Jim goes AWOL and shit starts going down. Poor Bones. Also, there’s some crazy aliens in this one, but they’re interesting!

The Vulcan Academy Murders by Jean Lorrah This one has such misleading cover art, lmaooo. At least, the version I have. There might be others… Anyway. Patients at a hospital on Vulcan keep dying and stuff, and then Amanda is in trouble. Lots of Sarek and Spock and Jim and Bones interaction. It’s a good one. (It’s been soo long since I read this one, too, sorry. But again, I know I enjoyed it!)

Uhura’s Song by Janet Hagan I love the alien species in this one. They’re like giant cats, and I love cats. When I read it, I got really into the planet and the species and their culture. The plot is that an old friend of Uhura’s is from this planet, and they “exchanged songs”…songs are a big deal in their culture. Anyway, there’s a plague threatening everyone on the planet and humans, too, and they think a song might hold the key to curing the disease, so they all go down on the planet to try and find it.

Strangers From The Sky by Margaret Wander Bonanno The plot to this one is…kind of hard to describe. Okay. So the parts with Jim and Spock go back and forth in time, part of the time being like, post-all the movies (I think) where they’re old friends (and really married, they’re just like. Margaret Bonanno has this way of inserting this really easy, casual intimacy they have with each other, and calling it friendship when OBVIOUSLY they’re married af, but either way I love it) and part of the time being very early on when Jim hasn’t been in command for long and he and Spock didn’t care much for each other (I mean personally I think they liked each other quite well from the start, but I’ll let it go, lol)… And then there’s a book. In the book. That everyone is reading and obsessed with and Jim starts reading it… It sounds weird, I know, but the book in the book is the story of the first time Vulcans came in contact with humans, long before the OFFICIAL first contact, it was when Vulcans crash landed on Earth and were discovered by some humans… I fucking love Vulcans, so that is obviously a great point of interest for me. Lol. Anyway when Jim reads the book he has nightmares, but then he discovers Spock has those nightmares, too, and it’s more than ‘just’ a book. Probably sounds bizarre but I really enjoyed it. ….and doesn’t every Trek plot EVER sound bizarre af when you try to describe it?

That’s all I’ve got right now!! This got so long I’M SO SORRY TBH BUT I HAD TO BE THOROUGH.

WHAT TO WATCH THIS WEEKEND April 26, 2019  - AVENGERS: ENDGAME!!!

This is the big one, the start of the summer movie season – like last year, one week early – but also a singularly movie that is likely to crush pretty much everything still playing in theaters, and that is…

AVENGERS: ENDGAME!!

What’s being promoted as the finale of storylines that have been set-up over ten years of Marvel movies finally hits theaters one year after the fateful ending of Infinity War. Sadly, I won’t be seeing this until early next week, since I’ll be busy attending the Tribeca Film Festival over the weekend. (See more details about that below.)

Still, it’s hard to deny the draw of a sequel to last year’s Avengers: Endgame, which had such an astounding cliffhanger ending that few will want to wait to see this one, mainly to see how the surviving heroes deal with Thanos and get their friends and colleagues back.

I guess that’s all I have to say about the movie (other than my box office analysis at The Beat), until I see it so let’s get straight to the…

LIMITED RELEASES

If you live in New York, I beseech you to go see Pamela Green’s doc BE NATURAL: THE UNTOLD STORY OF ALICE GUY-BLACHÉ  (Zeitgeist Films), narrated by Jodi Foster, when it opens in New York on Friday. It will open at the IFC Center in New York plus a few other cities as it slowly expands to other cities. It’s an amazing story about the first-ever female filmmaker who was around during the earliest days of cinema in France.

Ralph Fiennes’ directs and co-stars in THE WHITE CROW (Sony Pictures Classics), an amazing film starring Oleg Ivenko as ballet dancer Rudolf Nureyev, who travelled to Paris with his ballet company, ended up meeting and falling in love with Clara Saint (Adèle Exarchopoulos) and defecting. Fiennes plays Nureyev’s early teacher, but it’s a fairly small role as he allows his younger cast to shine in a terrific story that covers much of Nureyev’s early life before defecting. It’s a fantastic film, regardless of whether you’re into ballet or not. The White Crowopens in New York and L.A. on Friday.

Not quite as amazing (but a movie I had been looking forward to seeing since Toronto last year) is Justin Kelly’s  JT LEROY (Universal Home Entertainment), which stars Kristen Stewart as Savannah Knoop, the young woman who pretended to be author J.T. Leroy, an abused transgender young man, who was duped by actual author Laura Albert (played by Laura Dern) to help fulfill the ruse for the press and other celebrities. Jim Sturgess plays Geoffrey Knoop, Laura’s boyfriend and Savannah’s brother while Diane Kruger plays Eva, a character clearly meant to be Asia Argento, who made The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things based on “Leroy’s” novel. I was very interested in this film, partially because I interviewed Argento for that film without knowing the story until seeing Jeff Feurzeig’s doc Author: The JT Leroy Story. The movie, co-written by Knoop and Kelly from her own book documenting events, is okay, but I feel that the screenplay could have been a lot more interesting if adapted by a better writer, and I’ve generally been mixed about Kelly’s work as a director, as well.  I guess if you’re interested in this story, you can check this out in select cities or On Demand.

Josh Lobo’s thriller I TRAPPED THE DEVIL (IFC Midnight) stars Scott Poythress as Steve, a man who is holding a man hostage in his basement who he believes is the Devil himself. When his brother (AJ Bowen) and wife (Susan Burke) arrive for the Christmas season, they discover Steve’s secret and begin wondering if the man is in fact the Devil.  I liked the movie’s premise more than the execution, as I didn’t think too much about the cast.

Roxanne Benjamin made her directorial debut as part of the horror anthology Southbound. She also had a segment in the XX anthology, and she now makes her feature film debut with BODY AT BRIGHTON ROCK (Magnet Releasing). It follows a young woman who is working as a summer employee at a state park, but who takes a wrong turn and ends up in a crime scene with no communication to the outside world. Bravely, she must spend the night in the wilderness protecting the crime scene on her own.


Opening on Wednesday at Film Forum is Carmine Street Guitars (Abramorama), Ron Mann’s documentary about Rick Kelly’s West Village guitar shop that’s been where he and his apprentice Cindy Hulej design and build custom guitars for the musical superstars. Some of the guitarists who pop in and are captured on camera include Charlie Sexton, Marc Ribot, Lenny Kaye and Bill Frisell with a special appearance by Jim Jarmusch. If you’re into music or are a guitar player, you’ll want to check this out.

Maia Wechsler’s doc If the Dancer Dances (Monument Releasing) goes into the dance studio of Stephen Petronio as they try to breathe new life into Merce Cunningham’s 1968 piece “RainForest.” The movie is being released in conjunction with Cunningham’s centennial, opening Friday in New York at the Quadand in L.A. at the Laemmle Music Hall.

A Thousand Thoughts

LOCAL FESTIVALS

The big festival starting on Wednesday is the17thAnnual TRIBECA FILM FESTIVAL, which kicks off on Wednesday with Life, Animated director Roger Ross Williams’ new documentary The Apollo, which is having it World premiere AT the Apollo Theater in Harlem. Other special events held at the Beacon Theater, also far north of Tribeca, include the 35thAnniversary of This is Spinal Tap and 40th Anniversary of Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now, a special talk between Tribeca co-founder Robert De Niro and his longtime director Martin Scorsese, as well as special concerts/talks following docs about the Wu Tang Clan (Wu Tang Clan: Of Mics and Men) and Phish frontman Trey Anastasio (Between Me and My Mind).  

I’m not sure why, but I tend to gravitate more to the docs at Tribeca than the narratives, maybe because there have been maybe a dozen narratives at the festival that I truly loved. On the other hand, the festival has become renowned for so many amazing docs, and this year, there are goods ones about Stones bassist Bill Wyman (The Quiet One), Woodstock: Three Days That Defined a Generation, Maiden (about the first all-woman around-the-world sailing team), another one about movie sound (Making Waves) and one about a Ohio factory that shuts down but then is resuscitated by a Chinese company that offers the community new hope (American Factory). I’m also looking forward to seeing the doc Other Music, about New York’s indie record store which recently shut its doors. Add to that other music docs like Linda Ronstadt: The Sound of My Voice and Mystify: Michael Hutchence, and there’s quite a bit that I’m going to want to check out. 

Some of the narratives that I’m interested include The Kill Team, starring Nat Wolff and Alexander Skarsgard, and Kevin McMullin’s Low Tide, which has its World Premiere. Also, soon-to-be-released movies like Mary (American Psycho) Harron’s Charlie Says, starring Mat Smith as Charles Manson, and Joe Berlinger’s Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile, starring Zac Efron as Ted Bundy, will screen at Tribeca before their respective releases on May 10.

Hopefully, I’ll find some more hidden gems as the festival progresses.

Up in Toronto, Canada, one of my favorite cities, this year’s Hot Docs begins on Thursday. As the name might imply, this is a documentary film festival with an amazing array of docs, many getting their world premieres. I’m a little busy with Tribeca to go through all that is being offered, but if you live in Toronto, then you should be able to find some interesting subjects covered.

REPERTORY

METROGRAPH (NYC):

Metrograph Pictures’ second release is a restored rerelease of Djibril Diop Mambety’s Hyenas (1992), a comic adaptation of Friedrich Dürrenmatt’s play “The Visit” about a rich woman who is visiting a small African village with enough money to back the man running for mayor of the town. Instead, she reveals that he got her pregnant and abandoned her with child, leading her to a life of misery before coming into money. She offers a bounty to kill the man who did this to her, and the village needs to decide whether they like the mayoral candidate, a popular shopkeeper, as much as they need the money being offered. It’s a pretty fascinating film, beautifully shot, and it’s nice to see the Metrograph reviving it through their distribution arm. On top of that, the retrospective of Brazilian filmmaker Nelson Pereira Dos Santos continues through Sunday, including a few repeat showings. Late Nites at Metrograph  offers Gaspar Noe’s recent Climax, as well as Evangelion 1.0 and Evangelion 2.0for the Anime fans.  Playtime: Family Matinees ends the month with a classic Kurt Russell Disney movie, The Barefoot Executive  (1971).

THE NEW BEVERLY (L.A.):

Weds. afternoon is a screening of Melville’s 1956 film Bob Le Flambeur, while a double feature of Sydney Pollack’s The Yakuza  (1974) and John Woo’s A Better Tomorrow II  (1987) runs Weds. and Thursday. The Extended Version of Sam Peckinpah’s Major Dundee  (1965), starring Charlton Heston, screens on Friday and Saturday, followed by the double feature of Peter Sellers’ 1966 film After the Fox and Elaine May’s The Hearbreak Kid on Sunday and Monday. Tarantino’s The Hateful Eight and the 1983 comedy Doctor Detroit are the Friday and Saturday midnight movies, respectably. This weekend’s KIDEE MATINEE is Lord and Miller’s animated Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, while Monday’s matinee is David Fincher’s Fight Club.

FILM FORUM (NYC):

The “Trilogies” series continues this weekend with Andrzej Wajda’s “War Trilogy” (A Generation, Kanal, Ashes and Diamonds) on Wednesday, Jean Cocteau’s “Orphic Trilogy” (Blood of a Poet, Orpheus and Testament of Orpheus) on Thursday. Ingmar Bergman’s “God and Man Trilogy” (Through a Glass Darkly, Winter Light and The Silence) screens on Friday, and then Nicolas Winding Refn’s Pusher trilogy begins on Friday then continues on Saturday, April 27, and the third part on May 4. (Trust me, this is not an easy series to watch in one sitting.) Also, Marcel Pagnol’s “Marseilles Trilogy” will screen on Sunday. Film Forum Jr. shows Satyajit Ray’s Pather Panchali (1955), which is also part of Ray’s “Apu Trilogy” for the “Trilogies” series. See how that works?

BAM CINEMATEK (NYC):

BAM is killing it this week with a number of releases including a restored rerelease of Nina Menkes’ 1991 film Queen of Diamond with Menkes present for a QnA on Friday night and a panel on Saturday night. Set in Vegas, it deals with a disaffected blackjack dealer who drifts through a series of encounters. On Wednesday, BAM’s “Screen Epiphanies” series continues with Vanity Faircritic K. Austin Collins presenting Brian De Palma’s thriller Femme Fatale, starring Rebecca Romjin. Lastly, on Sunday, the “Beyond the Canon” series continues with a double feature of Charles Lane’s Sidewalk Stories  (1989) with Charlie Chaplin’s The Kid (1921).

EGYPTIAN THEATRE (LA):

The Egyptian gets in on Aero’s Classic Movie ClownsThursday with a Marx Brothers double feature of A Night at the Opera (1935) and A Day at the Races  (1937) with authors Robert Bader and Josh Frank signing their book. Friday sees a Stanley Donen tribute with a screening of Singin’ in the Rain  (1952), plus there will be an encore screening of the 7-hour War and Peace  (1967) on Sunday and Disney’s Mary Poppins (1964) on Sunday with a panel in conjunction with the Art Directors Guild Film Society.

AERO  (LA):

A new series called “Cowboys and Samurai” begins this week, and it’s little surprise that most of the samurai movies are from Akira Kurosawa. It begins on Thursday with a double feature of Rashomon (1950)and High Noon, then continues Friday with The Searchers (1956) and The Hidden Fortress (1958) and Seven Samurai (1954) and The Wild Bunch  (1969) on Saturday. Sunday’s double feature is Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven (1992) and the 1962 film Harakiri (1962) (not directed by Kurosawa!). Sunday is also a rescheduled screening of the musical Annie (1982), as part of the Albert Finney remembrance.

IFC CENTER (NYC)

Waverly Midnights: Parental Guidance  continues with Poltergeist  (1982), Weekend Classics: Love Mom and Dad screens Charlie Chaplin’s The Kid  (1921), while Late Night Favorites: Spring shows Jodorowsky’s El Topo (1970).

MOMA (NYC):

Modern Matinees: B is for Bacall will show 1956’s Written on the Windon Weds, How to Marry a Millionaire  (1953) Thursday and then end the series on Friday with a reshowing of Vincent Minelli’s Designing Woman  (1957).

MUSEUM OF THE MOVING IMAGE (NYC):

The museum’s See it Big! Action series continues with two screenings of William Friedkin’s The French Connection 1971) on Friday and Saturday, Bullitt  (1968) on Saturday and George Miller’s Mad Max: Fury Road on Sunday. There will also be a showing of William Lustig’s 1980 horror film Maniacwith Lustig in attendance as part of its Disreputable Cinema series. This weekend is the first I’ve ever wished I lived out in Astoria, Queens.

QUAD CINEMA (NYC):

Wild Things: The Ferocious Films of Nelly Kaplan ends Thursday, but I don’t have any information for the weekend as of yet.

LANDMARK THEATRES NUART  (LA):

This Friday’s midnight movie is John Carpenter’s The Thing (1982), also starring Kurt Russell.

That’s it for this week. Next week: Four new wide releases that aren’t Avengers: Endgame!

We live in a state of nature

So I’m going to try and tread VERY CAREFULLY, but the fact of the matter is I am an old, white cis-woman and I have not actively read any philosophy since college, and mostly get it from The Good Place and Breadtube philosophy channels (Philosophy Tube’s recent video “The Hidden Rules of Modern Society” is what set me thinking about this in the first place. I highly recommend; she’s absolutely brilliant), so I am prolly not the person who should be talking about this. Should I slip, I invite criticism.

That said, it is objectively weird to put the phrase “We live in a state of nature” in Jim’s mouth, right?

On the one hand, it’s just a silly joke playing on “We live in a society…” as the “state of nature” is the theoretical state in which humans exist naturally (“nasty, poor, brutish, and short” per Thomas Hobbes, “man is born free” per Jean-Jacques Rousseau), and “society” is all the rules, responsibilities, and (theoretical) benefits we (theoretically) collectively agree to overlay in order to control and channel those natural impulses. On the other hand, well…

The inherent lawlessness of the “state of nature” is what permitted the Siete Gallos to take what they wanted without fear of consequence - to steal the fruits of Jim’s family’s orchard because they wanted them and had the means to enact their will, to slaughter Jim’s father when he got in the way.

Isn’t it strange that Jim would uphold the “state of nature” that took from them everything that was dear?

The “state of nature” is also the way white colonizers justified (justify?) imposing their version of “society” on native inhabitants - native peoples being assumed to be living in a “state of nature'', and therefore be in need of “civilization.”

Jim’s light, but still brown, skin and mother tongue mark them as the product of Spanish colonization, but not considered white enough to enjoy all the benefits of the white colonizer.

Isn’t it strange that Jim would perpetuate the lie of the colonizer? Isn’t it strange they would say it to the one black character who has a full, non-colonized name?

Jim’s Nana is a nun, the product and perpetuation of the colonizing force of missionary work. To a nun, the “state of nature” would be synonymous with man’s fallen state of original sin.

Isn’t it strange that Jim, having been raised and trained by Nana, would glorify the antithesis of the state of grace that would have been central to Nana’s Catholic belief system? Maybe Nana is not your typical nun, but the whole original sin thing is a pretty central tenant of the Catholic faith. Like, literal wars have been fought over it. Pretty sure you can't be a nun and not believe in it.

This show’s writer’s don't strike me as the type to make a thoughtless throw-away joke. Is this meant to be a satirical critique of the supposed freedoms afforded by the lawlessness of the “state of nature”, the way “We live in a society” was originally meant to critique the contradictions and deficiencies of the social contract (went down a whole internet rabbit hole researching that. Do NOT recommend unless you have a strong stomach)? Is it meant to signal the cognitive dissonance Jim has to employ in order to justify their “oodles of justice” vengeance quest, and thereby foreshadow their ultimate abandonment thereof?  I mostly feel like maybe there’s something I’m not getting. Can someone smarter than me please take this one out of my hands?