Categories
Movies Explained

The Master Explained

No viewer can be blamed for coming away from Paul Thomas Anderson’s The Master (2012) confused. But fear not, because Movies Up Close is about to thoroughly explore the thematic meaning of this intricate work of cinematic art. The following essay will explain the motivations of the film’s two main characters, the friendship between them, and, of course, the cryptic ending.

Our story begins with Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix), a soldier in World War II. Freddie is socially isolated from his rowdy mates, and when he finally joins the fray, he makes everyone uncomfortable by miming sex acts on a sand sculpture and masturbating into the ocean. Relatedly, when he undergoes psychological testing for employment placement, he interprets every inkblot as male or female genitalia, again indicating an abnormal sexual obsessiveness. And this mysterious issue hinders him from successfully rejoining postwar society: the day after passing out on a dinner date from drinking too much, he takes out his sexual frustration on an unsuspecting customer and promptly loses his photography job.

Why does Freddie have this problem with sex and women? The answer is soon unearthed by Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman), the leader of a scientology-like cult known as The Cause. During an intense “Processing” question-and-answer session, Dodd gets Freddie to admit that he was sexually molested by his Auntie Bertha as a child. Such a traumatic early experience would be the very thing that would leave one emotionally stunted as an adult in the manner that Freddie displays.

Dodd also discovers that Freddie killed Japanese soldiers during Naval combat, indicating that Freddie’s war experience was perhaps uncommonly intense and violent. The revelation of this additional trauma provides insight into why Freddie, in addition to his issues with women, engages in aggressive physical outbursts throughout the film. A prescient official, in fact, warns the outgoing soldiers that due to their experiences, their reintegration with society may not be perfectly smooth:

Official: “There will be people on the outside who will not understand the condition you men have. Some may think it a rather shameful condition. If the average civilian had been through the same stresses that you have been through, undoubtedly they too would develop the same nervous conditions.”

This connection between traumatic experiences and individuals’ maladaptive behaviors is well recognized today. And it’s to Dodd’s credit that he’s able to hone in on the crucial internal sources of Freddie’s outward issues. But he veers off course in applying the information he extracts. As a typical example, he lectures to Freddie raging in his prison cell: “Your fear of capture and imprisonment is an implant from millions of years ago…. Your spirit was free for a moment, then it was captured by an invader force bent on turning you to the darkest ways.”

Now, these ramblings are kind of similar to the contemporary understanding of the effects of trauma. After all, Dodd is attributing human problems to prior experiences that have pernicious and unexpectedly far-reaching consequences. And he encourages members to open their minds so that they may relive these events, thereby wrestling free of their stifling grips—a practice that evokes conventional Freudian theory.

But although Dodd may be commended for generally understanding an important psychological truth, his eccentricity and grandiosity have warped the concept into a bizarre, laughable dogma. When a cynic challenges him at a party, Dodd sputters that his methods can cure leukemia and that the world is trillions of years old.

Despite the flaws in his methods, Dodd’s grasp on trauma and its significance is enough to hook the aimless and desperate Freddie. Although Freddie admits in his first Processing session that he had initially perceived Dodd and his wife Peggy (Amy Adams) as “fools,” this view changes dramatically after a few more sessions. The pivotal moment occurs when Dodd encourages Freddie to revisit the memory of his former girlfriend Doris, whom Freddie abruptly left to go to sea, a memory that haunts him with regret and shame. From flashbacks we can infer that Freddie’s aforementioned childhood sexual trauma was likely a major contributor to his sudden departure: Freddie and Doris, too, have a wide gap in age, and Freddie is seen to become uncomfortable upon realizing this.

After the Processing is over, Dodd asks Freddie how he feels, and Freddie replies with noticeable relief: “I feel good.” Dodd in turn supplies impressive compassion: “You are the bravest boy I have ever met,” leading Freddie to crack a wide smile. From this moment on, Freddie becomes viciously loyal to Dodd. Thus, by giving Freddie a precious forum to confront his many traumas, Dodd converts Freddie into a fierce supporter.

Despite being a loyal soldier of The Cause, though, Freddie doesn’t really understand most of what Dodd says. In fact, several scenes demonstrate that Freddie’s own behavior contradicts or disproves Dodd’s ideas. For example, Freddie is made to listen to a tape that insists, “Man is not an animal,” but, far from absorbing this high-minded mantra, he instead passes a note to a woman that reads: “Do you want to fuck?” In a separate scene, Dodd strikes up a rendition of an old-timey singalong, but Freddie, rather than enjoy the folksiness of Dodd’s performance, imagines every woman present completely nude.

Since Freddie’s behavior is so at odds with the values of The Cause, most of the members, especially Peggy, don’t like him very much. But Dodd won’t get rid of him. In fact, it seems that Dodd is actually drawn to the very characteristics in Freddie that he outwardly denounces as “animal”-like.

For example, when Freddie farts during processing and laughs, Dodd can’t help but be amused, and he admits, “Laughing is good during processing. Even if it is the sound of an animal.” When Freddie hunts down and beats up Dodd’s cynical challenger—an alarming turn of events—Dodd merely scolds Freddie as a “naughty boy” and takes no corrective action, a clear condoning of the act. And when Freddie returns from prison and the two reconcile, they wrestle on the lawn laughing, a rowdy scene at odds with Dodd’s usual emphasis on cultivated manners.

The two also bond over their love for alcohol. Of course, it’s no surprise that Freddie, a damaged individual, would be drawn to drinking as a way to calm his inner demons. When Dodd asks him what’s in his highly potent concoctions, Freddie responds, “secrets,” underscoring that he uses alcohol to quiet the sort of private, painful memories that Dodd uncovers in Processing. It may be surprising, then, that Dodd, who contrastingly doesn’t share traumatic or harmful memories during the film, also favors drinking—but perhaps it shouldn’t be. After all, Dodd is fairly unstable himself, sharing Freddie’s tendency toward volatile outbursts (“Pig fuck!”). Perhaps his inventing of The Cause reflects a yearning to confront a difficult, hidden past of his own.

Regardless, Dodd certainly sees himself in Freddie, and when his family pressures him to drop Freddie for good, he instead ratchets up the treatment with new methods to prove that The Cause is for real. These methods are strange to say the least, involving such tactics as Peggy reading erotica to Freddie, as well as Clark taunting Freddie with sensitive personal details that were documented during earlier Processing sessions.

The goal is for Freddie not to react to what is presented to him, thereby proving his distance from animalistic “negative emotions.” These scenes, in fact, are reminiscent of the sequence in A Clockwork Orange (1971) when Alex is subjected to provocative stimuli to prove that his impulses have been stamped out of him—except Freddie hasn’t undergone the Ludovico Technique, and it shows.

To be fair, Freddie does achieve some eventual success in controlling his behavior during the new sessions. But concurrent flashbacks indicate that even in these instances, he’s actually experiencing quite a lot of emotion. For example, when Clark bitingly suggests that Freddie belongs “away from people” like his mother, who resides in an asylum, Freddie involuntarily recalls a cold, lonely night, smoking a cigarette on the deck during the war.

Another prominent new treatment method is to have Freddie walk back and forth in the study, with Dodd encouraging him to use his imagination when interacting with the wooden panel and the window. At first Freddie is frustrated at the inanity of this pointless task, but, forced to repeat it over and over, he eventually uses the time to imagine himself having sex with Doris, which Dodd dubiously considers a success.

The point of this extended treatment montage is that Freddie is deriving less benefit from The Cause’s methods than before. Yes, he’s still recounting emotional moments from the past, as he did during the early Processing sessions, thereby providing some form of the catharsis that initially hooked him. But this is mostly despite, not because of The Cause’s methods, which are becoming increasingly mangled by the eccentric beliefs of Dodd and his family, dampening any positive effect that might be achieved.

For example, Clark’s taunting causes Freddie to recall dark memories, but Dodd discourages Freddie from reacting to them, diminishing any therapeutic benefit. Freddie can sense that it isn’t working, wondering out loud several times how the odd activities Dodd prescribes are going to help him—a far cry from his initial enthusiasm for basic “Processing” with Dodd.

So it’s no surprise that when The Cause travels to Phoenix for its first conference, Freddie doesn’t appear improved in the slightest, predictably assaulting an editor who opines that Dodd’s new book “stinks.” In addition, subtle visual clues during the conference indicate that following his barrage of mostly ineffective treatment, Freddie is losing faith in The Cause.

For instance, Freddie is seen struggling to appreciate Dodd’s keynote speech at the conference, whereas formerly, he appeared to enjoy Dodd’s oration. He appears particularly miffed by Dodd’s privileging of “laughter” as the “secret to living in these bodies that we hold”—likely recalling that in their first Processing session together, Dodd referred to laughter somewhat dismissively, calling it “good” but still “the sound of an animal.” And after fighting with the editor outside, Freddie sits down and puts his head in his hands, appearing tormented by the possibility that the man’s offending view of Dodd as a “garbled, twisted mystic” is in fact accurate.

Having thusly outgrown The Cause, Freddie takes his recovery into his own hands. He has apparently concluded that he feels better upon confronting painful memories, as he did in simple Processing, rather than upon blocking out emotions, as the later techniques emphasized. So he departs suddenly during the “Pick a Point” game with the aim of finally reuniting with Doris. This is a major step for him, and it’s perhaps a testament to Dodd’s work that Freddie has built up the confidence to do it, since, as previously mentioned, his leaving Doris had been a source of shame for him. Unfortunately, Freddie has taken far too long: Doris is now married with children.

Freddie’s reaction to this news, however, is heartening to watch. He’s sad, of course, and his awkward mannerisms are as prominent as ever, but overall he takes it in stride. He confirms with Doris’s mother that Doris was upset when he left seven years ago, making sure that his memories of a mutual romance weren’t illusory. His conclusion is admirable: “She’s happy, and that’s good.” And at the end of his conversation with Doris’s mother, he asks how her husband is doing, a surprisingly well related gesture. It seems that revisiting this key moment in his life has indeed helped heal his wounds somewhat, and has afforded him some degree of calm.

But now we reach the movie’s final act, and this is where things get truly difficult.

Freddie is summoned by Dodd to The Cause’s new school in England, where we see that Dodd is not doing well. He’s housed in a huge office that resembles, surely symbolically, a church with no congregation.

And Peggy, seated creepily in the shadows to his left, preempts him by grilling Freddie herself, suggesting that she, not Dodd, is truly in charge now. This isn’t too surprising given Peggy’s earlier zealotry and manipulation of Dodd: she dictates propaganda for her husband to disseminate (“We must always attack”) and gives him a matter-of-fact hand job to diminish any extramarital urges that could weaken The Cause. She had always been a driving force behind the scenes; now she runs the show.

Dodd’s dialogue to Freddie subsequent to Peggy’s leaving the room demonstrates that he isn’t enjoying the England iteration of The Cause. Tied to an institutional location for the first time and smothered by Peggy’s influence, he expresses jealousy over Freddie’s comparative freedom and pines for a life with no “master”:

Dodd: Free winds and no tyranny for you? Freddie, sailor of the seas. You pay no rent, free to go where you please… Good luck. For if you figure a way to live without serving a master, any master, then let the rest of us know. For you would be the first in the history of the world.

So while Peggy sneers at Freddie, “This isn’t fashion,” Dodd’s speech suggests that, in fact, that’s exactly what it had been to him. Dodd had styled himself as “the Master,” but now that he isn’t, it isn’t fun anymore. Sitting at a lonely desk with his wife whispering in his ear, he’s lost the former twinkle in his eye; his growing responsibilities have dimmed the magic of his charisma. This claustrophobic frustration can be traced all the way back to the Phoenix conference, when Dodd explodes at Helen, who questions some of the language in his new book: “What do you want from me?!”

That Dodd is frustrated by his increasing responsibilities is significant, because this directly contrasts with Freddie’s attitude. Whereas Dodd apparently seeks freedom from obligation, Freddie craves the feeling of connection. He doesn’t want to be an untethered “sailor of the seas,” as Dodd idealizes, perhaps since he has already experienced this lifestyle, and it didn’t go well. He wants to belong to a place and a person.

It seems undeniable that this is the more sustainable goal, as even Dodd professes to understand that, in truth, no man can go without serving “any master.” Thus, not only has Freddie outgrown The Cause, but he has now outgrown Dodd, who can’t bear the ordinariness of everyday life and whose own movement has failed to deliver him the total freedom he desired. Perhaps all along Dodd was drawn to Freddie for his apparent transcendence of mundane daily duties; however, Freddie desired no such thing.

Given his discontentment, Dodd implicitly discourages Freddie from returning, believing that Freddie is better off on his own. Before they part, he spins an absurd yarn of the two men working together with the Pigeon Post in a past life. It’s detailed and dramatic, the kind of compelling fabrication that Dodd used to deliver so routinely. But now he’s reduced to announcing it quietly from his desk, and it’s clear to both men that things aren’t what they once were.

A pivotal moment then occurs. Freddie states his intention to leave and makes a winking jab at Dodd: maybe he’ll stay with Dodd “in the next life.” Dodd maintains his poker face, but the comical bravado of his response belies that he’s in on Freddie’s joke: “If I see you in the next life, you will be my sworn enemy, and I will show you no mercy.” Freddie laughs in reply, and Dodd smiles wryly.

This exchange is a brief mutual recognition between the two friends that The Cause’s dogma is merely Dodd’s fantastical invention. As Dodd’s son Val (Jesse Plemons) had stated in an earlier scene, Dodd is “making this up as he goes along.” With Freddie departing, Dodd momentarily tips his (empty) hand.

Dodd concludes the meeting by suddenly singing “Slow Boat to China,” which for many viewers is a mystery too far. But since we’ve analyzed the full conversation thoroughly, we can see that this is just another example of Dodd communicating through his characteristically flourishing rhetoric that he has grown unhappy, and that he wishes he could travel away freely with Freddie. As we’ve stated, this is solely Dodd’s fantasy: Freddie wants to rejoin society, not escape it. Nevertheless, Freddie is also emotional during Dodd’s performance, as he, too, likely misses the bond that the two shared before The Cause increasingly interfered.

After all, Dodd was responsible for first encouraging Freddie to relive some of the traumatic experiences that had damaged him so badly, and for supporting him along the way (“You are the bravest boy I have ever met”), ultimately setting Freddie on the long path to fighting back some of his demons and becoming a functioning member of society again.

As proof of Freddie’s progress, after leaving Dodd he picks up a girl in a pub, and they have casual, normal sex—certainly an impossibility for Freddie before meeting Dodd. And to emphasize Dodd’s contribution, Freddie is shown repeating some of very questions Dodd posed in their early Processing sessions, perhaps trying to seduce this woman in the same way Dodd, as it were, seduced him: by encouraging open, honest dialogue about any subject. And it seems to be…kind of working.

Finally, we see a flashback of Freddie laying down next to the sand woman from the beginning of the film. What is the meaning of this image?

It conveys that Freddie, after all this time, has finally achieved what he desperately wanted from the start: a female companion. Previously, his jarring experiences from childhood and the war had left him unable to interact in a properly calibrated way in society; but after years with Dodd, unhelpful and bizarre though much of that time was, he goes to bed happy with a woman—who isn’t made of sand.

Let’s return to the opening shot of The Master. We see the ship’s wake: turbulent, strong, vast. This image, which recurs numerous times, summarizes Paul Thomas Anderson’s incredible film, which is about trauma—the “wake” of destructive, devastating events—and the lengths individuals will go to heal it. Freddie Quell, to quiet his own accrued demons, goes to war, leaves the love of his life, drinks paint thinner, joins a cult based on science fiction silliness, physically attacks the cult’s enemies, and subjects himself to ridiculous and even dangerous therapeutic methods.

The Master therefore provides insight into many of the seemingly bizarre things that humans do and try; after all, to “quell” the torturous pain of trauma, anything is fair game. And after several years, Freddie is in fact able to rejoin society and live independently, thanks to the one true kernel in all of The Cause’s teachings: that the only way to heal the effects of trauma is to courageously confront the events themselves.

 

— Jim Andersen

More movies explained: The Big Lebowski

Categories
Commentary and Essays

How the Worst Movie of the Decade Came to Be

We’re safely into the 2020s now, so I don’t think it’s jumping the gun to look back on the previous decade and contemplate its cinematic output. For example: what’s the best film of the 2010s? I personally suspect it’s The Tree of Life (2011), but I’m also partial to Moonlight (2016) and Under The Skin (2013), and there’s certainly no shortage of admirers for Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) or Get Out (2017), among many others.

The worst film of the decade? That’s easy.

Tom Hooper’s 2019 adaptation of Cats is not only the biggest flop of the 2010s, but has a decent claim to being the biggest movie flop of all time. The pre-release hype for Cats was insane, and for good reason: the cast may well be the most exciting group of stars ever assembled for a single picture. A-listers in their primes like Idris Elba and Jennifer Hudson had signed on. Veritable acting legends like Judi Dench and Ian McKellan were committed. Hot comedians like Rebel Wilson and James Cordon promised to add levity. And even chart-topping musicians like Jason Derulo and Taylor Swift agreed to play significant roles.

With such abundance of diverse talents, what could go wrong? Oh, everything?

The word that best summarizes Cats is “disturbing.” Cats is not merely a disappointing film; it’s a film that misses its mark so badly that its ostensible aim—of providing a whimsical good time—is completely buried by the movie’s end. We not only don’t have a good time, but we seriously wonder whether the filmmakers truly wanted us to: whether they didn’t, in fact, intend for their creation to be eerie, unsettling, and grotesque.

These adjectives are primarily attributable to the film’s most egregious mistake: the decision to use motion capture animation to creepily meld the actors with cat bodies, turning them into…what, exactly? Not cats, since cats don’t walk on two legs or have ballerina cheekbones. But not humans, either, since humans don’t have furry bellies and don’t strut around totally naked.

When I saw this film, the nudity issue rattled me for the entire runtime. The handling of clothing in Cats is baffling: most of the cats don’t wear clothes at all, which makes sense, because they’re cats; but some of them, especially the major characters, do wear clothes—but then during a dance, they might dramatically take the clothes off, giving the alarming impression that they’re completely exposing themselves. And some of the actors’ dancing exacerbates the issue: Rebel Wilson, for example, brings her usual brand of physical comedy, throwing her weight around in striptease-type poses—but there’s a problem with this, because her character has no clothes on to enable the tease! There’s nothing to tease when there’s nothing to hide! There’s also nothing to tease when you’re a cat, or at least the teasing shouldn’t consist of the same poses, since cats don’t have the same features or sex characteristics as humans do. The dance sequences (Wilson’s in particular) viscerally repulsive for a reason: they make no visual sense.

In the stage version, actors wearing crazy makeup and wild costumes parade around, and, as in the movie adaptation, there are sexual overtones throughout. But sexual overtones are fine when we’re watching people in costumes, because the humanness allows us to still relate to what we’re seeing. Humans can still be sexy when they’re dressed as animals. But when the characters have been turned by a computer into actual animals, things suddenly become gross: there’s a crucial boundary that separates kinky fun from an episode of Planet Earth, and this movie crosses it. Or worse, sits on it.

The faces aren’t much more watchable than the bodies. At times, for instance, it’s clear that we’re no longer viewing motion capture animation but rather extremely sloppy CGI that has pasted the actors’ faces on to stunt doubles’ limber, catified bodies. Munkustrap (Robbie Fairchild), especially, often looks like a product of the same technology that created Annoying Orange. How was this allowed to stand through postproduction?

Another unforced CGI error is that the cats fluctuate wildly in size throughout the film in comparison to their backdrops. The number “Skimbleshanks the Railway Cat” is one of the better sequences in the film, but it’s marred by the apparent shrink ray that has suddenly brought the characters to approximately the size of mice. Speaking of mice, there are some in the film, but based on what we can see, they’re closer in size to bugs. They’re also played by children, and Wilson’s character implicitly threatens to…eat them if they don’t dance correctly. The child actors seem a little too genuinely scared of this possibility.

Let’s take a step back and talk about Andrew Lloyd Weber’s original Broadway version of Cats, which, to be fair to Tom Hooper, doesn’t exactly lend itself to box office dynamism. For one, Weber’s plot is largely nonexistent, consisting only of a vague contest to determine which cat goes to some sort of cat heaven, allowing the characters to sing about themselves and each other for the duration of the play. But this has the potential to work onstage, because singing and dancing alone can thrill us when we’re up close to the performers in person. Movies can’t offer that type of thrill, making Cats an especially difficult experience to adapt for the cinema.

Hooper, though, was still riding high in 2019 following the success of his 2012 adaptation of Les Miserables, also previously a landmark stage musical. For that film, Hooper had been trusted with an ensemble cast of top talent, and he scored big: Les Miserables was a box office smash and critically acclaimed. It earned Hugh Jackman a Best Actor nomination and Anne Hathaway an Oscar win for Best Supporting Actress. On top of that, let’s not forget that back in 2010, Hooper managed to nab Colin Firth a Best Actor victory for The King’s Speech, as well as a (ridiculously undeserved) Best Picture win and Best Director win for himself.

To those who say that Academy Awards aren’t as important to actors as they used to be, I give you…Cats. Because it’s fairly clear that the general feeling was that if Hooper could get Hathaway—who in 2012 was most known for The Princess Diaries and playing a forgettable Catwoman—an Oscar, and if he could get Hugh Jackman of Wolverine fame a nomination, too, and if he could defeat The Social Network for Best Picture in 2010 (nice one, Academy), then, well, what couldn’t he do for his next batch of stars?

They all saw, of course, Hathaway’s Oscar acceptance speech for Les Miserables. Many casual viewers saw it, too, and didn’t like it: her suspiciously breathless, awestruck delivery helped spark a fairly widespread backlash against her that persists to this day. The clip forcibly reminds me, at least, of Eve Harrington, the titular character from the classic film All About Eve (1950) who engages in cutthroat behavior to achieve her ambition of acting stardom. Eve accepts an achievement award and is subsequently criticized by the other characters, who have learned to see through her façade of graciousness. But famously, the film ends with a young woman posing in the mirror with Eve’s award after the ceremony, apparently dreaming of attaining Eve’s success—and implying that she, like Eve, will do anything to reach it. So although the other characters do condemn Eve’s phoniness and masquerading, many remain enamored by her studied affectation.

How prescient. As All About Eve portrays, the allure of acting glory can be irresistible to some. And for them, it didn’t matter that Cats’ source material didn’t have a plot or that the visual concept for the film clearly hadn’t been thought through: if Mia Thermopolis could be on that stage gushing oh-so-humble thank you’s, then, dammit, they could, too! The talent swarmed in. And Universal Pictures, eagerly awaiting the surefire windfall—after all, the Broadway Cats’ fan base was far larger than Les Miserables’ had been—readily paid up for the big names.

Well, Universal lost a reported $114 million. Impressive. But the cast members were hit, too: each one of them will live with the mistake forever. I’ve noticed that critics and casual fans alike when discussing this movie have a habit of trying to rescue their favorite star from its wreckage: “Well, Taylor Swift was pretty good, at least!” “James Cordon was kind of funny!” “Idris Elba tried the best he could!” Admirable tries, but no. The “best they could” would have been to avoid this film and go do something with lesser fanfare that would have been worthy of their various gifts. But they got greedy, and now this clip and this clip and this clip and this clip are at everyone’s fingertips indefinitely. I can’t help but notice that Taylor Swift, for one, hasn’t been quite as ubiquitous since her contribution to Cats—the aura of infallibility has been wiped away.

I think Jennifer Hudson, though, in the coveted role of Grizabella the Glamour Cat, fares worst of all. In an alternate universe where Cats was good and won awards, Hudson would have been first in line; after all, she gets the chance to lend her considerable vocal abilities to “Memory,” which is the climax of the story and one of the greatest numbers in Broadway history.

But Hudson comes up incredibly flat. In the stage version of Cats, Grizabella has dignity and grandeur, trying and failing multiple times to rejoin the tribe that ostracized her, until she summons the courage (aided by the young cat Jemima) to sing “Memory,” summarizing her lonely experience. But in the movie version, inexplicably, Grizabella repeatedly slinks away from the Jellicles and has to be dragged into the contest by Victoria (Francesca Hayward), who then prods her to sing her famous melody. In accordance with this new approach to the character, Hudson’s acting performance is mopey, meek, and helpless; and her performance of “Memory” reflects none of the resilience and grit that make the song so famous.

For instance, the stage play’s signature moment is a faltering Grizabella mustering the strength to pick herself off the ground and belt out the final verse (wow!), but Hooper maddeningly decides instead to have Victoria physically help Grizabella off the ground, such that the lyrics of the ensuing verse—“TOUCH ME!”—no longer make any sense. Um, she just touched you, Grizabella. Calm down.

So yes, it’s Hooper who’s ultimately responsible for Hudson’s awful performance. But the performance is what it is, and it’s still awful. You don’t get to take the credit for the successes while blaming the director for the failures.

Hooper won’t get off scot-free, though. He may have been behind the camera and thus hidden from the public outcry, but Hollywood is a small world. When studio executives, sore from their huge monetary loss, and noteworthy actors, fearful of being caught up in the next pop cultural trainwreck , inevitably turn down his next big idea, I imagine he might feel a little bit like Grizabella the Glamour Cat: yearning for better days of popularity and adoration, shut out of the party he once energized.

I wonder if he’ll realize then that being unwanted doesn’t make snot come out of your nose.

 

—Jim Andersen

For related criticism, see my analysis of the flawed Slumdog Millionaire.

Categories
Commentary and Essays

The Greatest Slasher Movie Ever

Originally published October 2021

It’s almost Halloween, which means ‘tis the season for “slasher” flicks, the movies about insane killers murdering dumb, attractive teenagers.

The slasher formula is actually a little more complicated than that but still has some instantly recognizable tropes:

  1. A group of teens or young adults who typically wander into an eerie, remote area
  2. A killer, usually masked but not always, who kills off the kids in succession, often using a knife or other brutal means
  3. A “final girl” who outlasts the others and may ultimately overcome the killer
  4. A pattern in which the characters who have sex are typically murdered shortly afterward; by extension, the final girl is often a virgin

So which films fit the bill? In my view, these are the staples:

  • Friday the 13th (1980)
  • Halloween (1978)
  • The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)
  • A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

Later hits like Child’s Play (1988) and Scream (1996) would use slasher elements, too, but with modern twists or alterations. And each of the four films I listed spawned several sequels, all with the same basic premise.

The big question, then: which slasher film is king? To me, there’s no contest:

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is the best slasher movie ever made, and not only that; it’s one of the most terrifying movies of all time, a true American masterpiece. I didn’t bother to see it until recently, because I had inferred by its title that it would be a simple, mindless gore-fest not worth the time. If you’re of similar thinking right now, you’re wrong, and you need to watch this incredibly dark, disturbing movie, which actually isn’t gory at all.

You’ll notice that TCSM, directed by Tobe Hooper, is chronologically the earliest of the four movies I listed; it can therefore be said that it “invented” the slasher genre. It may not be surprising, then, that it’s superior to the others: the original is usually the best. Of course, prior landmarks like Psycho (1960) influenced TCSM heavily, so it’s not as if TCSM’s aesthetics appeared out of thin air. But it crystallized the concept, in particular, of a relentless, masked killer picking off teenagers, and apparently, it did so memorably enough that endless franchises and box office revenues were to follow in its wake.

The second best film of the four I listed is Halloween, a great film in its own right due to excellent craftsmanship, solid acting, and a classic score. But the key difference between Halloween and TCSM is that TCSM seems to suggest a broad, expansive horror just beneath the surface of normal American life, while Halloween treats its bloodshed as only an aberration. Michael Myers is so wildly demonic that he scares even a seasoned forensic psychologist and is repeatedly compared to the Boogeyman. TCSM‘s Leatherface, on the other hand, seems only to have a developmental disability and a sadistic family. Who do you think you’re more likely to run into?

Many have noticed that the film appears to contain a statement of sorts about animal cruelty: Leatherface and the Sawyer family treat their victims as mere animals ready for butchering. This pushes us to reconsider these practices. I’d add that this conceit is also inherently frightening in that it allows Hooper to question how much higher, evolutionarily, we really are than the animals we eat. After all, before Leatherface arrives, the gang of teens is mostly preoccupied with sex and isn’t very kind to a member of their group in a wheelchair, at one point carelessly allowing him to fall on his face while he tries to urinate. Is Leatherface on to something by treating us like mere beasts?

Now that’s a scary thought.

The issue of resenting sex is an interesting one in TCSM, especially since its many knockoffs, especially Friday the 13th, would center it so obviously. What’s notable about TCSM’s treatment of the topic is that the first person to express jealousy or resentment isn’t one of the villains but rather Franklin, the wheelchair-bound boy who can’t partake in the shenanigans of the others.

This jealousy is only echoed later by the Sawyers, all of whom are male and defer to a barely-alive patriarch, and who clearly enjoy watching women suffer, judging by their treatment of Sally at dinner. The Sawyers’ boorish jeering recalls Franklin’s show of sarcastic anger with his peers when they leave him downstairs at the old house. And Leatherface, like Franklin, appears to have a disability. Is the fact that we can’t see the killer’s real face a subliminal way of linking him with Franklin?

Again, these sorts of ideas create more terror than a simple Boogeyman does.

But I think the key insight into the film’s themes involves industry and capitalism. The hitchhiker early in the film reports that technological advances have led to job losses in the slaughterhouse, meaning, like Norman Bates, whose interstate moved away, the Sawyer family has been cut off from American prosperity, stranded in a dilapidated rural wasteland—the water hole metaphorically dried up. We may not think much about what happens to people like this, but Hooper, like Hitchcock before him, has thought about it, and he’s concluded, like his predecessor: very possibly, madness.

The Sawyers are very clearly a nightmarish rendition of the average American family. They show us our own folksy customs mangled by poverty and isolation. For example, the dad—if he is the dad; it’s never confirmed—chatters amiably to a bound Sally in the car while also laughing maniacally and beating her with a stick. The hitchhiker acts out and talks back like a typical deadbeat son—while simultaneously torturing Sally at the dinner table. To complete the nuclear family, Leatherface is made to dress up as a housewife.

The point seems to be that our traditions and culture, which we take such comfort in, are entirely corruptible given the wrong circumstances. And TCSM subtly suggests that depraved crimes are occurring all over: we hear stories over the radio of nasty deeds, not all of which could have been committed by the Sawyers. And why wouldn’t there be similar families? The Sawyers can’t be the only ones cut off from prosperity due to technological changes.

TCSM ends in spectacular fashion, with Sally riding away on the back of a pickup truck and Leatherface raging (dancing?) with his chainsaw as the sun rises. This final image grants him the aesthetic grandeur that he deserves. The symbolism of the rising sun is open to interpretation, but I view it, circa 1974 following Vietnam and Watergate, as a warning from Hooper that there’s a new day in America, and the Leatherfaces of the country, out for blood and swinging savagely, are going to be a part of it. Watching the scene in our current era of politics only heightens the resonance.

So don’t let the campiness and predictability of the slasher genre that formed years after the release of this film lead you to dismiss it. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is a rightful classic with a disturbing, uncomfortable view of the American way, and there’s no better time to watch it than this fall season. Happy Halloween!

 

–Jim Andersen

For more analyses, check out my look at the visuals of Avatar.

Categories
Movie Reviews

Movie Review: The Harder They Fall

Like most westerns, The Harder They Fall is boring. I’m not a fan of this genre due to its restrictiveness: as with the rom-com, the western’s conventions are so strict that they typically exclude significant innovation. The story of a western must play out in an extremely specific way: a good and a bad cowboy, one of whom is a newcomer of sorts, slowly build toward a showdown, and eventually the good cowboy shoots the bad cowboy dead. The end.

Having the cast be comprised of black actors is a good idea, but it ultimately doesn’t change things. We still have a swaggering villain, a climactic shootout, etc., and the pieces fall into place as they must. I should add that this movie is very long (also a hallmark of westerns), due, as usual, to the many, many threats the characters drawl at each other that don’t advance the plot in any way.

To his credit, director Jeymes Samuel seems to sense the staleness of his foundation, and he wants to jazz it up. But his efforts backfire. The story is about a certified badass outlaw (Nat Love) and his gang (RJ Cyler and Edi Gathegi), who are possibly even more badass than he is. Also, his love interest (Zazie Beetz) is without question more badass than the gang is, and they’re also helped by a sheriff (Delroy Lindo) who might be the most badass of all. Meanwhile, the man (Idris Elba) who murdered the protagonist’s parents is a legendary badass, and his badass partner in crime (Lakeith Stanfield) is the quickest draw around. And…his love interest (Regina King) is almost certainly more badass than any of them.

Do you see the problem here? Every character cannot be a badass. Badassery is a zero sum game: being a badass means that other people are not badasses. As Syndrome would say, when everyone is a badass, then no one is—it’s just the norm. Samuel has created a world in which being a mega-badass is the norm. He’s overstuffed his movie so that there are no particularly memorable moments, no focal points. What he winds up with is two plus hours of people comebacking and one-upping each other, such that who comes out on top doesn’t feel important.

Samuel has also made a number of intentionally anachronistic decisions: the hip hop score, the glamorized sets, the lack of proper accents. Again, I credit him for trying to mix it up. But the effect of these choices is to create a feeling that it’s all playacting, that it’s not to be taken seriously. It implies, actually, that accuracy of setting and of tone were never truly important components of the western: that only the characters and their motivations gave the genre its impact.

That’s an interesting theory, but it’s not right. The setting is indeed the central component of the western (hence its name) and the reason its aesthetics remain with us. We watch the classics—The Searchers, High Noon, Shane—to reacquaint ourselves with the Wild West and its idiosyncratic yet alluring set of values, but The Harder They Fall shrugs off the possibility of allowing us that glimpse of what used to be. It therefore doesn’t offer us anything from the past, only the present. And apparently, the present is full of badasses.

 

—Jim Andersen

For more reviews, see my thoughts on Netflix’s Mank.

Categories
Commentary and Essays

Avatar’s Visuals Aren’t That Great

One of the more welcome recent developments in the entertainment industry, in my opinion, is that video games have largely become more like movies. That’s due in part to improved console technology, which has allowed for more expansive and detailed world creation, but also in part to gamers maturing and developing appetites for more intricate narratives and characters. I’m no gamer myself, but the rise of cinematically influenced franchises like Fallout and Mass Effect seems like a good thing, a burgeoning venue for authentic artists to work relatively free from big dollar pressure.

What has been perhaps less expected is that at about the same time, some movies have endeavored to become more like video games—a trend that came to full fruition with the 2009 release of James Cameron’s Avatar. It’s maybe the most overpraised movie of the century thus far. (Slumdog Millionaire (2008) at least had the good sense to fall out favor eventually.)

Notice that I said overpraised, not overrated. That’s because critics and fans alike have been sober from the beginning about Avatar’s more obvious weaknesses, and because of those weaknesses, no one claims it as high art. Specifically, it’s agreed that film’s storytelling leaves much to be desired. It recycles an “invaders versus natives” plot line that’s been more interestingly fleshed out in, among others, Dances with Wolves (1990), FernGully: The Last Rainforest (1992), and even Pocahontas (1996).

For what it’s worth, my favorite of that bunch is FernGully, which has surprising candidness in celebrating the virtues of pacifism and environmental stewardship while also acknowledging their inevitable vulnerabilities in the face of hostile actors. By contrast, Avatar wants to have its cake and eat it too: the nature-spiritual religion of the Na’vi somehow turns out to be…scientifically correct? There’s a literal synaptic connection between the trees and the… Actually, let’s not get into it.

The point is that Avatar’s story sucks, and everyone knows it. I’d be remiss not to also mention the facepalm-worthy writing that pervades even non-story elements of the script. The humans, for example, seek to obtain…“unobtainium.” (Spoiler alert, they don’t.) The natives are called the “Na’vi,” in the same way that Dwight Schrute’s dentist’s name is Crentist. Why these lazy bits were allowed to stand throughout the production process is beyond me.

But as previously mentioned, failures like these were generally recognized by both critics and casual viewers and therefore need no expanded treatment here. The subject of my essay, instead, will be the effusive praise of the film as a monument of stunning visuals, praise that continues to this day.

Roger Ebert called Avatar a “technical breakthrough,” and David Denby of The New Yorker praised it as “the most beautiful film I’ve seen in years.” Pretty much anyone who has seen the film—and pretty much everyone has—will tell you that, although, sure, the plot is lame, the visuals of the movie’s invented world, Pandora, are unquestionably amazing.

But let’s examine closer.

If we’re going to talk about visuals, we need visual evidence. So take a look at some spoiler-free scenes from classics that, in my opinion, deserve their reputations as visual masterpieces. We’ll start with the desert trek from Lawrence of Arabia (1962):

Notice the perfect framing of the faraway shots, as well as the wonder captured in the shots nearer to the characters’ viewpoints. The camera always lingers a while, underlining the protagonist’s amazement with the surroundings, as well as giving us the opportunity to survey and absorb the vast beauty of this exotic, otherworldly location, which is totally real—no CGI.

Next, here’s the famous space ballet from 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968):

Similarities abound between this sequence and the one from Lawrence. Both linger with their shots, confident in the beauty of what’s being presented. Both exemplify meticulous framing, leading to a succession of aesthetically balanced, painting-like images. They emphasize vast, empty space. They feature musical scores grand enough to suit their visuals. And while 2001, unlike Lawrence, is effects-driven, its effects are understated, deployed unobtrusively. This allows viewers to appreciate the aforementioned scale and framing in a similar manner to Lawrence.

Now, here’s a visually oriented scene from Avatar:

The first noticeable difference is that the camera is moving a lot more in this sequence than in those of the first two films. There isn’t a single shot where the camera isn’t twirling around or even shaking as though it’s being held by hand. In addition, the camera cuts far more quickly, lasting only a few seconds per shot. These differences create a more frenetic, disorienting experience: there’s limited chance to take in any rich visual detail compared with the first two films.

But if the surroundings are so historically brilliant, as the film’s proponents claim, why not allow the viewers to survey them at leisure? Because—and here I finally state my thesis—they’re not that brilliant.

It’s impressive that these visuals were created, yes. They surely required a lot of work from many talented people. But because they consist solely of CGI imagery—which necessarily falls short of the detail offered by reality, even in its best attempts to simulate it—they can’t stand up to the scrutiny of truly great cinematic visuals.

I think the first tip that there’s something lame about the world of Avatar is that real people aren’t used in any of the supposedly gorgeous shots. Instead, humanoid, uh, creatures, have replaced the actors, so that no one will notice any discrepancy between the appearance of real life and the appearance of Pandora. It’s difficult to say, exactly, how real the surroundings look when there’s no human being around to compare them to.

Thus, a simple mental exercise of imagining the human characters actually walking around Pandora can illuminate just how insufficient the CGI of Pandora is as a believably realistic world. Such a scene would be a visual mess, a clash between reality and kind of reality, with Pandora surely looking awkward and tacky next to real people with skin blemishes and full sets of facial muscles.

Cameron can only allow his CGI jungle to be invaded, late in the movie, by some outfitted troops. Their humanness is safely hidden from view by gear and weaponry. When Colonel Quaritch lands in Pandora, the only non-anonymous person to do so, he remains inside a machine in a strangely large clearing. This is by necessity: people and Pandora are oil and water. The Na’vi, with their smooth, plasticky blue skin (no wrinkles in sight), set a low bar for detail that Pandora can meet. Humans, not so much.

Perceived in this way, the film’s title is perhaps more appropriate than it might initially seem. I know that after my own first viewing back in 2009, I wondered why the film was named after the not quite narratively central device of having the characters exist in substitute bodies. (Especially when this title would certainly cause confusion with the popular television series of the same name.) But now I realize that the concept of the Avatar was likely the film’s first idea. It’s certainly its most important one: it’s the curtain behind which the wizard, Cameron, operates his magic show.

You might think it unfair of me, though, to compare Avatar, a summer blockbuster, with two titans of classic film, regularly ranked among the greatest of all time. I’d argue that the degree of praise heaped on Avatar’s visuals warranted that, but fine. Let’s compare Avatar instead to Steven Spielberg’s Jurassic Park (1993), an equivalently popular blockbuster. Watch:

For my money, these three minutes are more visually enjoyable than every scene in Avatar combined.

Awesome special effects are crucial to this sequence, but, as with 2001, they’re understated and draw as little attention as possible. The shot of Dr. Grant and Dr. Sadler looking up the neck of the dinosaur creates the feeling of enormous scale that Avatar, for all its precision, neglects to establish. The dinosaur’s one act—rising to its hind legs and crashing back down—is mild but breathtaking, and Spielberg has the patience to watch it play out, allowing his gentle monster to be a purely visual wonder.

This dinosaur’s purpose—beauty—is served in this one scene. Cameron, the weaker filmmaker, by contrast needs his beasts to be narratively consequential: they all return in the finale to kick some human butt, placing any potential visual grandeur in the backseat.

But the primary value of this Jurassic Park scene in the context of this essay is that it demonstrates the wonder that can be achieved in cinema by placing the impossible within the realistic. The sight of the herd at the pond (the end of the clip) is visually powerful because impossible creatures have been made to look believable, and have been placed in an actual, real landscape. They are a ridiculous creation, but because they appear on an actual grassy plain and are observed by actual men and women, we’re nevertheless forced to accept them as legitimate for two hours. That’s the power of special effects in film.

By contrast, on Avatar’s Pandora nothing is real—all is CGI. If Jurassic Park places the impossible within the realistic, Avatar places the impossible within the impossible. The juxtaposition of fiction and reality that makes the Jurassic Park sequence so goosebump-inducingly memorable is lost; there’s no compelled legitimacy for what we’re seeing. It’s Pixar on steroids. And just like a Pixar film, Avatar‘s visual pleasures are only the manufactured kind: technologically impressive, yes, and fun at times, but lacking the power to create authentic awe.

Now, it’s not Cameron’s fault that total CGI can’t compete with reality, but we need to be clear: it can’t. The floating mountains of Pandora, suspended with keyboard clicks and computer code, are nothing next to the majestic desert of Lawrence of Arabia or the picturesque outer space of 2001: A Space Odyssey, and also pale in comparison to the visuals of superior blockbusters like Jurassic Park.

Just watch the characters’ reactions. While Drs. Grant and Sadler are struck dumb with shock upon seeing the dinosaur, Jake Sully’s avatar bounces around Pandora like a kid on the monkey bars. This is merely cool for him. It’s merely cool for us, too.

There is a realm, though, more appropriate to Avatar’s accomplishments. A realm where placing the impossible within the impossible is indeed praiseworthy, where absurd worlds are computer-built (by necessity), and absurd characters are accordingly developed to populate them. I refer to the realm of gaming.

I’ve read online commenters remark that Avatar would make a great video game. But such a game would be redundant, because the movie, for all intents and purposes, is already a video game. It’s a journey through a scenic CGI landscape complete with passing, forgettable allies; surreal creatures; fierce, colorful battles; and an angry, generic final boss. But it’s less fun than other video games, because we don’t have any say in what’s going on. That leaves us with an entertainment of questionable value.

James Cameron has made some great movies. The Terminator (1984) has stood the test of time, and I’d call Aliens (1986) one of the best sequels ever made. Even Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) and Titanic (1997), although they demonstrate Cameron’s increasing emphasis on special effects at the expense of narrative authenticity, have some great moments. It’s a shame that he forgot, or never realized, that those moments were predicated on the raw things that truly impact moviegoers: relatable human stories, complicated human emotions, and, most basically of all, the humans themselves—without which any CGI achievements exist only for their own sake, and are therefore in danger of becoming groundless, farcical, and weak.

 

–By Jim Andersen

For more analyses, see my commentary on the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Categories
Movie Reviews

Movie Review: Mank

Mank will be an inscrutable entry into the Best Picture academy field this year. Directed by David Fincher in his first feature film since 2014, this quirky dramedy stars Gary Oldman as Herman Mankiewicz, the smart-tongued screenwriter who pens the cinematic masterpiece Citizen Kane (1941).

To derive any enjoyment whatsoever from this movie, one has to be familiar with Citizen Kane, and even then, it’s not easy to keep up—either with the endlessly ironic Mank or with the screenplay’s many pivotal references to Hollywood history and lore.

Interpreting this chatty throwback is a doozy, but here goes. In summary, I view Mank is a kind of Marxist statement about the origins of art. The primary concern of the film seems to be Mank’s left-wing politics and the alienation they cause him in high up Hollywood circles. He irks studio executives with his irreverent disdain for their money-grubbing ways, and he pulls hard for liberal candidate Upton Sinclair, who ultimately loses the California governor’s race (thanks in part to Mank’s bosses)—all against a distant backdrop of rising fascism in Germany, which no one but Mank seems to be taking seriously.

It’s implied that Mank’s building animosity toward greedy bigwigs fuels his inspiration for Citizen Kane, the title character of which he bases on the curmudgeonly news tycoon William Randolph Hearst, greediest of them all. By extension, then, Mank the film argues that Citizen Kane is essentially a political reaction to a ruling elite increasingly detached from the reality of ordinary people at that time.

But is it just me, or this a pretty bad theory? For starters, Charles Foster Kane the character is actually written with great empathy, a far cry from the hard villain that Mank makes of Hearst. And the screenplay of Citizen Kane really just isn’t political in any way: it’s focused almost exclusively on the personal successes and failures of one man, with little attention paid to historical affairs. Fincher’s rendition of Herman Mankiewicz and the actual finished product of Citizen Kane just…don’t connect.

Nevertheless, when it’s all said and done, I have to admit the vision is interesting. I thought we had lost David Fincher the artist after big name adaptations like The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) and Gone Girl (2014) started dominating his feature film oeuvre, but surprisingly, he’s come back swinging. He may be our foremost visual presenter of bitterness: among his sour creations are William Somerset from Se7en (1995), The Narrator from Fight Club (1999), Paul Avery from Zodiac (2007), the entire cast of The Social Network (2010), Lizbeth Salander from The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and Amy Dunne from Gone Girl; now we can add Herman Mankiewicz. Where there’s dissatisfaction and disappointment, there’s Fincher.

I don’t think he’s ever produced a masterpiece, and I don’t think Mank is one, but the technical attention to detail and genuine artistic interest of his latest entry, however flawed, makes me hold out hope that one day, he still might.

 

– Jim Andersen

For more reviews, see my praise of The Father.

Categories
Movie Reviews

Best Picture Rankings: 2021

Originally published March 2021

The annual rankings are here!

As anyone might have predicted, there was a noticeable decline in overall quality this year. Some of the entrants are uneven streaming-only releases that likely wouldn’t have made it into the field in a normal Oscar season, and this year’s apparent favorite, Nomadland, would be in my opinion one of the worst winners in recent memory (and that’s saying something). Overall, I gave 4 of this year’s 8 nominees negative reviews, compared with only 3 of 9 last year.

Nevertheless, there were two films that I greatly enjoyed this year, which are #’s 1 and 2 on this list. I highly recommend both of these pictures, which prove that even in the worst of circumstances, we can still be treated to great cinema.

Without further ado:

 

  1. Promising Young Woman

“It doesn’t bother fulfilling most of the responsibilities of cinematic storytelling, such as character arcs or crafted visuals; it struck me instead as a kind of ritual sacrifice to the #MeToo gods, a wild, disturbing attempt to cleanse the ugly demons haunting Hollywood.”  (Full Review)

 

  1. The Trial of the Chicago 7

“…the stench of pandering transcends politics, current events, and even movie craftsmanship. Sorkin, in trying to please somebody—the Twitter universe, perhaps—has made an inauthentic film, a lowlight in his successful career.” (Full Review)

 

  1. Nomadland

“[This] movie thus devolves into, essentially, a collection of shallow images that we can easily get elsewhere or even stage ourselves. It’s been said that Nomadland is “lyrical” and “poetic;” if so, it’s surely Instagram poetry: its tagline might have been, #wanderlust.”  (Full Review)

 

  1. Sound of Metal

“Poorly paced and freewheeling as it is, this script is just too messy, and it should be said that some technical aspects of this movie are messy as well.”  (Full Review)

 

  1. Mank

“I don’t think [Fincher has] ever produced a masterpiece, and I don’t think Mank is one, but the technical attention to detail and genuine artistic interest of his latest entry, however flawed, makes me hold out hope that one day, he still might.”  (Full Review)

 

  1. Judas and the Black Messiah

“What is the artistic value of a film that denies us hope for its hero? In my own opinion, the value is considerable. It makes for a bleak watch, but there’s honesty in bleakness.”  (Full Review)

 

  1. Minari

“Insistently small in scope, opaque in narrative trajectory, and complex in its treatment of characters who surprise (and disappoint) to the very end, Minari is a truth teller’s rendition of the immigrant tale, a quirky family saga that makes a worthy bid for inclusion in our canon of cinematic Americana.”  (Full Review)

 

  1. The Father

“This has been a year of small movies rather than grand, sweeping visions: fitting, since we lived 2020 in such little worlds. Fitting also, then, that The Father, smallest of them all, is also the best.”  (Full Review)

 

 

–Jim Andersen

For more rankings, see my thoughts on last year’s nominees.

Categories
Movie Reviews

Movie Review: The Father

Originally published February 2021

I seem to forget every year that the amount of hype a film receives during award season is no real indicator of its actual impressiveness. The Father, directed by Florian Zeller and starring Anthony Hopkins, has had barely any fanfare as the Oscars have approached, so when I finally readied to see it, I expected, based on the lukewarm buzz around it (and the boring title), a conventional, slow paced drama. Instead, I was treated to my favorite film of the year.

The Father unmistakably dwarfs most of its more celebrated nominees in inventiveness, honesty, and even empathy, demonstrating superior craftsmanship and an incredibly moving acting performance.

The world of The Father is a crumbling world, owing to the failing mind of its perceiver. The key to understanding the movie’s structure is realizing that Zeller, instead of simply presenting a series of random, jumbled experiences and proclaiming it the experience of dementia, has instead placed the onscreen episodes into a highly tenuous narrative, which, as becomes evident throughout the movie, is the narrative that the protagonist, Anthony, has laboriously constructed in an effort to make some sense of what is happening to him.

Unfortunately, all Anthony has available to him to construct this narrative are unreliable fragments of memory, so the best he can do is scramble them into a weak thread of mysterious persecution by unclear parties, and even this can’t fully account for the many discrepancies that continue to frustrate him throughout the film. The retrospective nature of what we have been watching becomes clear when we realize that nurses in Anthony’s new nursing home have been infiltrating scenes that took place well before he met them: his present has bled into his past, and he can’t separate the two.

It’s an ingenious setup, and I’m already looking forward to when I can see this movie again, so that I can try to trace the (faulty) connections between the scenes that Anthony uses to place them in (incorrect) order. I don’t think this will be an impossible task, because Zeller has mercifully provided us with one reliable overseer of events: Anthony’s alarmed daughter, Anne (Olivia Colman). A few scenes take place from her point of view, and these are verifiably true, although they also appear in the jumbled order decreed by Anthony’s nonsense narrative, such that we see Anne buying a chicken at the store long after we’ve seen other episodes during which we know that the chicken has already been brought home. The trick, then, will be to use what we know for sure, from Anne, to discern what, in Antony’s struggling mind, is false.

I don’t know how valuable any praise of Anthony Hopkins’ performance is, since it speaks so obviously well for itself. But safe to say, it’s extraordinary. More than extraordinary. Anyone who has had a family member or worked with an individual with dementia will recognize the out of place witticisms, the showy bluster, the matter-of-fact rambling, the sudden and uncharacteristic ferocity, the too-absurd tall tales, the startled, vacant stare.

By all accounts, the Best Actor Oscar this year will go, posthumously, to Chadwick Boseman. And indeed, Boseman has earned recognition. But let this rightful commemoration of Boseman’s achievements, both the ones we remember and the ones that were sure to come, not avert us from the other great performances turned in this year, especially this masterpiece from a fellow acting legend, one of the great talents in all of movie history.

This has been a year of small movies rather than grand, sweeping visions: fitting, since we lived 2020 in such little worlds. Fitting also, then, that The Father, smallest of them all, is also the best. The admittedly worthy argument against its candidacy for Best Picture is that this isn’t the time for it: that now is simply a moment in history for other films to shine. Judas and the Black Messiah, for example, explores with raw authenticity the conflict between police and political revolutionaries, so relevant to today’s current events. Nomadland follows, less skillfully in my opinion, the economically displaced of rural America, another story undeniably in need of telling.

These films have been described, with some truth, as “urgent.” But when, then, will be the urgent time to tell about the Anthonys of the world? More forgotten than anyone, no movements will be dedicated to them; no one will rally in their name. Zeller, though, knows that our engagement will be elsewhere: for his last shot, he pans to the trees outside the nursing home—the ones, unlike poor Anthony, with all their leaves, bright and bustling in the wind, going on amongst themselves with the business of being alive: business that Antony, who’ll have to content himself with a walk among them in the park later on, isn’t quite an important part of, anymore.

 

—Jim Andersen

For more reviews, see my praise for Judas and the Black Messiah.

Categories
Movie Reviews

Movie Review: Judas and the Black Messiah

Judas and the Black Messiah, written and directed by Shaka King, took me a few days to mull over, because its storytelling methods are quite unorthodox. You’d be forgiven for leaving the theater unsatisfied after seeing this impressively original movie, because whereas we expect historical dramas to embellish their facts, King seems to have, if anything, pared down his content, keeping his characters oddly flat and minimizing our engagement with their assorted concerns.

Fred Hampton (Daniel Kaluuya) is the titular black messiah, an anti-capitalist revolutionary who never wavers in his mission. In a conventional film, he might be tempted at some point by material gain or the fear of punishment—but here, truly Jesuslike, he stays true: in a late scene, he even refuses money for his own escape and directs it to be used to start a medical facility. His counterpart, Bill O’Neal (Lakeith Stanfield), is the Judas of the tale, and he’s roped in early by the FBI and never escapes.

Where, we start to wonder, are the character arcs for these individuals? Without any real changes in their attitudes or situations, the narrative begins to seem…well, a bit boring.

But King isn’t interested in making a white-knuckle thriller, nor does he want a traditional two-character study. Instead, he presents us with an atypically stoic tragedy, a pained lament for a historical figure’s early death that drops all pretense of uncertainty. In the film’s opening, we’re introduced to its five-note main theme—Best Original Score, please!—and it’s a sad, almost funereal dirge, setting King’s tone for the remainder of the film. Judas and the Black Messiah is essentially a visualized death march for Fred Hampton, a mourning of his long-assured fate from a studied admirer. Nothing is so conveyed in this film as the utter inevitability of Hampton’s eventual death: the pieces are in place from the very beginning, and nothing can change.

I think my favorite moment of the movie is when an anonymous, unseen FBI agent shouts, after examining a sedated Hampton in his bed: “He’s actually gonna make it!” It’s heartbreaking to hear, because it reminds us of what, in our hearts, we already knew: that O’Neal’s cooperation wasn’t truly essential, that Hampton would have been killed regardless of the duplicity.

We have to ask ourselves, I suppose: what is the artistic value of a film that denies us hope for its hero? In my own opinion, the value is considerable. It makes for a bleak watch, but there’s honesty in bleakness. Had King relented a bit, we might have seen something closer to Aaron Sorkin’s far inferior The Trial of the Chicago 7 (review here), which addresses highly similar themes and, unlike Judas, does employ the traditional rules of drama—but finds itself too often in corny territory and ultimately sounds an out of place, Kumbaya-style final note.

Perhaps the survival of pregnant Deborah Johnson (Dominique Fishback) is the glimmer we want: Hampton may have been doomed, but maybe, if we work hard enough, his son won’t be. Musings like this are possible, even necessary, when a director insists on a certain vision. So while his characters may not be as dynamic as we’d like, King leaves us with no less to ponder for it.

 

— Jim Andersen

For a related review, see my more negative thoughts on The Trial of the Chicago 7.

Categories
Movie Reviews

Movie Review: The Trial of the Chicago 7

Aaron Sorkin, screenwriter of some rightful cinematic classics like A Few Good Men (1992) and The Social Network (2010), as well as, more relevantly here, television shows like The West Wing (1999-2006) and The Newsroom (2012-14), has taken to the director’s chair to realize his script for the historical drama The Trial of the Chicago 7, now out on Netflix. The notorious knock on Sorkin, which he earned mostly via The West Wing, is his penchant for long-winded speechmaking and didacticism, especially as a means of promoting mainstream, diplomatic liberalism.

This new film is a transparent attempt to rewrite that reputation. Sorkin has researched a historical event highly relevant to today’s political climate, and, as usual, has written a central character—Tom Hayden, played by Eddie Redmayne—who espouses the virtues of pragmatism and restraint in order to most effectively achieve liberal victories. But this time, Sorkin wants to be hip. So he’s written Abbie Hoffman (Sasha Baron Cohen) as a witty frenemy for Hayden in order to represent the more progressive wing of liberal politics, and the two characters go at it with spirited debate about how to best conduct the fight for social justice.

Sorkin thinks he’s written an evenhanded philosophical dispute, but he’s Sorkin, so he hasn’t. In the movie’s thematic climax, when Hoffman questions Hayden’s liberal convictions, Hayden delivers this devastating, unanswerable excoriation:

Hayden: “My problem is that for the next fifty years, when people think of progressive politics, they’re gonna think of you. … They’re not gonna think of equality or justice; they’re not gonna think of education or poverty or progress. They’re gonna think of a bunch of stoned, lost, disrespectful, foul-mouthed, lawless losers, and so we’ll lose elections.”

How coincidental that Hayden’s fifty-year imagination extends forward to…right now! It’s almost as if this eerily prophetic speech was written, in fact, by a screenwriter fifty years in the future who stacked the deck for this particular character by endowing him with infallible foresight.

Hoffman protests, but he can’t erase the absolute demolition Hayden has just wreaked upon hippies and Bernie Bros everywhere. Not to fear, though, because Hoffman eventually does manage to suitably impress Hayden by revealing that he has read all of Hayden’s own writings. Hmm.

Sorkin also forays into racial tensions in America. He holds up well enough here, and there are some profound moments. They’re predicated, though, on the requirement, which, to be fair, is true to the historical record, that Bobby Searle (Yahya Abdul-Mateen) isn’t going to stick around for the whole movie. As in any old school horror, which I suppose this is in a way, the black guy goes first.

That leaves room for Hayden to steal the finale—patriotic music playing, evil judge raging—by proving once and for all that he’s one of the gang, one of the cool kids. That he’s on the right side of history.

It’s a bit of artistic anxiety: Sorkin in 2020 is worried that, with a body of work that features The West Wing, he might not be. And he could be right or wrong: I, unlike Sorkin’s characters, don’t have a screenwriter to feed me unfair prescience. Maybe pragmatic liberalism will stand the test of time. In fact, I hope it does.

But it doesn’t really matter here, because the stench of pandering transcends politics, current events, and even movie craftsmanship. Sorkin, in trying to please somebody—the Twitter universe, perhaps—has made an inauthentic film, a lowlight in his successful career. His impulse toward those pushy political radicals has always been exasperation, and that impulse is perfectly artistically valid. But it’s precisely because it is valid that it is impossible to hide, and if Sorkin keeps trying to bury it, the quality of his work will continue to suffer going forward.

 

– Jim Andersen

For more negative reviews, see my piece on Promising Young Woman.