Coming Up In This Column: The Switch, Paisan, Black Bart, The Badlanders, A Cold Wind in August, Mad Men.
The Switch (2010. Screenplay by Allan Loeb, based on the short story “Baster” by Jeffrey Eugenides. 101 minutes.)
What would you do with head lice?: We have discussed on a couple of recent occasions the necessity of getting a movie off to a good start. This one, following the short story it was based on for the first half-hour, establishes a nice edgy tone right away. Not in the voiceover narration, which we don’t need, but in the first scene between longtime friends Wally, a Wall Street trader (yes, the story was originally written in 2000), and Kassie, a television producer. He’s grumbling about a homeless guy he ran into on the street and shows her a picture on his phone of a growth on his testicles. She’s telling him she’s decided to have a baby with a sperm donor. This is not a typical Hollywood romantic duo, although it is clear that Wally sort of hopes she’ll ask him to donate sperm in the old-fashioned way. Kassie and her friend Debbie have a party in which the donor, a married man named Roland, will make a deposit in a cup and then, well, you saw the title of the story the film is based on. Look at how uncomfortable Roland’s wife is at the party. Wally gets drunk and it’s clear to us if not to him that he replaces Roland’s sperm with his own. Which is where the short story ends. Well, it did appear in The New Yorker, after all.
The script now jumps ahead seven years. Kassie has left town, had the baby, and returns to New York. The rest of the film is Wally getting to know the son, Sebastian, realizing he is the father, and eventually telling Kassie. What was edgy in that first half-hour shifts to a slightly more conventional film. The characters still have some of their edge, and Sebastian is a wonderfully dry creation on the part of Loeb. On the other hand, look at the sequence that begins with Wally having to pick up Sebastian from a sleepover when Kassie is out of town. Sebastian has developed head lice and the sleepover mom wants him out of her house. So Wally has to take him home and de-louse him. It is written and played as gentle slapstick, missing a lot of edge Loeb could have given it. What does Wally really think about having to do this? A lot more could be done with this.
The story turns into a romantic triangle (well, quadrangle if you include Sebastian) with Wally, Kassie and Roland. Wait a minute, Roland was married. Yeah, but now he’s divorced. That’s a little lazy on Loeb’s part, and it makes the film even more ordinary than it started out. Loeb does write some good characters, especially Wally, for the actors to play, and Jason Bateman is as wonderful as you would expect. Jennifer Aniston is Kassie, and she’s not afraid to let Kassie’s flakier side show. Aniston has been accused of repeating herself, but I don’t think she does. My guess is that she is like Gregory Peck. People used to say Peck gave the same performance, but if you look at several of his films in a row, you can see how he makes them different. Try it with a bunch of Aniston’s films and see what happens. Unfortunately, the directors, Josh Gordon and Will Speck, fall into the same habit that the director of Knight and Day did earlier this year (see US#50) by larding on the close-ups of the two leads. Let them breathe, guys. As for the supporting parts, Loeb has made Debbie a typical Juliette Lewis-ditz and that’s whom they hired. Wally’s friend Leonard is played by Jeff Goldblum, and I have no idea how much of what he says and does is in the script and how much is Goldblum. Let’s just say the script gives him opportunities.
Paisan (1946. Screenplay and dialogue by Sergio Amidei & Federico Fellini & Robert Rossellini and collaboration by Rod Geiger, story by Sergio Amidei & Klaus Mann & Federico Fellini & Marcello Pagliero & Alfred Hayes and Vasco Pratolini (uncredited). 126 minutes.)
The really full version: When this neorealist classic was first released in Italy, it ran 115 minutes. When it was released in America, it ran 90 minutes. In the ‘70s, when I ran it in my History of Motion Pictures class, the longest version I could get was 85 minutes. I had read enough about the film to know that one entire episode (the Florence story) was missing, as were bits and pieces of the other episodes. It was not a satisfying experience, and I never ran it again. So imagine my delight when browsing on Netflix and discovering they had a 120-minute version. It’s from Criterion, and it actually runs 126 minutes.
The director, Roberto Rossellini, was coming off the enormous international success of Open City (1945) and was able to get money to make a slightly bigger film. Rodney Geiger was an American hustler who tripped over a cable during reshoots on Open City and later sold the film in the United States. He assured Rossellini he could get the money as well as big American stars. He came back to Italy with only some of the money and a bunch of complete unknowns. Meanwhile, Rossellini had been talking with a lot of people about stories for the new film. He wanted to show the relationship of the Americans and the Italians in the last year of the war, and he wanted to show how war was a corrupting influence. Many of the writers listed in the credits contributed stories or story ideas, but the script, such as it was, kept changing throughout the production. Fellini, who had worked in several capacities on Open City, did most of the screenwriting work with Rossellini.
There are six episodes in the final film. The first shows (through newsreels—Rossellini did not have that much money) the Americans landing in Sicily. A small group of soldiers take Carmela, a village girl, who leads them through a minefield. She and Joe, an American G.I., stay at a deserted castle while the rest of the unit goes on. Neither speak the other’s language, but they sort of connect, until the Germans show up. They shoot Joe, Carmela takes up his gun, kills some Germans and is in turn killed by them. The heart of the script for this episode is the Joe-Carmela scene, but it is not well-written. The scenes between the American and the French girl in The Big Parade 21 years before handle the same situation better. The American dialogue was probably written by Alfred Hayes, a young American writer in Italy, but it’s standard-issue. Another flaw in the episode is the acting. Unlike his neorealist counterpart Vittorio De Sica, Rossellini was not as good directing non-actors as actors. Anna Magnani and Aldo Fabrizi blow everybody else off the screen in Open City, and we will see something similar in a later episode here.
The second episode is better. We start out with something of a cliché. A black American soldier is drunk on the streets of Naples, and a young kid keeps him from being mugged by the Italians or caught by the Military Police. The American sits down on a pile of rubble and talks about how wonderful everything is going to be when he gets home. As the scene evolves, he talks about how bad it is still going to be after the war. I have no idea if Hayes wrote this dialogue, or if the actor, Dots Johnson, improvised it, but either way, it is a striking scene. The soldier is eventually about to fall asleep and the kid warns him not to, telling him he will steal his shoes if he does. The script jumps ahead and we learn the soldier is in fact an M.P. and he catches a kid trying to steal from a truck. He eventually realizes the kid is the same one who stole his shoes. He chases him and eventually sees the squalor he lives in and lets him keep the shoes. Rossellini, the director, is on firmer ground here. He had wanted Paul Robeson for the part, but that was one of the many stars Geiger could not deliver. Johnson was not a star, but he had appeared in one film before this and went on to make a few more films. The scenes in the streets in Naples have the kind of immediacy we expect and love in neorealist films.
Episode three takes place in Rome. Six months after the liberation conditions are still bad. The prostitute Francesca picks up Fred, yet another drunk G.I., and takes him back to, well, not exactly a bordello, but a cheap hotel where the owner rents out rooms, probably by the hour if not the quarter hour. Fred talks about arriving in Rome during the liberation and meeting a sweet young Italian girl. In the flashback we see she was a much more innocent Francesca. He is so drunk he does not notice she is finishing his sentences about their first meeting. When she sends him on his way, she writes down an address he is to go to. In the morning he is getting on a truck to leave town. He looks at the address and throws it away. At the address, a more innocent-looking Francesca is waiting for him. The structure of this episode is inventive, as the writers let us know things the characters do not. It also helps that Francesca is played by Maria Michi, who played the actress in Open City. She is great here reacting to what the soldier is telling her. The episode handles both of Rossellini’s stated themes (communications between the Americans and the Italians and the corruption of war) in more subtle and interesting ways than the other episodes.
By episode four, we are up to Florence. Harriet, a U.S. nurse who lived in Florence learns that what we take to be her lover is now with the partisans fighting the Germans and the Fascists. With the help of another man, she tries to find him in Florence. This episode came from Fellini doing research on the battle for Florence, talking to partisans who had been part of the battle. Of all the episodes, it is the closest to an outright action sequence. There are not the twists of the Rome sequence, nor the characterization of the Naples sequence. Rossellini’s direction (and there are rumors that Fellini directed some of the sequence—my source for that and a lot of the information in this item is from Hollis Alpert’s solid if somewhat stolid 1986 biography Fellini: A Life) captures the immediacy of the battle, but also the elegance of Florence.
When I first saw the truncated version of Paisan, I felt episode five was probably most influenced by Fellini. It felt the most Felliniesque. The tone is lighter and funnier than the other episodes. Three American chaplains ask to spend the night in a monastery. The monks agree. The chaplains give the monks food and Hershey bars. The monks are horrified to discover only one of the chaplains is Catholic; the other two are Protestant and Jewish. Should they allow them to stay and have dinner with them? The head of the monastery asks the Catholic chaplain if he has tried to convert the other two. He says he has not and cannot. Dinner is served, but only to the Americans. The monks fast, but why? Are they upset at the other two chaplains? At the Catholic chaplain for not converting them? Or are they just being humble monks? We are never quite sure. The Catholic chaplain is impressed by their humility and tells them it reaffirms his Catholicism. But he does not say he will try to convert the others. Fellini did indeed write this episode, based on a monastery he found on the film company’s travels and remembering his own youth dealing with the Catholic church. But looking at this episode now, it also seems to be very much the work of Rossellini as well. After all, Rossellini took a lot of flack from his left-wing friends for making a priest the hero of Open City, and he later returned to more serious looks at religion. Well, more serious than Fellini, anyway.
Episode six is one of the weakest of the film. It follows a group of partisans and Americans fighting the Germans and the Fascists, but it does not have the shape of the Florence episode, and we learn virtually nothing about the characters, either American or Italian. The Americans and Italians do speak the same language by now, but it does not do them that much good, since they are all killed by the Germans at the end. Wait a minute. We drove the Germans out of Italy and won the war. I suppose the point is that war kills and corrupts even the winners, but the film has made those points a lot better earlier.
Like most episodic films, Paisan is uneven. This usually happens because of the scripts, and that is true here. Open City, based on two true stories (the kids and the priest), is a much more satisfying dramatic whole, but there are more than enough strong elements here to earn Paisan its place in film history.
Black Bart (1948. Screenplay by Luci Ward and Jack Natteford and William Bowers, story by Luci Ward and Jack Natteford. 80 minutes.)
Is that little Willie Goldman sitting in the dark taking notes?: Either individually or in collaboration Luci Ward and Jack Natteford wrote about half the B-westerns Hollywood every made. Natteford started as a screenwriter in the early ‘20s, Ward in the ‘30s. I do not know when they got married, but they started collaborating in the mid-‘40s. One of their first joint efforts was Badman’s Territory (1946), and it was so good and so successful they followed it up two years later with Return of the Bad Men. They did seem to have a fondness for outlaws and in 1948 they wrote the story and first draft screenplays for Black Bart. There was a real stagecoach robber in California in the late 19th-century nicknamed Black Bart, but as the website for him notes, the only things we know about him for sure are that he lived, he robbed stagecoaches, and he went to prison for it in 1883. In Ward and Natteford’s version, he splits up with his former partners Lance and Jersey and goes off to California. He gets some inside information on the Wells Fargo stage runs and starts robbing them. Lance and Jersey show up and end up working for Wells Fargo. Meanwhile, Bart and Lance both fall in love with Lola Montez, now on an American tour. Well, sure, why not? Bart turns Lance back to the dark side and they collaborate on one more robbery. They are trapped in a cabin and killed. Standard western stuff: stage robberies, shoot-outs and Yvonne De Carlo as Lola Montez. You may prefer Ophuls’s Martine Carol, but I prefer De Carlo. She was in her young, luscious stage, before anybody thought to ask her if she had a sense of humor, but still, very watchable.
So what makes this one special? That third name on the screenplay, William Bowers. Look at his Support Your Local Sheriff (1969). Or the first twenty minutes of The Sheepman (1958). While Bowers could do serious (The Gunfighter  or Split Second ), he was best at funny. And it’s a very dry kind of funny. In the opening of Black Bart, Lance and Bart are about to be hanged. Not because of their robbery, but because the handsome Lance was diddling the sheriff’s daughter. They are saved by Jersey. He blows up the tree they are about to be strung up on, figuring that if there is no tree there is no hanging. And so it goes. In the final scene, Bart and Lance are trapped in a cabin with townspeople, deputies, etc firing away at them and setting the cabin on fire. And Bart and Lance are exchanging witticisms about their situation.
Some filmmakers, like Brian De Palma, are so obvious about borrowing from other films that you just want to vomit. Screenwriter William Goldman is a lot subtler. As you were watching Lord Larry as the sadistic dentist in Marathon Man (1976), did it ever occur to you that he was stealing from the 1934 version of The Man Who Knew Too Much? As Butch and Sundance jump off that cliff in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969), did any of you remember the horse jump off the cliff in Jesse James (1939)? Before you watch Black Bart, get out your DVD of Butch Cassidy and look at the final scene.
But then Goldman, like any great artist, steals from everybody. Charlie Chaplin actually meet Oona O’Neill at a dinner party. Read my biography of Nunnally Johnson, which tells how he met his third wife, Dorris Bowden. Then watch Chaplin (1992) and see how Chaplin meets Oona in Goldman’s script. When my wife jokingly asked if I was going to sue, I was reminded of Chaplin in another context. When his Modern Times came out in 1936, more than a few people noticed similarities between the factory scenes in it and those in René Claire’s À Nous la Liberté (1931). Some of those people were lawyers, who encouraged Claire to sue. He replied that if an artist as great as M. Chaplin stole from him, he could only be honored. End of lawsuit.
The Badlanders (1958. Screenplay by Richard Collins, based on a novel by W.R. Burnett. 85 minutes.)
And what novel would that be?: This is a western, and Burnett wrote mostly urban crime stories, like Scarface (1932) or This Gun for Hire (1942), but his credits do show up on an occasional western, like San Antonio (1945). So what’s the story of this film? Peter gets out of the territorial prison and comes up with a scheme to rob a gold mine he had been an engineer on in the past. He gets a tough fellow ex-con, Mac, and an explosives expert Vincente to help. Peter’s plan is to sell the gold back to the mine operator privately so he can use it to pay off his debts. The plan goes awry, but the Mexican-Americans turn their annual celebration into a defense of the robbers, who get away. Sound like any Burnett novel you know?
This is officially an adaptation of…wait for it…The Asphalt Jungle. It bears so little relationship to either the novel or the great 1950 film that I am not sure why they even bothered to list it as an adaptation. And Collins’s screenplay has none of the characterization of the earlier film, which has one of the best balances between character and plot of any thriller I know. Being a western, it is lot more expansive, which cuts down on the suspense. On the upside, the producers hired the great John Seitz to photograph it. Seitz was a master of mixing light and dark (look at his work on Sunset Boulevard  if you don’t believe me) and puts that to work here in the juxtaposition of the mine and above-ground scenes. Seitz did not shoot that many westerns, but the cinematography adds a lot.
The big finish, where the Mexican-Americans protect the outlaws, appears to want to be a political statement, but it is rather half-hearted. You may understand why when you learn that Collins was one of the Hollywood Nineteen first called by HUAC in 1947. He did not get a chance to testify then, but after years of unemployment he became a friendly witness. He admitted to Victor Navasky in Navasky’s book Naming Names that he handled his testimony badly and regretted it. It obviously took some of the fight out of him, but there was enough left for the finish of this film, as cautious as it is. After The Badlanders he worked mostly in television as both a writer and producer on such shows as Bonanza and Matlock.
A Cold Wind In August (1961. Screenplay by Burton Wohl, based on his novel, treatment by John Hayes. 80 minutes.)
Not living up to its reputation: I saw this film when it first came out and like many people I was impressed with it. A stripper in her thirties flirts with a seventeen-year-old boy, has sex with him, falls in love, and then is dropped by the boy when he discovers she is stripper. It seemed so wonderfully sleazy and serious at the same time, with what everyone agreed was a knock-out performance by Lola Albright as the stripper, Iris. In her notes on the film in her 1968 book Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Pauline Kael mentions that when people in the industry talk about little offbeat movies that seem to promise what can be done on that scale, this movie usually comes up in the discussion. In their 1979 book on American television directors, The American Vein, Christopher Wicking and Tise Vahimagi consider this film the one that defines its director, Alexander Singer, who later had a long career in television. Let’s just say the film does not hold up well.
The problem begins with the script, which is definitely not as “economical” and “well-organized” as Kael thinks. Burton Wohl appears to have been primarily a novelist, and it shows. The opening scene has Iris’s ex-husband and manager drop by her apartment to ask her to do a week’s gig as a replacement for a stripper who bailed on him. The scene goes on and on and on. We eventually get to the son of the building super coming to her apartment to fix her air-conditioner and the affair slowly begins. Wohl does not really make it clear what Iris or Vito’s motivations are. The relationship is simply not that sharply observed on either side. Singer’s direction does not help much (this was his first film and he obviously got better), since like some directors we have talked about it (see above) he lards on the close-ups. That’s OK if the script gives the actors specifics to play, but Wohl’s script does not. His dialogue is also way too on the nose. Albright was much better in the more suggestive role as Edie in the television series Peter Gunn, which she was starring in at the time.
The production does not help. The story is supposed to take place in New York City, but it is obviously shot in Los Angeles. Iris’s apartment looks much more LA-1961 than NYC-1961. The cinematographer is the great Floyd Crosby, but there is not much he can do with the shots Singer gives, although he captures some of Albright’s heat. The jazz score on the soundtrack simply emphasizes the melodrama rather than playing against it. The film is an early example of “Cougar” films, and the ones that came later, such as The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone the same year, The Stripper (1962), and of course The Graduate (1967) do it much better.
A recent viewing (on TCM, which seemed to have a “Cougar Night” one Saturday) did answer one question Pauline Kael had. She criticizes a scene where Vito’s father is sitting reading a book and giving him advice. The scene has very little texture to it, but Kael’s question was: what book could the father possibly be reading? If you listen closely to one of the earlier scenes, Vito mentions that it is Boccaccio. Which is why the father does not seem particularly concerned about his son’s fling with Iris.
Mad Men (2010. “The Suitcase,” written by Matthew Weiner. 62 minutes.)
Easy: I’ve always said that making movies is easy. You get a great script, great actors and a director smart enough not to get in anybody’s way. This episode is exhibit one for the prosecution.
I have not written much on Mad Men so far this season. Partly that is because Luke De Smet is doing such a nice job covering the episodes. Partly it is because, unlike many writers, if I don’t have anything particular to say, I tend not to say anything. But this episode was too good to pass up. Excuse me if duplicate some of what Luke did in his coverage.
This episode is what is known in the trade as a stand-alone episode, meaning for it to work for you, you do not have to have watched and memorized all the previous episodes, as most of us Mad Men fans are wont to do. Unlike most episodes, we are not going to get a lot of the large cast in a lot of scenes that advance a lot of stories. The setup is simple: Most of the agency guys are going off to the Clay-Liston fight on closed-circuit TV in a theater. Don earlier received a message about a call from Stephanie in California, but he has not returned the call, since he knows it means that Anna, the wife of the real “Don Draper,” has probably died. So he gives Peggy a hard time for not having come up with any ideas for Samsonite luggage. The “guys” she works with have been less than useless. Don insists she stay and work with him. So what Weiner has set up is a mano-a-mano with Don and Peggy.
And boy, does he deliver. Peggy is pissed because it is her birthday, although it is way late in the episode before she tells Don. Duck Philips has tried to a) get her to come to the new agency he is starting, handling women’s sales, and b) get her back into his bed. Peggy is smart enough to realize a) Duck is drunk as a skunk, and b) is more interested in the bed than the job. She was headed out for a nice birthday dinner with Mark, her new boyfriend, but she calls and tells him she will be a little late. Another call, a little later. Another call, and, whoops, Mark has arranged to have her whole family at dinner as a surprise.
Don, meanwhile, is just pissed, in both senses. He has been drinking most of the day, avoiding calling Stephanie. He is irritated that Peggy cannot come up with something. Peggy breaks up with Mark on the phone and takes it out on Don. Maybe it is because we know and like both Peggy and Don, but I found their argument one of the scariest moments I have ever seen on television. They are like family and they go at each other like a truly dysfunctional family. Both are drawing blood, and Jon Hamm and Elisabeth Moss are spectacular, going well beyond what they have shown us in these roles before (yes, as Luke suggests, it’s very likely this episode will be Weiner’s effort to get Hamm and Moss Emmys next year). And then the writing and the acting get even better. Both Don and Peggy cool down, as happens in family arguments, and they have what is for them a personal discussion, a much subtler scene. Hamm and Moss handle those turns beautifully. Don and Peggy also listen to one of the tapes Roger has been dictating for his memoirs. Who knew that Bert Cooper lost his testicles in an operation? And surely nobody knew that Miss Blankenship, the old shrewish secretary Joan has wisely assigned to Don, was a real hottie when she was younger. Well, if you know the actor playing her is Randee Heller, who was Daniel’s MILF in The Karate Kid (1984), you might have guessed.
So Don and Peggy go out to dinner. At a diner, not a fancy restaurant. And Don barely gets back to the office when he has to vomit. Peggy takes him into the men’s room—look at both her hesitation about which restroom to enter and her perusal of the graffiti on the walls while he is praying to the porcelain god. And Duck shows up, as drunk as Don, and wants to literally shit in Don’s office. But as Peggy points out, he is in Roger’s office. Duck and Don get into a fight, which Duck wins. Peggy sends him out and does not go with him, although it has come out he has offered her a job. She returns to Don’s office, and they fall asleep on his couch. He wakes up and calls Stephanie. Anna has indeed died. Don cries, telling Peggy that she was the only person who truly understood him, which we know is true. Then Peggy puts a hand on his shoulder and tells him that is not true, i.e., she understands him. And she’s right. Luke De Smet and others have talked about the similarities between Don and Peggy (both outsiders trying to make a place for themselves in the world), and this episode and this scene nail it down. Their relationship is both the same and changed after this night.
Tom Stempel is the author of several books on film. His most recent is Understanding Screenwriting: Learning From Good, Not-Quite-So Good, and Bad Screenplays.
Interview: Bill and Turner Ross on the Constructions of Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets
The Rosses discuss how performance, accessibility, empathy, and nostalgia figure into their work.
The work of filmmaker brothers Bill Ross IV and Turner Ross has always lived on the more experimental margins of the documentary form, and their latest effort radically pushes definitional notions of nonfiction to a near-breaking point. Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets raised eyebrows when Sundance programmers slotted it into the festival’s Documentary Competition section, given that the film, about a Las Vegas dive bar’s last night of operation, was actually shot using a cast of hired actors-cum-barflys in New Orleans. What the filmmakers capture over the course of a whirlwind 18 hours—a day after Donald Trump won the presidency—might lack actuality, but they compensate with unvarnished authenticity.
The Ross brothers, who are based in New Orleans, have long been experts at capturing how people perform their identity within a given space and what that reflects about their humanity. Sometimes the performance is literal, as in their “dance film” Contemporary Color, a celebration of color guard staged by David Byrne at an event at Brooklyn’s Barclays Center. But more often, their canvas is bigger, such as New Orleans’s French Quarter in Tchoupitoulas, their Sidney, Ohio hometown in 45365, or the Texas-Mexico border in Western; these documentaries are also populated with people going about their lives in less staged circumstances. With Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets, the filmmakers narrow their focus to an admittedly synthetic setting to achieve an identical effect. Once the cameras start rolling and the booze starts flowing, the emotional honesty of the moments they capture outmuscles any concerns over genre labels or definitions.
On a Zoom call prior to the film’s Virtual Cinema release this Friday, I spoke with the Ross brothers about the intellectual and emotional journey leading up to ideating and executing an unconventional project like Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets. The conversation also covered how the brothers think about performance, choreography, accessibility, empathy, and nostalgia when making their films.
Your body of work is largely about what we can learn about people from the spaces they occupy and explore. Did your ability to explore these thematics get easier or harder with such a confined location in Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets?
Turner Ross: We’re interested in people in the space they inhabit, people in the spaces they create, how the spaces that they occupy both relate to them and are manifested by them. So, I think every film has a bit to do with that. With this one, I wouldn’t say [it was] easier or harder. I would say we always set up a challenge for ourselves. And this was as challenging a dynamic as we could conceive given the films that have preceded it. You know, we’re always trying to learn from what comes before. And the last film that we did was a “four walls” movie, but it was the Barclays Center in New York, tens of thousands of people, several hundred participants and a crew of dozens. We wanted to take that idea of constraints and a limited palette and say, “Can we reduce that down to actually four walls, just the two of us, to a group of people assembled? Can we give a sense of being there to a place that we’ve manifested? Can we elicit an authentic experience from an intention to a scenario?” But those are imposed limitations and obstacles, and that’s what makes it interesting for us.
Bill Ross IV: In some ways, it was nicer to be confined to that space because that limitation was what it was. In other ways, it was incredibly difficult.
You mentioned Contemporary Color as another “four walls” movie. Did that experience of learning how to capture motion within a confined space help in making this one?
TR: Very much so. Contemporary Color is actually a dance film, so it involves choreography. Humans and their choreography through space is always interesting, and so we tried to create a space in which all of the corners of the room had potential. We filled it with people who would have an interesting dance with each other. The difference was we didn’t know the choreography ahead of time. We just kind of had to create the scenario, create opportunities and then follow where they led. And so that made it much more of an interesting dance partner than just observing the thing itself.
You started conceptualizing this film with your Vegas visits in 2009 but didn’t shoot the film until 2016. How did your understanding of the people, the bars, the city, the country change over time? How would the film be different if you’d shot it right away?
BR: I mean, each film is an extension of where we are as humans when we shoot it, so it would certainly have been more immature.
TR: It’s an extension of us as people, as individuals, as humans in the world. It’s an extension of ourselves as artists, the times that we’re in, what we’re thinking about, what we’re responding to. So, certainly, 10 years ago, the world we were responding to is very different than the one that we find ourselves in now. In that sense, the world being available to us as the resource that we mine, certainly that would have been different. But, at the same time, what we were looking for at that time was much more of a gritty, verité, follow-where-it-goes street film in which we were just really wanting to see what was happening in that world. Not so much as a paradigm in which the movie takes place, a metaphor for experience, a framing device—which is what it ends up being in this film—but the actuality of what it was in 2009 during the Great Recession when people were living on the outskirts of Vegas, not seeking pleasure but a place to get by in the world. That spoke to us really as an image, as an experience and as a rich resource for painting a portrait of the contemporary American experience, which, again, extrapolated into these times would be very different. And, for us, it became the backdrop for this film so that we could create a microcosmic story that hopefully spoke to something bigger in that context.
TR: I’d love to see that film!
BR: Oh, that movie would be sweet. But we’ll get to that one. It just wasn’t the right time then. It’s good that we got to think about it for this long. A lot of things were reported in that bucket over the last decade, or I guess it would have been seven years.
You’ve described bars as almost liminal spaces where people go to be someone other than themselves. Is that realization part of what led you to view the people in this film as actors performing characters?
TR: We’re always performing as people, and that comes into the genre-framing conversation. Our awareness of a camera has become a real factor in the world, but that’s not what we’re after. What we were curious about is what are these spaces that we choose to inhabit, that we seek in which to commiserate, that we seek in which to make stories, to tell stories, to put on airs, to be ourselves, to let go of things. Through all of time, people have found these types of spaces. And at the time that we made the film, we felt it was the most conducive space in which to observe and be curious about the conversations people are having with each other when they aren’t talking about something in particular. And, so, if we can all share a drink and have a conversation, what does it sound like? That’s in parallel to our interest in these spaces in general, and as a visual and cultural space, but also as a useful space. Who are we? Why don’t we talk to each other like this? What stories do we tell what stories we tell ourselves? And what are we saying to each other in this moment in time?
Do you see your other films as having performances in their own way?
BR: Always, yeah. In a lot of ways, I don’t see this film being much different than the others. They’re all constructions. There’s a camera in the room and we’re all performing. We’re all presenting what we wish to be seen as. I think that’s been cranked up here, but by how much I don’t really know.
TR: Our films are an amalgam of an experience. How can we distill it down to its essence, to make it sensical when it’s shared? I think that’s part of being a person in the world, what are you going to share with others in order to give them an idea of who you wish them to see? And that’s performance. So, in that sense, our films are also performative. In this sense, we’re just more acutely looking at that.
How were you all navigating the need to be specific to get the precise sense of place but also generalizable enough that anyone could see their own truth or experience reflected in the film?
BR: A lot of it is casting. We’re casting a wide variety of folks for a lot of different reasons, but one of them being that folks will see themselves in someone there. Or pieces of themselves throughout. And that seems to have been the case so far, which has been great. But the beginning of the question was Vegas…
TR: We wanted to tell a specific story that was also universal. That’s what Bill was talking about with casting. We wanted to make sure that there was representation in there so that there were different voices heard, which were authentic [and] would not [convey] an inauthentic experience, some sort of staged experiment, but something that spoke to an authenticity that we had perceived and experienced on our own. So, yes, we did a lot when it come to the framing of that world. We spent a lot of time in Vegas, certainly scouting and considering that and wanting to be authentic to that locale. But we also wanted to create a boundary in between so that when people watch the film, it isn’t so acute that they feel removed. We want people to have this experiential opportunity. We spoke today with a woman in Moscow, different people all over the world, different age groups, different backgrounds, and [even though it] may not be [their] space, they know something like it. Those may not be your people, but you might know folks like ‘em. And we wanted that to be the overriding idea, and not so much that this is a singular, specific story. We hoped that we would get to something that was more universal, even though it is a singular milieu.
We sometimes see the camera in the bar mirrors. Was it just too logistically complex trying to hide its presence? Did you just embrace your visibility?
BR: This is our fifth feature, and at this point, I think I’m just done trying to cut around us. We are there. If we weren’t there, there wouldn’t be a film. More and more, we have embraced the fact that we’re just in the room. It’s very intentional, but we’re not focusing on ourselves. Because it’s a mirrored room, we are popping up. We are leaving ourselves in there to say that this was a collective experience. This is all something that we experienced together. And we’re shooting not at these folks, but with [them]. We are together.
A moment that really struck me in the film is the really heartfelt conversation at the end of the bar between Bruce and Pam, both older and of different racial backgrounds. We see them at first in close-up, then you zoom out to see from other people’s vantage point from the other end of the bar in long shot. Throughout much of the film, we’re in a moment so thoroughly, and then it evaporates. Why linger here a bit and change perspectives?
BR: There’s two parts to that. One is, editorially, we needed to condense the scene timewise. But, also, because of that perspective, the scene becomes richer because the folks that you bounce around to are having trivial conversations when they are having a big life moment down here. And that’s the way a bar works. Now, you’re totally oblivious that somebody is having a life-changing, cathartic moment down here, and you and your buddies are talking about Olive Garden three seats down. I thought it was very telling what those spaces can be.
TR: And we wanted that inclusivity of the myriad experience and how the same situation, even within a small tight-knit framework, is experienced differently. And, as a viewer, that was Bill speaking to the cinematic intention. We realized that it was much more accessible as a film if we used the language of cinema to move around the space and to allow the viewers to say, “I have my own stream of consciousness in this space and can move around to the different conversations at will. I’m privy to all of the things in a way that even the people within the bar [aren’t].” The omniscience is in favor of the viewer.
BR: There was one cut of this where we would just stick with Pam and Bruce for, like, eight minutes uninterrupted and not bounce around the room. We love that cut, but nobody else did! So we had austere intentions, and then realized we need to revert to the language of the movies.
Beyond just the difficulties of getting someone to watch or program something that’s four-and-a-half-hours long, which is the length of your original favored cut, why whittle the film down to an hour-and-a-half? What’s lost and what’s gained?
BR: An audience is gained! [laughs]
TR: We always say that we make movies for ourselves first. We make movies for each other, and we try to solve that thing. Well, that four-and-a-half-hour movie was the movie that we made for ourselves and for each other. It turns out that what we loved about it was not translated to people outside of our own peculiar bubble. What we needed to do was distill that down to something that allowed people in and wasn’t so cold and obstructive as to pull people out. It’s not about observation, it’s about inclusion for the people within it and the viewers, and we had to eventually really lean towards the viewer. Because if we’re not successful in the end, if we can’t share this, there’s not an act of empathy. We can’t create an artifact and then share it with an audience to have them have their experience. And so that is why it’s 90 minutes.
Was it an intentional decision to shoot the day after the 2016 election or just a happy accident?
BR: I don’t know if it was “happy,” but it just sort of turned out that way.
TR: Generally, we’re reflecting the state of the world at the time, what we were feeling and thinking. We were feeling sort of divided as a country and in terms of perspectives, and we were feeling pretty lost and like we should be able to do better than our vote on Election Day allowed. As artists, it was time for us to go to work. We set out to get the film in motion before we knew the results of the election. It wasn’t about us making a film about our politics, but it was about the body politic. What is the state of people and what are they saying to each other? Let’s not make an election film, but let’s make a film about who we are during this time.
Trump is this kind of looming, mostly unspoken presence undergirding a lot of what’s happening on screen, just as he has been in pretty much any bar for the last five years. How did you go about navigating the elephant in the room?
BR: It was just like a bar, with folks just getting into it, and that didn’t feel quite right. So we’d move elsewhere. But that balance was struck in the edit. We didn’t shy away from shooting all of it. It was present.
TR: But it also was a motivating factor in terms of why we chose to execute the film the way that we did: to create a container, a safe space to bring in a broad swath of people to choreograph the inclusion of those types. In scouting actual bars, there were some bars that, because of the way that Bill and I look, we would walk in, we’d turn the cameras on and they’d start chanting: “Trump, Trump, Trump!” Just assuming a certain point of view, and that’s not the film that we wanted to make.
BR: To be clear, he is not talking about the Roaring 20s! [laughs]
TR: We scouted 100 bars, and we interviewed hundreds of people to be involved in this film. And there were certain spaces that certainly did have a limited viewpoint, and people found their own corner to back into. That’s just not what we wanted to explore. We didn’t want to have a space that spoke to a singular experience. We wanted myriad viewpoints and the opportunity to feel like you belonged in a space. That’s both why we chose to shoot at that time and why we created our space the way that we did.
I’m sure you’re getting this a lot, but obviously the film has evolved to take on additional meaning when being released in a pandemic where almost no one can congregate in a bar, or at least enjoy one like the Roaring 20s patrons are. Do you think it might change the meaning or reception of the film given that the audience is likely in a state of heightened nostalgia for the environment of a bar?
BR: That’s funny because nobody’s asked us that yet! I thought people would. You have to think it’s going to. I mean, it’s got to!
TR: We’re as curious as you are. On the one hand, the themes in the film are still relevant and resonant. And, on the other hand, they change their articulation because of where we’ve ended up at this moment.
BR: Not just about your feelings on bars, but so much of what’s brought up in the film has been heightened because everything is heightened right now.
TR: And not only what they’re talking about, what the people are actually saying to each other. The context of the film, this idea of the end of things and uncertain futures, wrestling with identity and where we’re all headed, these sort of existential themes that are intertwined in the conceit of the film and in the way that people are having discourse with each other. I’m super curious. What a bizarre fucking time to put out a film at all! Especially this one, where we’re on edge about everything, we can’t share space in this way. Who are we? I think that’ll be reflected in the kind of feedback we get.
It strikes me that you didn’t make this as an explicitly “nostalgic” film. Would you be okay if people received it that way?
BR: My biggest fear would be if they were just like, “Okay.” Any sort of reaction, if they want to argue with it, great! People are free to do what they want to do, I just hope it’s not just like, “Okay, honey. Well, we watched that.” As if it’s just one more piece of content.
TR: In the moment that we made it, our concern was not to date the film, to say, “Let’s let it be of the world that it is, but let’s also not fix it in that for all of time, hopefully.” At the same time, it’s already in the rearview, so you can’t help but have some sort of nostalgia for it. Or, I don’t know, maybe there’s a hope for moving on. I think, inevitably, we make these things together to go through a catharsis together and with the people that we make them with. Then, it’s left up to the audience, and I’m fascinated by what an audience does with it once it’s theirs. I’ll be super curious to have those conversations.
Review: Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets Is an Elegiac Mosaic of Disillusionment
It’s in certain characters’ trajectories that the Ross brothers locate the tragic soul of the bar.3.5
In a 1946 essay for London’s Evening Standard, George Orwell wrote: “And if anyone knows of a pub that has draught stout, open fires, cheap meals, a garden, motherly barmaids and no radio, I should be glad to hear of it.” In other words, the British author was on the lookout for the ideal watering hole, which he argues requires a combination of these specific offerings as well as more ineffable qualities. But the article’s thrust isn’t so simple, as Orwell spends the first three-quarters of it describing in detail a bar that doesn’t exist, referred to by the fictitious moniker of “The Moon Under Water.” You might think that you’re reading a rare lifestyle report from your favorite anti-totalitarian author, only to suddenly be made aware of your victimhood in a little literary sleight of hand.
Orwell’s playful essay provides the inspiration for Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets, a quasi-real-time portrait of what might be seen as an ideal dive bar by today’s standards, though filmmaker brothers Bill and Turner Ross eschew Orwell’s rug-pulling. Here, we’re never let in on the fact that the Roaring 20s, the Las Vegas haunt that serves as the film’s setting, is actually located in the Rosses’ hometown of New Orleans, or that its denizens are actually a motley crew of Louisiana drinkers (one looks like Elliott Gould, another like Seymour Cassel) that the filmmakers recruited and primed for their roles. This edifice of fakery is critical to the film’s meaning. As Orwell opined for a more perfect world where such a social space could exist, Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets fabricates its own rosy vision of social unity, drunkenly commiseration, and aesthetic perfection, if only to deliberately undercut this idealism through the staging of its narrative around the bar’s final night and the election of Donald Trump.
The Roaring 20s may not be everyone’s idea of perfection. After an Altmanesque credit sequence establishing the bar’s exterior in zooming telephoto shots, the audience’s first glimpse at the interior finds custodian-cum-freeloader Michael Martin being broken from his early-afternoon slumber by the arriving bartenders and helped promptly to a swig of whiskey, and events from this point forward tap into a similar reservoir of pity and humor. Where the beauty emerges is in the intimacy and familiarity with which the patrons are able to relate to one another as more and more alcohol is consumed. For much of the film, egos, tempers, and prejudices fall away as more and more regulars pile into the bar, increasingly constituting a diverse cross section of what appear to be outer Vegas wanderers and failures.
Limiting views of the surrounding city to brief, bleary interludes shot on an un-color-calibrated Panasonic DVX100b, the Ross brothers center the action squarely around the bar, lending everything a brownish pink patina that suggests the view through a bottle of Fireball and draping every hangable surface with off-season Christmas lights. Taken as part of a dialogue with such gems from the canon of booze-soaked cinema as Lionel Rogosin’s On the Bowery and Eagle Pennell’s Last Night at the Alamo, this auburn glow distinguishes Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets as more texturally expressive than photographically verisimilar—a film that approximates a night of inebriation rather than merely memorializing it.
Having used two cameras over the course of their 18-hour shoot, the Rosses are able to rely on montage editing to foster a sense of omniscience without losing the feeling of temporal continuity. The result is a film whose attention jumps sporadically to different bits of conversation and activity just as the beer-saturated brain of your average pub-dweller might. Part of this seamless integration of perspectives has to do with the film’s dynamic and precise use of music, which blends non-diegetic Rhodes-piano noodlings from composer Casey Wayne McAllister with popular songs heard within the bar both on the jukebox and in impromptu sing-alongs. Unconcerned with airs of documentary objectivity, the Ross brothers allow themselves to essentially play disc jockeys, and within this framework many of their choices for background needle drops land with a certain poetic gravitas, complementing, contradicting, or in some cases even guiding the emotional temperature of the room.
Kenny Rogers’s “The Gambler” is heard twice, first played by a bartender on an acoustic guitar to get the early evening energy going and later on the jukebox when much of that energy has dissipated, while Jhené Aiko’s desolate breakup ballad “Comfort Inn Ending” provides contrapuntal accompaniment to the evening’s one flare-up of macho tempers. Most affecting is when A$AP Rocky’s “Fuckin’ Problems” underscores a shot of an embittered but tender war vet, Bruce Hadnot, glowering at the end of the bar—a lengthily held beat that will be relatable to anyone who’s ever found introspection in the midst of pummeling noise. Each example hints at the melancholy direction that the film ultimately takes, and like any DJ worth their salt, the Rosses manage the transition from euphoria to pathos gradually and imperceptibly.
While all who enter the Roaring 20s achieve some kind of emotional arc before departing thanks to the filmmakers’ democratic distribution of their attentions, there are a few who emerge as main characters, and it’s in their trajectories that Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets locates the tragic soul of the bar. Michael is one of them. Beginning the day as a freewheeling conversationalist, ripping drinks and catching up with whoever rolls through, he spends the dwindling hours of the night in a dazed stupor on a corner sofa, pathetically asserting to a fellow bar patron that “there is nothing more boring than someone who used to do stuff and just sits in a bar.” In a few instances, the Ross brothers cede the floor to the bar’s security cameras, whose detachment and “objectivity” eschew the warmth of the filmmakers’ ground-level cameras, rendering the bar as little more than a physical space. Seen from this cold, inhuman eye, Michael registers as lonely, beaten-down, and insignificant.
Similarly positioned on the margins of the sociable space created by the Roaring 20s, and often identified by its more imposing and strange attractions (such as the Stratosphere and Pyramid casinos), Las Vegas plays a role analogous to the bar’s security cameras. As seen through a motion-blurred, sepia-toned camera, the city represents a reality of false hopes that’s failed the film’s humble pleasure seekers—whether in the form of dead-end jobs that have led them away from their passions or in a military industrial complex that treats its servants as interchangeable. At one point, Bruce brings up Trump on the occasion of his recent election, confidently proffering grave predictions for his presidency. The subject doesn’t get touched again, but it’s a subtext for the whole film—not the Trump presidency per se, but the mere fact of pessimism in the face of leadership. Like Orwell’s “The Moon Under Water,” the Roaring 20s seen in Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets doesn’t really exist. Even if it did, no one would save it, which makes the desperation with which its denizens hang on to it all the more touching.
Director: Bill Ross IV, Turner Ross Distributor: Utopia Running Time: 98 min Rating: NR Year: 2020
Review: Relic Is a Lushly Metaphoric Vision of a Splintered Family
The film heralds the arrival a bold and formidable voice in horror cinema.2.5
Kay (Emily Mortimer) and her daughter, Sam (Bella Heathcote), don’t say much on the drive to Grandma Edna’s (Robyn Nevin) house. The old woman is missing, and when Sam crawls through the doggy door into the home, she looks around with concern, absorbed until Kay knocks impatiently at the door to be let in. Still no words. The women of Relic aren’t exactly close, as evidenced by the palpable coldness between Kay and Sam as they look through this cluttered abode. Edna’s forgetfulness having grown exhausting, Kay tells a cop that she hasn’t spoken to her eightysomething mother in weeks. And the guilt is written on Kay’s face, even in the distant shot that frames her within the walls of the police station.
Though Relic is her debut feature, Natalie Erika James demonstrates a confident grasp of tone and imagery throughout the film. She and cinematographer Charlie Sarroff strikingly conjure an ominous stillness, particularly in the scenes set inside Edna’s increasingly unfamiliar home, where the characters appear as if they’re being suffocated by the walls, railing, low ceilings, and doorways. Relic fixates on rotting wood, the monolithic scope of the Australian woods, and the colors on Edna’s front door’s stained-glass window that meld, eventually, into a single dark spill, as though the house is infected by the old cabin that haunts Kay’s dreams.
Edna soon reappears, unable to explain where she’s been and complicating an already distant family dynamic. The interactions between the three women are marked by an exhaustion that’s clearly informed by past experience—a feeling that Edna’s disappearance was almost expected. But not even James’s command behind the camera can quite elevate just how hard Relic falls into the shorthand of too many horror movies with old people at their center: the unthinking self-harm, the wandering about in the night, the pissing of oneself.
The film remains restrained almost to a fault, revealing little about its characters and their shared histories. Though some of this vagueness could be attributed to Relic’s central metaphor about dementia, the general lack of specificity only grows more apparent in the face of the film’s oldsploitation standbys, leaving us with precious little character to latch onto.
But such familiar elements belie Relic’s truly inventive climax, an abrupt shift into a visceral nightmare that tears apart notions of body and space and then sews them back together in a new, ghastly form. James resists bringing the film’s subtext to the forefront, in the process imbuing her enigmatic images with a lasting power, turning them into ciphers of broader ideas like abandonment, responsibility, and resentment as they relate to the withering human figure. Never relenting with its atmosphere of suffocating decay, the final stretch of Relic, if nothing else, heralds the arrival a bold and formidable voice in horror cinema.
Cast: Emily Mortimer, Robyn Nevin, Bella Heathcote Director: Natalie Erika James Screenwriter: Natalie Erika James, Christian White Distributor: IFC Midnight Running Time: 89 min Rating: R Year: 2020
Love Before the Virus: Arthur J. Bressan Jr.’s Newly Restored Passing Strangers
The film’s characters are simultaneously horny and melancholic. They seem to want plenty of sex but also love.
One of the many pleasures to be had in watching Arthur J. Bressan Jr.’s newly restored Passing Strangers derives from its status as a historical document, or a piece of queer ethnography. The 1974 film allows us to see but also feel what life was like for gay men during what some have called the golden age of unbridled sex before the AIDS epidemic. Bressan Jr.’s portrait of this history is simultaneously attuned to its sartorial, mediatic, erotic, and affective dimensions, which may come as a surprise to those unaccustomed to explicit sexual imagery being paired with social commentary. Pornography and poetry aren’t counterparts here. Rather, they’re bedfellows, one the logical continuation of the other. Money shots, for instance, aren’t accompanied by moaning or groaning, but by the sounds of a violin.
The film’s characters are simultaneously horny and melancholic. They seem to want plenty of sex but also love. They devote so much of their lives to picking up strangers for sex, briefly and by the dozens, but not without secretly wishing that one of them might eventually stay. In this they may not differ much from their contemporary cruising heirs, though they do in their approach. It turns out that asking for a pen pal’s photo before a meetup in 1974 was considered creepy, and using Walt Whitman’s poetry as part of a sex ad was quite fruitful.
That’s exactly what 28-year-old Tom (Robert Carnagey), a bath-house habitué and telephone company worker living in San Francisco, does in the hopes of attracting something long term. The literal poetics of cruising speaks to 18-year-old Robert (Robert Adams), who responds to Tom’s newspaper ad right way. They meet in person and begin a love affair that could only be described as bucolic, including making love in fields of grass, on top of a picnic blanket, to the sound of waves and piano notes, and riding their bikes around town, much like the sero-discordant love birds of Paris 05:59: Théo & Hugo do after partaking in a gangbang. In retrospect, promiscuity gains the tinge of an obsessive auditioning of “the one,” who, in Bressan Jr.’s sensual fairy tale, is bound to come along and save us from ourselves.
Passing Strangers, which originally screened at adult cinemas and gay film festivals, recalls Francis Savel’s 1980 porno Equation to an Unknown in how smut and romance are so intimately bound in the forms of queer intimacy that the film depicts. This may also be due to the dearth of gay cinematic representation at the time—of gay men perhaps needing to dream of prince charming and of bareback anal sex in the same movie session, satisfying the itch for love and for filth in one fell swoop. But while Equation to an Unknown is completely wrapped up in a fantasy glow, there’s something more realistic, or pragmatic, about Passing Strangers.
Tom’s voiceover narration, which takes the shape of disaffected epistolary exchanges with his newfound beloved, orients us through the action. Motivations are explained. At times, however, Bressan Jr. indulges in experimental detours. These are precisely the most beautiful, and atemporal, sequences in the film—scenes where sex is juxtaposed with the sound of a construction site or the buzzing of a pesky mosquito, or one where an audience of orgy participants give a round of applause after somebody ejaculates. And the film’s surrendering to moments of inexplicable poesis reaches its apex in a shot of a boy in clown makeup holding his mouth agape. It’s an exquisitely brief shot, indelible in its strangeness.
Review: Tom Hanks Stubbornly Steers Greyhound into Sentimental Waters
With no vividly drawn humans on display, the action feels like rootless war play.1.5
With his almost supernatural likeability, impeccable reputation, and penchant for appearing in films rooted in American history, Tom Hanks has become a national father figure. The actor’s ongoing project, particularly urgent as we seek to redefine our relationship with our history and iconography, is to remind us of when the United States actually rose to the occasion. Unsurprisingly, this project often centers on World War II, one of the least controversial pinnacles of American collaboration on the world stage.
Continuing this tradition, Aaron Schneider’s Greyhound concerns the efforts to provide Britain with troops and supplies via Allied naval convoys on the Atlantic, which German U-boat “wolf packs” stalk and sink, attempting to break a Western blockade. Adapted by Hanks from C.S. Forester’s novel The Good Shephard, the film is a celebration of duty and competency that’s so quaint it’s almost abstract, as it arrives at a time of chaos, selfish and blinkered American governing, and a growing bad faith in our notion of our own legacy.
Set over a few days in 1942, the film dramatizes a fictionalized skirmish in the real-life, years-long Battle of the Atlantic. The American destroyer Greyhound, leader of a convoy that includes Canadian and British vessels, is commanded by Ernest Krause (Hanks), an aging naval officer with no experience in battle. Text at the start of the film explains that there’s a portion of the Atlantic that’s out of the range of air protection, called the Black Pit, in which convoys are especially vulnerable to the wolf packs. For 50 hours, Krause and his crew will be tested and severely endangered as they seek to cross this treacherous stretch of the sea.
This skeletal scenario has potential as a visceral thriller and as a celebration of Allied ingenuity and daring. Unfortunately, Hanks’s script never adds any meat to the skeleton. One can see Hanks’s passion for history in the loving details—in the references to depth charge supply, to windshield wipers freezing up, to the specific spatial relationships that are established (more through text than choreography) via the various vessels in this convoy. What Hanks loses is any sense of human dimension. In The Good Shephard, Krause is frazzled and insecure about leading men who’re all more experienced in battle than himself. By contrast, Krause’s inexperience is only mentioned in Greyhound as a testament to his remarkable, readymade leadership. The film’s version of Krause is stolid, undeterred, unshakably decent ol’ Tom Hanks, national sweetheart. As such, Greyhound suffers from the retrospective sense of inevitability that often mars simplified WWII films.
Greyhound’s version of Krause lacks the tormented grace of Hanks’s remarkable performance in Clint Eastwood’s Sully. This Krause also lacks the palpable bitterness of Hanks’s character in Steven Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan, as well as the slyness that the actor brought to both Spielberg’s Catch Me if You Can and Bridge of Spies. In Greyhound, Hanks falls prey to the sentimentality for which his detractors have often unfairly maligned him, fetishizing Krause’s selflessness in a manner that scans as ironically vain. As a screenwriter, Hanks throws in several writerly “bits” to show how wonderful Krause is, such as his ongoing refusal to eat during the Greyhound’s war with U-boats. (A three-day battle on an empty stomach seems like a bad idea.) Meanwhile, the crew is reduced to anonymous faces who are tasked with spouting jargon, and they are, of course, unquestionably worshipful of their commander, as are the voices that are heard from the other vessels in the convoy.
Schneider lends this pabulum a few eerie visual touches, as in the slinky speed of the German torpedoes as they barely miss the Greyhound, but the film is largely devoid of poetry. The stand-offs between the vessels are competently staged, but after a while you may suspect that if you’ve seen one torpedo or depth charge detonation you’ve seen them all. With no vividly drawn humans on display, the action feels like rootless war play. In short, Greyhound takes a fascinating bit of WWII history and turns it into a blockbuster version of bathtub war.
Cast: Tom Hanks, Karl Glusman, Stephen Graham, Elisabeth Shue, Tom Brittney, Devin Druid, Rob Morgan, Lee Norris, Manuel Garcia-Rulfo, Maximilian Osinski, Matthew Zuk, Michael Benz Director: Aaron Schneider Screenwriter: Tom Hanks Distributor: Apple TV+ Running Time: 91 min Rating: 2020 Year: PG-13
Review: The Beach House’s Moodiness Is Dissipated by Shaky Characterization
The character drama becomes afterthought as it’s superseded by action.2
Michael Crichton’s 1969 novel The Andromeda Strain, in which a satellite crashes to Earth with an alien virus on board, is an expression of Space Age anxieties, about how the zeal to reach the stars could have unintended and dangerous consequences. In Jeffrey A. Brown’s The Beach House, something lethal instead rises from the depths of the ocean, a kind of “alien” invasion coming up from below rather than down from the cosmos, better reflecting the environmental anxieties of our present day. It still feels like comeuppance for human hubris, but this time in the form of intraterrestrial, not extraterrestrial, revenge.
The potentially extinction-level event is played on a chamber scale as domestic drama. Emily (Liana Liberato) and Randall (Noah Le Gros) are college sweethearts who go to his family’s beach house during the off-season, in a seemingly abandoned town, to work on their personal problems. They’re unexpectedly joined there by Mitch (Jake Weber) and Jane (Maryann Nagel), old friends of Randall’s father, and the four agree to have dinner together. It’s then that Emily, an aspiring astrobiologist, conveniently provides some context for what’s about to happen, as she makes reverential conversation at the table about the mysterious depths of the sea and the sometimes extreme conditions in which new life can be created and thrive.
That night, while tripping balls on edibles, the couples look out and marvel at the sparkling, purple-tinged landscape outside their beach house. (The smell is less gloriously described as being like that of sewage and rotten eggs.) It’s not a hallucination, though, because whatever ocean-formed particulate is turning the night sky into a psychedelic dreamscape and the air cloudy is also making the characters sick. There’s some interesting and serendipitous overlap between the film’s central horror and our present Covid-19 crisis, as the malady seems to be airborne, affecting the lungs and making the characters cough. It also affects older people more quickly than the young, with the milder symptoms including exhaustion.
Brown emphasizes the oddness of nature with an eye for detail focused in close-up on, say, the eerie gooeyness of oysters, and by vivifying the film’s settings with bold colors: On the second night, the air glows mustard and red, recalling recent California wildfires. The ubiquitous haze also evokes John Carpenter’s The Fog and Frank Darabont’s The Mist, but other genre influences are also on display, from Cronenbergian body horror, as in the gory removal of a skin-burrowing worm, to zombie flicks, given the slowness of the hideously infected victims.
There’s not a lot of exposition about the illness, as Brown’s screenplay is primarily focused on Randall and Emily’s fight to survive the mysterious onslaught. But you probably won’t care if they do. The character drama becomes afterthought as it’s superseded by action. The Beach House had convincingly argued that these two people shouldn’t be together, that their relationship has long passed its prime. He mocks her plans for advanced study and calls her life goals bullshit, even though he has none himself; he suggests that they move into the beach house, to live in a state of permanent vacation, while he tries to figure out what life means. When she’s high and getting sick and asking him for help, he dismisses her, lest it harsh his mellow. But instead of engineering his downfall, Midsommar-style, Emily does everything she can in the last third to help save him. It feels sudden, unearned, and unconvincing—enough to make you root for the monsters from the ocean floor.
Cast: Liana Liberato, Noah Le Gros, Maryann Nagel, Jake Weber Director: Jeffrey A. Brown Screenwriter: Jeffrey A. Brown Distributor: Shudder Running Time: 88 min Rating: R Year: 2019
Review: The Old Guard Is a Would-Be Franchise Starter with No New Moves
Smartly prioritizing the bond of relationships over action, the film is in the end only somewhat convincing on both counts.2
Gina Prince-Bythewood’s The Old Guard is a modestly successful attempt to build a new fountain of franchise content out of a comic series with nearly limitless potential for spin-offs. The story kicks into motion with a team of four mercenaries with unique powers and an ancient bond setting off to rescue some kidnapped girls in South Sudan. Charlize Theron brings her customarily steely intensity to the role of the group’s cynical, burnt-out leader, Andy, who isn’t crazy about the idea since she doesn’t trust Copley (Chiwetel Ejiofor), the ex-C.I.A. agent who hired them. Given how long it turns out that Andy has been doing this sort of thing, you would imagine that her comrades would listen.
The mission turns out to be a set-up, and the would-be rescuers are wiped out in a barrage of bullets. Except not, because Andy and her team are pretty much unkillable. So as their enemies are slapping each other on the back and conveniently looking the other way, the mercenaries haul themselves to their feet, bodies healing almost instantaneously, bullets popping out of closing wounds. Payback is swift but interesting, because for reasons likely having to do with their being many centuries old—the youngest, Booker (Matthias Schoenaerts), fought for Napoleon—the four quasi-immortals like to use swords in addition to automatic weaponry.
Written with glints of pulpy panache by Greg Rucka, the comic’s originator, The Old Guard sets up a high-potential premise and proceeds to do not very much with it. Rucka’s conceit is that this tiny group are among the very few people on Earth to have been born essentially immortal. This can be a good thing, but it can also prove problematic, as it means that they watch everybody they know age and die—a trope that was already somewhat worn by the time Anne Rice used it throughout her novels about ever-suffering vampires.
The plot of the film does relatively little after the showdown in South Sudan besides introduce a new member of the mercenary team, Nile (KiKi Layne), establish that Andy is tiring of the wandering warrior life, and show the group plotting revenge on Copley only to have that turn into a rescue mission that conveniently brings them all back together again. As part of the run-up to that mission, new recruit Nile, a Marine who goes AWOL from Afghanistan with Andy after her fellow soldiers see her seemingly fatal knife wound magically heal and treat her as some kind of witch, is introduced to life as a nearly invincible eternal warrior.
That rescue plot is simple to the point of being rote. Billionaire Big Pharma bro Merrick (Harry Melling), seemingly made up of equal parts Lex Luthor and Martin Shkreli, kidnaps two of Andy’s team in the hope of harvesting their DNA for blockbuster anti-aging drugs. Unfortunately for the film, that takes two of its most personable characters temporarily out of action. Nicky (Luca Marinelli) and Joe (Marwan Kenzari) had their meet-cute while fighting on opposite sides of the Crusades and have been wildly in love ever since. After the two are captured and mocked by Merrick’s homophobic gunsels, Joe delivers a pocket soliloquy on his poetic yearning: “His kiss still thrills me after a millennium.” The moment’s romantic burn is more poignant by being clipped to its bare-minimal length and presented with the casual confidence one would expect from a man old enough to remember Pope Urban II.
In other ways, however, The Old Guard fails to explore the effects of living such lengthy lives. Asked by Nile whether they are “good guys or bad guys,” Booker answers that “it depends on the century.” While Rucka’s hard-boiled lines like that can help energize the narrative, it can also suggest a certain flippancy. When the film does deal with crushing weight of historical memory, it focuses primarily on Andy, who’s been around so long that her name is shortened from Andromache the Scythian (suggesting she was once the Amazon warrior queen who fought in the battle of Troy). Except for a brief flashback illustrating the centuries-long escapades of Andy and Quynh (Veronica Ngo) fighting for vaguely defined positive principles (one involved rescuing women accused of witchcraft), we don’t see much of their past. Similarly, except for Andy’s increasing cynicism about the positive impact of their roaming the Earth like do-gooder ronin, they seem to exist largely in the present.
That present is largely taken up with combat, particularly as Booker, Andy, and Nile gear up to rescue Nicky and Joe. Prince-Bythewood handles these scenes with a degree of John Wick-esque flair: Why just shoot a Big Pharma hired gun once when you can shoot him, flip him over, and then stab and shoot him again for good measure? However tight, though, the action scenes’ staging is unremarkable, with the exception of one climactic moment that’s so well-choreographed from an emotional standpoint that the impossibility of a multiplex crowd hooting and clapping in response makes the film feel stifled by being limited to streaming.
Smartly prioritizing the bond of relationships over action in the way of the modern franchise series—doing so more organically than the Fast and the Furious series but missing the self-aware comedic patter of the Avengers films—The Old Guard is in the end only somewhat convincing on both counts. That will likely not stop further iterations from finding ways to plug these characters and their like into any historical moment that has room in it for high-minded mercenaries with marketable skills and a few centuries to kill.
Cast: Charlize Theron, Matthias Schoenaerts, KiKi Layne, Marwan Kenzari, Luca Marinelli, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Harry Melling, Veronica Ngo Director: Gina Prince-Bythewood Screenwriter: Greg Rucka Distributor: Netflix Running Time: 118 min Rating: R Year: 2020
Review: We Are Little Zombies Is a Fun, Wildly Stylized Portrait of Grief
The film is a kaleidoscopic portrait of a world where emotions are accessed and revealed primarily through digital intermediaries.3
Makoto Nagahisa’s We Are Little Zombies follows the exploits of a group of tweens who meet at the funeral home where their deceased parents are being cremated. But, surprisingly, Hitari (Keita Ninomiya), Takemura (Mondo Okumura), Ishi (Satoshi Mizuno), and Ikiko (Satoshi Mizuno) are united less by sorrow and more by cool indifference, as they see their parents’ deaths as yet another tragedy in what they collectively agree is pretty much a “shit life.” As the socially awkward Hitari claims matter-of-factly in voiceover, “Babies cry to signal they need help. Since no one can help me, there’s no point in crying.”
Through a series of extended flashbacks, Nagahisa relates the kids’ troubled lives, never stooping to pitying or sentimentalizing them or their utter dismay with the adult world. The new friends’ deeply internalized grief and hopelessness are filtered wildly through a hyperreal aesthetic lens that’s indebted to all things pop, from psychedelia to role-playing games. It’s Nagashisa’s vibrant means of expressing the disconnect between the kids’ troubled lives and their emotionless reactions to the various tragedies that have befallen them.
With its chiptunes-laden soundtrack and chapter-like form, which mimics the levels of a video game, We Are Little Zombies will draw understandable comparisons to Edgar Wright’s Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. But it’s Nagisa Oshima’s Three Resurrected Drunkards that offers a more precise analogue to this film’s provocative rhyming of stylistic zaniness and extreme youthful alienation. Oshima’s anarchically playful farce stars the real-life members of the Folk Crusaders as a disaffected group of rebellious musicians, and when the kids of We Are Little Zombies decide to form a band to express themselves, they even perform a bossa nova version of the Folk Crusaders’s theme song for the 1968 film. This and the many other cultural touchstones in We Are Little Zombies are seamlessly weaved by Nagahisa into a kaleidoscopic portrait of a world where emotions are accessed and revealed primarily through digital intermediaries, be they social media or a dizzying glut of pop-cultural creations.
Nagahisa’s aesthetic mirrors his main characters’ disconnect from reality, incorporating everything from stop-motion animation to pixelated scenes and overhead shots that replicate the stylings of 8-bit RPGs. At one point in We Are Little Zombies, an unsettling talk show appearance brings to mind what it would be like to have a bad acid trip on the set of an old MTV news program. Nagahisa accepts that the kids’ over-engagement with screen-based technology is inextricably embedded in their experience of reality and ultimately celebrates the sense of camaraderie and belonging that the foursome finds in pop artifacts and detritus. This is particularly evident once their band, the Little Zombies of the film’s title, starts to explore their antipathy toward and frustrations with a seemingly indifferent world.
The Little Zombies wield the same charming punk spirit as the film, and once instant fame reveals its viciously sharp teeth, Nagahisa doesn’t hold back from peering into the nihilistic abyss that stands before the kids. As in Three Resurrected Drunkards, We Are Little Zombies’s most despairing notes are couched in the distinctive language of pop culture. Hitari’s attempts to grab essential items before running away from the home of a relative (Eriko Hatsune) are staged as a video game mission. The band’s hit song—titled, of course, “We Are Little Zombies”—is an infectious, delightfully melodic banger all about their dispassionate existence. There’s even a fake death scene of the kids that, as in Three Resurrected Drunkards, effectively restarts the film’s narrative, allowing the characters to once again test their fate.
For all of this film’s reliance on the stylistic ticks of video games, its narrative arc isn’t limited to the typically linear journey embarked upon by many a gaming protagonist, and the foursome’s path leads neither to enlightenment nor even happiness per se. What they’ve discovered in the months since their parents’ deaths is a solidarity with one another, and rather than have them conquer their fears and anxieties, Nagahisa wisely acknowledges that their social disconnection will remain an ongoing struggle. He understands that by tapping into the unifying, rather than alienating, powers of pop culture, they’re better equipped to deal with whatever additional hard knocks that the modern world will inevitably throw their way.
Cast: Keita Ninomiya, Satoshi Mizuno, Mondo Okumura, Sena Nakajima, Kuranosukie Sasaki, Youki Kudoh, Sosuke Ikematsu, Eriko Hatsune, Jun Murakami, Naomi Nishida Director: Makoto Nagahisa Screenwriter: Makoto Nagahisa Distributor: Oscilloscope Running Time: 120 min Rating: NR Year: 2019
Review: Palm Springs Puts a Fresh Spin on the Time-Loop Rom-Com
The film smuggles some surprisingly bleak existential questioning inside a brightly comedic vehicle.3
The pitch for Palm Springs likely went: “Edge of Tomorrow meets Groundhog Day but with a cool Coachella rom-com vibe.” All of those components are present and accounted for in Max Barbakow’s film, about two people forced to endure the same day of a Palm Springs wedding over and over again after getting stuck in a time loop. But even though the concept might feel secondhand, the execution is confident, funny, and thoughtful.
Palm Springs starts without much of a hook, sidling into its story with the same lassitude as its protagonist, Nyles (Andy Samberg). First seen having desultory sex with his shallow and always peeved girlfriend, Misty (Meredith Hagner), Nyles spends the rest of the film’s opening stretch wandering around the resort where guests are gathered for the wedding of Misty’s friend, Tala (Camila Mendes), lazing around the pool and drinking a seemingly endless number of beers. “Oh yeah, Misty’s boyfriend” is how most refer to him with casual annoyance, and then he gives a winning wedding speech that one doesn’t expect from a plus-one.
The reason for why everything at the wedding seems so familiar to Nyles, and why that speech is so perfectly delivered, becomes clear after he entices the bride’s sister and maid of honor, Sarah (Cristin Milioti), to follow him out to the desert for a make-out session. In quick succession, Nyles is shot with an arrow by a mysterious figure (J.K. Simmons), Sarah is accidentally sucked into the same glowing vortex that trapped Nyles in his time loop, and she wakes up on the morning of the not-so-great day that she just lived through.
Although Palm Springs eventually digs into the knottier philosophical quandaries of this highly elaborate meet-cute, it takes an appealingly blasé approach to providing answers to the scenario’s curiosities. What initially led Nyles to the mysterious glowing cave in the desert? How has he maintained any semblance of sanity over what appears to be many years of this nightmare existence? How come certain people say “thank you” in Arabic?
This attitude of floating along the sea of life’s mysteries without worry parallels Nyles’s shrugging attitude about the abyss facing them. In response to Sarah’s panicked queries about why they are living the same day on repeat, Nyles throws out a random collection of theories: “one of those infinite time loop situations….purgatory….a glitch in the simulation we’re all in.” His ideas seem half-baked at first. But as time passes, it becomes clear that Nyles has been trapped at the wedding so long that not only has he lost all concept of time or even who he was before it began, his lackadaisical approach to eternity seems more like wisdom.
Darkly cantankerous, Sarah takes a while to come around to that way of thinking. Her version of the Kübler-Ross model starts in anger and shifts to denial (testing the limits of their time-loop trap, she drives home to Texas, only to snap back to morning in Palm Springs when she finally dozes off) before pivoting to acceptance. This segment, where Nyles introduces Sarah to all the people and things he’s found in the nooks and crannies of the world he’s been able to explore in one waking day, plays like a quantum physics rom-com with a video-game-y sense of immortality. After learning the ropes from Nyles (death is no escape, so try to avoid the slow, agonizing deaths), Sarah happily takes part in his Sisyphean games of the drunk and unkillable, ranging from breaking into houses to stealing and crashing a plane.
As places to be trapped for all eternity, this idyll doesn’t seem half bad at first. Barbakow’s fast-paced take on the pleasingly daffy material helps, as does the balancing of Milioti’s angry agita with Samberg’s who-cares recklessness. Eventually the story moves out of endlessly looping stasis into the problem-solution phase, with Sarah deciding she can’t waste away in Palm Springs for eternity. But while the question of whether or not they can escape via Sarah’s device for bridging the multiverse takes over the narrative to some degree, Palm Springs is far more interesting when it ruminates lightly on which puzzle they’re better off solving: pinning their hopes on escape or cracking another beer and figuring out how to be happy in purgatory. Palm Springs isn’t daring by any stretch, but it smuggles some surprisingly bleak existential questioning inside a brightly comedic vehicle that’s similar to Groundhog Day but without that film’s reassuring belief that a day can be lived perfectly rather than simply endured.
Cast: Andy Samberg, Cristin Millioti, J.K. Simmons, Peter Gallagher, Meredith Hagner, Camila Mendez, Tyler Hoechlin, Chris Pang Director: Max Barbakow Screenwriter: Andy Siara Distributor: Neon, Hulu Running Time: 90 min Rating: NR Year: 2020
Review: Hamilton Comes Home, Still Holding Conflicting Truths at Once
The show offers testimony to the power of communal storytelling, just as mighty on screen as on stage.3.5
The actual physical production of Hamilton has never been at the heart of the show’s fandom. Its lyrics have been memorized en masse, Hamilton-inspired history courses have been created across grade levels, and its references have invaded the vernacular, but, for most, Hamilton’s liveness has been inaccessible, whether due to geography or unaffordability. Hamilton the film, recorded over two Broadway performances in 2016 with most of the original Broadway cast, winningly celebrates the still-surprisingly rich density of Lin-Manuel Miranda’s score and the show’s much-heralded actors. But this new iteration is most stunning in its devotion to translating Hamilton’s swirling, churning storytelling—the work of director Thomas Kail and choreographer Andy Blankenbuehler—to the screen.
Most films of live theater feel partial and remote. There’s usually a sense that with every move of the camera we’re missing out on something happening elsewhere on stage. The autonomy of attending theater in person—the ability to choose what to focus on—is stripped away. But instead of delimiting what we see of Hamilton, this film opens up our options. Even when the camera (one of many installed around, behind, and above the stage) homes in on a lone singer, the shots tend to frame the soloists in a larger context: We can watch Aaron Burr (Leslie Odom Jr.), but we can also track the characters behind him or on the walkways above him. Every shot is rife with detail and movement: the rowers escorting Alexander Hamilton’s (Miranda) body to shore, Maria Reynolds (Jasmine Cephas Jones) hovering beneath a stairway as Hamilton confesses his infidelities to Burr, ensemble members dancing in the shadows of David Korins’s imposing set. There’s no space to wonder what might be happening beyond the camera’s gaze.
Off-setting the cast album’s appropriate spotlight on the show’s stars, the film, also directed by Kail, constantly centers the ensemble, even when they’re not singing, as they enact battles and balls or symbolically fly letters back and forth between Hamilton and Burr. Audiences who mainly know the show’s music may be surprised by how often the entire cast is on stage, and even those who’ve seen Hamilton live on stage will be delighted by the highlighted, quirky individuality of each ensemble member’s often-silent storytelling.
Kail shows impressive restraint, withholding aerial views and shots from aboard the spinning turntables at the center of the stage until they can be most potent. The film also convincingly offers Hamilton’s design as a stunning work of visual art, showcasing Howell Binkley’s lighting—the sharp yellows as the Schuyler Sisters take the town and the slowly warming blues as Hamilton seeks his wife’s forgiveness—just as thoughtfully as it does the performances.
And when the cameras do go in for a close-up, they shade lyrics we may know by heart with new meaning. In “Wait for It,” Burr’s paean to practicing patience rather than impulsiveness, Odom (who won a Tony for the role) clenches his eyes shut as he sings, “I am inimitable, I am an original,” tensing as if battling to convince himself that his passivity is a sign of strength and not cowardice. When Eliza Hamilton (Philippa Soo) glances upward and away from her ever-ascendant husband as she asks him, “If I could grant you peace of mind, would that be enough?,” it’s suddenly crystal clear that she’s wondering whether taking care of Alexander would be enough for herself, not for him, her searching eyes foreshadowing her eventual self-reliance. And there’s an icky intimacy unachievable in person when Jonathan Groff’s mad King George literally foams at the mouth in response to the ingratitude of his colonies.
The production’s less understated performances, like Daveed Diggs’s show-stealing turn (also Tony-winning) in the dual roles of the Marquis de Lafayette and Thomas Jefferson and Renée Elise Goldsberry’s fiery embodiment (yes, also Tony-winning) of the shrewd, self-sacrificing Angelica Schuyler Church, benefit, too, from the way that the film’s pacing latches onto Miranda’s propulsive writing. In Jefferson’s return home, “What’d I Miss,” the camera angles change swiftly as if to keep up with Diggs’s buoyancy.
Despite Christopher Jackson’s warm and gorgeous-voiced performance, George Washington remains Hamilton’s central sticking point. While Jefferson receives a dressing down from Hamilton for practicing slavery, Washington, who once enslaved over 200 people at one time at Mount Vernon, shows up in Hamilton as a spotless hero who might as well be king if he wasn’t so noble as to step down. There’s a tricky tension at Hamilton’s core: Casting performers of color as white founding “heroes” allows the master narrative to be reclaimed, but it’s still a master narrative. For audiences familiar with the facts, the casting of black actors as slave owners (not just Jefferson) is an unstated, powerful act of artistic resistance against the truths of the nation’s founding. But for those learning their history from Hamilton, especially young audiences, they will still believe in Washington’s moral purity, even if they walk away picturing the first president as Christopher Jackson.
But Hamilton is complex and monumental enough of a work to hold conflicting truths at once. In attempting to recraft our understanding of America’s founding, it may fall short. In forcibly transforming the expectations for who can tell what stories on which stages, Hamilton has been a game-changer. And as a feat of musical theater high-wire acts, Miranda’s dexterity in navigating decades of historical detail while weaving his characters’ personal and political paths tightly together is matched only by his own ingenuity as a composer and lyricist of songs that showcase his characters’ brilliance without distractingly drawing attention to his own.
Dynamized by its narrative-reclaiming, race-conscious casting and hip-hop score, and built around timeline-bending reminders that America may be perpetually in the “battle for our nation’s very soul,” Hamilton, of course, also lends itself particularly easily to 2020 connections. But the greater gift is that Hamilton will swivel from untouchability as Broadway’s most elusive, priciest ticket to mass accessibility at a moment of keen awareness that, to paraphrase George Washington, history has its eyes on us. The show offers testimony to the power of communal storytelling, just as mighty on screen as on stage. That we are sharing Hamilton here and now offers as much hope as Hamilton itself.
Cast: Daveed Diggs, Renée Elise Goldsberry, Jonathan Groff, Christopher Jackson, Jasmine Cephas Jones, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Leslie Odom Jr., Okieriete Onaodowan, Anthony Ramos, Phillipa Soo Director: Thomas Kail Screenwriter: Ron Chernow, Lin-Manuel Miranda Distributor: Disney+ Running Time: 160 min Rating: PG-13 Year: 2020
Review: The Optimism of Japan Sinks: 2020 Leads to a Curious Emotional Remove
Review: Céline Sciamma’s Portrait of a Lady on Fire on Criterion Blu-ray
Review: Tom Hanks Stubbornly Steers Greyhound into Sentimental Waters
Review: Little Voice Is a Twee, Navel-Gazing Depiction of Creative Struggle
Review: Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets Is an Elegiac Mosaic of Disillusionment
Review: Lianne La Havas’s Eponymous Third Album Embraces the Catharsis of Loss
Review: Julianna Barwick’s Healing Is a Miracle Is Music as Spiritual Renewal
Blu-ray Review: Noah Baumbach’s Marriage Story on the Criterion Collection
Interview: Bill and Turner Ross on the Constructions of Bloody Nose, Empty Pockets
Review: Peacock’s The Capture Wears Its Topicality Impersonally on Its Sleeve
- TV4 days ago
Review: The Optimism of Japan Sinks: 2020 Leads to a Curious Emotional Remove
- Video6 days ago
Review: Céline Sciamma’s Portrait of a Lady on Fire on Criterion Blu-ray
- Film6 days ago
Review: Tom Hanks Stubbornly Steers Greyhound into Sentimental Waters
- TV5 days ago
Review: Little Voice Is a Twee, Navel-Gazing Depiction of Creative Struggle