Categories
Uncategorized

2023 Best Picture Nominees Ranked

It’s that time of year! The Oscars are upon us, so here are this year’s ten Best Picture nominees ranked from worst to best. Each ranking is linked to the full review for that individual movie.

10. Avatar: The Way of Water

“Cameron delivers these moments in a crushingly reverent, pious tone, as if he wants us to believe (or he himself believes) that, for instance, a blue creature befriending a CGI whale is self-evidently a monumental, poignant event.”

9. Elvis

“Must we really do this? Must we break down historical figures and reassemble them into 2020’s-approved versions of themselves?”

8. Women Talking

“Imagine if Shakespeare had decided that Iago didn’t deserve to be portrayed onstage—who would want to see Othello? What great story could withstand the removal of its primary antagonist?”

7. All Quiet on the Western Front

“Disembodied limbs everywhere, young men crying like babies, kids killing grown men: this movie has it all. Because apparently, it’s now passé to say that War Is Bad. One must say that War Is Really Bad.”

6. Tár

“Chained to mediocrity by a pondering, lecture-y screenplay that nevertheless avoids any real stances on the issues it strains to raise, Tár fails to animate the character drama at the heart of its story.”

5. The Fabelmans

“Confusion is a limited aesthetic. It traps the audience in the dark, preventing nuanced reflection.”

4. Top Gun: Maverick

“It’s Cruise’s most reflective film. Specifically, the plot functions as a meditation on the approaching end to his own movie stardom.”

3. The Banshees of Inisherin

“Its power lies in its reminder that, as the loquacious Padraic eventually comes to understand, some problems are unsolvable—that words don’t always help or even illuminate.”

2. Triangle of Sadness

“Together, these episodes form an intriguing examination of the slippery nature of power dynamics.”

1. Everything Everywhere All At Once

“A true cinematic miracle, it transfigures our most annoying genre–the superhero movie–into something artistic and rich.”

 

Commentary:

This year’s batch of nominees is pretty bad by recent standards. Avatar and Elvis have been gifted token nominations to increase viewership for the broadcast. Women Talking and Tár serve mostly to highlight Hollywood’s ongoing torment over its myriad scandals of sexual misconduct. Amidst weak films like these, there’s room for some unusual entries to climb the list. For example, Top Gun: Maverick, which would ordinarily rank as a borderline nominee, places fourth.

However, the group is redeemed by the incredible Everything Everywhere All At Once. What’s more, as of this writing, EEAAO is the favorite to win the category. If it does win, it would be the first time in seven years that the Academy agreed with my first choice (Moonlight, 2016). That would be a pretty happy about-face: last year, I ranked the Disneylike CODA ninth out of ten, and it won the prize.

Several of the movies I liked the most this year didn’t factor into the Oscar field. In particular, I recommend Nope and The Menu to anyone. And for a lighthearted, fun watch, check out Marcel The Shell with Shoes On. I’m sure there are more gems, and maybe watching the Oscars will point me toward some of them.

Happy watching, everyone!

 

-Jim Andersen

For last year’s rankings, see 2022 Best Picture Nominees Ranked.

Categories
Movies Explained

Everything Everywhere All At Once Explained

Everything Everywhere All At Once may be the best film of 2022. But it demands a lot of engagement (possibly via multiple viewings), so if you’ve seen it, you might be looking for some clarification. What, exactly, happens over the course of its disorienting plot? How does Evelyn succeed in bonding with Joy? How do supporting characters like Dierdre and Gong Gong affect the story arcs?

In this essay, I’ll summarize and interpret EEAAO. To state my conclusion before I begin: the film is a comic book-style reimagining of a classic immigrant dilemma. Through a complicated metaphor that casts members of a Chinese-American family as science fiction heroes and villains, the movie dramatizes the search for a middle ground between the intolerance of traditional Chinese culture and the emptiness of modern American nihilism. 

With that, let’s get analyzing.

We begin with Evelyn Wang (Michelle Yeoh), who co-manages a humble laundromat with her husband, Waymond (Ke Huy Quan). Evelyn harbors regret and frustration. She wishes she had never immigrated to America with Waymond, having grown tired of his bumbling antics and the tedium of managing the laundromat. In one scene she imagines that, had she stayed in China—as her father, Gong Gong (James Hong), wanted—she could have become a glamorous actress.

Evelyn also faces multiple erupting family crises. Gong Gong, requiring care for his medical needs, has recently moved from China to live with her. This presents her with the opportunity to heal their relationship (which was damaged when she disobeyed him and moved to America), but her daughter, Joy (Stephanie Tsu), poses a potential obstacle to this. Joy, raised in America, doesn’t fit the mold of a traditional Chinese daughter, and Evelyn worries that Joy’s Americanized behavior may anger her father.

Especially incompatible with Gong Gong’s values is that Joy is dating a woman. Evelyn therefore introduces Joy’s girlfriend as only a “good friend.” This slight angers Joy, and she leaves the laundromat tearfully.

Waymond, too, has become frustrated with Evelyn’s longstanding rigidity and lack of affection. He tries to present Evelyn with divorce papers, but his grievances are only confirmed when Evelyn, harried and dismissive as usual, can’t even spare the time to read them.

Finally, a ferocious IRS agent, Dierdre (Jamie Lee Curtis), is auditing the laundromat. And this decorated financial sleuth makes clear that she won’t hesitate to close the business if the family can’t sort out their records in a matter of hours.

In summary, the family is in peril. But now we get to the interesting stuff.

That’s because an alternate version of Waymond suddenly appears and tells Evelyn that a cosmic danger has arisen. When researchers in his own universe—the “Alphaverse”—discovered the possibility of jumping between universes, they trained agents in this skill. But one agent, known as Jobu Tupaki, was pushed too far. She thereby acquired the ability to experience “everything everywhere all at once”: to perceive all of the infinite universes simultaneously. She then rebelled and began using her powers to cause chaos throughout the multiverse. Now, for unknown reasons, she has been hunting down and killing different versions of Evelyn.

Jobu Tupaki is, as it turns out, the Alphaverse version of Joy. Thus, before we continue, it’s crucial to realize that Jobu is merely a comic book-style projection of Joy. Jobu’s powers and attitudes correspond to Joy’s real traits seen early in the movie.

For example, Jobu Tupaki can endlessly jump between universes.  She perceives—and demonstrates—that everything is possible, which angers and worries the Alphaverse version of Gong Gong. This exactly corresponds to the real life family drama that plays out in the laundromat. After all, Joy, unlike Gong Gong and Evelyn, perceives many cultural possibilities, such the possibility of women dating other women. She sees, in other words, a “universe” in which homosexual relationships are possible. Hence Jobu Tupaki’s unsurpassed talent for universe-jumping.

Thus, in the comic book-style “multiverse” storyline, Joy’s modernized viewpoint is translated as a dangerous superpower. And indeed, her rejection of traditional Chinese attitudes is dangerous from the perspective of Gong Gong and Evelyn. As we’ve said, Evelyn hopes to reconnect with her father. Joy poses an existential threat to this goal.

Given the above symbolic framework, it’s tempting to interpret Joy as the movie’s true hero. If Jobu Tupaki’s abilities represent Joy’s tolerance and open-mindedness, shouldn’t we root for her against her more narrow-minded family?

To an extent. But excessive openness also has dangerous downsides. Specifically, perceiving unlimited options may obstruct the development of a distinct, individual identity. After all, one’s sense of self depends on values and choices. If we were to lose the ability to evaluate those choices—concluding, as Jobu Tupaki does, that “nothing matters”—then we might also become detached from our identity. Joy appears to have been affected by this very problem: early in the film she appears appears adrift, bitter, and unmotivated.

Her lack of purpose translates, in her villainous alter ego, to a taunting, devil-may-care swagger. According to Alpha Waymond, Jobu Tupaki acts this way because she has “seen too much” and has therefore “lost any sense of morality, any belief in objective truth.”

And isn’t this the ultimate American danger? With no single set of values underlying our society, aren’t we vulnerable to this kind of detachment? In our aim for open-mindedness, might we accidentally slip into indifference? Having “seen too much,” like Jobu Tupaki, might we fall prey to the idea that “nothing matters”?

Jobu has constructed an interesting symbol to represent this psychological state: an Everything Bagel. The Bagel truly contains “everything” from across all universes. But it still forms the characteristic bagel shape: a “0.” The message behind this symbolism: perceiving “everything” actually amounts to perceiving nothing, since it comes at the expense of forming a distinct set of values. The Everything Bagel thus represents the nihilism that results from an excess of possibilities. Joy has succumbed to this nihilism, hence her alter ego’s diabolical creation of the Bagel.

We might also note that Joy and Jobu’s loss of faith in “morality” and “objective truth” epitomizes a larger shift in today’s America. Alpha Waymond underscores this, noting that the Everything Bagel has begun to affect not just Jobu Tupaki, but everyone else, as well:

We can all feel it. … Something is off. Your clothes never wear as well the next day. Your hair never falls the same way. Even your coffee tastes wrong. Our institutions are crumbling. Nobody trusts their neighbor anymore. And you stay up at night wondering to yourself: ‘How can we get back?’

In summary, the nihilism of the Everything Bagel is spreading. And, looking around in 2022, he seems to have a point. Our institutions are indeed “crumbling,” and it’s true that “nobody trusts their neighbor anymore.”

But why has Joy in particular become so lost? After all, not all Americans adopt a worldview of emptiness. Despite lacking a definitive set of cultural values, we generally still form positive, healthy identities. Why has Joy failed to do so?

The answer lies in Alpha Waymond’s backstory about Jobu Tupaki. He explains that Jobu gained her powers when Alpha Evelyn pushed her “too hard.” Relating this to the original universe, we can infer that Evelyn’s strict, demanding parenting, by causing too much family resentment, has alienated Joy from her family and her Chinese heritage. Thereby separated from her roots, Joy lacks the family foundation that could help her retain a sturdy identity amidst the chaos of American life.

In other words, without an accepting, encouraging family on which to base her sense of self, Joy has become confused and disoriented. Or, as Alpha Waymond characterizes Jobu: “fractured.”

Alpha Gong Gong feels that the fractured Jobu is “beyond saving.” And this isn’t surprising given that in the original universe, Gong Gong disowned Evelyn when she moved to America. It seems that he finds increased openness to non-traditional ideas inherently upsetting. He also finds it hopeless: once a person turns away from the traditional path, he believes, they’ve been irrevocably lost to American-style nihilism. There’s no turning back.

But Evelyn disagrees. She believes that her daughter can be saved. Therefore, she refuses Alpha Gong Gong’s order to kill Jobu Tupaki and instead vows to convert her away from villainy. This symbolizes, of course, a decision to attempt to “rescue” Joy from the emotional crisis affecting her.

To do so, Evelyn intentionally acquires Jobu Tupaki’s ability to perceive all universes simultaneously. Subsequently following Jobu throughout the various universes, she eventually arrives at the Everything Bagel. Using our symbolic framework, we can interpret these events as Evelyn making an honest effort to empathize with her daughter’s modern American experience—and, upon doing so, becoming aware of the nihilism threatening Joy’s sense of self.

Upon entering the Bagel, Evelyn experiences Jobu’s chaotic reality. Jobu summarizes it:

Just a lifetime of fractured moments. Contradictions and confusions. With only a few specks of time where anything actually makes sense.

Evelyn feels Jobu’s aimless experience so intensely, in fact, that she begins causing Jobu-like havoc in the various universes. For example, in the original universe, she vandalizes the laundromat in front of Dierdre. It appears that, feeling the weight of the Everything Bagel, she has come to align with Jobu Tupaki: “nothing matters.”

All along, Jobu had hoped for Evelyn to feel this burden. It’s revealed that Jobu had previously traveled through the multiverse seeking out various Evelyns in the hope of finding one who had the ability to experience—and thereby understand—her own suffering.

But, surprisingly, Jobu Tupaki soon expresses disappointment in Evelyn. As the two sit as rocks on a lifeless Earth, Jobu admits that she had hoped for Evelyn to “see something I didn’t” and find “another way.” In other words, Joy had hoped for her mother to present an alternative to nihilism. Evelyn, however, can’t provide this. It appears that upon truly empathizing with her daughter’s chaotic American experience, she has adopted the same hopeless philosophy.

Jobu goes on to inform Evelyn that she intends to use the Everything Bagel to kill herself. She has been contemplating suicide to end her empty, fractured experience. (Of course, nihilism may logically culminate in suicide, since it denies meaning to life.) She invites Evelyn to join her in death. And Evelyn, having fallen under the influence of the Everything Bagel’s emptiness, appears ready to do so.

But at this moment, Evelyn notices something that rouses her from hopelessness. In the original universe, Waymond has temporarily talked Dierdre out of shuttering the laundromat. Although Jobu dismisses this as a random “statistical inevitability” and “nothing special,” Evelyn finds it startling, given her low estimation of Waymond’s abilities. Suddenly surveying the other universes, she becomes increasingly aware of Waymond’s courageous kindness. For example, in a universe in which Evelyn is indeed a famous actress, Waymond articulates that generosity is a form of “fighting.”

Evelyn gathers newfound purpose from Waymond’s strength. Now emulating her husband, she begins to use her powers to cause happiness across the multiverse. This includes, in the original universe, confronting Gong Gong about his dogmatism. She vows to stop the traumatic cycle of intolerance: “I am no longer willing to do to my daughter what you did to me.” Accordingly, she finally introduces Joy’s girlfriend as such.

Simultaneously, she, Waymond, and Alpha Gong Gong pull Jobu Tupaki away from the Bagel, preventing her suicide. This conveys that accepting Joy’s girlfriend has had a monumental impact on Joy’s emotional state. (Plus, Alpha Gong Gong’s contribution suggests that Evelyn’s speech about family love has moved him to change his approach.)

Evelyn summarizes her new perspective in a conversation with Dierdre in the original universe. She, like Jobu Tupaki, had previously interpreted the existence of infinite realities as depressing and intimidating—as proof that “nothing matters.” But now, incorporating Waymond’s mindset, she sees each universe as only another example that “there is always something to love” no matter the circumstances. In a particularly silly example, she and Dierdre have a lesbian affair in a universe featuring hot dogs as fingers.

With this new outlook, Evelyn tries to reconnect with Joy. But despite her brave repudiation of Gong Gong’s traditionalism, Joy remains hesitant. She acknowledges Evelyn’s positive change but insists that the two remain incompatible—that they only cause one another “hurt.”

Recall that Joy’s depression had stemmed from the confusion of multicultural American life. Lacking any connection to her roots or identity—a result of her discord with her overly strict mother—she had become engulfed in chaos and uncertainty. Thus, Joy indeed requires more than for Evelyn to introduce her girlfriend to Gong Gong. Although doing so may have lessened the personal resentment between the two, Joy still lacks a crucial grounding influence. She still needs a strong presence to remind her who she is.

And in the movie’s finale, Evelyn provides exactly this. Suddenly reclaiming the role of mother—and, in particular, Chinese mother—Evelyn scolds Joy for gaining weight, failing to call, and getting tattoos against her wishes. Joy appears paradoxically grateful for these reprimands, which fits with our analysis. She has been desperate for family direction (that doesn’t devolve into personal insults).

Notably, Waymond expresses discomfort with Evelyn’s criticisms. This underscores that he, despite his other merits, lacks the assertiveness to re-plant Joy within a strong family structure. Only Evelyn can provide the direction that Joy has been missing.

Evelyn concludes by refuting Joy’s nihilism. “You’re right,” she begins, “it doesn’t make sense” to prefer one particular life and family when endless alternatives are possible. In fact, as previously noted, Evelyn herself had struggled with this early in the film, pining for a more glamorous life.

But her adventures have taught her that living only one life is a source of great happiness. Why, after all, did Jobu Tupaki search through the entire multiverse for Evelyn, specifically? Why does a daughter need her mother, and vice versa? Evelyn admits that we don’t know, but whatever the explanation, no amount of universes seem capable of refuting it.

Evelyn accepts Joy’s chaotic experience (“only a few specks of time where anything makes sense”). But, being Joy’s mother, she promises to “cherish” those sporadic moments. Now reunited, the two embrace. And Evelyn ends the film by repeating Jobu Tupaki’s refrain, now no longer a dark manifesto but rather a loving half-joke: “nothing matters.”

In conclusion, Everything Everywhere All At Once tells a familiar American immigrant story. It explores the balancing act of embracing the best qualities of the American ethos while still maintaining family identity. These themes have characterized many, many films.

But the manner of EEAAO‘s telling separates it from the rest. Never has the American story been told like this. And never, in all probability, will it ever be again.

Although… Somewhere out there in the multiverse, surely this film will inspire a new direction for Hollywood. It’ll usher in a wave of films that combine crowd-pleasing fun with intricate, character-driven stories. It’ll revive the kind of popular cinema that doesn’t lose touch with reality, maybe not seen in America since the 70’s.

Is it too much to hope that the one universe lucky enough to see this happen will be…ours?

 

–Jim Andersen

For more analyses, see my piece on The Menu.

Categories
Movie Reviews

Triangle of Sadness Throws Power Dynamics Overboard

Triangle of Sadness, directed by Ruben Ostlund, serves up plentiful food for thought. Told in three sections (a triangle indeed), the film follows a young couple, both models, who first argue about monetary responsibilities, then join a group of wealthy vacationers on a cruise, then finally wind up marooned on an island. Together, these episodes form an intriguing examination of the slippery nature of power dynamics.

Ostlund’s message is best understood by following the trajectory of male model Carl (Harris Dickerson), the movie’s central character. At a casting call early in the film, a photographer tests Carl’s versatility by prompting him to alternate between smiling and frowning. The smiles, as the photographer reminds him, accord with ads for cheaper brands like H&M. The frowns, meanwhile, correspond with designer brands like Balenciaga. The reasoning: the rich look down on the poor, so a model for luxury brands should emote condescension and even annoyance toward regular people viewing the ads.

Perhaps worried by this uncomfortable message, Carl soon confronts his girlfriend Yaya (Charlbi Dean) about having to pay for meals at restaurants. Yaya makes more money than he does, so Carl feels that she should at least split some of the bills. But Yaya rebuts him, initially citing his responsibility as a man to provide for her—but later admitting that she merely plans to become someone else’s trophy wife and has no emotional investment in the relationship. The photographer was right: Yaya, the wealthier and more influential of the two, looks down on Carl. It isn’t about fairness, as Carl advocates for. Rather, it’s about power: since Yaya is more influential, she can use him as a ploy for Instagram clout and dump him when the time is right. She can even openly admit to this without fearing a breakup.

Carl insists that he’ll make Yaya change her mind and fall in love with him. But on a luxury cruise, things don’t change. Carl becomes jealous when a shirtless crewmember greets Yaya, and, pathetically, he whines about it to the staff and gets the man fired. It’s clearer than ever that Yaya holds all the cards in this relationship. In our society, after all, female beauty comes valued more highly than male beauty. Yaya’s social media following—much larger than Carl’s—has allowed the couple to board the cruise in the first place.

Variations and commentaries on the couple’s power dynamic abound on the cruise. The rich guests boss around the crew and staff. Two characters drunkenly argue about capitalism and communism. Amidst all of this, the ship symbolically begins to tilt in stormy seas: the power dynamics may be shifting. And such a shift would cause quite a shock, as evidenced by the memorable bodily reactions experienced by the pompous vacationers.

In the last section of the movie, this shift has occurred. Shipwrecked by a pirate’s grenade, the survivors, including Carl and Yaya, establish an island community. But wealth no longer holds sway in the new hierarchy. Instead, toilet manager Abigail (Dolly de Leon) takes command, as only she knows how to survive in the wild. And one of Abigail’s first orders of business is to request sexual favors from Carl in exchange for special treatment. He readily complies.

On the island, it seems, things have reversed: male beauty now has greater worth. Yaya tries to inflame Carl’s old jealousy to win him back, but her efforts are futile. Without her former influence, the old power dynamic between the two doesn’t apply.

Carl’s position on the island, though, is awfully similar to his old position. He has merely swung from being used by Yaya to being used by Abigail. Both women hold great power in different types of societies for different reasons. And Carl gains special treatment from each by supplying something that each of them needs: Instagram aesthetics for Yaya, sexual favors for Abigail.

So the movie ends with Carl running through the jungle to rescue…whom? Yaya? Abigail? Does it matter?

Ostlund won’t show us the rest of the scene because it doesn’t. Carl is no romantic, as he claims to be in the first section. Rather, he’s like everyone else: someone who exchanges what he has to get what he can. His supposed principles go overboard on stormy seas, leaving only a weak, common person, smiling up at the powerful—who frown in condescension back at him.

 

–Jim Andersen

For more movie reviews, see my review on The Banshees of Inisherin

 

Categories
Movie Reviews

The Banshees of Inisherin Insists on Dark Realities

The Banshees of Inisherin, directed by Martin McDonagh, is an odd movie about a friendship that suddenly fractures. Its oddness serves it well. While not a perfect or even a great film, Banshees has artistic purpose that leaves certain images lingering in the mind long afterward. For that reason alone, the film is worth watching.

The film’s literal narrative follows the consequences of the decision by a musician named Colm (Brendan Gleeson) to suddenly break off his longtime friendship with neighbor Padraic (Colin Farrell). Colm explains that, feeling his advancing age, he no longer wants to spend his days mulling trivial matters with Padraic. He wants to focus on grand matters like music and philosophy, which fall outside Padraig’s understanding.

Like Padraic, we refuse to accept this reasoning. What, after all, is grander than friendship? But Colm has made up his mind, and he’ll do whatever it takes to convince his former friend that a reversal isn’t in the cards. Not much happens in this movie, but suffice to say that Colm’s intransigence combined with Padraic’s desperate incomprehension initiates a downward spiral for both characters. Without each other to reign in their excesses—Colm’s lofty intellectualism and Padraic’s emotional quaintness—each descends into an equal and opposite type of madness.

Some have said that the story is mostly compelling for its allegorical value. It recreates the wariness and heartbreak of the Irish Civil War, and references the conflict multiple times to reinforce the link. But I don’t know much about the Irish Civil War, and chances are that you don’t, either; so I don’t think this is particularly relevant to the experience of watching the movie, unless you’re very interested in Irish history.

I’m pretty much out of things to say about this highly acclaimed film. And I suspect that McDonagh wanted it this way: The Banshees of Inisherin simply doesn’t lend itself to analysis or discussion. Rather, its power lies in its reminder that, as the loquacious Padraic eventually comes to understand, some problems are unsolvable—that words don’t always help or even illuminate. That’s a bitter pill to swallow for Padraic, and it’s perhaps even more bitter for us viewers. But it forces us to take the film seriously, and it forces us to confront dark realities that we’d otherwise prefer to ignore.

 

–Jim Andersen

For more reviews of 2023 Oscar nominees, see my review of Women Talking.

Categories
Movies Explained

The Menu Explained

The Menu, directed by Mark Mylod and starring Ralph Fiennes, follows a group of diners who experience a top chef’s outrageous final meal. In its more direct moments, it serves as a blunt, class-based satire. But in other moments, it seems to invite further analysis, indicating subtleties and deeper meanings to the action. This piece will explain those meanings and tie the film together.

To summarize the analysis to follow, Chef Julian Slowik’s menu is a piece of performance art that commemorates his own artistic corruption at the hands of a materialistic society. Each dish represents an aspect of his decline. And each diner in the film represents an aspect of the societal pressure that has ruined him.

To demonstrate this, I’ll go through the menu course by course. Along the way, I’ll explain how each dish contributes to the overall meaning described above.

First Course: The Island

The first course to be served, “The Island,” pays tribute to nature. It consists only of plants and rocks from the environment. Chef Slowik (Ralph Fiennes) introduces the dish by praising natural harmony and criticizing human attempts to improve upon it.

Viewers may soon forget this speech, since the shock value of “The Island” pales in comparison to that of later courses. But it’s a pivotal moment, since, as we’ll see, the later courses will expand upon Slowik’s negative view of society. Therefore, starting the menu with a tribute to uncorrupted nature lays the foundation for what’s to come. Think of it as representing a “pre-downfall” state akin to the Garden of Eden.

Second Course: Breadless Bread Plate

Slowik’s cataloging of his downfall begins with his second course, “Breadless Bread Plate.” He introduces the dish with a speech hailing bread as the “food of the common man.” But he quickly points out that, due to their wealth, the diners before him aren’t the common man. He therefore denies them bread and serves only the accompaniments.

The function of “Breadless Bread Plate,” then, is to bring attention to the elitism of the diners. And Slowik’s assertion that the guests aren’t regular people is proven correct by their bizarre reactions to the dish.

For example, hotshot bankers Bryce, Soren, and Dave threaten to have the restaurant closed if the server continues to refuse them bread. Wealthy couple Richard and Anne Leibrandt show only mild bafflement. Elitist food critic Lilian Bloom calls Slowik’s idea “fiendish” but becomes preoccupied with a split emulsion in the accompaniment tray. Actor George Diaz largely ignores the dish and discusses his intention to pitch a bogus show in which he’ll travel the world and pretend to enjoy food. Culinary enthusiast Tyler (Nicholous Hoult) is the most admiring: he gushes about Slowik’s inventiveness and “badassery.”

These reactions demonstrate various ways of spoiling the restaurant experience:

  • The bankers: entitlement. They have no interest in food and only want to boss the staff and chef around. When they become even slightly dissatisfied, they wield their financial influence to threaten harm.
  • The Leibrandts: indifference. They’re simply passing the time and have no enthusiasm for or engagement with the meal.
  • Lilian and her editor: snobbery. They’re preoccupied with trivial details and have lost the ability to enjoy food rather than use it to demean others or show off.
  • George: exploitation. He sees food only as a means of attaining fame and fortune.
  • Tyler: infatuation. He’s obsessed with fine dining and with Chef Slowik in particular—so much so that he neglects basic human decency and even his own personal safety.

Again, these corruptions of the chef-customer relationship are characteristic of rich, elite diners. And given that Hawthorn serves such customers daily, their distorted approaches to food have the potential to influence the chefs and staff. In fact, considering Hawthorn’s isolation and exclusive contact with upper class guests, it wouldn’t be surprising if Slowik and his employees began to absorb and reflect some of those damaging attitudes and traits.

Thus, if “The Island” presented uncorrupted innocence, “Breadless Bread Plate” gestures toward a potentially corrupting influence: the materialistic upper class.

Of relevance, there’s a well-studied psychological principle that describes how subjects behave differently under observation. The name of this principle: the Hawthorne effect.

Third Course: Memory

In the third and fourth courses, Slowik changes direction somewhat. Instead of continuing to focus on the potentially corrupting influence of high society, as in “Breadless Bread Plate,” he turns his lens inward. These next two courses examine why an artist like himself might be vulnerable to debasement by the outsized demands of Hawthorn’s patrons.

The third course, “Memory,” begins this introspection. It starts with Slowik telling a harrowing childhood story of stabbing his drunken father in the thigh to protect his mother. Memorializing this traumatic event, the dish features chicken thigh stabbed with scissors.

Slowik’s story serves to illuminate how our pasts may ingrain self-destructive tendencies that manifest throughout our lives. Apparently, Slowik grew up in a confusing, stressful environment. He was often caught between two sides, pressured to act as mediator or even savior. It’s no surprise, then, that he remains inclined to please people, no matter the validity of their demands. His childhood traumas have instilled in him a compulsion to meet others’ wants. This compulsion may have pushed him toward becoming a chef in the first place—and it leaves him susceptible to the abuse of difficult guests.

Fourth Course: The Mess

The theme of feeling compelled to please others also underlines the menu’s fourth course, “The Mess.” This course involves a sous-chef, Jeremy Louden, committing suicide in front of the guests.

As usual, the key to understanding the meaning of the dish lies in the introductory speech. In it, Slowik notes that Jeremy, like himself, has “forsaken everything” for the art of cooking and lives a miserable life of “pressure”:

Even when all goes right, and the food is perfect, and the customers are happy, and the critics are, too—there is no way to avoid the mess. The mess you make of your life, of your body, of your sanity, by giving everything you have to pleasing people you will never know.

Recall that “Memory” highlighted how childhood traumas can help make an artist vulnerable to corrupting influences. Similarly, “The Mess” highlights how the very nature of service work makes one vulnerable by exacting a crushing toll on the body and mind. Giving “everything you have” to strangers inherently degrades and makes a “mess” of the server, Slowik asserts. And this degradation, we can infer, may also weaken one’s defenses against ugly, base attitudes like those of Hawthorn’s rich clientele—that is, if it doesn’t drive one to suicide, as it does Jeremy.

Palate Cleanser

Slowik then takes a break from his menu to explicitly criticize various guests. And his comments reiterate the natures of their warped relationships with food described in the second section of this piece. For instance, he accuses Lilian Bloom of destroying lives with her snobbish reviews, and he takes the Leibrandts to task for failing to even remember their previous meals at Hawthorn.

More importantly, though, Slowik also admits to making a major error in running his restaurant. Specifically, he acknowledges that by letting his food become too expensive for average people, he has doomed himself to trying to satisfy “people who could never be satisfied.” And he remarks that his mother may have first instilled in him this impulse to please the un-pleasable. All of these statements confirm and summarize parts of our analysis thus far.

Finally, Slowik indicates yet another corrupting influence on him and his art. He notes that Doug Verrick, his “angel investor,” insisted on meddling with his menu during the COVID pandemic to optimize profits. Slowik therefore drowns Verrick in front of the diners to reclaim his artistic freedom.

A “palate cleanser,” so to speak. And another example of Slowik’s obsession with how becoming dependent on wealthy patrons has damaged his art.

Fifth Course: Man’s Folly

To recap: the first four courses focused on the mechanics of Slowik’s artistic decline. First, “The Island” established a baseline of untouched innocence. Then, “Breadless Bread Plate” indicated the potential corrupting influence of elitist customers. Finally, “Memory” and “The Mess” explored how an artist of lofty ideals might have become vulnerable to that influence.

But if corruption took place, what was the result? What does a corrupt artist look like? “Man’s Folly” finally illustrates this.

The dish’s introduction comes not from Slowik but from another sous-chef, Katherine Keller. Katherine describes how Slowik recently made sexual advances on her. When she refused, Slowik punished her by avoiding speaking to or even making eye contact with her. She explains that he can get away with these harmful actions: “He’s the star. He’s the man.”

Back in our analysis of “Breadless Bread Plate,” we identified five elitist distortions of the server-consumer relationship: entitlement, indifference, snobbery, exploitation, and infatuation. We also posited that given the restaurant’s repeated, exclusive exposure to wealthy customers, the chefs and staff could very well begin to alter their behavior (remember the Hawthorn effect) and even reflect the same attitudes as their guests.

And indeed, the story of Slowik sexually harassing Katherine contains something of all of the mindsets we identified. Entitled to her body, indifferent to her refusals, snobbish in his mistreatment of her afterward, exploitative in his attempt to use his fame for selfish purposes, and letting infatuation guide his actions, Slowik has truly become what he despises. He has become his elitist clientele.

Plus, Katherine goes on to stab Slowik with scissors in the thigh. This symbolizes that not only has Slowik become like his clientele, but he has become like his abusive father. These two trajectories, of course, are closely linked. After all, as we discussed in our analysis of “Memory” and as Slowik himself confirmed during the “Palate Cleanser,” his relationships with his parents helped ingrain his impulse to satisfy greedy, demanding individuals. In other words, the behavior of his customers has pushed him to develop traits to which he was already vulnerable due to childhood experiences.

Later, after the course, Slowik doesn’t mince words. He professes, “I’m a monster. I’m a whore.” And indeed, he has fallen from grace. Not only has he become the type of person who would cause harm and suffering, but he has become the type of chef who would disrupt the functioning of his kitchen for selfish reasons unrelated to his ostensible purpose: preparing great food.

He has tried, in other words, to escape his purpose. And to memorialize the futility of his effort, he allows his male guests to try—and inevitably fail—to escape the island.

Tyler’s Bullshit

Slowik then takes a detour from his planned menu. This is largely due to his interactions with Erin (Anna Taylor-Joy), a prostitute from Massachusetts who goes by the name Margot Mills.

After “Man’s Folly,” Slowik singles out Tyler, referring to him as an “unresolved situation.” Apparently, Slowik has been harboring particular disdain for Tyler. Most likely, this stems from the earlier revelation that Tyler, although previously aware that all guests would be killed, nevertheless hired Erin to accompany him to Hawthorn. Slowik is fond of Erin, having correctly deduced earlier that she’s a fellow service worker. (They even share a common customer: Mr. Leibrandt.) So he now gets revenge on her behalf.

His ingenious method of retaliation: to force Tyler to cook a meal. Because although Tyler knows many facts about fine dining and flavors, he truly has little understanding of them. He has merely reduced the eating experience to small snippets of knowledge, which he endlessly seeks out and recites. In other words, rather than hunger for food, Tyler perversely hungers for information about food.

This intellectualized approach is a travesty of dining, and its fundamental emptiness manifests in Tyler’s incoherent, bad-tasting meal. Slowik’s subsequent evaluation summarizes his contempt for Tyler and his focus on parts rather than the whole: “You have taken the mystery from our art.” He tells Tyler to hang himself, and he does.

Supplemental Course: A Cheeseburger

Again, this had appeared to be revenge on Erin’s behalf. But Erin, too, soon falls out of favor with Slowik by unsuccessfully trying to radio for help. This outrages the chef, who claims to have been “wrong” about her. He places her back with the greedy customers—or, as he calls them, “the takers.”

However, Erin at this point in the film makes a pivotal speech of her own. She criticizes Slowik for his “deconstructed avant bullshit,” accusing him of taking “the joy out of eating” with his arty metaphors.

These words hurt Slowik, who, as we’ve established, hates to leave anyone displeased. But even more importantly, we can infer based on our analysis thus far that Slowik longs to return to the simple approach to dining that Erin exemplifies. Unlike the elitist guests around her, who represent the clientele that Hawthorn has been serving for years, Erin only wants 1) to be full and 2) to eat tasty food. She doesn’t exhibit any of the corrupted attitudes we’ve described. Therefore, her speech, though harsh, also refreshes Slowik.

After all, he began his cooking career at a humble burger joint. Erin discovers as much when she spots a photo of a young Slowik cooking happily on the grill. Remembering the photo, she requests that he cook her a simple cheeseburger. He acquiesces and allows her to take the meal “to go”—a show of gratitude for enabling him to briefly reconnect with the joy of cooking (and, more generally, of serving).

Dessert: S’more

This happy moment, though, doesn’t reverse Slowik’s intention to complete his planned menu. He still sees both himself and his guests as beyond redemption. Therefore, he proceeds with a speech for his dessert.

First, he criticizes the “s’more” as a combination of mass-produced, bland ingredients. But he acknowledges that, despite this, the s’more still has the power to remind us of “innocence” and “childhood,” thanks to the addition of fire:

The purifying flame. It nourishes us, warms us, re-invents us, forges and destroys us. We must embrace the flame. We must be cleansed. Made clean. Like martyrs or heretics, we can be subsumed and made anew.

Guests, staff, chefs, and restaurant alike are therefore set ablaze in a human s’more. The intention: to return them to the kind of innocence symbolized by “The Island.” In other words, just as fire transforms the s’more from a collection of appalling industrial components into a beloved childhood classic, fire will purify the odiousness of Hawthorn and its guests. The menu comes full circle: this dessert literally returns the restaurant to nature, which Slowik praised in his first speech.

Plus, the symbolism of this last dish perfectly summarizes the main theme of the menu. Because although the rich diners demonstrate distinct flaws, each of their attitudes boils down to one fundamental fault: that they always want “some more.”

Greed. Materialism. These forces poison the creative process, and Slowik feels that he and his kitchen have been irretrievably tainted. He has succumbed to his customers’ ugly ways, which we enumerated in “Breadless Bread Plate.” And this owes in part to the vulnerabilities explored in “Memory,” which focused on childhood experiences, and “The Mess,” which focused on the taxing nature of service work. Having too long served an upper class demographic that lacks the ability to truly appreciate food (or, arguably, anything), Slowik has joined them in “Folly,” as epitomized by his sexual harassment of a fellow chef.

An intricate, ingenious performance—or is it? We should pause to reconsider. That’s because Erin, having escaped with her cheeseburger, ends the film by wiping her mouth with Slowik’s meticulously planned menu. Apparently, she still doesn’t think much of his grand ideas and subtle symbolism. And director Mark Mylod, by giving her the last word (or wipe), hints that he may agree.

But as your enterprising movie blogger, I refuse to join them. Without minds like Slowik’s, what would we watch and discuss?

Then again…a juicy cheeseburger right off the grill?

It’s a close call.

 

–Jim Andersen

For more movies explained, check out my piece on Nope.

Categories
Movie Reviews

Elvis Has Become a Character, Not a Person

Last year, in my review of King Richard, I described my disinterest in what I called the “Celebration movie” genre. These films function essentially as positive press for stars or celebrities—and by inevitable necessity play loose with the facts. As I wrote then:

I question the value of a “biography” made with its own subjects’ approval in mind, other than as fan service; the usual purpose of a biography is to illuminate truths that the subjects may not want to come to light, in order to supplement, round out, or even contradict the popular image. Since King Richard is not interested in doing any of this, there’s little reason to see it.

A similar dynamic is at play in the new biopic, Elvis, directed by Baz Luhrmann and starring Austin Butler. But it’s not quite the same. Because unlike the Williams tennis family, Elvis Presley has already been the subject of many movies, and he’ll surely be the subject of many more to come. He’s also long dead, which means that neither he nor his estate stands to gain much financially from the venture.

The ones who do stand to gain from a movie like Elvis are the viewers who cherish Elvis Presley as a preeminent American hero. Because while Elvis may not need press, he does need, as James Bond does every so often, a reinvention—a reboot of his character that will allow him to fit back into the national psyche. After all, since his last movie appearance, Elvis has accumulated some skeptics and haters: many wonder, for instance, whether he was an artistic freeloader, hijacking Black musical aesthetics for his own fame and fortune.

Never fear, though. Because just as Bond maneuvered to avert nuclear war in the 1960’s but last year endeavored to fight bioterrorism, Elvis Presley in this new film stands against…the scourge of racism.

Must we really do this? Must we break down historical figures and reassemble them into 2020’s-approved versions of themselves? In addition to being inaccurate, it prevents any nuanced discussion or commentary about the issues at hand. For example, in the movie, Elvis yearns to fight injustice, as if he could enlist against it like a soldier. But racism isn’t some cabal that one can try to take down; it’s something pervasive that culturally affects everyone. Framing the story in this way ensures that we learn nothing about Elvis and nothing about racism.

In addition to Elvis’s new role as a would-be Civil Rights hero, the other focus of the movie is Elvis’s financial exploitation at the hands of greedy capitalists (represented by an unwatchably campy Tom Hanks). This theme, also, just happens to be 2020’s-approved—informing, for example, recent national stories like Brittany Spears’ proprietorship and NCAA athlete compensation.

Maybe once the polar ice caps melt a little more, we’ll get a biopic about how Elvis fought the evils of climate change.

In summary, the only purpose of this movie is to rehabilitate Elvis Presley—to assuage our collective anxiety that he hasn’t deserved our worship over the decades. But such movies don’t ring true, even as propaganda. Because Elvis is not James Bond. He’s a real person with a legacy like any real person’s: complicated and context-dependent. Maybe in his next reboot, he’ll come closer to feeling like one.

 

–Jim Andersen

For more reviews, check out my review of Women Talking.

Categories
Movie Reviews

Women Talking Shows Morality’s Aesthetic Limits

There’s certainly no more aptly named film this year than Women Talking, directed by Sarah Polloy. Indeed, this film consists of women talking. If you want to hear them out, go see the film. If you want the dramatic elements that typically appeal to moviegoers, though, you may struggle to enjoy it.

Morality and aesthetics don’t always go hand in hand, and Women Talking provides an example of the two very much at odds. For instance, Polloy leaves entirely off the screen the character Klaus, the principal aggressor who has brutalized the women of a religious community. Such a directing choice is morally laudable: why should he get air time, given his actions? Wouldn’t that partly glamorize his behavior?

But aesthetically, the decision is unconscionable. Klaus may be monstrous, but he has set the entire story in motion. Eliminating him leaves us with no drama, no narrative power. Imagine if Shakespeare had decided that Iago didn’t deserve to be portrayed onstage—who would want to see Othello? What great story could withstand the removal of its primary antagonist?

I’m reminded of the recent Netflix series, Dahmer. According to its director and producers, the artistic aim of the show was to “decentralize” notorious serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer—to put his victims at the center of the narrative, where they supposedly belonged. But the sad truth about Dahmer’s crimes is that dramatically, his victims aren’t at the center of the story. Heinous and pathetic though he is, Dahmer links his victims together. They hold no importance for us other than that they crossed paths with him. That makes him, unfortunately, the main character.

So Netflix’s effort was doomed from the start: victims’ families complained that, contrary to the ostensible goal, Dahmer had been glamorized. And they were right. Because the moment Dahmer appears, he inevitably attracts all the attention.

Women Talking seeks to rectify this problem by truly decentralizing its aggressor: by taking him out of the story entirely. But the experiment shatters the test tubes, because without him, there’s barely any story at all. Moral, yes; interesting, no. Such is the dilemma of the socially conscious artist.

There are other issues with this movie. The most impactful is that the women have been written as recognizable “types,” which makes them too one-note to believe in. The Fighter. The Sweetheart. The Troublemaker. The Matriarch. As a byproduct of this, the most likeable character in the film is…the only man in the movie, since he’s the only one who gets to have the kind of diverse and conflicting qualities that real people have. This disappointing backfire, in fact, often plagues movies about women having their own space. (See: A League of Their Own.) Having more characters of one gender can actually reduce the complexity of those characters, because it can leave each one with too few qualities to feel real.

As you can tell, I didn’t much enjoy Women Talking. But I’ll give it this: it’s unique. It represents the limit, in some ways, of morality-centric storytelling, the demand for which has obviously increased in the past few years. Maybe this kind of storytelling will become a dominant aesthetic going forward. But I doubt it. After all, few have seen Women Talking. Whereas, for example, Dahmer—that exploitative and immoral sleaze-fest—was the second-highest viewed Netflix series of all time.

 

–Jim Andersen

For more reviews, see my review of All Quiet on the Western Front

Categories
Movie Reviews

All Quiet on the Western Front Strains For Shock Value

Every year, it seems, we must have a film that reminds us that War Is Bad. The Netflix production All Quiet on the Western Front fulfills the function this year, so if you enjoy films with that message—surely you already know whether you do or don’t—then it may be for you.

But I can’t help but wonder: is the movie really necessary? Back in 2020, I wrote in a positive review of the war film 1917:

Like Dunkirk (2017) before it, 1917 uses the newest technology to spike maximum adrenaline. But how long before even newer technology spikes even more adrenaline? In this genre, the next big effort is never far behind.

If anything, my prediction now seems too optimistic. I had anticipated “more adrenaline,” but All Quiet on the Western Front, a film with nearly the exact same subject matter as 1917 (and with a protagonist who even looks strangely similar) only provides more gruesomeness. Disembodied limbs, young men crying, kids killing people: this movie has it all. Because apparently, it’s now passé to say that War Is Bad. One must say that War Is Really Bad.

Therein lies the problem with making movies of unoriginal concepts. The only way to justify their existences is to startle viewers with even more of what the precursors already provided. Okay, Saving Private Ryan, I call your soldier carrying his own blown-off arm, and I raise you…a trench full of soldiers being flamethrower-ed alive! And a crippled guy killing himself with a kitchen fork!

The implication, even if unintentional, is that the precursors were too timid—that this, finally, is the real deal.

But is it? None of us were there, so we don’t know. It’s awfully suspicious, though, that all of these World War I movies happen to be coming out at around the time when none of the war’s survivors could possibly be alive anymore to debunk any inaccuracies. Surely no one doubts the horror of war, but is it sacrilege to wonder whether, artistically, we’ve lost the plot?

You get my point. Before I finish, though, I do want to admire the one interesting aspect of this film: its original score, composed by Volker Bertelmann. Blaring but sporadic, ominous but not evil-sounding, it gives us a taste of what this movie could have been with a different approach. It’s too bad that among the contributors to All Quiet on the Western Front, only Bertelmann actualized a wartime vision that was grounded, stylish, and, most importantly, unconventional.

 

–Jim Andersen

For more reviews, see my review of Marcel the Shell with Shoes On.

Categories
Movie Reviews

Marcel the Shell Can Support a Whole Movie

I knew in advance about the universal acclaim piled on the feature-length Marcel the Shell with Shoes On, but the delightfulness of the movie still caught me off guard. I suppose in retrospect that the concept struck me as a cash grab. I thought: a bunch of silly YouTube shorts extended into a full movie? Please. Going viral is one thing; sustaining attention over 90 minutes is another.

Except…maybe it isn’t. After all, there’s no reason why a great character shouldn’t grab us, no matter what the media format. Remember that unlike other smash hits of the early YouTube era, the original “Marcel the Shell” shorts didn’t rely on zany or stupid behavior, and they weren’t real-world goofs a la “America’s Funniest Home Videos.” Instead, they functioned essentially as old fashioned dramatic monologues.

So then, skeptics of a Marcel-based feature film, I ask you: why not?

Watching Marcel the Shell (Jenny Slate) doesn’t get tiresome. His vacillations between exhibitionism and insecurity provide seemingly endless ironic entertainment. Like Michael Scott from “The Office,” Marcel is a contemporary presence: lonely, sensitive, and ridden with performance anxiety (which sometimes bubbles over into hapless frustration). Perhaps the reason the mockumentary format has birthed so many of our generation’s funniest characters is that it enables us to see them ham it up for the camera: the most relatable mode, these days, that a character can inhabit.

Critics have highlighted the movie’s warmth. And it is indeed warm, but coldness seeps in around the edges. A couple breaks up ferociously, and when they reunite years later, they immediately start arguing again. (One of the two has been in Guatemala doing charity work; even this has failed to teach her serenity.) The mostly unseen documentarist (Dean Fleischer Camp) has recently divorced and can’t even bring himself to discuss it. Marcel gets Internet famous, and annoying influencers swarm his house for clout, ignoring his plea for help.

Can’t anyone get along anymore?

Maybe, and maybe not. But the real lesson of Marcel the Shell with Shoes On is that we better not stop trying, because the alternative is even worse. If that seems like a dubious message to celebrate, I agree. But only from hard truths can we get real tenderness. And maybe because of this inclusion of the lows along with the highs, I’m among the many who found this one of the most moving films of the year.

 

–Jim Andersen

For more reviews, see my review of Glass Onion: A Knives Out Story

Categories
Movie Reviews

Glass Onion is Indeed a Stupid Mystery

**Spoilers herein**

At the climax of Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery, master detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) makes an unusual complaint. Upon identifying the culprit, a reveal that shocks no one, he exclaims, “This is a stupid mystery!” He’s frustrated with the simplicity of the case, which any layman—or, maybe more importantly, any police officer—would have correctly solved in one guess.

I, for one, think he’s on to something. Just as Blanc implies, mystery movies are supposed to challenge and test us. They should be based on clever crimes committed by clever, unseen foes. Otherwise, why would an expert detective be needed? In fact, Blanc’s presence is the only reason that we don’t guess the villain: we expect that, since Blanc is around, something trickier must be at play. But, as it turns out, there isn’t.

Writer and director Rian Johnson is very pleased with himself for this fakeout. That’s because he has social commentary in mind: he wants to show us that our misguided reverence for tycoons like Miles Bron (Edward Norton) blinds us to crimes and misdeeds going on all around us. That our corporate oligarchy is one big “glass onion,” a collection of labyrinthian layerings that actually needn’t be peeled away, since they can easily be seen through, if only we thought to look. In other words, our emperors have no clothes, and our collective assumption that they do distracts us from society’s true crooks.

That’s a fine sentiment, but, again, it’s not the reason we fall for the misdirections of this particular film. The reason is that we’re watching a movie, and we therefore expect layers, because we expect filmmakers to reward our two hours of engagement with something interesting. We don’t expect a film without layers, because such a film would obviously be a huge letdown. Johnson promises us a great mystery, disappoints us (and Blanc), and then lectures us on why giving him the benefit of the doubt was foolish. He graciously explains that if we took the bait, that proves that we’ve allowed ourselves to be brainwashed by dumb tech bros.

Johnson also wrote and directed Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi (2017), and while I’m not one of that film’s many ardent haters, I can see a discouraging pattern forming in his work. He denies us the payoff that we came to the movie expecting, then he dares to use our surprise as a teaching moment. I support defying or even criticizing one’s viewers, but wagging a finger at them for wanting the kind of movie they were promised is priggish. You’ll notice that Johnson opts to direct movies with big budgets and big stars, thereby attracting a blockbuster Hollywood audience. Being so disdainful of Hollywood expectations, perhaps he should just…make a non-Hollywood film. (Less money in that, of course.)

It’s not only at the end of the movie that Benoit Blanc expresses frustration with a lack of intellectual challenge. A pensive sage in Knives Out (2019), he in fact spends much of this film grumpily complaining about the idiocy and banality surrounding him. That makes him the one relatable character in the film, and his awareness almost salvages the experience for us. But in the end, acknowledging that you’ve made a “stupid mystery” doesn’t mean you haven’t.

 

–Jim Andersen

For more reviews, see my review of Top Gun: Maverick