Connect with us


Interview: Diablo Cody on Jennifer’s Body, Juno, and More

After a long day at the Toronto Film Festival, Diablo Cody called me up to talk about the movie and her continuing efforts to process unexpected fame.



Interview: Diablo Cody on Jennifer’s Body, Juno, and More

“I have this insane fear of hitting a pedestrian with my car,” Diablo Cody says when I ask her to divulge some of her fears, simultaneously answering with the kind of quirky aside that one would expect from her and gently deflecting my attempt to peek under the hood of her most intriguing creation to date, which is to say, herself. Those close to the 31-year-old memoirist and screenwriter, whose Marvel-esque civilian name is Brook Busey, have sometimes described an insecure, deeply vulnerable soul that bears little resemblance to the brash dynamo I’ve encountered twice now, the one who materialized out of the blogosphere two years ago complete with an appealing yet prismatic bio (is she a poor stripper made good? A canny feminist who toiled in the flesh trade for research? All of the above?) and a sixth media sense that enabled her to vacuum up more attention than the stars of her debut script, the pop-savvy teen pregnancy fairy tale Juno.

In her second produced screenplay, Jennifer’s Body, Cody’s verbal signature shows maturation beyond the quip-deep level, as the writer’s distinctly feminine anxieties over issues of body image and the constancy of female solidarity are laid bare by a succession of wounding barbs and pained outbursts she provides to her heroines, a pair of unlikely high-school BFFs whose friendship, grossly unequal at the outset, suffers further strain when one becomes an indestructible hellbeast. Kidnapped and made a virgin sacrifice to Satan by a desperate indie-rock singer who believes consorting with the devil is his last shot at becoming “rich and awesome, like that guy in Maroon 5,” Jennifer (Megan Fox) eventually reappears in the school hallways as a demonic echo of her former self, flashing blood-stained pearly whites at horrified friend Needy (Amanda Seyfried) and embracing her former label as a maneater in all new ways. This past Saturday, after a long day at the Toronto Film Festival, Diablo Cody called me up to talk about the movie and her continuing efforts to process unexpected fame.

How’s the festival going so far? Are you worn out?

I am totally fucking devastated. [laughs] I am tired. But it’s cool, I’m having a good time and I love Toronto. It’s good to be back here.

I saw Jennifer’s Body for the second time last night. Was that Lance Henriksen I spied near the end?

As a matter of fact, it was! An uncredited Lance Henriksen. I’m glad you’re down with that.

Totally. I hope you took him to dinner and discussed the finer points of Pumpkinhead 4.

I am so freakin’ pissed that I was not there that day. We were shooting the pilot for Tara at the same time, so I’d had to go back to L.A., and I missed Lance Day. I’m still incredibly bummed about that.

My reaction to the movie might be somewhat atypical, in that I actually felt rather sorry for Jennifer. I think it was the sacrifice scene that really sold me on her humanity.

Oh yeah, I totally feel for Jennifer. I had a lot of sympathy for her. There’s that scene, and there’s also the scene where she’s kind of perched in front of the mirror and she’s just kind of smearing makeup all over her face. You see how incredibly pathetic and vulnerable she is there. The only self-worth that she has lies in her appearance, and I actually find it heartbreaking. I felt bad for both girls, to be honest. People have been asking me if I’m more like Jennifer or more like Needy, and I’m like, “I’m not like either of them, I think both of these girls are tragic!”

I’d imagine that your facility with language helped you sail through high school more or less unscathed.

Yeah, I was one of those kids who just kind of skirts along on the perimeter and has lots of different friends. Honestly, high school was kind of a positive time for me. I know most people say it was a nightmare, but I was fairly popular in high school. I didn’t mind it so much. I like people.

We’ve all met our share of Jennifer types though. I’m sure you encountered a few.

We all know Jennifer types because society creates Jennifer types. There’s something about an insecure girl that can make her become very intimidating and creepy. But I can’t say that my high school experience was some kind of never-ending catfight, that’s not true. I’m kind of a girl’s girl, I’ve always liked girls. But yeah, we’ve all met that girl who is, like, the alpha female, the cold-blooded nightmare.

Megan Fox is something beyond though. She seems like the Terminator to me.

[laughs] She is, she is! To me, she’s just like a male action hero in the way that she carries herself, and I admire her so much. She totally has balls. She’s very intimidating and very, very focused. She’s always like a snake that’s about to strike. But also extremely likeable. If you talk to the girl for five minutes, you’ll want it to turn into 20. But yeah, I am intimidated by her, for sure.

She’s also getting a reputation for being a quote machine. Are you worried she might upstage you?

Jesus, please, please upstage me! I want to be upstaged, I never wanted this. You know what? I can’t help that I got stuck promoting Juno with a bunch of quiet people. I was having to do all the work. The serious actors didn’t want to whore themselves out to the press, so I had to do it, you know? But this time I’m like, please let’s put Amanda and Megan on display. They’re beautiful girls, they’re very articulate, they’re clever and charming, and I will be over here writing, which is what I wanted to be doing in the first place.

There are relatively few famous writers though. Why retreat? Why not assume the mantle of a public intellectual?

First of all, I’ll never be an intellectual of any stripe, but it is very cool to be a visible writer, there’s no question about that. It’s wonderful to be appreciated in a field where people don’t always get their due. A lot of writers get the shaft in Hollywood, and I’ve been incredibly lucky. At the same time, if I wanted to spend days and days talking about films with journalists—and I am not talking about you, by the way, I’m just pointing this out—I probably would have wanted to be a rock star or a movie star. Some people are just born wanting to be famous, but I never really was that. I always just wanted to write, and that’s really it, so it’s weird. I kind of became accidentally famous and it’s such a strange situation to be in.

Oh, come on. Even on Twitter you’re the big superstar.

I am not a superstar on Twitter! There are people on Twitter who have millions and millions of followers. I just have my weird little corner of Twitter where me and my people hang out.

Why do you think it is that, as a writer, you gravitated toward body horror and not something more in fashion, like suspense? Are you a Cronenberg fan?

That’s funny, I do like David Cronenberg. That’s a very, very interesting question. I’m not really sure. I don’t think I have nearly enough discipline to write something that’s suspenseful. I don’t like to wait for anything. I’d rather just have somebody pull a guy’s pants off and then eat him.

Body horror is all about the internal. Would you say your fears are more internal or external? What’s more apt to scare you, something like cancer or a madman?

[laughs] All of it! You shouldn’t even bring things like that up to someone who is OCD. Actually, most of my fears are very irrational and abstract. Like, I have this insane fear of hitting a pedestrian with my car and I’m not sure where that comes from. I think I must have done it in a past life.

I thought you might say girls are scary to you. Girl-on-girl animosity is one thread in your writing.

Nah, I love the ladies. I flew three of my ladies up here with me. I actually like to surround myself with women. From a feminist perspective, I suppose that if society ever reverted to a Handmaiden’s Tale kind of situation, I might not enjoy that.

Did you and Karyn [Kusama, the film’s director] consciously go about trying to inject a feminist viewpoint into this movie? Or is “by girls, for girls” sort of the message itself?

Well, obviously there is some feminist stuff in there, but we tried to be as subversive as possible. We know that no one wants to be hit over the head with a frying pan of a feminist movie. But we definitely had something to say, and the fact of the matter is my stance is that I just want to give women the best lines. I think about what the best lines in the movie are, and then I give them to girls. That might not seem so radical, but it doesn’t happen that often, and that’s my M.O.

I’m not sure you succeeded in this case. Nikolai has all the best lines, for my money at least.

Ah, Nikolai! That one is actually not my fault, because Adam Brody is, like, the king of improv. A lot of that funny shit that he says comes from his own mind, and we were really glad for it, ’cause he’s such a really funny guy. But he didn’t improve the Maroon 5 line, that was me.

The sacrifice scene that he presides over was legitimately unsettling, I thought. Especially when they sing a cappella to her, before murdering her. It’s a weird kind of heightened horror-comedy.

That scene was always a concern to us, because it really is dark. And we were never quite sure what to do with it. Initially, there were more jokes in that scene, because we kept trying to lighten the mood, and eventually a lot of the humor was taken out of it and it was like, okay, this is serious. We knew that this is the moment upon which the entire film hinges and so maybe they shouldn’t really be joking around. It was tough, man. There really were challenges in every scene. Is this funny enough? Is this scary enough? Too funny? Too scary? Neither?

Do you become precious about your words in those kinds of give and take moments? Are you very protective?

I am not a control freak at all. In fact, I really prefer to work with a strong, perfectionist director. That’s why I enjoyed working with Jason as well, because he had a strong point of view and he knew what he wanted the film to look like and sound like. And Karyn is the same way, and I could put my faith in them. I did put my faith in Karyn, and I trusted her. And I don’t think I would have ever hired somebody who I felt I’d need to supervise. Also, she just knows a hell of a lot more about filmmaking than I do! I mean, what do I know? I came out of nowhere and I’m very inexperienced. I like movies, but I am no expert. If somebody tells me that something is going to work, I will generally take their word for it.

You’ve been vocal about your directing ambitions in the past, and I’m sure the opportunity is there. Why aren’t you jumping in with both feet?

I have been asked, multiple times. I’ve had the opportunity, and it’s funny because it’s very hard to get into directing, and here I have the opposite situation. People have said to me, “Would you direct this film?” and I was like, “Nah.” Someday, I will. But I feel like it’s a completely different discipline, and I feel like that will be a totally different phase of my life. Right now, I want to maintain a focus on something. And I like writing, I do.

Do you have a strong visual sense? Or are we in for another Kevin Smith?

[laughs] I love Kevin Smith! I think I would be lucky to have Kevin Smith’s career, first of all. I worship that guy. I do think that I have a strong visual sense. I’m just gonna go out on a limb and say it. But I’ve been lucky enough to work with directors who will actually sit and listen to me while I describe scenes, and then they’ve incorporated part of that initial vision into their final vision. Then you have a wonderful baby together.

So you and Karyn were of one mind when it came to the thematic elements? It was generally easy to get onto the same page, conceptually?

You know, I was lucky because as a producer I was able to help select a director, and of course you want to work with somebody that you have a rapport with, and where you’re not going to be constantly second-guessing each other and having to, like, translate each other. We had kind of the same sensibility, I think. We actually both have a very weird point of view. The first time I met Karyn she brought along a look book that contained all these images that had inspired her when she was reading the script, and I looked at it and it was so weird and surreal and bloody. She even had some pictures in there from Dario Argento movies, and I said, all right, I think you and I are going to have a connection and I think that we can do this together.

I liked her choice to include very brief, non-eventful flashbacks to Jennifer and Needy on the playground as toddlers. It’s a reminder that just because Jennifer isn’t deep, that doesn’t mean the relationship isn’t.

Absolutely. I think everybody has that friend that they’ve had since childhood and maybe that friendship has become toxic at this point. You just have nothing in common anymore, and there’s really no reason for you to be speaking to this person at all, and yet you can’t stop. There’s a bond there that has become almost like a sibling bond. If someone has known you since you were preverbal, then you’re going to continue feeling connected to them no matter what.

Were you and Karyn concerned that the big kiss between Needy and Jennifer might be misconstrued as a kind of lipstick-lesbian exploitation? The motivation on Needy’s part is pretty subtextual.

It would be homophobic to call that kiss gratuitous. If you had two characters in a movie who had preexisting sexual tension, who were at an incredibly heightened moment in their relationship, and they kissed—and it was a guy and a girl—not only would people not call it gratuitous, they’d call it tame. But because it’s two women, it becomes gratuitous? It’s like, I can’t help it that they’re incredibly fucking hot. If you can’t handle it, I’m sorry. You can go jerk off afterwards. It just seems crazy to me. But you know, it’s really funny because I’ve been doing a lot of foreign press today and it’s so much fun talking to all the European journalists because they think it’s just hilarious that anyone would find that sensationalistic.

Not that sensationalism is a bad thing, necessarily. I don’t mind telling you that as an audience member I was not amused by Megan Fox doing a swimming scene with no nudity.

[laughs] There was never going to be any nudity! I wanted there to be, actually. I’m all for nudity in horror movies, I think it can be really effective. I mean, there’s no one more vulnerable than a naked person. But as for Megan and Amanda, we knew from the beginning that our leads were not going to do nudity. I think there was a lot of confusion there. The swimming scene, unfortunately, would never have been nude, which is something that I’ve actually said a million times, but nobody ever listens to me.

Did you circle the wagons when those nude photos of Megan from the swimming set surfaced online?

I also missed that one, because I was on my nice, drama-free set back in Los Angeles. But I think that was incredibly shitty, what happened to her, to be honest with you. And you know what? I honestly do understand that bloggers have to make a living, so they have to get pageviews, but I think it really sucks to take stolen, long-lens paparazzi photos and put them up on the Internet and humiliate someone. I was not pleased with the fact that those pictures surfaced like that, I can assure you. And at first it was like, is this some kind of inside job? I didn’t know and I was kind of shocked. But I know who did it.

Did you go after him?

I found out too late. It was just some asshole.

So, how long is Universal going to keep sitting on your college misadventures script, Girly Style?

Ugh, God. Can we just get that movie made already? I actually still have to do a rewrite on it. I got some notes on it and then I got, like, completely waylaid by the television process. Tara is really all-consuming. I spend pretty much all of my time on that show, and my feature stuff has slowed up a little bit, but I definitely do need to do that one. I think that, especially in the post-Hangover world, we desperately need some kind of a crazy chick buddy movie.

I know you wrote that one and the others quite a while ago. Have you already grown out of, or moved on from that distinctive teen-speak voice that people identify you with?

I’ve definitely tried to do that in the years since I wrote Juno and Jennifer’s Body, and I do feel like my writing style has matured significantly. I can do other things. You know, sometimes when I’m on Tara I’ll just write a very straightforward emotional scene or a really clinical scene and I’ll just toss it in there and people don’t even know that was my work. But yet, at the same time, I feel like there aren’t really a ton of screenwriters out there with a distinctive style. Most of them are more like hired guns, so even if everybody out there doesn’t like my style, or if it starts to seem tired, I’m happy to have a style. The establishment has fed me well, and I’m not going to bite the hand.

But you’re still chronicling your adventures in Hollywood, right? Last time we spoke you talked about making a new memoir out of your unlikely rise.

I’m still doing it! Oh, my God. I hope I can finish it, because I feel like I have so much to say, but the only problem is that it’s constantly evolving, and so I never really know where to stop. I mean, I started writing this book, what, two years ago? And when I think about everything that’s happened since then, it’s like, holy shit. All of that was just prologue. I feel like I have so many stories, but it’s hard to organize those thoughts. Sometimes I’ll have a particularly crazy day on set and I’ll think to myself, well, that’s a chapter right there. I also think sometimes that I should try to include that whole surreal awards experience. That could be a chapter, you know? That could be a whole book.

Do you feel like you’re getting the respect you’ve earned, this time around? No more condescension from certain types?

I’ve earned nothing. I’m still just a beginner in the grand scheme of things. I’ve really not written a whole lot. And I don’t feel that I’ve proven myself, although I did have a very lucky break at the beginning. The fact of the matter is, I would prefer it if people didn’t condescend to me, but I don’t deserve any kind of special regard. I welcome kindness.

We’re committed to keeping our content free and accessible—meaning no paywalls or subscription fees—so if you like what we do, please consider becoming a SLANT patron:


Oscar 2020 Winner Predictions: Animated Short

Another year, another reminder to take our prediction in this category with a grain of salt.



Photo: Vivement Lundi

Another year, another reminder to take our prediction in this category with a grain of salt. Since 2002, when we first started predicting the Oscar winners, we’ve guessed correctly in this category only eight times, and five of those were in the aughts, when one or more Disney shorts consistently lost to considerably more outré productions. It was a long dry spell for the studio between For the Birds taking the prize in 2002 and Paperman doing so in 2012. Disney now perseveres more times than not, which is why we’re given pause by the fact that, even though this is only the third time since 2002 that the studio doesn’t have a film in the lineup, two nominees here could be described as “Disney-adjacent.”

One of those, Matthew A. Cherry and Karen Rupert Toliver’s charming and poignant Hair Love, had us busting out the hashtags (#OscarsSoWhite, #EverythingIsSoWhite, #WhiteWhiteWhiteIsTheColorOfOurCarpet), wondering if the guilt that AMPAS has about its diversity problems may be a victory-securing source of momentum. That Issa Rae, who saltily congratulated the men in the best director category when she announced this year’s Oscar nominees alongside John Cho, provides the voice for this short about a black father who learns to style his daughter’s hair in the absence of the girl’s mother feels as if it can only help.

At the same time, each day since the Oscar nominations were announced last week seems to bring one of those dreaded articles in which some anonymous academy member is asked about their picks ahead of deadline, and Michael Musto’s recent chat with one such voter has us convinced more than ever that guilt isn’t the average academy member’s chief motivator. Besides, Hair Love faces stiff competition from another Disney-ish, hit-‘em-in-the-feels candidate, Kitbull, which concerns the unlikely kinship that forms between a cat and a dog. It certainly tugged at our heartstrings, and in spite of the short’s bug-eyed cat at times alternately, and distractingly, reminding us of a mouse and an inkblot.

Perhaps inevitably, we found ourselves drawn to the more outré nominees. Siqi Song’s beautifully textured Sister doesn’t lack for memorable images, but my favorite is the one where the brother at the center of the short pulls on his giant baby sister’s outie-cum-Silly-String-umbilical-cord until the child shrinks down to size. This is an at once idiosyncratic and somber meditation on China’s one-child policy, but it left one of us wondering, in the wake of Nanfu Wang and Jialing Zhang’s One Child Nation being snubbed this year by the academy, if it would resonate with enough voters, and two of us certain that a sizeable portion of the academy’s more liberal members would take more than just the “I had fingerprints four weeks after conception” bit as something akin to a big pro-life billboard.

Remember this old Sesame Street bit? Eric sure did while watching Daughter, a striking rumination about the emotional distance between a father and daughter. Daria Kashcheeva’s expressionistic use of stop motion is haunting, even if the short, amid so much abstraction, doesn’t always evoke believable people. More approachable is Memorable, where the very nature of what can be believed and remembered is the governing principle. All the way until its stunning finale, Bruno Collet and Jean-François Le Corre’s confluence of styles (there are shades here of the “psychorealism” that won Chris Landreth an Oscar in 2005 for Ryan) is in profound conversation with the idea of dementia as a destructuring agent. We’re no strangers to wrongly betting on our favorite short persevering on Oscar night, but Disney consistently loses in years where it has more than one film gunning for this award, so we’re betting that the two Disney-ish shorts will split the vote and pave the way for a Memorable victory.

Will Win: Memorable

Could Win: Hair Love

Should Win: Memorable

We’re committed to keeping our content free and accessible—meaning no paywalls or subscription fees—so if you like what we do, please consider becoming a SLANT patron:
Continue Reading


Oscar 2020 Winner Predictions: Sound Editing

It’s not difficult to rationalize picking the same film to win both sound editing and sound mixing.



Ford v. Ferrari
Photo: 20th Century Fox

The movement to merge the two Oscar categories for sound into just one is finally picking up some steam after an academy subcommittee favored consolidation in December, but we regret to inform you that the exceptionally rational decision hasn’t yet been ratified, and thus won’t spare us one more year of double-feature kvetching. While the nominating members of the sound branch might know the exact difference between sound mixing and sound editing, and while compulsory Oscar blogging has forced us to know the exact difference as well, numerous academy members clearly don’t.

Case in point: Last year they awarded Bohemian Rhapsody its expected award in sound mixing, where musicals always have an advantage, but also an upset win in sound editing. Unless voters metabolized Singer’s violent blitzkrieg of a film and simply misremembered hearing explosions throughout, that’s not the vote of an informed electorate.

From our perspective as prognosticators, though, it’s not difficult to rationalize picking the same film to win both awards, especially in the absence of a musical. While there have been plenty of years we’ve carbon-copied our predicted winner in both categories only to see them split (even three ways, as in 2012, when Les Misérables took sound mixing, and Skyfall and Zero Dark Thirty tied for sound editing), getting one prediction right is better than getting none at all, especially in a year like this where, to judge from both slates, sound equals fury.

One thing’s fairly certain: You can probably go ahead and count out Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker. Not only has the new trilogy failed to add any more Oscar wins to the franchise, never once has a Star Wars film won an award for its sound effects, not even the first one (that year, a special award was given to Close Encounters of the Third Kind). Episodes seven and eight lost to, respectively, a chase movie and a war movie, and this year’s top two contenders here are arguably the exact same pairing. While 1917 is still considered by many to be a frontrunner for best picture, we’re pretty sure the onslaught of vintage motors roaring for the climactic quarter-hour of Ford v. Ferrari will get voters right in the dad spot.

Will Win: Ford v. Ferrari

Could Win: 1917

Should Win: Ford v. Ferrari

We’re committed to keeping our content free and accessible—meaning no paywalls or subscription fees—so if you like what we do, please consider becoming a SLANT patron:
Continue Reading


Oscar 2020 Winner Predictions: Animated Feature

Forky rules.



Toy Story 4
Photo: Walt Disney Studios

Completist-prone Oscar prognosticators were dealt a merciful hand last week when the Oscar nominations were announced and Frozen II didn’t show up in this category. But the winning hand belongs to Toy Story 4, which likely lost the Golden Globe to Missing Link as a result of a vote split between the two Disney properties. Sentiment to reward the American-based production studio Laika is brewing, and the fitfully droll Missing Link will, like Kubo and the Two Strings before it, probably find favor at the BAFTAs, but Laika’s latest and most expensive production to date dramatically bombed at the box office. And while no one will be weighing between the film and I Lost My Body, a singularly and actively morose and creepy film that won’t appeal to the academy at large, this category’s short history tells us that the Mouse House is only vulnerable to the biggest money makers. Also, Forky rules.

Will Win: Toy Story 4

Could Win: Missing Link

Should Win: I Lost My Body

We’re committed to keeping our content free and accessible—meaning no paywalls or subscription fees—so if you like what we do, please consider becoming a SLANT patron:
Continue Reading


Oscar 2020 Winner Predictions: Supporting Actor

Pitt winning here will seem like the stars are lining up given what went down when he was first nominated in 1995.



Once Upon a Hollywood
Photo: Columbia Pictures

We didn’t predict Anthony Hopkins to get nominated here, thinking that the Golden Globes’s enthusiasm for The Two Popes was a fluke. We were wrong, and he ended up becoming the elder statesman in an acting lineup that contains, on average, by far the oldest nominees. The person we predicted to get in instead, Marriage Story’s Alan Alda, is a year older than Hopkins, so we certainly weren’t betting the farm on any male ingénues.

On the other hand, it sure feels like spry 56-year-old Brad Pitt, who opened his acceptance speech at last night’s SAG Awards with a joke about having a Tinder profile, had this award in the bag the moment his Marlboro Man-ish handyman hopped atop his buddy’s roof to fix the antenna in Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood, whipping off his shirt to reveal a tawny, fully-abbed torso that scarcely seems to have aged in the nearly 30 years since he seduced the country in Thelma & Louise. He, as Leonardo DiCaprio’s co-lead, has a lot more to do throughout than just doff tees, but the “I’m still here” virility of that moment embodies the entire film’s love letter to old-guard masculinity in Tinseltown.

Not that anyone’s reading too deeply into it, not when there’s good old-fashioned awards numerology to fall back on. Within minutes of the nominations being announced, Oscar Twitter jumped on the fact that the best supporting actor slate this year is composed of acting winners from 1990 (Joe Pesci), 1991 (Anthony Hopkins), 1992 (Al Pacino), and 1993 and 1994 (Tom Hanks). Fewer pointed out that Pitt was also a nominee in 1995 for 12 Monkeys, losing out to the now-canceled Kevin Spacey. Which makes it seem all the more poetically like the stars are lining up when Pitt wins for a film whose finale proposes a rousing bit of alternate, corrective history in which the “good” guys obliterate the “bad” ones.

Will Win: Brad Pitt, Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood

Could Win: Joe Pesci, The Irishman

Should Win: Tom Hanks, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood

We’re committed to keeping our content free and accessible—meaning no paywalls or subscription fees—so if you like what we do, please consider becoming a SLANT patron:
Continue Reading


Oscar 2020 Winner Predictions: Documentary Feature

Every film nominated in this category grapples with the nature of freedom in a world gripped by war and shaped by technology.



For Sama
Photo: PBS

Few Oscar categories are bigger snub magnets than this one. And while the failure of Apollo 11 to secure a nomination this year was indeed surprising, it was not as telling as the omission of The Biggest Little Farm, a handsomely, if conspicuously, sculpted “pop” documentary that’s very much in the academy’s wheelhouse. It was almost as if the committee responsible for selecting the nominees here was sending a message by embracing, at a time of increased global instability, five documentaries that looked only outward: not at mankind’s possibilities, but at the ways in which we’ve become our own worst enemy.

When discussing the potential winner in this category, Eric and I were pulled in two different directions. “Doc will go American Factory and, by extension, the Obamas, right?” Eric asked. “Honeyland notched an Oscar record by being the first documentary to also be nominated for international feature. That has to mean something?” I asked. Which is to say that he and I, no strangers to this Oscar-predicting process, were sacrificing ourselves to rigamarole, forgetting that, at the end of the day, academy members vote with their hearts above all else.

Every film nominated in this category grapples with the nature of freedom in a world gripped by war and shaped by technology. American Factory specifically takes the closing of a Chinese-owned factory in Ohio as a jumping-off point for a study of the wiles of global capitalism, and it’s every bit as smart as you might expect from a film produced by the Obamas. A more sobering reminder of how the global order of the world has been cataclysmically disrupted in the last four years is another Netflix documentary, The Edge of Democracy, about Brazil’s own national(ist) sickness. It’s a harrowing lament, but it offers the viewer no sense of escape.

Which isn’t to say that the The Cave and especially For Sama, both filmed in Syria and in the midst of war there, are escapist. The two most viscerally powerful documentaries in the category confront us with the chaos of imperial domination. Both films center the female experience of war, but For Sama does so more shrewdly, positing itself not just as a chronicle of war, but an act of remembrance. In a film that doesn’t lack for gut-wrenching images of the dead, one particularly stands out: of a child, after being pulled from its wounded mother’s womb via C section in the wake of a bombing, being brought back to life. Combined with the scenes depicting the citizens of war-torn Aleppo finding humor in the midst of conflict, the film attests not only to the perseverance of the Syrian people, but to the possibility that the country might still be brought back from the edge of oblivion.

Will Win: For Sama

Could Win: The Cave

Should Win: For Sama

We’re committed to keeping our content free and accessible—meaning no paywalls or subscription fees—so if you like what we do, please consider becoming a SLANT patron:
Continue Reading


Oscar 2020 Winner Predictions: Makeup and Hairstyling

There doesn’t seem to be much standing in the way of the triumph of the red, white, and blue neo-Juggalo.



Photo: Warner Bros.

We couldn’t really say it any better than Odie Henderson, who recently scoffed: “Who wins the Costume Design Oscar for Joker? The Goodwill? Who wins the Makeup Oscar for Joker? A blind Mary Kay consultant?” While we think the Academy will stop short of awarding the motley threads of Todd Phillips’s risible throwback machine in the costume category, the fact that they were nominated at all over, say, the imaginatively garish ‘70s finery that Ruth Carter created for Dolemite Is My Name indicates a level of affection for Joker that no one who doesn’t use the word “snowflake” on a daily basis seems prepared for.

While, to us, Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker looks like nothing so much as Marge after sitting still for a makeup gun, as Homer put it best, “Women will like what I tell them to like.” From his lips to the Academy’s ears (and face). And given this category’s expansion didn’t add more multicolored prosthetic creations along the lines of Maleficent: Mistress of Evil, but instead more invisible character augmentation along the lines of Judy and Bombshell, there doesn’t seem to be much standing in the way of the triumph of the red, white, and blue neo-Juggalo.

Will Win: Joker

Could Win: Judy

Should Win: Maleficent: Mistress of Evil

We’re committed to keeping our content free and accessible—meaning no paywalls or subscription fees—so if you like what we do, please consider becoming a SLANT patron:
Continue Reading


Oscar 2020 Winner Predictions: International Feature Film

Parasite is a pervasive presence in the news cycle, and at just the right time.



Photo: Neon

Bong Joon-ho’s Parasite is a pervasive presence in the news cycle, and at just the right time. As I write this latest prediction for Slant’s rolling Oscar coverage, the top article on the front page of Rotten Tomatoes is a ranking, by Tomatometer, of the nine films nominated for best picture this year. Number one? Parasite. Immediately next to that article is a callout to readers to vote for their favorite film of 2019 that uses Song Kang-ho’s face from Parasite’s poster as the featured image. Regarding that poster, in simply placing black bars over the actors’ faces, it succinctly, eerily, perfectly underlines the film’s obsession with social strata. And you don’t need to look far beyond the aggregate site to land on some article praising the perfectly lit and designed architectural purgatory that is the film’s main setting.

Perfect. That’s a funny word. There are no objectively measurable criteria for perfection, but given how many times I’ve heard Bong’s film described as being “perfect” since it premiered at the Cannes Film Festival, where it won the Palme d’Or, you’d think that there were. Still, the impulse to use it to describe this particular film, so balanced and attuned to the ties that both bind and separate us, evident in everything from the dimensions of Bong’s aesthetic, to his actors’ faces, to their words, makes a certain kind of sense. Quick, can you name the other four films nominated in this category? How apt if you can’t, as this is a film profoundly obsessed with the subterfuge that can be weaponized during class warfare. Or awards campaigns.

Will Win: Parasite

Could Win: Pain and Glory

Should Win: Parasite

We’re committed to keeping our content free and accessible—meaning no paywalls or subscription fees—so if you like what we do, please consider becoming a SLANT patron:
Continue Reading


Oscar 2020 Winner Predictions: Original Score

John Williams is in no danger of winning, but a case could be made for any of the other four.



Photo: Warner Bros.

That one of the five films nominated for original score this year is not a best picture nominee nor had any shot at being one almost makes this category an outlier among this year’s Oscar races, which seem otherwise fixated on frontrunners. John Williams already had the record-setting strength of 51 previous nominations leading into this week’s announcement, so his nod for the third Star Wars installment, or sixth, or ninth, or…does The Mandalorian count? Anyway, suffice it to say that the only thing that could’ve been more knee-jerk than to select nominations solely from among this year’s best picture probables would be to rubber stamp Williams uploading yet more variations on intellectual property.

Williams is in no danger of winning, but a case could be made for any of the other four. Alexandre Desplat already has two wins here, both in the last six years, but Little Women is finally picking up momentum at just the right time. His richly romantic cues, which are practically wall to wall throughout the film, come on like a crushed-velvet dust jacket, binding Greta Gerwig’s shifting timeline together in a way that makes just about everyone who isn’t Sasha Stone want to clutch the entire thing to their bosoms.

Arguably, another film that’s still reaching its crest stage is 1917, and unlike Desplat, composer Thomas Newman is still waiting for his first win, and now holding the category’s longest losing streak. It can’t be said that Newman doesn’t pull out all the stops, piecing together a work that feels inspired by both Hans Zimmer’s pulsating Dunkirk score and Samuel Barber’s “Adagio for Strings,” most memorably used in Oliver Stone’s Platoon. And yet, we’re kind of with Bilge Ebiri, who after the nominations were announced, tweeted, “You didn’t give it to DUNKIRK, you’re not allowed to give it to 1917. Sorry, we’re very strict on this matter.”

Not to say that we expect 1917 to roll snake eyes on its 10 nominations. Only that any nominations for the film related to things that Dunkirk already did better two years ago are a tough sell, despite the draw of Newman’s increasingly amplified Oscar backstory. That’s presuming that the narrative doesn’t wind up over-shadowed by the sidebar-friendly cousin’s duel between Thomas and his cousin, Randy Newman, whose jaunty, Terms of Endearment-esque Marriage Story score appears to have as many detractors as it has fans.

Until the nominations were announced, we admit to assuming that Hildur Guðnadóttir’s Golden Globe win for Todd Phillips’s Joker was going to go down the same way as Justin Hurwitz’s did a year ago: with an Oscar snub. We reasoned that Guðnadóttir, who also perked ears up and won an Emmy last year for her work on HBO’s Chernobyl, was still too fresh a talent for the more cliquey AMPAS musicians’ branch. But now that she’s there, Globe in hand and attached to the film that, by the numbers, the academy loved best this year, she offers even conscience-wracked voters the chance to hand a feature-length 4chan fantasy a guilt-free win by also awarding one of the film’s few female nominees.

Will Win: Hildur Guðnadóttir, Joker

Could Win: Thomas Newman, 1917

Should Win: Alexandre Desplat, Little Women

We’re committed to keeping our content free and accessible—meaning no paywalls or subscription fees—so if you like what we do, please consider becoming a SLANT patron:
Continue Reading


Under the Radar 2020: The Shadow Whose Prey the Hunter Becomes, Not I, & More

Experiencing the Under the Radar Festival replaces the usual sense of familiarity with a sense of wonder.



The Shadow Whose Prey the Hunter Becomes
Photo: Public Theater

Most of the plays I see in New York City are created by able-bodied, Anglophone playwrights. (More often than not they’re men, and more often than not they’re white.) For most New York theater critics, most of the time, “international” means “imported from London.” If it doesn’t, it probably means “directed by Ivo van Hove.” But at the Under the Radar Festival, the Public Theater’s 16-year-old annual international theatrical extravaganza, the thoughtfully curated program of new works blasts apart the predictable comfort of knowing what you’re getting yourself into.

Despite the relentless pace, marathoning in a festival setting like Under the Radar works against the critical impulse to get in and get out. Lingering in playing spaces beyond the curtain call to soak in the experience and seeking threads of connections between plays before cementing my verdict on any are rarer opportunities than I’d realized.

Experiencing the Under the Radar Festival—especially taking in shows at high quantity in quick succession—replaces the usual sense of familiarity with a sense of wonder. I haven’t adored every offering at this year’s festival, but, in each theater space, I’ve been keenly, refreshingly alert to my presence and my perspective as an audience member, to the ways in which I hear and watch and engage. I’ve looked sideways as well as dead ahead, and over the weekend, I saw two performances that required lengthy, committed conversations with the strangers sitting next to me. (And that’s especially valuable for critics, who sometimes need the reminder that other people’s opinions coexist alongside ours.)

This year’s lineup of plays has been particularly successful in making audiences acutely aware of themselves as a whole, as people who lug assumptions and anxieties and uncertainties into their seats. Take The Shadow Whose Prey the Hunter Becomes, the first play I saw this season and the festival’s most rewarding in its complexity. Throughout its hour-long run time, I had occasionally taken note of a long strip of yellow tape at the front of the playing space. During the play, the four actors, all of whom are neurodivergent and play characters who are neurodivergent, frequently step up to that line to speak to the audience. I imagined the line as a necessary, neon beacon for the performers to find their way forward.

The Shadow Whose Prey the Hunter Becomes

A scene from The Shadow Whose Prey the Hunter Becomes. © The Public

Yet, in the final moments of the play, actor Simon Laherty (who also co-wrote the script with his castmates and other members of the Back to Back Theatre, an Australian company), tears the tape off the floor and exits. The gesture reads as a direct rebuke to the very ideas I’d been holding for the play’s duration: It seems to ask, ”Who are you to assume that the world of this play was built for its performers instead of for the characters they play? How can you, sitting there, decide what we, putting on a show for you up here, need in order to perform?” And I wondered, not for the first time: How did they read my mind?

Directed by Back to Back’s artistic director, Bruce Gladwin, The Shadow Whose Prey the Hunter Becomes stars four performers with disabilities playing characters (with their own first names) who host a sort of town hall meeting to educate the people in attendance about what it’s like to have a disability. The shared names between characters and actors are a red herring. These actors have disabilities, yes, but that doesn’t mean the characters with disabilities they play are them, any more than neurotypical roles match the neurotypical actors playing them. Again and again, through moves so subtle I’m not sure I didn’t imagine them, The Shadow Whose Prey the Hunter Becomes sets graceful, invisible traps for the audience’s assumptions about the capabilities of the performers and the distance between performer and character. And while I’m not entirely sure of the title’s meaning, it might have something to do with the play’s constant shadowy evasion of comforting resolutions: Never once is an audience member allowed to feel like they have mastered the art of empathy.

An early sequence seems deliberate in putting an audience on edge, as the long stretches of silence as actor Sarah Mainwaring prepares to speak made me wonder whether it was the actor or the character who had forgotten her lines. Was this discomforting silence performed or real? It’s part of the play, of course, just like most of neurotypical theater’s long pauses. But I feel sure that The Shadow Whose Prey the Hunter Becomes anticipated my discomfort and my doubt. That dark cocktail of emotions following the clarifying moments—relieved admiration for the performers, guilt for the assumptions I had made, embarrassment that I had been caught feeling uneasy—stayed with me for the rest of the play’s rich hour.

In that regard, The Shadow Whose Prey the Hunter Becomes is very much about the audience, and there’s nimble, layered playfulness as the characters obsess around whether the imagined audience at the town hall meeting are understanding their message. And while some of the sections of the text work better than others (I’m not sure about the suggestion that everyone will be deemed disabled when artificial intelligence overtakes human thought), the actors also engage brilliantly with the supertitles, which are supposedly transcribed live at the meeting by Siri. Supertitles seem at first like a tool for us, the audience, to understand the performers’ speech. As Scott Price laments, “I have autism, and, unfortunately for me, I also have a thick Australian accent.” But the projected text also doubles as a symbol for the dehumanization of people on the spectrum. “You can tell we have disabilities as everything we say comes upon a screen,” Sarah notes with disdain. “The subtitling is offensive.”

This point of view leads to a heated argument about language and representation, with Scott claiming the label of disability: “I’m a disabled person here and I’m proud and I don’t want to weave my way around language.” But there’s no unified front in how these four characters perceive themselves and seek to be perceived.

Perhaps the play’s sharpest touch is that Michael and Scott talk down to Simon, describing him as “very childlike” and insinuating that he can’t understand what’s going on or fully participate in the meeting. Sarah calls them out on this (“You’re talking like Simon’s not even in the room”), and it’s not just an indictment of how individuals with disabilities can be dehumanized to their faces but also an illuminating glance into how internalized measures of normalcy have permeated the disability community. This quartet of characters doesn’t include heroes or victims or saints and the play relishes in catching the audience in the act of attaching such labels to the performers. It’s a play I want to see again in order to try again, to use what I’ve learned from my first encounter with Back to Back to do better the next time.

If The Shadow Whose Prey the Hunter Becomes invites us to project imagined limitations on to the performers and then to watch those assumptions crumble, the creator of Samuel Beckett’s Not I at BRIC (the Brooklyn venue hosting this show) wants us to know exactly what to expect from the beginning. Yes, this is a performance—and an exhilarating one—of Beckett’s 15-minute, stream-of-consciousness monologue, first performed in 1972, but this production positions the piece at the center of a conversation with the performer, Jess Thom.

Thom, who’s best known in the U.K. for Touretteshero, an alter ego aimed at educating and spreading awareness of Tourette’s syndrome, has a number of repeating verbal tics that spark from her speech: Among the most frequent are “biscuit,” “sausage,” and “I love cats,” plus a few words and phrases that aren’t quite so “cute,” as Thom describes them. Unlike The Shadow Whose Prey the Hunter Becomes, the sense of unpredictability here is shared by the performers. A few times throughout the day, Thom explains, she will lose control over her body and speech, and this possibility creates a space of “genuine jeopardy.”

Not I

A scene from Not I. © James Lyndsay

Such pre-show disclaimers are neither warnings nor apologies but a crucial aspect of Thom’s central work here: envisioning a truly inclusive performance space and then co-creating that space with her audience. There are no surprises in Not I. Thom explains, in detail, that her wheelchair will be lifted eight feet into the air atop a hydraulic lift; that only her mouth will be lit (as in all productions of Beckett’s monologue); that an ASL interpreter (the warmly expressive Lindsey D. Snyder) will sign every word of Beckett’s explosively high-velocity text, plus each unexpected tic along the way; that the post-performance experiences will include watching a video, discussing the monologue with a stranger, and participating in a Q&A.

The audience sits on padded benches and pillows on the floor, and Thom invites people to move and make noise during the piece as needed. An online guide to the performance even includes a sound map, alerting audience members to patches of loud noise, like applause and a section of the monologue featuring terrifying screams. With its shrieks and terrorizing, relentless intensity, Not I certainly defies expectations for the sorts of theater pieces that tend to offer relaxed, inclusive performances. But by reclaiming the character of Mouth through the lens of disability, Thom has made the jumbled thoughts of the character suddenly specific and, if not quite understandable, accessible through empathy.

Though Beckett meant for Not I to unnerve its auditors with its impenetrableness, Thom uses the text to grant entry into her own experiences of losing control over her own speech and movement. Thom’s tics remain present throughout the monologue, absorbed into the labyrinthine, spontaneous stitches of Mouth’s words. In fact, as Thom explained in the Q&A section, the tics actually multiply to fill the spaces between breakneck sections of monologue; the speed with which she articulates the text temporarily displaces her tics, “like a stone in water,” but they flow back in during Beckett’s indicated silences. “My version of silence,” Thom clarified, often sounds like eight or 10 “biscuits” in a row. If we can embrace and understand the charismatic, wisecracking Thom, we should be able to extend that compassion toward embracing and understanding her version of Mouth too.

After the performance of Beckett’s monologue, Thom sits on the floor as a short video about the making of this piece plays. In the video, Thom attributes her emergence as a performer to the exclusion and isolation she experiences as an audience member: on-stage seemed to be “the only seat in the house I wouldn’t be asked to leave.” And even as we hear her words, their truth immediately confirms itself: It’s only during this section of the performance—a few minutes in which Thom herself is not visible as she sits in the dark—that I reverted to experiencing Thom’s tics as disruption or interruption. At the exact moment I was nodding along with the video’s celebration of inclusive theatrical spaces, I was simultaneously sensing my own flashes of concern or maybe frustration or maybe fear that someone sitting beside me in the darkness was breaking the sacred rules of stillness and silence. With love and warmth and unvarying good humor, Thom manages to shine a glaring, pointed spotlight on our own limitations as compassionate stewards of the spaces we strive to co-inhabit. Then she asks us to look around the room and gives us the chance, right then and there, to change.

The limitations of the human intellect—and the human spirit—are put to the test in Grey Rock, an English-language commission by Palestinian playwright-director Amir Nizar Zuabi which premiered at La MaMa a year ago. Zuabi’s play, besides being performed in English, boasts an instantly recognizable form: It’s a family comedy, actually one of the funniest I’ve seen in a while, with a bittersweetness that calls to mind, in a very different geopolitical context, Neil Simon’s Brighton Beach Memoirs and Broadway Bound.

Grey Rock

A scene from Grey Rock. © Carlos Cardona

Lila (Fidaa Zaidan) is perplexed that her father, the widower Yusuf (Khalifa Natour), has suddenly started working out vigorously. Why the sudden focus on getting in shape? At first she thinks he’s seeing someone new—it’s been three years since her mother died—but that doesn’t explain why he’s also spending hours assembling mechanical parts in his shed with a brilliant young engineer, Fadel (Ivan Kevork Azazian). Yusuf’s plan, it turns out, is to build a rocket to the moon, a feat that will put Palestinian fortitude and ingenuity on the map.

It’s in Yusuf’s very insistence that his rocket-building is about humanity rather than political conflict that Zuabi’s play becomes, in fact, forcefully political. Much like The Shadow Whose Prey the Hunter Becomes foretells the audience’s expectations of the performers’ failures, Grey Rock anticipates the need for viewers to see conflict and war in every image and line of dialogue with Palestine attached to it.

Israel is a reality in the world of Grey Rock, of course, and one which diminishes what some of these characters think they can become: Fadel describes the Israeli forces as “stop signs for the imagination” and Yusuf later tells Lila’s ill-matched fiancé Jawad (Alaa Shehada), “You have the occupation [as] your excuse for your lack of creativity.” But Zuabi seems less interested in using the play to protest the Israeli presence in Palestine than in advocating for a Palestinian uprising of imagination and creativity in the face of dehumanization. There’s an aspect of 21st-century fairy tale to Grey Rock’s structure and plot twists, but the play remains grounded enough to suggest real-world pathways forward for oppressed peoples to dream big. (The fact that these performers, who all identify as Palestinian, have overcome complex visa hurdles to perform in New York twice in the span of a year, is a dream realized already.) Except for the final scene (a tonal shift that doesn’t entirely pay off), Grey Rock keeps the darkness at bay. The Israeli occupying forces are a constant off-stage presence, an invisible menace that the characters must sometimes ignore in order to live and shape their own stories.

Most of the story careens through amusingly familiar tropes, but it’s a familiarity that seems to be there by design. I think I would have found Grey Rock just as absorbing in supertitled Arabic, but there’s something appealing in the transparency with which it draws us in. The play was written for English speakers, with the intention of exposing the ordinary vibrancy of quotidian Palestinian existence. Knowing some of the well-trodden arcs of the plot in advance narrows the space between Anglophone audiences and the world they encounter.

Zuabi is a far nimbler writer than director; the play’s magnetic energy only diminishes in its awkwardly staged moments of physical comedy and occasionally rudderless transitions between scenes. But his dialogue briskly fleshes out his five characters, who also include the village’s anxious imam (Motaz Malhees). There’s a particularly delightful rapport between Natour’s gruff stargazer and Azazian’s overeager yet tentative assistant.

Beyond the crisp comedy, the relationship between Yusuf and his beloved, aspiring daughter Lila feels almost operatic in its balance of tenderness and tumult: Lila harbors years of resentment that her father allowed himself to be jailed for anti-occupation propaganda, leaving her mother to raise Lila independently for five years. When Yusuf leaps to his feet jubilantly upon hearing that Lila’s broken off her engagement, and then tries to backtrack his demonstrativeness, it’s both hilarious and sweetly moving.

I’m not sure if Zuabi deliberately snuck in one particular idiom for this festival run: “I order things in small quantities so I go under the radar,” Yusuf says, explaining his rocket-in-progress to an ever-expanding community of supporters. But to go Under the Radar, the Public has ordered up a series of shows which are anything but small in their expansive commitment to transforming audiences, preparing them to be more perceptive, empathetic people, perhaps even in time for the next performance.

Under the Radar runs from January 8—19.

We’re committed to keeping our content free and accessible—meaning no paywalls or subscription fees—so if you like what we do, please consider becoming a SLANT patron:
Continue Reading


Oscar 2020 Winner Predictions: Actress

Well hi, everybody, it’s nice to see you.



Renée Zellweger
Photo: LD Entertainment

Well hi, everybody, it’s nice to see you. Loyal readers of Slant’s Oscar coverage know that we don’t like to beat around the bush, and this year we have even less reason to do so what with the accelerated awards calendar forcing us to kick-start our rolling predictions earlier than usual. So, as we busy ourselves in the next few days catching up with some remaining blindspots, and being thankful that we don’t actually ever have to see Cats, we will be bringing you our predictions in some of Oscar’s easier-to-call categories.

Which isn’t to say that we’re going to be drama-free. Case in point: the revelation that Eric Henderson, my fellow awards guru, made on Twitter this week that “Scarlett Johansson is genuinely better in Jojo Rabbit than in Marriage Story.” He also asked us to throw the tweet back in this face four or five years from now, but I say right now is as good a time as any.

No, seriously, shocking as that tweet was to this fan of Marriage Story’s entire acting ensemble, that some are already predicting the actress as a possible spoiler in supporting actress in the wake of Jojo Rabbit scoring six nominations, it’s gotten us thinking about the ostensibly evolving tastes of AMPAS’s membership at a time when it’s struggling to diversify itself. And based on how things went down at last year’s Oscars, the only conclusion we can come up with is that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Immediately after Glenn Close lost the Oscar last year to Olivia Coleman, Eric sent me a text wondering why AMPAS hates the former so much, to which I offered that there’s nothing more unwavering than Hollywood’s support for actors playing real-life individuals. Well, that and its support for actors who actually want to be exalted by the industry. Even in a world where Renée Zellweger isn’t also being helped by a comeback narrative, and has yet to follow Joaquin Phoenix’s savvy lead by getting arrested at Jane Fonda’s weekly climate change protest and erasing our memory of her performance at the Golden Globes, she’s nominated for a generally well liked performance in a film that has actually performed well at the box office.

On Monday, more outcry was provoked by the Oscar nominations, again for women being shut out of the best director race, but also for the snubbing of several actors of color, most notably Jennifer Lopez and Lupita N’yongo. Some will speculate that Cynthia Erivo, the only actor of color to be nominated this year, is a potential spoiler here, but whether she stands to benefit from a core of protest votes is something that can never be known. This fine actress’s performance checks off almost as many boxes as Zellweger’s, if not, at the end of the day, the one that matters most: representing a film about the industry itself, in this case one that will allow a reliably backward-looking Hollywood to atone for sins committed against their own.

Will Win: Renée Zellweger, Judy

Could Win: Scarlett Johansson, Marriage Story

Should Win: Scarlett Johansson, Marriage Story

We’re committed to keeping our content free and accessible—meaning no paywalls or subscription fees—so if you like what we do, please consider becoming a SLANT patron:
Continue Reading