Thursday, July 10, 2025
Home Blog Page 169

Podcast: The 2021 Oscar Season Begins – Chasing the Gold Ep. 24

On Episode 24 of Chasing the Gold, Ryan is joined by Alan French (We Live Entertainment and InSession Film) to discuss TIFF 2020 and the beginning stages of the 2021 Oscar season.

Fall film festivals have begun virtually and the first crop of contenders for the beloved gold status have risen. With this, Alan, who attended the festival, discusses with Ryan the films he thinks we will be talking about as the season goes on. They also talk a little about the ceremony as a whole and some titles that have released outside of the festivals and what they can do as well. It’s early, but the season is starting to take shape and with that, more episodes of Chasing the Gold should be coming soon.

On that note, have fun with this week’s Chasing the Gold and let us know what you think in the comment section below. Thanks for listening!

– Music
The Return of the Eagle – Atli Örvarsson

We try to make this the best movie podcast we possibly can and we hope you enjoy them. Subscribe today on iTunes, Spotfiy or Stitcher, and please leave us a review on iTunes. You can also find us on Soundcloud, PlayerFM and TuneIn Radio as well. We really appreciate all your support of the InSession Film Podcast.

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
The 2021 Oscar Season Begins – Chasing the Gold Ep. 24

[divider]

Mobile App

To hear this Extra Film episode and everything else we do, download our apps on the Amazon Market for Android and the Podcast Box app on IOS devices. The mobile app covers all of our main shows, bonus podcast’s and everything else relating to the InSession Film Podcast. Thanks for your wonderful support and listening to our show. It means the world to us!

[divider]

Help Support The InSession Film Podcast

If you want to help support us, we would greatly appreciate it! For more info, CLICK HERE.

Classic Movie Review: ‘Serenity’ Turns 15

It would be understandable if Joss Whedon had a strong dislike for the folks over at Fox. After all, they canceled not one but two of his shows, amid contentious reasoning that still tastes sour to fans all these years later. While Dollshouse – his 2009 show, and the fourth he had created – was at least given an appropriate send-off after cancellation, it is Firefly which sticks in the craw of most Whedonites.

Firefly was a poppy space western, replete with the typical Whedon touches: acerbic, tongue-in-cheek humor; strong female characters; witty, snappy dialogue; and Nathan Fillion at his charming best as Captain Mal Reynolds. Coming off his critical and commercial success with Buffy the Vampire Slayer and its spin-off show Angel, which had mixed results, you would be forgiven if you expected Firefly to be a runaway hit for Joss Whedon. This wasn’t exactly the case. For starters, it got off to an inauspicious beginning, with Fox airing the first episode in the ‘death slot’ of Friday night; secondly, the first episode which aired was actually the second episode of the show, as Fox felt it was a more engaging beginning, confusing viewers who were thrown into an episode having missed the worldbuilding and introductions which took place in episode one. Alongside this, Fox never understood the humor or tone that made the show popular, and so its marketing was wrongheaded from the start. All of these issues played a factor in low ratings for the show, which led to Fox pulling the plug midway through the first season. It was a bitter blow for Whedon, who still feels hurt to this day.

Despite Fox’s decision to cancel, the show did receive critical acclaim, if not commercial. It also generated a loyal fanbase (styling themselves as Browncoats in reference to the show) during its initial run, who tried desperately to save the show from cancellation via online petitions, even going as far as to place an ad in Variety magazine. Fan campaigns continued unabated after the show ended, convincing Fox to finally release the DVD boxset in December 2003. A buoyant fanbase celebrated this release by creating another campaign to raise $14,000 in order to have the DVDs placed aboard 250 U.S Navy ships. Universal Studios, is a savvy company, knew a good thing when they saw it; Whedon approached them with a pitch to make a big-screen follow-up to Firefly and, so it goes, they immediately accepted. Thus Serenity (as it was called because Fox owned the name Firefly) made its debut on 30th September 2005.

The road to Serenity wasn’t an easy one. While Whedon had the job of continuing on a much-loved series in a new format, he also had to make the movie as accessible as possible for new viewers who hadn’t seen the TV show before. Story ideas were based upon plots which had been established for a second season of Firefly while others, such as Inara Serra’s disease (which was hinted at during the course of the first season), were summarily dropped. Whedon also had to contend with contracting issues; although everyone agreed to come back for the film, Whedon envisioned Serenity as the first of a trilogy of films that would require the cast to be available going forward. All but Alan Tudyk and Ron Glass agreed to commit to further movies, causing Whedon to kill off their characters in a redraft – leading to perhaps the most shocking scene in the movie.

Serenity was completed with a budget of around $40 million (considered a small budget for a sci-fi movie) and filming has taken place over 14 months. It debuted at the Edinburgh International Film Festival to a wild, rapturous audience. Alas, despite a captivated audience that compelled the organizers of the EIFF to create two more screenings due to high demand, Serenity debuted internationally to a relatively low box-office. Slated for number 1, it managed only second place, garnering around $10 million in its first weekend. At the time of its closing, it pulled in around $25 million, which was considered something of a failure given its nearly $40 million budget, although a worldwide total of around $40 million ensured that Universal more or less broke even on the project. This unfortunately seems to have killed off any plans that might have been made for the prospective sequels as, fifteen years later, there is no news or developments in that direction.

For all its troubled history, Serenity still stands the test of time. Even viewing without a knowledge of the TV show which inspired it. It sees the crew of the Serenity – Captain Mal Reynolds, first mate Zoe Washburne and her husband, pilot Hoban “Wash” Washburne, Jayne Cobb, and mechanic Kaylee Frye – continue traveling alongside their companions Simon Tam, and his sister River, a psychic with supernatural powers who is wanted by the shadowy organization The Alliance. They receive an invitation from Inara Serra, which is revealed to be a trap set by The Operative (an always compelling Chiwetel Ejiofor) who is working on behalf of the Alliance. This sets off a chain of events in which the crew must travel from planet to planet as they attempt to expose the Alliance’s secret plot to develop a chemical which renders the consumer docile to the point of comatose.

Serenity embodies the tropes for which Whedon was known, tropes which he established in Firefly; an anti-authoritarian stance (as depicted through the regime of the Alliance); liberty versus bureaucracy; and what defines humanity. There are comparisons to be made between it and the likes of 1984 and Huxley’s Brave New World in its depiction of an all-powerful authority who over-police a population to the point where free will is eroded. It’s a bold step for a sci-fi film with an already large burden on its shoulders but it pulls it off with aplomb.

As was the case with its predecessor, although Serenity never exactly broke any records, it still received significant critical acclaim. From Roger Ebert to Scott Orson Card (who labeled it “the best science fiction film ever”), critics were generous in their praise. Award bodies, too, saw its value; it was awarded the Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation; the Nebula award for best script, and the Prometheus Special Award.

Serenity is a special sort of movie. It exists because of fans, created in a vacuum of optimism for a brief, shining show which petered out too quickly. It is the beneficiary of the cult following around it and is beloved by the Browncoats who campaigned tirelessly for it to be made. In that way, Serenity is a testament to grassroots campaigning and the importance of showing support for a product you love. It wouldn’t have been made any other way.

Although it’s very unlikely we’ll ever see another film set in the Firefly universe, Serenity is a reminder of how brilliant that universe is and, fifteen years on, the passion shown for it still burns as bright. The franchise continues today with comic books, novels, and board games appearing on shop shelves on a regular basis, so there’s no reason to have to say goodbye just yet.

Happy 15th Anniversary, Serenity!

Poll: What is your favorite Aaron Sorkin script?

Sometimes a screenplay is so good it practically overtakes the film, instead of just helping to define it. Not many writers have this power, but among those who do, Aaron Sorkin is arguably the first name we think of. His scripts have a lot in common, from their politically charged themes to their biting and snappy dialogue, it’s hard not to think of Sorkin whenever we hear his words on the screen. But to write stories so biting, so educational, and so “monetary”, it’s hard to do all of that simultaneously and still craft something so smooth. There have been many imitators, but no one Sorkins like Sorkin.

So with that said, what is your favorite Aaron Sorkin screenplay? Note that we haven’t included Moneyball, as that is considered a joint effort by both Aaron Sorkin and Steven Zaillian.


Chasing the Gold: Best Actress Analysis (2021 Oscars)

In 1969, Barbara Streisand won her first Academy Award, and while holding the golden statue, she spoke the now-infamous line, “Hello gorgeous.” A line taken a right from her award-winning performance in Funny Girl (1968). As Sally Field won her second Oscar for Places in the Heart (1984), she exclaimed, “You like me!” Year after year, the Best Actress category is filled with talented women — who, upon exhibiting extraordinary performances, are given the honor to be nominated. Though 2020 has seen a lack of theatrical releases, there is no shortage of incredible female performances. These early predictions are only a tiny look at which women may count themselves among the greatest female performances, and the one who may be lucky enough to take home the coveted Oscar at the 93rd Academy Awards.

Michelle Pfeiffer (French Exit)

French Exit is the vehicle for which Michelle Pfeiffer may add another nomination to her résumé. As of late, Pfeiffer has taken on fewer projects, but when her exhilarating performances grace the screen, you can’t help but be taken aback by her talent. From 1990-1993, Pfeiffer garnered two Best Actress nominations for her respective roles in The Fabulous Baker Boys (1989) and Love Field (1992). Pfeiffer is coming into this award season with her dukes up, ready to show people that this is her year. With the Academy’s past of voting for an actor’s illustrious career rather than just a single performance, could I go as far as to say that she’s the favorite in the race? Well, the jury is still out on that question. But if the stars align, and Pfeiffer takes our breath away, she may get her chance to take home that golden statue finally.

Vanessa Kirby (Pieces of a Woman)

Vanessa Kirby is what I would call the dark horse of this Oscar race. Kirby, most known for her role as Princess Margaret in Netflix’s The Crown, is the fire within the Royal Family’s drama between what you could call “the heir and the spare.” Coming out of the Venice Film Festival, Kirby was able to grab herself the Coppa Volpi for Best Actress — stunning audiences for her role in the newly Netflix obtained, Pieces of a Woman. The film flew far beneath the radar —with barely any whispers about the film’s production. From what I can gather in early reactions for the film as a whole, Kirby may be the only element of the film to win recognition. Pieces of a Woman will show Kirby’s caliber of acting in a leading role rather than the supportive role, or the action hero. Though some may think she’s a long shot, I wouldn’t sell Kirby short just yet. She may be the one to upset the order of things.

Frances McDormand (Nomadland)

Chloé Zhao’s, Nomadland, is gaining momentum in all award season categories, with Frances McDormand being a clear contender for Best Actress. In 2018, McDormand took home the Oscar for her outstanding performance as Mildred in Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017). Thus, bringing her into the fold of talented actors with multiple Oscars. McDormand has shown us time and again, her untouchable talents. Her performances drip with a no-nonsense attitude, and her characters are often the smartest people in the room. McDormand has nothing else to prove to us as she’s one of the best actresses working today. But that fact hasn’t slowed her down as the capacity she envelopes herself in the characters she plays is nothing short of genius. Should McDormand pull off her third Oscar win, no one can say it wasn’t deserved.

Jennifer Hudson (Respect)

Jennifer Hudson is here with what looks to be a tour-de-force performance as the one and only Aretha Franklin in Respect. Hudson earned her first Oscar win, in 2007, with her performance as Effie White in the movie adaptation of Dreamgirls (2006). We all know the statement, “you were born to play this role.” Well, if the trailer for Respect tells us anything, it’s that Hudson was born to play this role. Hudson looks to fully transform herself into the talented singer and, if you’ve listened to Franklin’s music, you know it’s a one of a kind voice. Let’s be honest; the Academy loves music. The Academy loves biopics. The culmination of the two categories will no doubt land Hudson her second nomination, and possibly her second win. Unless something drastic happens to the release date for Respect, it’s going to be hard not to recognize Hudson as a serious contender for Best Actress.

Viola Davis (Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom)

When you purchase a ticket for a film starring Viola Davis, you can be sure that her performance will be exceptional. From the moment I noticed her in Doubt (2008), I knew she was something as she outshined Meryl Streep in a pivotal scene, which we all know is a hard thing to do. Davis’ Best Supporting Actress win for her role in August Wilson’s, Fences (2016) was well-deserved. However, it’s a shame that we have to go back to her award for Fences when Davis’ performance in Widows (2018) should have earned her a nomination for Best Actress, but I digress. In Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom, Davis takes her place in another Wilson play adaptation as she plays Ma Rainey, or as early blues musicians called her, “Mother of the Blues.” The character of Ma Rainey will be captivating as Davis will have to portray the blues singer, not only at the beginning of the blues music genre but while also fighting the racial prejudices that plagued her career. A complex role, yes, but one that will bring Davis another Oscar nomination.

With the constantly changing release dates, it’s hard to firmly predict any Oscar category this year. In terms of Best Actress, Kate Winslet may still have a chance at a nomination. But the reaction to Ammonite, though promising, may see Winslet left off the final ballot. In addition to other possible nominees, I would have loved to set aside one of these predictions for Carey Mulligan in what’s being hailed as a career-best for her role in Promising Young Woman. But with no release date in sight, Promising Young Woman may sadly miss the cut-off date. As far as this season goes, these are the most likely nominees. Let’s not get too comfortable, however. If the prior award seasons have taught us anything, there’s always that one last shock.

Criterion Crunch Time: ‘Devil’s Doorway’

So, the month is just about over. You’re running out of time to catch these movies on Criterion!  I hope you enjoyed The Magnificent Ambersons,  I Am Not A Witch, and Loulou. This week we travel back in time, both in the year of release and genre. The western, though there have been moments of recent renaissance, is a genre that feels older, but it is a tremendously important part of American cinema. So, it is certainly appropriate for Criterion Channel to feature many of them on their service. And this time, we look at a revisionist western from 1950 in Devil’s Doorway.

Sadly, there are no extras featured on the Criterion Channel for this movie. Devil’s Doorway is directed by Anthony Mann, who directed other well-known films such as Winchester ‘73 (a classic western) and Cimarron (a now derided Best Picture award winner). Given that history, it may surprise some that he made this western that, in some ways, is so forward thinking. After all, it features a Native character (at least one) to root for and is seen as an actual human being. Of course, it is not all good news. Our Native protagonist, Lance Poole (Robert Taylor) is portrayed by a white actor. Of course, it is difficult (and sometimes pointless) to judge a movie from 70 years ago regarding diversity and representation. However, It should be noted that there is one Native actor in the film (Chief John Big Tree), playing Lance’s father, Thundercloud, in his last film role. The casting of a white actor is worth mentioning not only for these reasons, but also because it is obvious from the start, given the extensive makeup used on Taylor.

Devil’s Doorway is a movie about race, but it is also a movie about how progress intersects with race, and not in positive ways. In the opening scene, there is a seemingly random mention of the encroaching railroads and the lack of space for men to have room to live their lives. This later connects to a plot point regarding the idea of homesteading, in which people can plot out available land in a first come, first serve setup. Great idea, right? This would give people economic freedom in the West.  Remember that word, people.

 

Back to our protagonist. When he first appears, he is returning home from the war and, as a viewer, he simply seems like a normal, good, honorable man. But through a local bartender, we find that he is a full-blooded Native, a Shoshone to be specific. He and his father “own” a huge plot of land. But this is ownership in that Wild West, where possession is 9/10 of the law, at least for now. But with this new homesteading law, a person can stake a claim to any officially unowned land. Smartly, he decides to go see a lawyer. Unfortunately, the only lawyer we know at this point, Verne Coolan (Louis Calhern) is a virulent racist, so he searches out another. In a particularly funny interaction, he meets this new lawyer, Orrie Masters (Paula Raymond), and upon realizing that she is a woman, awkwardly leaves her office before returning and trying again, being bereft of options. Despite the fact that he does the right thing legally, he is outright rejected from owning his land. According to the government, homesteading is for people. Natives are not people, but wards of the state. 

This relationship, full of sexual tension if not pure romance, will make or break the film for the viewer. In my opinion, it works, but just barely. As the focus is on the nobility of Lance, much of the love story, in any physical sense, falls by the wayside. Visually however, director Anthony Mann makes it a point to purposefully show us the difference and the distance between Lance and Orrie. For instance, when she first makes the trip out to his ranch, he assists her off of a horse and the camera lingers on his dark hand touching her hand, gloved in white. As a note, later in the film as they grow closer, her hand is gloved in black. It is a neat little visual trick to show the evolution of their relationship. Speaking of Mann’s visual choices, the slow change in Lance’s appearance throughout the runtime, while not subtle, is quite effective. In his first scene, he is in the uniform given to him by the white world, with medals and stripes also awarded for his bravery in battle. As his frustration grows, he begins to add Native adornment and clothing. If you were to solely examine the costuming from the first to the last scene, Lance would be nearly unrecognizable. Additionally, Mann chooses to shoot him in full light near the beginning and with increasing shadow as he changes. As a matter of fact, there is one scene between Lance and Orrie late in the film in which he is almost a silhouette. This is a striking image, as well as a sign that he is actively turning his back on the white world. 

Devil’s Doorway is a sad story, a story where our protagonist does the right, honorable thing at every turn, and is met with violence and death. Progress in the United States, regardless of time period, is an advantage as long as your skin is white. If you are born black, brown, or in this case, red, it is yet another opportunity to have your livelihood, and maybe even your life taken from you. Devil’s Doorway has some unsubtle touches, but is impressive in that it puts himself almost solely on the side of the Native character, and painting the white men as evil at worst, and ineffectual at best.

Join us next month for another batch of movies leaving the Criterion Channel!

Criterion Releases: October 2020 (PARASITE IS HERE!!!)

Halloween is happening on live TV with COVID-19 hanging around and a massive Presidential election just around the corner. As people plan with their kids to (uber)safely take their kids out trick-or-treating, cinephiles have more treats coming out from Criterion. Two films, an early Stephen Frears work, and a Godard folly are getting re-released, two more hidden American works are coming in, and a certain Academy Award winner for Best Picture is, with a ton of fanfare since the announcement in July, is coming in like a large storm flooding the alleyways.

The Gunfighter (1950)

Gregory Peck plays the anti-hero Jimmy Ringo, known for his fast draw that makes him an easy draw for people who want to kill him, but the threats against Ringo take a toll on him as he goes back to his estranged wife and the son he never knew. It’s a Western noir, a mix of two genres that came in the 1950s and steered away from the heroic side of cowboys and lawmen. Before Gregory Peck was offered the role, John Wayne was the first option but turned it because the script was originally bought by Columbia Pictures and Wayne hated its President, Harry Cohn.

Pierrot Le Fou (1965)

Godard’s favorites in Jean-Paul Belmondo and the late Anna Karina play former lovers who get back together and go on the run committing various crimes. As traditional Godard, the mix of crime, romance, and comedy also featured continuous moments referencing pop culture and give a reflection on the criticism of the upper classes who Godard loathed. In beautiful color and modernizing of a calmer France, it would be among the last works in Godard’s first phase where he then shifted to politically charged movies.

Claudine (1974)

Diahann Carroll played the titular character, a single mother of six who falls for a garbage collector (James Earl Jones) who struggles to balance caring for her children who are hostile to her new beau and the restrictions of welfare. She needs every dollar she can get, a symbol of the struggle Black communities in the working class had to deal with. Such a socially conscience film could not be a romantic comedy, but that’s exactly what the film is and set to a soundtrack by Curtis Mayfield featuring Gladys Knight & The Pips. The role was to be played by Diana Sands, but in the first week of filming, she was diagnosed with cancer (and died shortly after) and Sands suggested her close friend take over. Carroll would receive an Oscar nomination for her performance.

The Hit (1984)

Terrence Stamp is a former henchman who lives in Spain after becoming an informant against his own. When two hitmen in John Hurt and Eric Roth come to incept him for execution, Stamp accepts his fate and the ride back to his execution site suddenly becomes a struggle just to get a job done. With Stamp as the happy-go-lucky dead man walking, the conflict between the hot-tempered pro and his protegee spills out on the highway and, with a beautiful Spanish woman (Laura del Sol) in tow, director Stephen Frears makes a hot flamenco dance out of the trio on who will survive the struggle for the honor amongst killers.

Parasite (2019)

I mean, do I need to explain this film? Do I need to explain why Criterion sought it and why people still admire its power? That Bong Jong-ho is going to have another of his movies getting the Criterion treatment? Before COVID-19, we were coming off the high of the tight-assed AMPAS giving Best Picture to an international film, one year after many groaned over Green Book winning Best Picture. It is the last good thing that has happened since the shutdown, since the normal we had was shuttered. That our good friend, Matt Neglia, has Jane Fonda’s announcement at the start of his Oscar podcasts. And, regardless of what happens in the Election (yes, even if Joe Biden beats Donald Trump), Parasite winning 4 Oscars including Best Picture will be the moment of the year 2020.

Follow me on Twitter: @brian_cine (Cine-A-Man)

Podcast: The Devil All the Time / Enola Holmes – Episode 397

This week’s episode is brought to you by ExpressVPN. Sign up today and get 3 months FREE with a 1-year package!

This week on the InSession Film Podcast, we review two Netflix films in The Devil All the Time and Enola Holmes! Plus, a few thoughts on Never Rarely Sometimes Always, The Assistant and Dick Johnson Is Dead.

On a side note, this episode from hence forth will be known as the “they named him River” episode. 2020 has been a crazy year, but the news that Joaquin Phoenix and Rooney Mara named their baby River helps make up for it. What a heartwarming story and we had to talk about it. Additionally to that, we had fun diving into the Netflix canon and talking about their latest films. The Devil All the Time and Enola Holmes couldn’t be more different and it made for some nice diversity (tonally speaking).

On that note, check out this week’s show and let us know what you think in the comment section. Thanks for listening and for supporting the InSession Film Podcast!

– Movie Review: The Devil All the Time (6:23)
Director: Antonio Campos
Writer: Antonio Campos, Paulo Campos
Stars: Donald Ray Pollock, Bill Skarsgård, Tom Holland, Robert Pattinson

– Notes / Never Rarely Sometimes Always / The Assistant / Dick Johnson Is Dead (48:37)
This week for our discussion segment, both JD and Brendan offer up their thoughts on the Kitty Green film The Assistant. JD also talks about Never Rarely Sometimes Always, hailed as one of the best films of the year, and he gives his review of Kirsten Johnson’s latest documentary Dick Johnson Is Dead.

[divider]

RELATED: Listen to Episode 387 of the InSession Film Podcast where we discussed Kelly Reichardt’s First Cow!

[divider]

– Movie Review: Enola Holmes (1:23:01)
Director: Harry Bradbeer
Writer: Jack Thorne (screenplay by), Nancy Springer (based upon the book “The Case of the Missing Marquess: An Enola Holmes Mystery” by)
Stars: Millie Bobby Brown, Henry Cavill, Sam Claflin

Show Sponsor: First Time Watchers Podcast

– Music

Backwards & Forwards – Saunder Jurriaans
Never Rarely – Julia Holter
Wild Child – Daniel Pemberton
The Return of the Eagle – Atli Örvarsson

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
InSession Film Podcast – Episode 397

[divider]

Next week on the show:

Main Review: The Trial of the Chicago 7
Top 3: N/A

[divider]

Help Support The InSession Film Podcast

If you want to help support us, there are several ways you can help us and we’d absolutely appreciate it. Every penny goes directly back into supporting the show and we are truly honored and grateful. Thanks for your support and for listening to the InSession Film Podcast!

VISIT OUR DONATE PAGE HERE

Op-ed: A Brief Journey Through German Expressionism

0

As one of the earliest movements in film history, German Expressionism had an immediate and lasting impact on cinema. With films appearing primarily in the 1920s and early 1930s, German Expressionist film coincided with the art movement of the same name. Featuring distorted sets, dark themes, and inspiration for genres such as horror and film noir, the movement also gave rise to notable filmmakers such as F.W. Murnau and Fritz Lang. This piece serves as an exploration of German Expressionism by analyzing six films from the movement. While this is not an exhaustive list of films from that era, these movies give us a great look at the aspects that defined the movement and its influence. 

 

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920, Robert Wiene) 

When it comes to German Expressionist films, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari should be at the top of the list. Not only is it one of the earliest and most recognizable films from the movement, but it also contains many of the features associated with German Expressionism. It’s the story of a hypnotist (the title character, played by Werner Krauss) and Cesare (Conrad Veidt), a sleepwalker he instructs to murder citizens of a small city. The film can be described as a twisted reality, featuring distorted production design. It achieves this through both painted settings–reflecting the art movement of the era–and constructed sets with sharp corners and edges, giving off the feeling of a gothic stage play. 

Dr. Caligari is also one of the oldest examples of a horror film. Krauss’s Caligari comes off as a mad scientist, with Cesare as the monster at his disposal. In addition to yellow and blue tints that give off an eerie aura, the film uses light and shadows as a tool to tell the story. Both narratively and stylistically, director Robert Wiene crafted a dark tale that looked like nothing else from that time. It would have an immediate impact on other films from the movement while setting the stage for nearly every horror film that came after it. 

 

The Golem (1920, Carl Boese & Paul Wegener) 

From 1925 through the 1950s, audiences got much of their cinematic horror fix from the Universal Monster films, featuring classic characters such as Frankenstein, Dracula, and The Wolfman. All of them were preceded by The Golem. This film, based on Jewish folklore, tells of the construction of a large mythical being made of clay (played by co-director Paul Wegener). The creature is crafted and brought to life (with the help of a vengeful spirit) by a rabbi in Prague in the 16th century. The being’s creation is a response to the persecution of Jewish folks by the Holy Roman Emperor, placing the film in the context of Weimar Germany, which would be upended by the Nazis only 13 years later. 

The creature is created to help bring justice for Jewish individuals, but things take a murderous turn when he becomes controlled by the spirit Astaroth. The narrative has some noticeable similarities to Frankenstein. But beyond the film’s influence on the monster movies that would arrive shortly after, it also fits nicely in the German Expressionist movement. Like Dr. Caligari, colored tints are used to create a dark atmosphere, with acute detail given to the lighting and sets to fit the historical setting. It also implies faults with sources of authority in society, which became a common theme in this movement. Though the film takes time to really get going, it does become quite thrilling in the final act. And Wegener is such an ominous presence as the titular character, even if he’s not quite as frightening as the next monster on our list. 

 

Nosferatu (1922, F.W. Murnau) 

If The Golem was a predecessor for the 1931 film version of Frankenstein, Nosferatu plays a similar role for Universal’s Dracula film. In fact, F.W. Murnau’s 1922 film was unofficially adapted from Bram Stoker’s classic novel. Nosferatu is one of the most influential horror films of all time, and it remains one of the most frightening to this day. Actor Max Schreck is terrifying as Count Orlok, the name given to the vampire in this tale. The film can best be identified by its stirring images of the actor, whether it be his sudden appearance in a doorway or his display of power as he stands on a ship, his long claws bent at his side. 

While this is first and foremost a horror film, one cannot help but also notice its noir style. The most horrifying image of all might be Orlok’s shadow as he climbs the stairs of his country residence, where the main character Hutter (Gustav v. Wangenheim) waits in fear. This use of shadow and darkness also places the film within the movement, though the film holds more in common with later films in the era than it does with its forerunners. Its subtitle is  “A Symphony of Horror,” and it lives up to that with a plot that is scary enough but is heightened by its sharp images. Orlok’s estate also plays a strong role in the film, creating yet another similarity with other films in the movement. 

 

Faust (1926, F.W. Murnau) 

When it comes to German Expressionism, most of the other films on this list are more likely to come up before Murnau’s Faust. But this take on the classic German tale has plenty of unique qualities of its own and deserves consideration alongside the other films noted for being part of the movement. Here, Emil Jannings plays the demon Mephisto, who makes a bet with God that he can warp the soul of a noble and righteous man. Faust (Gösta Ekmann) becomes the target of Mephisto’s advances, leading to a whirlwind of ruinous adventures and diabolical behaviors from the demon.  

Like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, this film distorts reality in a number of ways. It takes the fantastical elements of a number of these films and takes it to another level. The film is revolutionary in terms of visual effects, displaying the magic that can be achieved in film, even back in 1926. Even the noirish lighting is more refined here, taking on a chiaroscuro form so that we can see the contrasts between light and dark very clearly. Though the film does have an eerie atmosphere similar to The Golem or Nosferatu, where it differs is in its extravagance. Still, the sharp locales, basis in German legend and dim outlook places it alongside other films in the movement. 

 

Metropolis (1927, Fritz Lang) 

Often considered one of the greatest silent films, Fritz Lang’s Metropolis stands out from other German Expressionist films for a number of reasons. One of which is the scale of the movie. Here, we trade the towns and countrysides for the large, futuristic city of the film’s title. The film follows Freder Frederson (Gustav Fröhlich), the son of the city’s most powerful figure, as he strives to bring together the wealthiest individuals of the city and the working class. The latter of which works long hours deep below the city to allow it to run effectively. While most other German Expressionist films relied on subtext for their themes, this one wears its message on its sleeve. It presents the struggles of the working class while presenting the impact of their treatment at the hands of the most privileged. 

This film also experiments with a new genre for the movement, as it is an influential example of a science fiction film. Alongside its central plot, the film features a villain reminiscent of Dr. Caligari himself, this time played by Rudolph Klein-Rogge. He creates a realistic robot used to quell the rebellion of the working class, while also attempting to take over Metropolis. Despite all of these differences from other Expressionist films, Metropolis still fits squarely into the movement. It continues the dark and shadowy scenery of previous films, as well as a shift away from the reality that defines the movement. The film is perhaps most well-known for its extensive production design. Lang and his team built a city from the ground-up, creating an impressive dichotomy between the futuristic, ultra-clean high-rises and the grimy underground. 

 

M (1931, Fritz Lang) 

Four years after Fritz Lang released a quintessential German Expressionist film with Metropolis, he made a film that remains part of the movement while also signaling a move away from it. In M, Peter Lorre plays a serial killer of children in a German city. The film is not about him, however, so much as it is about the city’s response to his spree, from the police to the underground crime syndicate. On the surface, this film is totally unrelated to its Expressionist counterparts. This is far from a distorted reality. In actuality, it’s a harshly realistic movie. Another major difference from the other films on this list is that it is a sound film, though it does feature many moments of stark silence. 

Still, like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, The Golem, and Metropolis, it features an unsympathetic view of authority figures and highlights their failures. And though nearly all German Expressionist films have elements of film noir, M basically operates as an early and influential example of the genre and style. Lastly, the role of production design may be the most important and recognizable aspects of German Expressionism. While M may not feature the architecture commonly associated with the movement, it cannot be denied that the set plays a major role in the film. With M, Fritz Lang created a true masterpiece that captured some of the best aspects of the movement, while also beginning the push into more realistic German films that would arrive in the near future. 

 

A film movement can perhaps best be defined by two characteristics: how the films of the movement challenge norms and take on new techniques, and how the films influence cinema for years to come. That is certainly the case with German Expressionism. On one hand, these films delivered new approaches to create a separation from reality, play with the role of sets and architecture, and relay relevant, challenging themes. On the other, numerous films owe part of their existence to the movement, particularly in the genres of horror, science fiction, and film noir. And though these six films came from the same important era of filmmaking, they all have their own unique aspects for us to enjoy as well.

Chasing the Gold: Best Supporting Actor Analysis (2021 Oscars)

The award for Best Supporting Actor has been stacked full of worthy winners over the last few years, from Brad Pitt’s first acting Oscar to Christoph Waltz’s Tarantino double. It’s the perfect blend of A-listers, veterans, character actors, and breakout stars, with a standout often too hard to pick despite the winning seemingly obvious by the time Oscar night rolls around.

With release dates being pushed back and delayed on a weekly basis due to the ongoing pandemic, it’s difficult to know for sure which films will be in contention by the time the Oscars roll around. But given what’s currently slated to release at the time of writing, here are the current top contenders for Best Supporting Actor.

The frontrunners…

Chadwick Boseman – Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom

The devastating passing of Black Panther himself Chadwick Boseman is still difficult to comprehend, having lost a long and brave battle with cancer last month. What’s so inspiring and super-hero like with Boseman is that he was starring in blockbuster projects and beautiful character studies while suffering a painful illness. It always felt inevitable that Boseman would be destined for Oscar glory in one roll or another and this is the Academy’s opportunity to do so. Like Fences, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom is based on August Wilson’s play and is produced by Denzel Washington and stars Viola Davis. What remains to be seen is the quality of the project itself, but with so many reliable talents involved, it’s hard to imagine it won’t be a contender.

Sacha Baron Cohen – The Trial of the Chicago 7

Early reviews of The Trial of the Chicago Seven are nothing short of incredible, with Aaron Sorkin’s film now heavily tipped as the Best Picture frontrunner along with Nomadland. With the size and star power of the ensemble involved, the question is who from the supporting cast makes it in. As proved by The Irishman and Three Billboards in recent memory, it’s not unrealistic to imagine the film can get two of its stars nominated in this category, so that’s what we are currently going to predict. The first, Cohen, has been the subject of glowing praise, and the trailers released seem to heavily feature his character and suggest a strong arc. Despite being an Academy Award nominee for writing, Cohen is yet to receive a nomination for his acting, but early reviews hint that it’s a career-best performance from him, and one that is likely to land him a spot in this category.

Mark Rylance – The Trial of the Chicago 7

Mark Rylance’s performance as lawyer William Kunstler is earning a lot of early citations and suggests he could be in line for a second Oscar nomination. He won for his first – Bridge of Spies – beating strong competition from Sylvester Stallone, and has found a career on screen after many glorious and successful years on stage. The incredible respect for Rylance from his peers could help him stand out from the rest of the fairly young cast, and history shows that this category is often filled with one or two legendary veterans each year. Competing for a win is unlikely given the ensemble nature of Sorkin’s film, but it appears he has the role to earn a second nomination.

David Strathairn – Nomadland

On the topic of veteran actors, there are none better suited to that title than Academy Award nominee David Strathairn, who after several decades in the industry gained his first Oscar nod in 2006 for Good Night and Good Luck. While Nomadland is very much the Frances McDormand show, reviews suggest that the film is going to be a top contender, which could mean Straithairn is along for the ride. The reviews for his performance are kind and an actor with his credentials surely deserves a second Oscar nomination after all his wonderful years in the industry. Like Rylance, it’s impossible to imagine he competes for the win given the strength of other performances in his film, but he ticks all the right boxes to land a nomination and it wouldn’t be wise to bet against him. A Straithairn snub would suggest an underperformance for Nomadland, but in a year where so much has been delayed and pushed back, that’s nigh on impossible to imagine happening.

Kingsley Ben-Adir – One Night in Miami

Regina King’s directorial debut One Night in Miami is being received favorably, and with a slate of iconic figures in American history being portrayed on screen, surely one of them makes it in? The best bet is British newcomer Kingsley Ben-Adir finds himself in the Oscar lineup for his performances as Malcolm X. His performance is earning raves, describing it as an incredible breakthrough performance, and playing the American accent perfectly. Denzel Washington earned an Oscar nomination in 1992 for his performance as Malcolm X in the film of the same name, so Ben-Adir would be the second actor nominated for the role.

Don’t rule out…

Tom Burke

Whether David Fincher’s Mank becomes a Best Picture contender remains to be seen, but on paper, it can’t miss, telling the story of how Citizen Kane came to be. With much of the buzz surrounding Oldman and Seyfried, there’s still a chance that British actor Tom Burke – who in the same vein as Ben-Adir would be having a breakout performance – finds himself among the nominees. Portraying the legendary Orson Welles helps his cause and he certainly has the look nailed down. What may hurt Burke is the number of stars in the cast, it’s going to take a special performance to standout. However he may, and if Mank does find itself among the frontrunners, Burke may very well receive the first nomination.

Any Other Supporting Actor from The Trial of the Chicago 7

The strength of the ensemble in The Trial of the Chicago 7 once again cannot be understated, and it’s worth mentioning further the potential that somebody other than Cohen and/or Rylance makes the cut. Jeremy Strong is fresh off an Emmy Best Actor win for Succession which can only help raise his stock and profile, while Eddie Redmayne has long been an Academy darling, having won previously for The Theory of Everything. Frank Langella as the film’s antagonistic character could prove to be a respected performance, while Yaya Abdul Mateen II also won an Emmy recently for Watchmen and an Oscar nomination could cement his status as one of the industry’s most exciting actors.

Whatever way the cards fall, this season’s Supporting Actor competition looks exciting and fresh, with a healthy mix of breakthrough stars and veteran performances. Boseman is an undeniable frontrunner here, but the biggest question marks will be who and how many of The Trial of the Chicago 7 cast make the cut, and how many of the breakthrough British stars will make the lineup, with Ben-Adir and Burke both very much in the race.

Podcast: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button/ Forrest Gump – Extra Film

On this week’s Extra Film, Ryan and Jay continue their David Fincher Movie Series with The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and then they review the classic, Forrest Gump.

Riding off of Zodiac, David Fincher took a turn to his most “Oscar-y” film to date with The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, a film about a man aging backwards throughout his interesting life. Marred as being lesser Fincher, the Extra Film lads dive deep into this innocent love story that has darker elements under the surface. By the end of the review, Ryan and Jay determine that this is one of Fincher’s best films and something everyone should reevaluate. This might be the best conversation they have had so far in this movie series, so do give it a listen.

After that, the boys turn to the Best Picture winner of 1994, Forrest Gump. Known for being an all-time classic with one of Tom Hanks’s best performances of his career, Forrest Gump follows one man’s journey through his life and the United States of America. There is a charm to this film that many adore, and it works for the most part for Jay. As for Ryan, he’s on record for not like this movie at all. With this in mind, it leads to a lively discussion that will have you shocked by the end of it.

Thanks for listening!

– Movie Review: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (3:54)
Director: David Fincher
Screenplay: Eric Roth
Stars: Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, Taraji P. Henson, Tilda Swinton

– Movie Review: Forrest Gump (1:04:10)
Directors: Robert Zemeckis
Screenplay: Eric Roth
Stars: Tom Hanks, Robin Wright, Gary Sinise, Sally Field

– Music

Alexandre Desplat – Sunrise on Lake Pontchartrain
Jackson Browne – Running on Empty
The Return of the Eagle – Atli Örvarsson

We try to make this the best movie podcast we possibly can and we hope you enjoy them. Subscribe today on iTunes, Spotify or Stitcher, and please leave us a review on iTunes. You can also find us on Soundcloud, PlayerFM, and TuneIn Radio as well. We really appreciate all your support of the InSession Film Podcast.

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button/ Forrest Gump – Extra Film

Mobile App

To hear this Extra Film episode and everything else we do, download our apps on the Amazon Market for Android and the Podcast Box app on IOS devices. The mobile app covers all of our main shows, bonus podcast’s and everything else relating to the InSession Film Podcast. Thanks for your wonderful support and for listening to our show. It means the world to us!

Movie Review (NYFF): ‘Mangrove’ is an Infuriating, Realistic Reflection about the Past and Present


Director: Steve McQueen
Writer: Steve McQueen, Alastair Siddons
Stars: Shaun Parkes, Letitia Wright, Malachi Kirby, Rochenda Sandall, Jack Lowden, Sam Spruell, Gershwyn Eustache, Nathaniel Martello-White, Richie Campbell, Jumayn Hunter, Gary Beadle.

Synopsis: Part of Steve McQueen’s “Small Axe,” an anthology of decades-spanning films that presents various lives in London’s West Indian community. Mangrove tells the true story of Frank Crichlow and eight other men and women that were wrongly arrested and charged with incitement to riot and affray during a peaceful protest in 1970.

[/info]

Mangrove, the second film of Steve McQueen’s anthology Small Axe, takes an entirely different path from the one we previously saw in Lovers Rock. While the latter is a celebration of Black joy and love, the former works as a cold and realistic reminder of the unfair treatment Black people experience throughout their lives. As such, McQueen triumphs in the realistic portrayal of the layered existence of a Black person in the United Kingdom.

Specifically, with Mangrove, although it takes place in Notting Hill, England, during the 60s and 70s, the struggles and injustices that are presented are still very much current, whether the country is the United Kingdom or the United States, for example. This movie works as a reminder of how little things have changed in this 50-year span, with the ongoing case of Breonna Taylor as a glaring example.

Through dark and grim tones, Frank Crichlow (Shaun Parkes) is introduced. He just opened a West Indian restaurant in Notting Hill that soon becomes the go-to place for artists, intellectuals, activists, and neighbors. Mangrove quickly becomes an essential feature in the local community. Consequently, Frank and his restaurant become the target of constant raids from the local police with Pc Frank Pulley (Sam Spruell) as the main perpetrator.

The movie invests a long time in Frank’s transition from entrepreneur, to a local leader, to activist. He is quickly joined by Altheia Jones-LeCointe (Letitia Wright), the leader of the British Black Panther Movement, and Darcus Howe (Malachi Kirby), a local activist. Their most influential act of defiance is a peaceful protest in 1970 that ends with the arrest of these three local figures and six others with charges of incitement to riot and affray.

Mangrove can easily be divided in two. The first hour shows the everyday life of the Black people in Notting Hill, where acts of racial profiling, arrests inspired by racial stereotypes, and raids based on racist remarks and abuse of power are part of their everyday existence. The rise of the activist spirit in Frank is slow and hard; a direct consequence of the constant harassment he and his peers go through every day. He is the perfect example of someone who loses his faith in the institutions and learns that self-mobilization is the only choice. Precisely this evolution can work as a lesson in today’s scenario and the impartiality of some people regarding social injustice.

In this part of the movie, McQueen brings to life the anger and horror amongst the Black community while also providing a crude insight into the motivations of the white policemen that constantly harass our protagonists through casual chats and games. His camera does not shy away from the violence and its consequences (there is a scene that lingers too long on a pot after a raid that is not easy to forget), providing reasons to increase the frustration and outrage among the audience.

The second hour transfers these injustices into a courtroom, where these nine people publicly fight for their lives and the achievement of a shadow of justice. This part of the movie is where the uplifting and inspiring acts take place through a spirit of solidarity and defiance against the biased judge, the brutal security guards, and the lying witnesses.

Also, this scenario is presented through an invigorating light. McQueen and his co-writer, Alastair Siddons, make sure that the story shows Black people in control of their destiny. Even the only prominent positive white character, Jack Lowden’s lawyer Ian MacDonald, is given little time in front of the camera and is not presented as a white saviour. In this movie, the Black people command and control their story.

Here is also where the stars of the movie show off their acting skills. The whole cast is extraordinary, of course, transforming themselves through their emphasized Caribbean accents and discreet costumes. Sam Spruell provides a cathartic moment at the end of the film that is impossible not to react to, while Rochenda Sandall is fierce and defiant the whole movie. However, Letitia Wright and Malachi Kirby are the standouts of a very impressive cast.

Wright brings everything to her scenes and works as a dramatic revelation through her passionate and resolute interpretation. Through a speech that exposes the burden of history and solidarity, she becomes the soul of the movie. Also, Malachi Kirby offers a trailblazing character who elegantly ridicules the policemen that constantly humiliated them.

Mangrove also invites to question the justice system and those in charge of carrying out the laws. How can you find justice in a scenario where those in charge of applying the law are racist and biased? Alas, the movie presents the uphill battle this group of people must go through, putting all their faith in the system that has continuously failed them and in the jury, formed by people that have never gone through their racial experience.

The film presents satisfying instances of dialogue and exposition, although these little victories are not common. However, their willingness to risk their lives for the well-being of future generations is latent and inspiring. Although the movie presents an uplifting resolution, it quickly reminds us that, in real life, the battle did not end. It was instead a short victory.

Mangrove presents a resounding contrast in the evolution of London through scenes that show its modernization while the racism and hostility against Black people remained the same. While it shows the resilience of Black people through a sense of solidarity among them, it also reflects the injustices they continue to deal with daily.

Overall Grade: A

[divider]

 

Movie Review: ‘Stuntwomen: The Untold Hollywood Story’ is a Dynamite Documentary


Director: April Wright
Writer: Mollie Gregory (book), Nell Scovell (commentary)

Synopsis: An action-documentary about the evolution of stuntwomen from The Perils of Pauline (1914) and beyond.

[/info]

Women have been doing amazing stunts for the sake of entertainment since the early days of filmmaking. Stuntwomen: The Untold Hollywood Story tells the history of these women from the early 1900s to today. From Helen Gibson to Jeannie Epper to Heidi Moneymaker, this film discusses how women in stunts have had to work hard for recognition, respect, and equal rights in a highly competitive and underappreciated field.

The film does a fantastic job of going over the history of women in stunt work and how that career has evolved over time with changes to the types of films being made and the technology used in making them. It starts with the inspirational women of the silent era, then goes over the female-led action flicks of the 1970s, and then dives into the dozens of comic book movies being made today. It features interviews with many of these women as they share their experiences. Jeannie Epper, Lynda Carter’s double for Wonder Woman in the 1970s, is one of the more well-known speakers and is just as willing to do a stunt now as she was 40 years ago. Most of the speakers are current or retired stuntwomen who love what they do despite its challenges. The documentary is narrated by Michelle Rodriguez- known for her role at Letty in the Fast & Furious franchise. Rodriguez also appears in the movie and gets to take a ride with her stunt driver from the Fast & Furious movies. She is often quoted as being jealous that stunt people “get to have all the real fun” which makes her an enthusiastic narrator for the film.

Stuntwomen: The Untold Hollywood Story also covers the negatives of the industry. How women are often passed over for stunts deemed “too dangerous” and men in wigs do the stunts in their place. Or how women have to perform the same stunts as men but in half the clothing and in heels. The film also discusses how women often have a harder time making the switch from stunt double to stunt coordinator and introduces a few women who have successfully made that career change.

To wrap up, Stuntwomen: The Untold Hollywood Story is a fascinating documentary that educates its viewers on an industry that should get more recognition. It makes us want to pay attention to the women performing these amazing things and get them the credit they deserve. It’s not just clips of women jumping off buildings and crashing cars; it’s a personal documentary that allows these women to speak for themselves and tell their story. It’s available to rent and purchase as of September 22nd.

Overall Grade: A

[divider]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dekSYpDaH5U

 

Chasing the Gold: Best Actor Analysis (2021 Oscars)

2021 is a tough thing to predict. Not just for the Academy Awards, but really everything. The world is in such a state of flux that anything could change, and so nailing predictions to a mast would be folly in any circumstance. However, as Benjamin Franklin once said, there are three constants in life: death, taxes, and Awards Season. With that in mind, the following is a list of who may be in contention for Best Actor when the Academy opens its doors next April.

Delroy Lindo

For many, Delroy Lindo is a lock for this year’s Academy Awards. His powerhouse performance in Da 5 Bloods shored up the gravitas he’s displayed on screen for the best part of forty years now. Da 5 Bloods has already been well received, and Spike Lee is fresh off his win last year for BlacKkKlansman, so there’s an outside chance it may contend for honors itself at the Oscars. It features fantastic performances from Clarke Peters, Norm Lewis, Isiah Whitlock Jr., Chadwick Boseman, and Jonathan Majors, but Lindo is ostensibly the star of the show here. In it, he plays Paul, a grizzled, Trump-supporting vet of the Vietnam war suffering from PTSD, who returns to the country, and his demons, to search for literally buried gold. This would be Lindo’s first nomination after a career full of strong character acting. The Academy does enjoy a feel-good story, so expect to see his name on the nomination list and the potential that he may be standing on the stage holding gold by the end of it.

Gary Oldman

David Fincher’s latest hasn’t dropped yet, but Mank is almost certainly a leading contender for Best Picture, such is the buzz that has surrounded it. Biopics are tried and tested Oscar bait every year, and this year should be no different. Fresh off an Oscar win for his portrayal of Winston Churchill, Oldman is once again depicting a real-life figure. This time it’s Herman Mankiewicz, who famously wrote the screenplay for Citizen Kane. Citizen Kane, of course, has become shorthand for the greatest movie of all time. There has been much dispute over how much of the screenplay Mankiewicz actually wrote, as it’s a credit he shares with the movie’s director, Orson Welles. This could very likely be the main thrust of the film, and no doubt it’ll give Oldman plenty of opportunities to eek out the frustration and anger Mankiewicz was said to have felt at being overlooked for his creation. Mankiewicz went on to win an Oscar for his work on Citizen Kane, and there’s a pleasingly meta feel about Oldman winning an Oscar for his portrayal about a man who won an Oscar, so it wouldn’t be surprising if Oldman takes home his second gold statue in April.

Anthony Hopkins

A film based on a French play which was roundly lauded in France, Broadway, and in London’s West End is pure, uncut Oscar bait. Throw in acting legend Anthony Hopkins in the kind of role he has made uniquely his own this last decade or so, and you’ve got The Father. Hopkins plays the titular character, a man who has Alzheimer’s who stubbornly refuses his desperate daughter’s help as his mind slowly deteriorates. It is likely to be a tough, heart-breaking watch. If reports are to be believed, it features an incredibly moving, vulnerable performance from Hopkins, which should surprise no one. Hopkins received a Supporting Actor nomination last year for his role as the retiring Pope Benedict in The Two Popes, so this should see him once again step into the spotlight as the leading player. He hasn’t won an Oscar since his star-making turn as Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs in 1991, and it wouldn’t be a surprise to see the Academy give him the nod this year.

Daniel Kaluuya

In the last few years, arguably, the two most progressive and impressive black actors in the industry have been Lakeith Stanfield and Daniel Kaluuya. Both were excellent in Jordan Peele’s Get Out, and Stanfield was phenomenal in Boots Riley’s Sorry To Bother You. Big things are expected from both actors in the coming years, and they’re sure not to disappoint, with both said to have turned in great performances for Judas and the Black Messiah (another Best Picture contender). While Stanfield no doubt plays his role as little known informant William O’Neal to great effect, it’s Kaluuya’s turn as Fred Hampton, leader of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panthers, which will probably grab the Academy’s attention. Hampton was a famous leader in the 60s as part of the civil rights movement and was widely believed to have been assassinated by the FBI for his role in the Black Panthers. It’s a meaty role that Kaluuya will no doubt have sunk his teeth into, and having already been nominated for Best Actor in Get Out; it’s fair to say the young Brit is already on the Academy’s radar.

Timothée Chalamet

Timothée Chalamet will no doubt one day win an Oscar. The young actor has already proven his ability to deliver outstanding performances in the likes of Call Me By Your Name – for which he received an Oscar nomination -, Ladybird, and Beautiful Boy. He has begun to carve a career for himself in very serious, heavy roles, and the Academy always loves to see those. This year will see him take on arguably his biggest part yet in Dune. The trailer dropped recently to much fanfare, and there’s already a heady buzz around the movie, about which the art director Tom Brown has optimistically envisioned as similar to Lord of the Rings. It shows both the scope and the hope the makers of Dune have for the movie, and if they’re anywhere close to correct, then it means Chalamet is not likely to be overlooked. Although Dune has been tackled before by the likes of Alejandro Jodorowsky and David Lynch (neither of whom were very successful with the property), director Denis Villeneuve has shown he can craft stories like this already, with his successful sequel to Blade Runner, Blade Runner 2049. All of this means Dune will most likely be in Awards contention for most of the categories and, although Chalamet isn’t likely to win just yet, his name will be up there.

Honorable Mentions

John David Washington

Provided an outstanding performance in Christopher Nolan’s Tenet, but is unlikely to receive a nomination amid healthy competition this year, especially for a film which itself is unlikely to appear in many categories outside of technical achievements.

Michael Fassbender

Said to have been fantastic in Taika Waititi’s upcoming soccer movie Next Goal Wins, which itself has been mooted for Awards contention. It’s likely Next Goal Wins will receive a nod or two, perhaps for Screenplay, but don’t expect to see Fassbender’s name being called out at the end of the night.

Ben Affleck

Affleck is currently enjoying media attention for his turn in The Way Back, in which he plays an alcoholic former basketball star who returns to his old college to coach the team he once turned out for. It’s a classic redemption narrative that has been done before in the likes of Coach Carter, but the Academy does love those kinds of stories, and it wouldn’t be too surprising if Affleck gets a token nomination.

Tom Hanks

It wouldn’t be Awards Season without America’s Dad somewhere in the mix. Hanks has already turned in an impressive effort for Greyhound, a film for which he also wrote the screenplay, but it’s News of the World he might get a mention for. Directed by Paul Greengrass, News of the World is a western about a newsman helping to save a young girl kidnapped by bandits. It should be a compelling story, and it’s got an Oscar buzz to it as well, so if it does get a few nominations, then expect Hanks’ name to be among them.

Chasing the Gold: Best Film Editing Analysis (2021 Oscars)

Over the past few years, The Film Editors branch at the Academy seems to be nominating films with the most editing rather than best editing giving us some of the most controversial nominations and wins in recent memory, however, a thorough look at this year Oscar race might give us an idea for what could become the most competitive editing race in years. This year’s Oscar race seems to feature a healthy number of editing heavyweights such as William Goldenberg and Kirk Baxter.

William Goldenberg returns to the editing room for Paul Greengrass’s News of the World, which is one of the most anticipated films of the year. Goldenberg already has one win in this category for Argo (2013) out of five total nominations. He’ll be looking to secure his number six nomination this year.

Kirk Baxter is also returning this year to work with David Fincher on his newest film. The longtime collaborators are expected to deliver one of the frontrunners of The Oscar’s race in most categories, and it’ll likely get an editing nomination as well. Baxter has won the Academy Award two times before out of his three nominations, which are all in Fincher films.

Aaron Sorkin’s The Trial of the Chicago 7 is also one of the year’s biggest Oscar players. Sorkin handed editing duty to Alan Baumgarten who has only one nomination to his name and, if things go well, we might see him get his second this year.

Chloé Zhao’s Nomadland is taking the festival season by storm becoming the first film in history to win both The Golden Lion at Venice and The People’s Choice Award at TIFF which is generating a ton of Oscar buzz for its writer-director but Zhao didn’t stop there, she also took the helm over editing duties of the film. Zhao is following in Alfonso Cuarón’s footsteps who also wrote, directed, and edited his latest film Roma which turned out to be a big Oscar hit for him. Will Zhao be able to replicate Cuarón’s success at the Oscars? I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

In the meantime, here are the early predictions of the 10 nominations in Film Editing for the 93rd Academy Awards:

  1. Mank (Kirk Baxter)
  2. The Trial of the Chicago 7 (Alan Baumgarten)
  3. News of the World (William Goldenberg)
  4. Nomadland (Chloé Zhao)
  5. Dune (Joe Walker)
  6. The Father (Yorgos Lamprinos)
  7. One Night in Miami (Tariq Anwar)
  8. Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom (Andrew Mondshein)
  9. Judas and the Black Messiah (Kristan Sprague)
  10. No Time to Die (Tom Cross, Elliot Graham)

Chasing the Gold: Best Original Screenplay Analysis (2021 Oscars)

Like every category at the Oscars, this year’s delayed awards season presents a challenge in predicting the contenders for Best Original Screenplay. Still, there are a few areas we can look to in order to get an idea of the films that will be most firmly in the running. One of the big keys to a screenplay nomination is the big category itself, Best Picture. Throughout the 2010s, there was only one year in which less than three Original Screenplay nominees did not also receive a Best Picture nod (2015). In most years, the Academy nominated mostly Best Picture nominees, alongside one or two films that did not make the top category. 

That leads us to our first batch of contenders for Best Original Screenplay: the major Best Picture contenders. That begins and ends with two of the most anticipated awards contenders of the year, The Trial of the Chicago 7 and Mank. The former is written and directed by Aaron Sorkin, who is an Academy favorite in the screenplay categories. Aside from winning for The Social Network, he’s been nominated two other times, including his directorial debut Molly’s Game. With his résumé and the strong push, The Trial of the Chicago 7 is likely to get from Netflix; it would likely take a cold reception of the film for it to miss here. 

David Fincher’s Mank should also get significant support from Netflix, and it fits right into the Academy’s wheelhouse. It’s a film about classical Hollywood made by a director who is long overdue for some Oscars love. What makes this difficult to assess is the little work of the screenwriter. The script was written by Fincher’s late father, Jack Fincher, who does not have any other credited works. It’s also worth noting that only two of Fincher’s films have been nominated for a screenplay category in the past. However, that does include a win for the aforementioned The Social Network. Still, Mank feels like a contender across the board, including Original Screenplay. 

There are several other films on the fringes of being major contenders that could also find themselves receiving a nomination here. Francis Lee’s Ammonite had major buzz heading into the festival circuit. While it did receive mostly positive reviews from the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF), there were also plenty of criticisms of the film. Another big festival play is Kornél Mundruczó’s Pieces of a Woman. The big question here is whether the film will contend beyond festival hype and the lead performance by Vanessa Kirby. She won the Best Actress prize at the Venice International Film Festival. 

There are also a few major contenders that remain up in the air regarding release dates. The latest original Pixar effort, Soul, is likely to be right in the middle of the conversation for Original Screenplay, much like Inside Out and Up before it. However, there are rumblings that Disney may not stick with its planned November release date for the film, drawing questions about whether it will be eligible. Though the Academy’s decision to extend eligibility into January and February 2021 certainly helps. Another film that was initially scheduled for a November release is Tom McCarthy’s Matt Damon-starring crime drama Stillwater. The film could bring the director back into awards season five years after Spotlight won Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay, but its release date is now unclear. 

Another question mark is Shaka King’s Judas and the Black Messiah. It’s a timely historical drama that features Ryan Coogler as a producer, but it may not be released until after February. Perhaps the biggest wild card of all is Wes Anderson’s The French Dispatch. It was originally thought that the film would sit out this awards season when it was delayed indefinitely. Still, the eligibility extension may push Disney to release it in that window of time. Anderson has received three screenplay nominations in his career, so he’s a great bet if the film is released in time.  

Aside from the major contenders, there are many films we don’t know much about yet. Sofia Coppola’s On the Rocks could be the film that makes this lineup without being a contender across the board, but that may largely depend on its reception when released in October. Lila Neugebauer’s Red, White and Water features Academy darling Jennifer Lawrence as well as Brian Tyree Henry, so it may work its way into the fold if it falls into the eligibility window. Mike Mills received a screenplay nod for 20th Century Women four years ago, so his follow-up C’mon C’mon could find itself competing in the category as well. That film features last year’s Best Actor winner, Joaquin Phoenix, which only helps its chances. 

With numerous films being delayed, this year also opens up the opportunity for the Academy to nominate some films that generally would be somewhat unexpected. They may decide to dip into Emerald Fennell’s dark comedy Promising Young Woman, which is already gaining buzz for Carey Mulligan’s lead performance. Lee Isaac Chung’s Minari may also pick up some steam, as it’s already received stellar reviews. May we also see the Academy award a lowkey independent film like Never Rarely Sometimes Always? It’s a long shot, but if there was ever a year to do it, this is it. 

Last but not least, it’s impossible to ignore Spike Lee’s Da 5 Bloods. The film certainly has factors working against it. It’s a tall order for a film released in June to maintain momentum throughout awards season in any year, but especially when the ceremony has been pushed back to late April. The film was also released by Netflix, which will likely have its hands full with The Trial of the Chicago 7, Mank, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom, and Hillbilly Elegy (the screenplays for the latter two are adapted). Frankly, Da 5 Bloods is not likely to fit into Original Screenplay, but it’s hard to count out Spike Lee and co-writer Kevin Willmott after they won for BlacKkKlansman just two years ago. 

Overall, Best Original Screenplay is very up in the air at the moment. In case it hasn’t been made clear yet, the most significant factor influencing the race is whether certain films will be released in time to be eligible for this year’s Oscars. Not only does this place us in murky water, but it’s also difficult to tell when exactly things will clear up. There are likely to be some major changes soon, but for now, these are the top five films I see as contenders for a Best Original Screenplay nomination: 

Best Original Screenplay Predictions: (as of 9/23/2020)

  1. The Trial of the Chicago 7
  2. Mank
  3. Soul
  4. The French Dispatch 
  5. Ammonite

Podcast: 2004 Awards Season – Ep. 396 Bonus Content

Listen!

This week for our Episode 396 InSession Film Podcast: Bonus Content, Ryan McQuade joins us to discuss the awards season for the films of 2004, as we tie in this discussion to our 2004 Retrospective. It was a lot of fun, check it out!

Listen to Episode 395 by clicking here.

[divider]

HELP SUPPORT THE SHOW

We offer our bonus content for free, but we do encourage and appreciate a small donation of $0.99 as a way to help support the show. Click on the PayPal button below to donate and thanks so much for your support. You can also hear all of our Bonus Content via our mobile apps. See the information at the bottom of the post for more details.


One-Time Donation



[divider]

Mobile Apps!

Listen to all of our bonus content on our apps for just a one-time fee! Whether you have an iPhone, Android or Windows phone, our apps are available in many different ways that is convenient for you. With our mobile app, not only can you listen to all of our bonus content, but our main shows and our Extra Film podcasts as well. Click here for more info!

If you don’t want to purchase our bonus content, but still want to support us, there are other you can help us out. Click here for more info.

Criterion Crunch Time: ‘Loulou’

 

Hello and welcome back to Criterion Crunch Time!  I’m surprised it took this long (4 movies total), but this week, we are watching our first French film. This month, one of the directors that has a handful of movies making their exit is Maurice Pialat. The film I chose, mainly because of the stars, is 1980’s Loulou.

Many of Pialat’s films are assumed to be autobiographical and Loulou especially so. The film mainly follows Nelly (Isabelle Huppert) as she strays from her husband, Andre (Guy Marchand), and tedious middle-class life. Her temptation is personified by Loulou (Gerard Depardieu), a lower-class criminal, just out of jail, who she meets at a nightclub. Of course, her life with Andre is not merely boring, as he has a temper that is easy to set off. Huppert, unsurprisingly, plays this perfectly as a woman who has seen these tantrums before as she grins and bears it. At least until she just cannot take it anymore. That mildly bored, haughty expression that she wears so easily serves the character of Nelly very well here. Loulou is not exactly a subtle film, as it becomes easy to root for Nelly to leave after being slapped around and yelled at by Andre, but subtlety or lack thereof is not why this movie will work.

If Loulou is going to work for you, as it mostly did for me, it will be because of Depardieu and Huppert. From an American, modern perspective, we just do not see pairings like these two. And I don’t mean from a physical perspective, although they are both beautiful (if you only know him from modern films, you are not prepared). There is a sexual charge between these two from the moment they come in contact with each other. Especially in comparison to a later scene between Nelly and Andre, every moment she and Loulou are together seems packed with either sexual tension or sexual release. There is also a certain joy and even silliness that is not often shown on screen. After all, during their first sex scene, one side of the bed breaks and they have to deal with this interruption before continuing their fun. There are certainly missteps even within these moments. Did I mention subtlety? There is literally a moment in which Huppert drinks cream from a side table with tea and the liquid drips off her chin.  Enough said.

Now, Loulou is not simply a fun tryst with these two. As their relationship progresses, Nelly finds out she is pregnant and, for a brief moment, considers having the child. But one of the things that Loulou is examining is the class structure in France during this time. Nelly is no longer comfortable, and importantly, Loulou is the type of man who only works when he must. Not exactly the perfect father figure. After spending time with his family, although having a good time, the audience can absolutely see the hope leave Nelly’s eyes as they rib him about not working and essentially being shiftless.

When Nelly decides to have an abortion, it is striking how emotionless it is, at least at first. However, when she returns home, lying in bed, she is forced by Loulou to answer as to why she made this choice. Smartly, Pialat keeps his camera trained on her as she calmly explains to him that he is not fit to be a parent. Obviously, Huppert is a gifted actress, but these moments really hammer this point home. She is able to show great emotion without a quavering voice or tears. We know this hurts her, even though she stays even emotionally. It is important to note though, that the film does not end with a gigantic blowout fight between the two. At some level, they both accept each other, even if they don’t quite understand the other’s perspective. Nelly and Loulou come from different worlds, they will probably never connect with each other fully, but that passion never strays. As a matter of fact, the film closes with them giving in to urges of a kind, as they stumble down a street together, clearly under the influence of alcohol. Will they grow old together? Raise children? Probably not. But they have that special something that ties people of different backgrounds together. And even if that is fleeting, it is a powerful bond.

As we close out our first month of Criterion Crunch Time, I am struck by the variety of films available on this service. There are directors that every cinephile knows, young directors of color, genre-bending exercises, and films that may be well known in Europe but less so in American. And that is just after four movies! Usually, here is where I would tell you what’s next, but I honestly don’t know.  But in about a week, Criterion will announce a new batch of departing titles. So stay tuned here to find out what film classic we will have the opportunity to watch next month!

Join us next time as we take a look at a revisionist western, Devil’s Doorway!

Poll: What is Robert Pattinson’s best performance?

If you don’t consider Robert Pattinson one of the most exciting, daring, and versatile actors working today, then you clearly only see him as a vampire. His string of diverse performances in the last decade have come to define him over the years, are what led him to getting the role of Bruce Wayne/Batman in Matt Reeves’s upcoming film. Some may say he is in dire need of another commercial hit, but as long as he keeps making obscure choices, we do not care, as long as his work continues to be staggering. This year, we get to witness him at perhaps his most obscure, giving a manic performance in The Devil All the Time where he apparently refused to work with a dialect coach. It feels like as good as any time to celebrate his best work.

So let’s ask the burning question; what is Robert Pattinson’s best performance?


Movie Review: ‘The Broken Hearts Gallery’ is the Light-Hearted Rom-Com We Need Right Now


Director: Natalie Krinsky
Writer: Natalie Krinsky
Stars: Geraldine Viswanathan, Dacre Montgomery, Utkarsh Ambudkar, Molly Gordon, Phillipa Soo

Synopsis: After a break-up, a young woman decides to start a gallery where people can leave trinkets from past relationships.

[/info]

This year has been tough in general for movie releases, but the past month has been a weird one in particular. While the films we are getting now are of excellent quality, they are also mind-benders and require me to concentrate and go back to figure out what on earth I was watching. With bulky watches such as Tenet and I’m Thinking of Ending Things coming out in the past month, my brain needed a break, and I simply wanted an enjoyable and fun watch. This is when The Broken Hearts Gallery presented itself to me.

I would say that while I had a phase of loving the teen rom-coms (particularly during the time of The Fault in Our Stars), recently, I have found it tougher to get into them. Sure, there are a few gems such as Long Shot, but the type of rom-com that I like are the ones that feel fresh and take a different spin on the genre. While The Broken Hearts Gallery can fall into the tropes, it still feels refreshing and new to the genre as a whole.

What makes the film feel refreshing within the genre of the rom-com is that the central premise of the film isn’t about entering a relationship (although that is a feature of the film for sure) but dealing with the heartbreak of ending one. These romantic movies make the idea of love seem so perfect, and yet rarely is that ever the case. The idea of holding onto the past, either as a memory or as a sign that things may work out again, and that we need to let go and live in the moment is a tremendous and empowering message to anyone.

This is a film that is built around the premise of a young girl meeting a guy that just so happens to be building a hotel and has space for her to host some items as a gallery. It does feel a little fantastical and unrealistic. However, it is how the world is written in the modern world and how the story flows that things start to fit into place. It could seem unrealistic that her gallery would be able to take off, but in a world of social media, the pathway is there.

What also helps grounds the world and story are the characters, who are a bit insane and stereotypical but done in such a loving and caring manner. This is Geraldine Viswanathan’s movie, and she is captivating as the lead, Lucy. You feel every emotion that she is going through, and she makes the character come across as someone we would want to be friends with. She also has a great group of friends that she is surrounded with, written in a manner that feels empowering rather than destructive or bratty. A stand out for me has to go to Phillipa Soo, who I adored in the filmed production of Hamilton: The Musical and is equally as great here.

For a film like this to work, you have to care about the relationship between the main couple. The chemistry between Viswanathan’s Lucy and Dacre Montgomery’s Nick is so charming here, and what I appreciate is that there was a slow build-up to their story. It was not the case that they immediately saw themselves as romantic partners or that their goal was to get in a relationship together, but that their connection felt natural, and their love felt real through it all. The other thing I appreciated with how love was handled in this film was that love was not merely just romantic or between straight people. This film shows lesbian relationships and the love between friends, showing strength in all types of love, and that caring for others is essential, no matter how you show them or what their connections are.

This film may appear all cutesy and straightforward in presentation, but there is something a little bit darker and more serious than the film slowly builds up to. It is not only developed as to why certain characters act a particular way, but also adds meaning and passion behind the project and narrative of the film. While I will not even hint at what this moment or narrative is due to spoilers and wanting you to find out in the film, I appreciate Natalie Krinsky for writing this in and adding this weight and power to what could have been a fun and cute rom-com.

Whether it has just been a challenging and miserable year that has made me feel down, I was in dire need of a film like The Broken Hearts Gallery. Do I think that those who dislike the genre will be changed of their opinion with this? Probably not. However, I found the premise to be smart, the message to be empowering, and the performances to be captivating. If you are a need of a pick-me-up, this may just work for you like it did for me.

Overall Grade: A

[divider]

 

Op-ed: The Difficulty of Adapting the Writing of W. Somerset Maugham into Films

0

As a fifteen-year-old, I decided to read the novel The Razor’s Edge. It was published in 1944 and it was written by some guy called W. Somerset Maugham who looked awfully serious based on the images I had seen of him. At the time I was obsessed with seeming mature and wise beyond my years in an effort to get adults to take me seriously. I thought that reading classic novels would make me look like an intellectual so I used to sit around the house trying to comprehend what words like “Termagant” and “Demonym” meant. In all honesty, I didn’t have a lightbulb moment where I suddenly understood what Maugham was trying to touch on with his dark story of an enlightened young man trying to break away from two troubled women. However, reading this book did arouse my interest in the Tyrone Power film that was based on the novel.

A few years later when I became a major cinephile I suddenly became invested in Maugham’s works again as I watched films like The Razor’s Edge (1946), Being Julia (2004), The Painted Veil (2006) and Of Human Bondage (1934). I found films so much more digestible than the dense, complex novels of Maugham and I started to pick up on some of the recurring themes in his work. He loved focusing on devious women who take advantage of gullible men and he had a strong interest in people who could never quite find a place in the world no matter how hard they tried. As I watched his films I read reviews of them and I started to notice the fact that they were often criticized for not capturing the brilliance of his work. This encouraged me to go back and read books like Theatre and The Razor’s Edge which had previously seemed un-engaging. In doing this I did notice the ways in which Hollywood screenwriters had butchered a lot of the stories he wrote and I began to get angry at the fact that they had failed to bring the magic of the characters he wrote about to life.



The Razor’s Edge remains the most popular out of all of the adaptations of Maugham’s work as it was released just two years after the novel hit shelves and it was a massive box office hit as it became the sixth highest-grossing film of 1946. Of course, there had been many adaptations of Maugham’s work at this point but it does seem odd that producers thought they could take his cynical, anti-war novel about a group of self-involved, cruel people tearing one another apart and turn it into a traditional prestige picture. The novel concerns Larry Darrell, a young idealist, who returns from World War I as a changed man who turns away from the materialism of the people around him. He searches for some sense of meaning or purpose in life and finds himself attracted to Eastern philosophies and religions. His new beliefs jeopardize his relationship with the wealthy Isabel Bradley who loves him while being unwilling to give up her wealth and social position to be with him. She ends up sad and unhappy when she marries another man and watches as Darrell becomes involved with the alcoholic Sophie MacDonald who lost her family in a horrific accident. MacDonald ends up dying after spending several years living a hedonistic lifestyle but Bradley is partially responsible for her death as she had pushed her to return to her old habits. Bradley eventually admits her wrongdoings to Darrell who leaves her alone and miserable. When you think of popular films from the mid-1940s your mind probably goes to light, easily digestible family entertainment like Going My Way (1944) so it seems wild that a story this bleak fared so well with post-war audiences.

The success of the novel is perhaps less surprising as Maugham was a big name by 1944 and readers knew what they were getting themselves into with one of his books. He liked to focus on troubled people who torture themselves by not giving into their desires before sublimating them by hurting other people. In 1945 the rights to the novel were bought by 20th Century Fox for $50,000 and he also received a 20% share of the film’s net profits. The film adaptation soon became a massive production and it was made in the hopes of producing a surefire awards contender. Producer Darryl F. Zanuck was still licking his wounds after Wilson (1944) failed to win Best Picture as well as being a resounding commercial flop and he wanted his studio to finally have its moment in the sun. All of the elements of a Best Picture contender seemed to be there as the film was adapted from a critically well-received and popular novel as well as offering actors the opportunity to play alcoholics and morally pure men who do the right thing 100% of the time. All of this made the film a highly lucrative prospect but the Hays Code did exist in 1946 and it was being strictly enforced so elements of the controversial novel would have to be changed.

We do not know what the conversations between the censors working for the PCA and the screenwriters and producers were like but we can make assumptions. I assume the MacDonald character was a big sticking point with producers as she goes from being a wholesome, sweet young wife and mother to being a raging alcoholic who hangs out with unsavory figures. In the novel, we get more of a sense of how her difficult lifestyle is impacting her as she can’t bring herself to stop drinking and openly has sex with strangers who can offer her money. In the film, we know that she’s ‘bad’ but we don’t get any specific details. She has a drinking problem but she is never really allowed to articulate why she is drinking and her condition seems to come and go when the script requires it. Her closeness with some shady men is also downplayed in favor of having her stare up at the heroic Darrell with stars in her eyes. She seems like a flibbertigibbet with a minor drinking problem rather than a full-blown, miserable alcoholic who wants to drown out her suffering by living a hedonistic lifestyle. We also don’t get to see much of the relationship between Bradley and Darrell. In the novel, Bradley is far more open about her desire to have a sexual affair with Darrell and she brazenly throws herself at him but in the film, we mostly get her snarling when Darrell looks at other women. Some would argue that this was an attempt at subtlety but I would say that it was an effort to avoid accusations of endorsing infidelity.

There are other ways in which Zanuck seems to have compromised Maugham’s vision as he tries to turn the relationship between Bradley and Darrell into something more traditionally romantic. She comes across as a conniving but self-destructive woman in the book as she can’t quite let go of the trappings of her upper-class life but she is deeply depressed whenever Darrell isn’t around. Her attempts to get through to him have an air of desperation about them so we are sympathetic towards her but we also sense the fact that her love for him is unhealthy. She can’t handle the fact that he could love anything other than her so she wants to destroy the things that bring him comfort in life. Her actions are often irrational and she grows increasingly mad as the plot moves along. In the film, she is softened as she comes across as logical and honest when she asks Darrell to give up on his newfound spiritual beliefs so he can settle down with her and live an empty life with other rich people. She is played by the famously gorgeous Gene Tierney who is lit to the heavens in most scenes and she seems rather angelic when she really should have an obvious mean streak. Maybe this forced romance made it easier to sell the film to audience members but in softening Bradley so much I think the story loses some of its bite.

In the third act, we do start to see the disturbing elements of the novel being explored as a switch flips and Bradley starts trying to tear down her former friend. She turns into the bitch she should have been for most of the film and starts cruelly taunting MacDonald. The scenes they share do work in their own way as Tierney is convincing as somebody who enjoys wreaking havoc on people’s lives and the devilish glint in her eyes as she pushes MacDonald to drink again is unmissable. At the same time, I felt like this scene did not have the power it could have possessed. If the script had been able to develop Bradley’s growing resentment for MacDonald this scene would have had so much more power behind it. If there had been an earlier scene in which we see Bradley fully losing sympathy for MacDonald and turning her into a romantic rival it would have been much easier to track her journey. As it is I think the film expects us to do a lot of the work ourselves in the lead-up to this scene as we see Bradley shoot a few nasty looks at MacDonald but don’t fully understand the degree to which she hates this woman.

All of these changes mean that you don’t get to feel any of the visceral power of Maugham’s novel. I did find myself gasping on page 302 of the novel when Bradley starts to beg Darrell to run away with her because of all the horrors that had preceded that moment. In the film, we get a similar scene but it does not hit as hard because we can’t see why Bradley is so obsessed with this man and we don’t get why he is so freaked out by her proposal. She seems like a nice, sheltered young woman who made a big mistake once before reverting back to being normal and he doesn’t really seem to be affronted by the fact that she was involved in his wife’s death. Scenes do not flow into one another naturally and there is always the feeling that everything has been sanitized. When characters enter a bar that probably doubles as a brothel it doesn’t look very dirty and the mise-en-scène consists of a few bottles of beer that roll across the floor. Nothing about the film feels as risky and daring as the book and when we do get big, dramatic scenes they have no weight behind them so they fall flat.

With all of that said I am still fascinated by the 1980s remake of this film which starred Bill Murray. It received negative reviews and most of my friends have told me that it is not very good but I still hold out hope. I want to believe that somebody could make the writing of Maugham work on screen and with an actor as talented as Murray you would think that anything was possible. There were also less restrictions on filmmakers in the 1980s so I assume the bars that MacDonald enters will be filled with drunken louts and a few half-naked women who might just be prostitutes. Perhaps Maugham was just too brilliant for any screenwriter or director to understand him but fans like myself still think that there might be a perfect adaptation of one of his novels somewhere out there.