This week on the InSession Film Podcast, Ryan McQuade joins Brendan to discuss King Richard, starring Will Smith, as well as the musical tick, tick…BOOM!, starring Andrew Garfield. Plus, a few brief thoughts on The Humans and Rocky IV: Rocky vs. Drago.
Big thanks to Ryan for filling in for JD this week. As always he brings an energy to the podcast that is contagious and fun. His presence is also appropriate given the awards buzz around King Richard and tick, tick…BOOM!, and how both films feature performances that are likely to be nominated. Our overall discussion isn’t awards-themed, but it’s always nice to hear Ryan’s perspective on the matter.
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: King Richard (8:18) Director: Reinaldo Marcus Green Writers: Zach Baylin Stars: Will Smith, Aunjanue Ellis, Saniyya Sidney, Demi Singleton, Tony Goldwyn, Jon Bernthal
– Notes / The Humans / Rocky IV: Rocky vs. Drago (52:21)
For our break segment this week, as noted above, Ryan gives us this thoughts on A24’s latest drama The Humans, starring Beanie Feldstien, June Squibb, Steven Yeun, Richard Jenkins and a surprisingly very good Amy Schumer. Additionally, Brendan offers up his thoughts on the new edit for Rocky IV: Rocky vs. Drago, which is surprisingly quite different than its predecessor.
– Movie Review: tick, tick…BOOM! (1:21:40) Director: Lin-Manuel Miranda Writers: Steven Levenson Stars: Andrew Garfield, Alexandra Shipp, Robin de Jesรบs, Judith Light, Vanessa Hudgens
Review: House of Gucci
Top 3: N/A
Review: C’mon C’mon
[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!
Earlier this year in a tweet that sparked a thousand different discussions across #FilmTwitter, we all had an opinion about the length of films and that there my be an ideal length for a film experience. Yet, the discussion devolved almost immediately because the user’s tweet invoked the nitpick of a cinema sacred cow, which is what a lot of respondents latched on to rather than the discussion at hand. As with most arguments on Twitter, I stayed miles away from it, but as I’ve begun resuming my normal weekly jaunts to the local multiplex, I can’t help but think that this argument is one that could be reframed. Rather than limit a filmmaker, or, let’s be honest, a corporation who throws ungodly amounts of money at a blockbuster project, what if we pushed for the return of the intermission?
During the showings of No Time to Die, Dune, and Eternals, I found that an hour, maybe an hour and fifteen minutes into the over two hour run time, I had to use the toilet. Like not just “Oh this is annoying,” more like, “If I don’t leave my seat now, I will wet myself,” kind of had to go. This has not been a problem for me in the past. I sat through the entirety of the three Lord of the Rings films as well as all three Hobbit films without so much as an inkling of bladder distress.
Though, what did I do over the year and some change previous? Like most people, I watched movies at home. I watched in a place where I could pause the film, grab a snack, use the toilet and come back and resume. With the slow parts of Eternals, I watched as person, after person, after person, got up and left for the restrooms. Like creatures of need scurrying in the darkness, we are untrained and unprepared for this environment. I even went into Eternals knowing I may have this problem, so I eschewed all liquids starting an hour before showtime. I went before I left the house. I went after I arrived at the theater and for good measure, I went in the midst of the over long trailer for House of Gucci, which seemed hilariously misplaced in front of a Marvel film. Yet, there it was, in the midst of the action, I had the urge and I knew it was no use trying to fight it.
Having an intermission wouldn’t solve all of the minor annoyances of attending showings at movie theaters, multiplexes, and art house spaces, not by a long shot because other attendees exist and they account for about 90% of my gripes with the theater experience. Yet, it may alleviate the pressure of some of these ills. It could be a way for an agreed upon period of time for people to engage in their worst theater behaviors.
Imagine a scenario like this. The pre show continues to exist with its ads and the incomparable Maria Menounos. Sure, we’d even suffer through that silly, kind of charming, Nicole Kidman video that plays at AMC theaters now. But after that’s done, we get right to the film. It starts on time and then, somewhere in the middle, the picture fades, the word “intermission” flashes, the lights come up. As people play with their phones, get up to go use the restroom, ask questions their friends can’t answer, and get a refill on their snacks, the trailers for coming attractions play, low enough it’s not preventing conversation, but loud enough that those who want to can sit back and watch. Invariably the people watching the clips will turn to their partner and say, “I want to see that,” then as their partner struggles to find away to mark down the title or the date of release, the memory of what they just saw flits away. As the tight fifteen minutes comes to a close and people return to their seats, the lights dim, maybe a new Nicole Kidman primer appears, just to catch the stragglers at the restrooms, out for a smoke or a snack, then fade in and the rest of the film plays.
It won’t prevent or impede the guy with the way too bright phone screen from whipping it out at a slow bit, the older couple who can’t not say something, the kid who’s bored walking around loudly, or the oddball who needs to shout out their opinion to a group of strangers who couldn’t care less about it. These things will still exist, but they may become less frequent. Those that can’t hack it will leave or it will provide an out to those that were unsure about the concept, the cast, or the franchise. Theaters could even advertise for a partial refund for those who leave at intermission.
It could also be that there is a shift in the way films are made. If corporate entities know there will be a break it has the potential to give them storytelling options. Some may favor the return of the epic like Gone with the Wind, Ben-Hur, Lawrence of Arabia or Doctor Zhivago in which they cram more story into one package, reducing the need or risk for further installments. Some may actually scrutinize their product and trim the excess making it a lean, but robust film that tells a complete story and leaves one satisfied by it. Some may eschew the risk of the theater all together and pursue the streaming platforms instead, getting more eyeballs at a fraction of the cost of distribution and physical media.
An intermission is not the perfect solution. It has its downsides as the entire theater going experience does and it may actually push more patrons away from the experience all together. Yet, allowing the option would be a load off of an audience’s mind and a pressure off our bladders. It would, even more than overpriced junk food and recliner seats that break down very quickly, make it feel like the audience has a modicum of control over their experience. While that can be a bad thing (see the crowdsourced ideas in Snakes on a Plane), it wouldn’t make the experience wholly worse as some “innovations” or nostalgic impulses have.
The end of the year is here and I’m sure some of you have used the recent Barnes & Nobles 50% off sale to get some Christmas gifts for others…and yourselves. But there is one last trio of films from Criterion that you can still get to complete the yearly set. One is getting the 4K rerelease treatment while two newcomers enter the collection, both of them being stories of African-American life in separate settings. Also, my own personal trio of films I want for Christmas.
The Red Shoes (1948)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqwFb0B_VXY
Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, also known as The Archers, collaborated on multiple critically acclaimed films, but no film ever topped this sensational backstage drama that is one of cinema’s most gorgeous productions. Moira Shearer plays a rising ballerina whose performance in the ballet of the same name, based on the fairytale by Hans Christen Andersen, grabs the love and attention of its composer (Marius Goring) as well as its producer (Anton Walbrook) vying for her love. Jack Cardiff helmed its perfect Technicolor cinematography and the film did win two Oscars plus was nominated for Best Picture and remains one of the greatest British films ever made.
The Learning Tree (1969)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJOhDRK3zfs
Gordon Parks wrote, produced, directed, and scored this coming-of-age story set in the 1920s following a Black teen who gets caught in the crossfire of love, friendship, and racism that engulf his family. It is the contrast between one person who goes by their morals while another tries to rebel and survive the normal injustice in the world in a White-controlled society. Historically, Parks became the first Black director to make a Hollywood studio film, in this case, for Warner Brothers, who were satisfied with Parks’ simplistic, smooth production. It’s a sobering, landmark film that introduced to the mainstream the Black-centered genre as its own.
One Night In Miami (2020)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9T98qIa4no
Regina King has been on a roll since her Oscar-winning performance in If Beale Street Could Talk. Not did she go on to star in the TV adaptation of Watchmen, but she went straight to directing her first feature with Kemp Powers adapting his own play about February 25, 1964, when Cassius Clay – later renamed Muhammad Ali – won the heavyweight title age just 21. As the civil rights movement reaches a crescendo, Clay (played by Eli Goree) celebrates his victory in a hotel room alongside football star Jim Brown (Aldis Hodge), singer Sam Cooke (Leslie Odom Jr.), and civil rights leader Malcolm X (Kingsley Ben-Adir). Here, they are discussing where they are as people and what can they do to keep pushing forward, even as their paths differ after this one singular night.
My Wish List For 2021
The Apu Trilogy (1955-1959) – Why I don’t own this already, I don’t know. I don’t own any of Satyajit Ray’s films and there are a few I love from him and should own. Let me start with this, the series that introduced us to Ray and put India in the spotlight for world cinema. It follows Apu and his time from childhood to manhood in three separate movies, all being their own standing achievement by Ray, who is now immortalized as one of the great film directors.
Working Girls (1986) – Having seen the film and its features on the Criterion Channel, I was absolutely amazed by Lizzie Borden’s sophomoric effort of a group of prostitutes who are not high clientele but do work in their private brothel, all with the need for money for different things. It’s not gritty, nor is it on the street, but a middle-class, white-collar attraction that treats the women with respect. Of the many building blocks that permitted independent cinema to blossom in the 90s, Working Girls served women and their own stories being told.
The Irishman (2019) – First reason, I’m a massive Martin Scorsese fan. I love just about everything he does. Second, his massive three-and-half-hour gangster drama is very different from his masterpiece Goodfellas and his smoldering Vegas piece, Casino. It focuses on one man who was not born in the mob and has a soul in his main character when the ultimate job is called in. Only Raging Bull is Robert DeNiro at his best in a Scorsese-directed collaboration.
Director: Ridley Scott Writers: Becky Johnston and Roberto Bentivegna; based on book by Sara Gay Forden Stars: Lady Gaga, Adam Driver, Jared Leto, Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons, Jack Huston, Selma Hayek
Synopsis: When an ambitious outsider marries into the legendary Gucci fashion dynasty, it sets off a series of events that threaten not only the family business, but the entire family itself.
Whenever there is an opportunity to fictionalize a true story, especially one thatโs already sensational, there is an inherent danger of going over the topโsubtlety is hard to achieve if the subject matter itself is already larger than life. In the case of House of Gucci, the new Ridley Scott film which stars Lady Gaga and Adam Driver, being larger than life is just the beginning. The rest is just delicious gravy.
The film begins in Italy in the early 70’s, and Gaga plays Patrizia Reggiani, an ambitious young woman who falls in love with Maurizio Gucci (Driver), the heir to the Gucci fashion empire. But when Patrizia meets and marries Maurizio, he is merely a modest law student, with no interest in being part of the family business. However, when Maurizioโs uncle Aldo (Al Pacino) pleads with Maurizio to join him in New York to run the company because his own son, Paolo (Jared Leto) is incompetent, he acquiesces. But when internal family politics begin to threaten Maurizioโs rising position within the company, Patriziaโs true colors and ambitions are revealed, as she manipulates everyone, including Maurizio, in order to maintain her position within the family and control over the business. When Maurizio finally sees her for the power-hungry social climber that she is, it sets off a deadly chain reaction that threatens not only the survival of the family, but the future of the family business.
While based on a true story, the temptation for embellishment runs rampant here, especially in the characterizations of the main players. And embellish they do. Even if we assume these characters were already colorful, due to their Italian heritage, immense wealth and fame, Scott gives his actors plenty of room to play and explore, and every actor makes full use of that freedom to create, most especially Gaga and Leto. Gaga is exceptionally well-cast in a role that plays not only to the pop iconโs natural flamboyance and personality, but to her sense of fun and fearlessness. As Gaga is a performer known to push the envelope artistically, itโs no surprise to see her blur the boundaries of camp and melodrama, blending surprising comic instincts with, well, just plain good instincts. If ever it feels as if a role was made for an actor, itโs here.
As for Leto, he is more known to make a role bend to him, often infusing his performances with exaggeration and eccentricities, an actor known for going above and beyond the simple physical requirements of a role to deliver performances that range from the truly sublime, as in his Oscar-winning role in Dallas Buyers Club, to the truly inane, as his weirdly wrong performance in The Little Things. But in House of Gucci, Leto finds the perfect character to explore his inherent need to create outside the bounds of whatโs written on the page. Thankfully, Scott allows him to play because Letoโs embodiment of the ego-driven, intellectually-challenged Paolo Gucci is the best thing in House of Gucci, and thatโs saying a lot, considering how much fun Gagaโs performance becomes. But what Leto does is truly transform into this buffoonish, childish, desperate, and sad man who is seeking nothing more than his fatherโs approvalโor anyoneโs approval. It would be so easy to have played the part simply for laughs, or to pathetic effect, but Leto finds a way to do both, resulting in a truly melancholy character who we simultaneously feel sorry for and mock. It is as transformative a performance as what he did in Dallas Buyers Club, and should be recognized as heartily. Letoโs hair and makeup team, which include Federica Castelli, AnnaCarin Lock, and Gรถran Lundstrรถm, deserve much acclaim for helping Leto disappear into his character so effectively, but it is Leto that brings it home and makes it land for the audience so effectively and should not be overlooked this awards season.
Perhaps even more shocking than Lady Gaga and Jared Letoโs truly award-worthy performances is the lack of one from Adam Driver. Driver, a perennial awards favorite, an actor who can seemingly deliver in any kind of role, which he has already proven this year alone in Annette and The Last Duel, is shockingly invisible in House of Gucci. Whether that is because he is overshadowed by Gaga and Leto or not is beside the point, because Driverโs character serves as the anchor to this crazy story and, in Driverโs hands, one would have expected him to hold down the fort a bit better. But instead, he is stiff and one-note, and his character is utterly devoid of any personality.
Another surprise is Al Pacinoโs performance. While this film would seem tailor-made for the over-the-top, Pacino-being-Pacino roles that heโs turned in lately, the legendary actor actually gets back to acting in his role as the Gucci company boss who wants to take his nephew under his wing. Scott manages to get a classically impressive performance out of Pacino, instead of a self-spoofing one, and it is lovely to see. Itโs also lovely to see Jeremy Irons on screen, but heโs a bit all over the place playing an elderly Italian fashion designer. Ditto for Salma Hayek, who plays a psychic who inspires Patrizia to her paranoid delusions. Hayekโs role and storyline seems tacked on, and Hayek is done a true disservice, even though she does the best that she can with it.
Thereโs no way to discuss House of Gucci without talking about the accents. It seems absurd that actors who are playing Italians are all speaking English in an Italian accent, but it is what it is, and thereโs no way to enjoy this film without just going with it. Some accents are better than others, some are much more extreme than others, and some disappear altogether, but Scott is famously a director who doesnโt care one bit about accent accuracy (see also: The Last Duel), so artistic license rules the day.
Accents aside, House of Gucci shows that, thankfully, Ridley Scott can still deliver an exceptionally well-made and enjoyable film, even after recent disappointments. In addition to two truly engaging performances that alone would make this film worth seeing, all the elements do come together to result in a stylish, slick production. Although the film does meander a bit narratively and struggles to get to its ultimate destination, it does manage to take the viewer on a slightly satirical, slightly campy, melodramatic yet massively entertaining ride that bemuses, delights and, yes, makes you ever so slightly gaga.
I will be watching and reviewing all of the films included on AFIโs 100 Yearsโฆ100 Passions list. The list contains the 100 greatest love stories in American cinema and I plan to consider how our views on romance and social issues have changed over the years as well as judge whether the romances in these films actually made me swoon. As a fan of the romance genre, I expect to love each and every one of the nominees but I also donโt know if I would consider all of them romantic.
Pauline Kael once said โMeryl Streep just about always seems miscast. (She makes a career out of seeming to overcome being miscast.)โ She applied this quote to an actress who is renowned for her versatility and appearances in prestige pictures that didnโt make much money at the box office, but the statement is equally applicable to a thespian who had a very different appeal.
Bette Davis was a fairly unique presence in Old Hollywood and, like Streep, she often played parts that didnโt seem entirely suited to her screen persona. She excelled at playing divine bitches who struggled against a system that disadvantaged women, but she existed at a time when major stars were expected to churn out three-hanky weepies. Davis first achieved success in Of Human Bondage (1934), in which she played a femme fatale who destroyed her loverโs life, but, in trying to become a respectable starlet, she decided that she needed to expand her range. In the mid-1930’s, Greta Garbo was the criticโs darling and she earned rave reviews for her one note performances as sad, tragic women who sacrifice everything for love. All of her vehicles were engineered to suit her cold, aloof presence and her films tended to be built around her. Davis wanted to appear in the sort of high budget, high profile productions that Garbo regularly appeared in and fought with the studios to obtain roles in more grandiose films. In 1938, she became Queen of the Warner Brothers lot and, over the next seven years, she enjoyed an unprecedented run of success. She still played dirty girls every now and then, but she also made an effort to appear in costume dramas about sad, lovesick women.
Dark Victory (1939) might be the prototypical Bette Davis weepie and it is representative of the discord between Davisโs acting style and the romantic melodrama genre. In the film, she plays a spirited, supposedly immature heiress named Judith Traherne. She hangs out with a group of other rich socialites in Long Island, New York and spends her days training her show jumping horses. Her Irish stablemaster Michael OโLeary (Humphrey Bogart) has long held unrequited feelings for Traherne, but she regularly spars with him over his treatment of her horses. Traherneโs love life takes a backseat to her concerns over her health when she learns that she is suffering from a brain tumor. This news shakes her to the core and she chooses to become a more selfless, giving person in her final months. She also enters into a relationship with Steele and forsakes her party girl lifestyle to become a housewife. When it comes time to face down death, she is happy with her Stepford Wife lifestyle.
Davis clearly struggled with playing such a passive, self-pitying character and you can almost smell her contempt for her character in the scenes in which she throws herself at her boyfriendโs feet. She has to tone down her intensity to play the part and you lose a lot of the Davis-isms that make her other performances so powerful. Rather than getting to bring her own unique charisma to the role, she ends up doing an impression of another movie star. This film, and others like it, become fascinating as an example of a performer with highly distinctive ticks, attempting to tackle parts that are not suited to her talents. Davis is never convincing as a carefree young girl who just loves horses, but the script insists that sheโs a flaky twenty-three-year-old. She gazes at Brent with the derision of a furious gangster moll who is preparing to crush a pathetic insect, and yet we are told that she adores him. There is an obvious disconnect between Davisโs rapacious, indignant performance and the ideas that the script wants to get across. It makes for an intriguing experiment, but Davisโs fans would probably tell you to skip Dark Victory altogether and head straight for All About Eve (1950).
Nothing about the story makes sense, as itโs impossible to understand why Traherne would be drop everything to be with a boring doctor. There is also the disturbing implication that Traherne โdeservesโ to be punished for living a supposedly immoral lifestyle at the beginning of the film. As this was made under the Hays Code, the script isnโt allowed to explicitly acknowledge the fact that Traherne might have had premarital sex, but this implication certainly hangs in the air. More generally, we are meant to resent her for being a young, independent woman who is wealthy enough to avoid marrying a man who will have complete control over her. When she has a rational argument with one of her employees, we are meant to see this as bratty behaviour that could be straightened out by a strict, reasonable husband. Her illness and impending death are supposed to teach her a lesson and she gives up her carefree, enjoyable lifestyle to take care of a dull, completely unexceptional man. These issues become especially prominent in the final scene, in which Traherne briefly becomes blind and proceeds to die of her illness. She is so self sacrificing that she sends her husband off on a business trip and quietly, elegantly passes away. The scene is disturbing because it implies that women should just quietly accept suffering and only deserve adulation when they donโt attempt to push back against the struggles that they face. Traherne is ennobled when she resigns herself to the fact that she is going to die. When she puts up a fight against the controlling men around her, she is demonised.
It is a picture that is saved by Davisโs glamour. When she lies on her bed and poses for the camera, itโs like seeing a George Hurrell photograph come to life. Those legendary, god-given eyes are hypnotic and you canโt tear your eyes away from the slight curl in her lips. She always seems to be sneering at the audience that lovingly gazes upon her, and we end up loving her for it. Sheโs gorgeous enough to get away with โhot girl shitโ and she throws in some classic Davis line readings to remind you that sheโs a force to be reckoned with. If you want to see Davis at the height of her pulchritude, look no further than this film.
At the end of the day, it is rather difficult to make a defense for the film itself. Itโs a piss-poor rip-off of a Garbo vehicle and Garboโs films were nothing to write home about in the first place.
I will be watching and reviewing all of the films included on AFIโs 100 Yearsโฆ100 Passions list. The list contains the 100 greatest love stories in American cinema and I plan to consider how our views on romance and social issues have changed over the years as well as judge whether the romances in these films actually made me swoon. As a fan of the romance genre, I expect to love each and every one of the nominees but I also donโt know if I would consider all of them romantic.
Splendor in the Grass (1961) is one of those sex-tinged melodramas that canโt help but feel dated. Itโs not just that itโs a period piece set in the 1920’s. Itโs that it was written by William Inge, who held the position of being an ersatz Tennessee Williams throughout the 1950’s and 1960’s. Both playwrights traded on racy, shocking references to sex, homosexuality, marital struggles, and pedophilia. As the Hays Code began to weaken and audiences displayed a predilection for mildly controversial content, film producers realised that they could strike gold by bringing notorious theatre productions to the screen. Naturally, the content in the plays were significantly toned down when they reached the big screen and they didnโt end up offending anybodyโs morals too much. The original plays seem incredibly tame by modern standards and this means that itโs almost impossible to understand why their film adaptations were such a big deal back in the day. In 1958, audiences were willing to endure almost anything to see Elizabeth Taylor walk around in a chemise for a couple of minutes. In 2021, this is nothing to get excited about.
It is notable that Williamsโs work has endured in a way that Ingeโs work has not. This might be because Williams was willing to go further than Inge in attempting to shock audience members. He was quite happy to turn Suddenly, Last Summer into a story about Spanish cannibals eating a wealthy prig alive after serving as his sex slaves for several months. Inge always seemed to be conscious of the fact that he was targeting pearl clutching middle class women who didnโt want to be called out on the fact that sex might be *gasp* enjoyable. They wanted to stare at hot-bodied actors without being judged for it and see a โclassyโ play instead of opening up a pornographic magazine and seeing the nude male form. Inge gave them the opportunity to do this and his works caused such a stir that he managed to win the Pulitzer Prize.
When it came time for him to write the screenplay for Splendor in the Grass, he was already out of touch with the American youth, who would end up being the driving force behind the countercultural revolution that would occur later on in the decade. His trite pieties about the dangers of sexual repression and taste for old fashioned melodrama would have seemed phoney to teenagers who were actually going through their first sexual relationship. Today, the contents of Splendor in the Grass seem like the stuff of a trashy teen soap opera. Inge occasionally tries to touch on an important subject but itโs always clear that he isnโt terribly interested in saying anything new or radical about the subjects that he considers.
His messy, uneven script is filled to the brim with fascinating supporting characters who show up for a scene or two and then disappear from the film for unexplained reasons. Unfortunately, he chooses to center the story around Deanie (Natalie Wood), a popular teenage girl who is well-liked in her small Kansas town. She dates Bud (Warren Beatty), an equally bland individual, and grows desperate to have sex with him. Both of their overbearing parents intervene and Bud is warned against marrying Deanie. She ends up having a mental breakdown and goes to a mental institution for a short period of time, while Bud ends up getting married to a woman that he does not love as much as his childhood sweetheart. They briefly meet up several years later and both end up wondering what could have been.
It would be an understatement to say that the sexual politics in Ingeโs supposedly liberal script have aged poorly, but the filmโs biggest problem is that the story just isnโt nutty enough. Itโs so busy taking itself seriously that it never takes the time to realize that itโs actually a soapy potboiler. It falls into the same category as One Tree Hill, but it isnโt able to supply the sort of thrills that a television soap opera can provide. You keep wanting the film to shift its focus from Bud and Deanie to Ginny (Barbara Loden). Sheโs Budโs sister and sheโs well known as a bit of a bad girl in their town. Sheโs promiscuous and self destructive but thereโs a sense that she is in control of her own desires in a way that her female peers arenโt. She is ultimately punished for being a โslutโ but Loden makes a real impact when sheโs on screen. Director Elia Kazan was known for his love of neurotic, wounded women who were slightly tragic, and yet Loden doesnโt feel like a traditional Kazan woman. Sheโs rapacious and lively and gloriously angry at the world. Her passionate, fiery portrayal of an unconventional woman reminds you of how thinly drawn the protagonists are.
Ingeโs script is the filmโs biggest problem but Kazan doesnโt really help matters. He was famed for his ability to build up a very specific Southern Gothic atmosphere in his adaptations of Williams’ plays and you expect his version of small town Kansas to feel lived in and immersive. In Baby Doll (1956), he does so much with just a couple of locations and Archie Lee Meighanโs ranch is brought to life as a version of hell on earth. Everybody feels trapped in the Mississippi Delta and horny farmers are liable to begin chasing their married conquests around a dilapidated mansion. In that film, Boris Kaufmanโs black and white cinematography perfectly captured the heady eroticism in the air. Kazan couldnโt exactly depict Eli Wallach touching Carroll Bakerโs private parts, but the brutality of the imagery on screen let us know that there was something improper occurring just outside of the frame. Kaufman returned to work with Kazan on Splendor in the Grass but this collaboration was considerably less successful. The film is shot in glorious Technicolor and the anguish and horror that Deanie feels is barely hinted at by the bright, candy coloured imagery that we see on screen. The 1920’s period detail also comes and goes and there are times when you think that this could have been set at any point in the early twentieth century. One minute Loden is dancing at a party like a hard drinking jazz baby and the next Wood is sitting in a classroom that looks like it could have existed in the 1960’s. So much of the filmโs message is meant to be about the suffering of middle class Americans and their struggles with the bourgeoisie values that keep them from enjoying sexual pleasure. In order to drive home this point, Kaufman could have made more of an effort to give the audience a sense of the boredom experienced by the inhabitants of this sort of uptight, close-knit community.
At the end of the day, there is something dishonest and prurient about this film. It claims to be seriously interested in the troubles of a sexually repressed young girl who feels trapped in a society that doesnโt extend much sympathy to women. In reality, itโs a drama that revels in the fact that it is daring to be about a crazy, sex-obsessed girl. I always felt that I was being encouraged to look askance at her and inspect her like one of P.T. Barnumโs Freaks, instead of empathizing with her. There is something pat and simple-minded about the conclusions that it eventually draws, and most of the characters have their problems solved in a way that feels utterly artificial. Nothing rings true and I imagine that teenage girls of the 2020’s would find themselves giggling over Ingeโs wildly incorrect assumptions about how they behave in the presence of men.
Hollywood has well and truly moved on from this sort of pap and, while the modern cinema landscape is far from perfect, we should all be thankful for that. We have gotten smart enough to resist the allure of Ingeโs pretentious but inane dialogue.
Stars: Renate Reinsve, Anders Danielsen Lie, Herbert Nordrum
Synopsis: Chronicles four years in the life of Julie, a young woman who navigates the troubled waters of her love life and struggles to find her career path.
Constructed in twelve chapters, a prologue, and an epilogue; The Worst Person in the World chronicles four years in the life of Julie (Renate Reinsve), a woman that begins her thirties with an existential crisis about who she is, what she wants in life, and what career she wants to settle on. She jumps from studying surgery to psychiatry to photography and eventually settles as a worker in a bookshop. Echoing her career, her love life isn’t that stable either. She floats between casual lovers and mini relationships until she meets Aksel (Anders Danielsen Lie), a forty-year-old comic book writer that, unlike Julie, lives a steady mundane life. So when they get together, Julie finds herself stuck between giving in to Aksel’s way of living or pursuing her journey of passion and self-discovery.
Written by constant collaborators Joachim Trier and Eskil Vogt, and directed by the former, The Worst Person in the World marks the third installment in Trier’s “Oslo Trilogy,” which is also made up of 2006’s Reprise and 2011’s Oslo, August 31st. The trilogy is connected by the setting in the Norwegian capital and the theme of struggling individuals trying to find their way into adulthood. Trier’s latest brings familiar notes from the other two films, but it digs deeper and focuses on the millennial experience in a modern society and the rapid fluctuating states associated with it.
Julie is brought to life by Renate Reinsve, who worked previously on a Joachim Trier set when she took on a supporting role in Oslo, August 31st. But here, Trier unleashes her acting abilities on to the world playing a highly nuanced and complex character. Reinsve has an incredible on-screen presence and portrays Julie with magnetic energy and outstanding vulnerability. There is no doubt that her best actress win at Cannes was very well deserved. The rest of the cast is astounding as well; I don’t know what else Anders Danielsen Lie has to do to be recognized as one of the best actors working today. He and Herbert Nordrum (who plays Julie’s other love interest) deliver very different yet equally marvelous, intense, and lively performances that elevate the film to be a true showcase of talent on the big screen.
Looking at his back catalog, Trier’s decision to embrace the romantic-comedy genre may be confusing at first, but it turns out to be the perfect vessel for this story, pushing the genre in the process to the best it has been in years. This wouldn’t have been possible without the tightly written script, which walks a fine line between romance and comedy. Additionally, Trier’s direction imbues different chapters with changing elements from editing and camerawork to style and tone to reflect Julie’s state, giving each section a unique character and distinctive personality.
Our main character’s general insecurities stem from a continuous striving to achieve her full potential to reach a place where she could be at peace with her personal identity. And her anxieties aren’t helped by constant comparison to her ancestors whose limited choices allowed some of them a single job and relationship their whole life, while some never got that choice at all. Julie’s dilemma is quite the opposite; it isn’t the lack of choice that keeps her mind from resting; it’s the multitude of options. Julie’s fear of commitment in her career and relationships cripples her on both fronts. She thinks if she doesn’t have her entire life figured out by thirty, she will be a failure because of this notion that our world has constantly advertised that we seemingly live in a “time full of rousers” and it’s your problem if you can’t find a place you belong to and feel happy in.
Trier astonishes at conveying this global condition of millennial restlessness by meticulously crafting Julie’s story to have a universal relatability; any viewer of any age will identify with one or more aspects of her inner struggles. Julie’s unfair judgment of herself as a failure is what makes her question her self-worth and what eventually sets up colossal consequences to her minor missteps. Like any of us, at one point or another in life; Julie might be a bit lost but she’s by no stretch of the imagination the worst person in the world.
This week on Extra Film, Ryan and Jay conclude their Sergio Leone Movie Series with Once Upon a Time in America and they also review the latest from Jim Cummings in The Beta Test!
After a long, praise-filled episode last week talking about two of the most important westerns ever made, this week’s episode is slightly different. The boys conclude their Leone series in a way that could be divisive amongst our listener’s. But still, we hope you enjoy the conversation nonetheless. Jim Cummings has also been a fascinating story. His breakout film Thunder Road was a big InSession Film Awards player for both Ryan and Jay, but since then, it’s been a bit of a downhill battle. Which made The Beta Test a captivating review.
Thanks for listening!
โ Movie Review: Once Upon a Time in America (5:33) Director: Sergio Leone Screenplay: Leonardo Benvenuti, Piero De Bernardi, Enrico Medioli, Franco Arcalli, Franco Ferrini, Sergio Leone Stars: Robert De Niro, James Woods, Elizabeth McGovern, Joe Pesci
โ Movie Review: The Beta Test (1:02:06) Director: Jim Cummings, PJ McCabe Screenplay: Jim Cummings, PJ McCabe Stars: Jim Cummings, PJ McCabe, Virginia Newcomb, Jessie Barr
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.
To hear this Extra Film episode and everything else we do, download our apps on the Amazon Market for Android and the Podcast Source app on IOS devices. The mobile app covers all of our main shows, bonus podcasts 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.
When Ninotchka was released in 1939, it represented a step in the right direction for Greta Garbo, who could easily claim to be the worldโs least versatile actress. She played a haughty aristocrat who denied herself pleasure in everything from Queen Christina (1933) to Conquest (1937), and won the hearts of teenage girls who had been taught that the ideal woman was a martyr. Garbo gave these girls the opportunity to experience the thrill of adultery and explicit sex, while also making them feel noble and virtuous. All of her characters would flirt with the idea of sleeping with a younger man or a political leader from another country but they would always choose to give up their own happiness in order to satisfy the desires of the people around them. All sorts of contrived plot devices would be used to put Garbo in a position where she just had to reject the advances of her lover and end up dying of tuberculosis. She was so saintly that she didnโt make attempts to fight back against the strictures of a conservative, highly puritanical society or, I donโt know, seek out a doctor who could treat her tuberculosis. She would sneer down at the little people who surrounded her and, by extension, the audience. 1930s audiences ate up this imperious hauteur and the idea of the good, suffering woman who doesnโt even make an effort to fight for what she wants. Unlike Joan Crawford, who played spunkily, street smart career girls who were willing to lie, cheat and steal to get ahead, Garbo played pathetic fallen women who represented the apotheosis of outdated ideas about what women should be. As the 1930s came to a close, she became box office poison and it was clear that she would need to make a big splash if she was going to continue her reign as Queen of Hollywood. Nobody expected her to appear in a comedy and audiences were shocked when they learned that they were going to hear Garbo laugh.ย
Ninotchka allowed Garbo to satirize her persona as a stoic, self-sacrificing European who looked down on the plebs who admired her. She plays Ninotchka, a phlegmatic Soviet agent who is sent to pre-war Paris to confiscate Soviet-owned jewels from Grand Duchess Swana (Ina Claire). Her mission is complicated by the fact that Swanaโs lover, Count Leon dโAlgout (Melvyn Douglas), has managed to set up a lawsuit that prevents the jewels from being sold. He is able to win over Ninotchkaโs colleagues, but he struggles to get through to her and finds himself falling in love with her. When she begins to return these feelings of love, she grows concerned about the fact that she has been corrupted by the shallow, materialistic Parisian lifestyle that dโAlgout leads. Her commitment to her mission wavers and she begins to consider giving everything up for the man she loves.ย
The plot does force Garbo to play yet another damsel in distress who looks towards men for guidance but sheโs far more independent and self sufficient in this film. Even when she falls for dโAlgout, she retains aspects of her serious, detail oriented personality. Thereโs also something to be said for the fact that Garbo and Douglas just have that spark that so many other screen pairings lack. To watch Garbo delighting in her ability to mock Douglas is to see her finally come out of her shell. Douglas possessed the ability to make flirting look effortless and, as always, he does help to elevate the performance of his co-star, but he remains aware of the fact that this is Garboโs show and he is there to serve as her accompanist. She is given the responsibility of carrying almost every scene on her shoulders and she carries all that weight with ease. The blend between her usual screen persona and the comical twists that the screenplay introduces are seamless. You never doubt for a second that Garbo is a seasoned professional when it comes to working in this genre and that might be the highest praise that you could offer to a performer who rarely stepped outside of her comfort zone.ย
A considerable amount of credit must also go to Ernst Lubitsch, who specialized in making this sort of classy romantic comedy. He always had a way of sneaking an air of carefree sexuality into films that could have seemed stuffy and uptight. You donโt see any lovemaking on-screen but Lubitsch makes it easy to fill in the gaps and assume that the main characters have sex in between every scene. Far from being vulgar, this implication provides films like Ninotchka with the touch of sophistication that made them seem ahead of their time. Everybody is able to enjoy sex and their lack of guilt over their carnal desires is liberating. This anarchic spirit powers Ninotchka and it ends up feeling far more radical than your average anti-Communist romantic comedy about a Swedish/Russian special envoy with a soft spot for French playboys.ย
This is one of those times when you have to praise AFI voters for making an obvious choice and choosing a widely beloved classic. Ninotchka continues to enchant viewers all over the world and it hasnโt lost any of its charm in the past 82 years.ย
Director: Sylvester Stallone Writer: Sylvester Stallone Stars: Sylvester Stallone, Talia Shire, Carl Weathers, Brigitte Nielsen, and Dolph Lundgren
Synopsis: Rocky Balboa proudly holds the world heavyweight boxing championship, but a new challenger has stepped forward: Drago, a six-foot-four, 261-pound fighter who has the backing of the Soviet Union.
In 1985, the fourth installment of the classic Sylvester Stallone-starring Sports franchise, Rocky IV, was released, and people were excited to see what happens next after Rocky fought Mr. Tโs Clubber Lang. However, the filmโs reviews werenโt that positive, and it is the franchiseโs most divisive picture for many reasons: lack of tone coherence, the cheesiness of it all, the same rhythmic beats narratively, and some odd choices were added, like Paulieโs robot. People expected something more, something that elevated the finales of the first and second movies, but it never quite found its footing. Nevertheless, its ending is really memorable, and the Rocky versus Drago fight is considered a classic matchup, even if the picture overall doesnโt work in its entirety. Unfortunately, Stallone didnโt know what to do next with the franchise, which was evident as the runtime progressed. It was a box office success, as most of them are, but critically fractured.
The fifth installment also suffered from some of the same aspects the fourth one did, and audiences were growing tired of it. So now, 36-years after its release, Stallone decided to go back and tune the film for a better fit, one that would do justice to the emotional story and the character arcs in them. Of course, there is always a risk with directors returning to their work years after the fact and making a new rendition or cut of it, but it often works if the one in helm knows precisely what they are doing, and its reason be made. Great examples are Francis Ford Coppolaโs Apocalypse Now Redux cut back in 2001, which was released 22 years after its release, the multiple variations of Blade Runner (1982), or the Richard Donner cut of Superman II (1981). Stalloneโs new version, titled Rocky IV: Rocky vs. Drago The Ultimate Directorโs Cut, does indeed change the pacing and tone of the original to have more emotional jabs; however, some tamperings are a bit daft.
After reclaiming the boxing championship title, Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone) plans to retire to go on with his life and stay with his wife, Adrian (Talia Shire). Nonetheless, a crucial incident causes him to step back on retirement. During an exhibition match, his close friend Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers) is callously beaten to death by the brawny Russian, Ivan Drago (Dolph Lundgren). Rocky now vows to avenge Creedโs death by fighting Drago. Both of them have a long and intense match awaiting them. Who will stand tall in the fight of the century?
As mentioned before, Stalloneโs main focus with this directorโs cut is to enhance the emotional punches and strip back some of the needless scenes that cause modulation shifts during the filmโs preparation towards the coup de grรขce that everyoneโs waiting for. The changes begin with the opening of the film, where instead of getting a recap of what happened in the previous picture, it wants to dive deeper into what Apollo Creed means to Rocky and the vital role that he plays in his life. Some of the other significant changes are the total obliteration of the fan loathed robot (thank heavens for that), and flashbacks sequences are now in black & white (which, in my opinion, seems a bit doltish). The rest are subtle minor changes that you may overlook if you arenโt comparing them directly: angle changes, shots from a different perspective, adding a few more seconds to a scene, etc. This cut adds a total of 40-minutes of new footage that is interworked all over the film, adding only two to three minutes to the original runtime.
The Rocky IV story arc remains the same; there arenโt changes to the narrative as a whole. Yet, the shift in pacing makes it feel more breathable, unlike the original, which runs 100-miles-per-hour to get to the big fight and adds training montages to fill the runtime. Stallone wanted the audience to feel the impact of Balboaโs decisions and Creedโs death way more, so he made the wise decision of concentrating on character reactions and interactions instead of stuff happening with no coherence. Although, yes, the problems with the original storyline, the semi-shoddy screenplay, and sort of sleazy instances are still there, be that as it may, it is a far more entertaining watch than before. The essence of โdonโt know what to do nextโ is quite noticeable, sadly, a reason why he gave John G. Avildsen the shot to direct Rocky V (1990).
In the end, was this directorโs cut actually needed? Was it worth it? I would answer yes, but with some reservations. You can take Rocky IV a bit more seriously now because it trims the unnecessary fat of the original, and there are far smarter decisions than poor ones. Tone and pacing switcheroos do the heart-pounding substances some justice, even though its story still has holes that canโt be patched up; Stallone did a fine job trying to fasten a broken film.
Science fiction and high fantasy have long been the playgrounds for auteur directors to stretch their filmmaking muscles. Since Georges Mรฉliรจs launched a rocket to the moon, cinema has offered audiences trips to strange worlds beyond on own. In the decades since A Trip to the Moon pushed the limits of filmmaking, auteurs like Stanley Kubrick, Alfonso Cuarรณn, and Peter Jackson pursued their own otherworldly visions. Landmark films Gravity, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, and Star Wars: A New Hope became hits with casual moviegoers and Oscar voters alike. Dune, arguably the most anticipated film of 2021, looks to join this elite club.
Denis Villeneuveโs epic take on the classic science-fiction novel has been met with critical and populist adoration. Shortly after Duneโs release, a sequel received the greenlight. The continual outpouring of love has pushed the film into the Best Picture conversation. While several nominations seem all but guaranteed, the film could quickly add to its Oscar success by converting on swing categories. One such race is occurring in Supporting Actress, where Rebecca Ferguson has found herself a longshot contender.
Even in a crowded field, Ferguson deserves to be more than a bubble contender. While many are over Arrakis for Dune, my overall feelings toward the film are cooler than most. Yet Fergusonโs performance lingers in your mind long after you leave the theater. Her commitment to combining high fantasy exposition with pathos-laden subtext has created one of 2021โs finest performances.
The greatness of Fergusonโs performance begins with a tightrope act, one that continues for most of the film. Ferguson portrays Lady Jessica, the concubine of Duke Leto (Oscar Isaac) and mother to Paul (Timothรฉe Chalament). While the matriarchal archetypes have sunk other performers in this role, Ferguson brings the most out of her role as she embraces high fantasy. Lady Jessica is a member of the Bene Gesserit, a religious group that seeks to balance the world through their omniscient maneuvers in the political sphere. Ferguson expertly plays up the internal strife these roles place on her emotional health, making her far more than a space sorcerer.
Perhaps no sequence capitalizes on her intensity more than the Gom Jabbar sequence. As Paul struggles with the literal pain, Lady Jessica sits outside the doors. Ferguson adds a palpable tension to a scene already dripping with it. While Paul begins to fulfill his messianic quest, Lady Jessica must sit through the agony of knowing Paulโs failure will lead to his death. Still, success may lead down an even more difficult road of destruction. Ferguson spits out the rite, โI must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer,โ hoping she can keep her own oaths to the order. Ferguson holds the fear in her eyes but never breaks.
Ferguson continues to dominate the screen throughout most of the film. She commands attention as she floats into the brutalist buildings of Arrakis, often outshining Chalamet and Isaac. Given the sheer number of movie stars, superheroes, and icons sharing the screen with her, Ferguson never disappears into the background. In a verbal spat with Charlotte Rampling, Ferguson never falters despite receiving a dressing down. Her composure, even as the Dukeโs concubine, can never be questioned.ย ย
While she often holds back from showcasing her full power, her showcase comes with the use of โThe Voice,โ a long-teased sequence. While Paul can utilize the powerset as well, Lady Jessicaโs mastery becomes instantly apparent. Fergusonโs nonchalant orders to have the soldiers slaughter each other reveal the dangerous Lady Jessica weโve been promised. Her powers are even more fulfilling than the hype suggested.
Perhaps the most critical piece of Fergusonโs performance is the confidence and emotion she imbues into exposition. A showdown between Paul and herself in the mist reveals her grandest plans. While the scene functions to roadmap the impending wars and how Paul will affect the world, you never doubt her faith in a master plan. The ideology of the Bene Gesserit may be formed in philosophy, yet a simple act of defiance that could change the course of history. Lady Jessicaโs devotion to the ideology can rarely be questioned. Still, her belief in a man and the future of their children will upend centuries of planning. Fergusonโs performance sells the core tenets of Herbertโs story, kicking off the Dune phenomenon in the process. It is no different than Ian McKellen or Alec Guinness finding their way to Oscar nominations for their highly fantastical franchises.ย ย ย ย
While Oscar often ignores actors in big-budget films, Ferguson demands attention. It is a committed performance that must balance world-building, emotion, and belief within a single character. Some will write this off as a simple task, yet the bones of many sci-fi films litter the defunct franchise graveyard for missing this element. It is a thankless task, yet the Oscars can change that in an instant. Providing the wonderfully talented Ferguson her first Oscar nomination would be an excellent way to recognize the brilliant ensemble on cinemaโs biggest night.ย
Radu Judeโs Golden Bear winning new film Bad Luck Banging or Loony Porn opening scene greets you with some dirty talk, a juicy blowjob, and very horny sex. Itโs just a homemade video of two people enjoying coitus. The โproblemโ is that itโs been leaked and one of its participants is respected history teacher Emilia (Katia Pascariu) which doesnโt sit well with the parents of her students. And by โsit wellโ I mean โthey are incensed.โย
The film is divided into three sections. A frantically walk through Bucharest, a unique and often funny โshort dictionary of anecdotes, signs, and wonders,โ and a school meeting resembling a medieval tribunal of sorts in which a bunch of loud, sexist, fascist, and racist parents judges a woman because she was having sex with her husband. Itโs like logging into Twitter: a wave of idiocy and intolerance.
โI think the whole sex video scandal is ridiculous because itโs a part of being a human being: sexuality and private life,โ told me Jude who uses Bad Luck Banging or Loony Porn to explore the true meaning of the word โobscenity.โ Itโs a resolute satire that touches on fascism, psychoanalysis, extinction, paranoia, the Internet, and blowjobs using an experimental meta approach.ย
With Bad Luck Banging or Loony Porn opening in U.S. theaters on November 19, I had the chance to talk with Radu Jude about the inspirations behind the ideas of the film, social media idiocy, and sex tapes.
Ricardo Gallegos: When Emil meets the headmistress near the start of the film, she says the following line: โThe more idiotic an opinion, the more important it is.โ I think this line encompasses the online experience in many ways. What was the thought process or inspiration behind this line?
Radu Jude: That line is a quote from a Polish writer from the 30s, Witold Gombrowicz, but I put it in the mouth of the character. And itโs true. Sometimes we are searching for truth and important issues and ideas, but if you change the angle a little or if you think outside of the box, youโll discover that you can find something relevant in everything. Itโs like Umberto Eco used to say, that it doesnโt matter the object of the research if the method of the research is good. It doesnโt matter if you study the words of Shakespeare or the Hannah Barbera cartoons, if the method is good, you can find interesting things in both of them.
Stupid and wrong opinions are all over us and made more visible by the Internet. Itโs interesting to notice that. For instance, since Romania is only 30% vaccinated, I notice thereโs this kind of psychosis going on. I saw a small documentary about a hospital where people sick with COVID-19 and unable to breathe were taking off their oxygen masks because they believed they could be infected by a Bill Gates conspiracy of some sort. They prefer to die than to give up on this idea. So this is psychosis already. Itโs a tragedy that is happening here. Hundreds of people are dying every day and the country is almost on lockdown, but on the other hand, itโs interesting and frightening to see these stupid ideas spread.ย
RG: I see the school meeting as opening Twitter or Facebook. You see all these people fighting each other, throwing slurs around, using casual racism, weaponizing one idea to attack, lots of disinformation, but also people trying to share actual valuable knowledge and good analysis, only to be replied with insults.ย So, what’s the role of social media in your film and what do you think is the role of social media in our current landscape?
RJ: Itโs true. In the third part of the film, although people interact with each other in person, itโs more like watching the social media and online reactions to a situation. I modeled it not only on my experience as a father with kids (I went to a lot of parents meetings) but also on the social media craze that I noticed.
I donโt know the role of social media. Itโs a phenomenon that I cannot imagine. My imagination refuses to see that billions of people are connected at the same time, itโs impossible to imagine. On the other hand, the toxic part is in the fact that it makes you want to have an immediate reaction to anything. Something bad appears on Facebook and you immediately feel the urge to say something, to insult. And I think this urge should be slowed down. If you are not sure of what you are going to say, maybe wait at least one day, two days, one year, and then see if you really feel the same thing. The quick reaction is always bad. I trained myself not to quickly react to something on social media because, at some point, I was spending entire days arguing with people over an issue. However, social media can be very useful. You can connect people with colleagues who are abroad. Itโs a brilliant invention, probably the greatest invention of our time in a way, but we have to know how to use it, which we havenโt learned to do yet.
RG: The porn video at the start of the film is brilliant. It provokes a reaction and itโs the centerpiece of the plot. What have been the reactions to the porn video being in the film? Have they been what you expected?
RJ: Mostly. People donโt have a problem with that. Of course, there are countries where this cannot pass. Russia censored the film. In Romania, it was forbidden for audiences under 18 years, of course. Some people consider Bad Luck Banging or Loony Porn to be a porn film which is not because it is about a video. But Romania is still quite conservative and patriarchal, so there were some angry reactions on Facebook. But I think thatโs good. Iโm not against bad reactions. On the contrary, I like them. Itโs good that the film creates a bit of resistance.
RG: I read that some of the ideas and concepts you used in the second part of the film, you collected throughout a couple of years, from the internet, from books. How did you look for these things? What were you looking for?ย
RJ: In some cases, I looked for images, sounds, or quotes of things related to the topic of the film. But on the other hand, as the great Italian historian Carlo Ginzburg used to say: โThe book you need for a project is actually next to the book you think you need for the projectโ. I think thatโs true. Sometimes you find a lot of good things if the mind can make certain associations. This is a film of associations. You can find things by accident, some of them I found by scrolling on Facebook, reading books at home, watching TV. You find things. We are usually consuming Internet and TV passively, but if you just donโt consume them passively, and look at them as if you were reading a novel, then everything becomes much more interesting all of a sudden.
RG: What would happen if a sex tape starring you were to be leaked?
RJ: Iโm too shy to have myself on porn videos and Iโm too fat to present myself like that at the moment. I think the whole sex video scandal is ridiculous because itโs a part of being a human being: sexuality and private life. A few years ago, in the nearby country of the Republic of Moldova, one candidate was kicked out from the election because a video of him having sex in a hotel room emerged and was used by the political enemies. Itโs absolutely ridiculous because whatโs the crime of that person? We must learn not to care so much about these things because, with the digital world we live in, there might be more parts of our private lives being exposed on the internet. So, to answer your question, if a video of me were to appear on the internet I wouldnโt say anything. Itโs there and I donโt care about it. Well, I would hope it was from two years ago when I was not that fat.
Bad Luck Banging or Loony Porn is Romaniaโs submission for the 2022 Best International Feature Oscar, itโs nominated for Best Direction and Best Screenplay at the 2021 European Film Awards and won the Golden Bear at the 2021 Berlin International Film Festival. It will premiere in the US on Friday, November 19 at Film Forum. You can find additional information about dates and tickets on Magnolia Picturesโ official website.
Director: Dan Mazer Writer: Mikey Day & Streeter Seidell Stars:ย Archie Yates, Rob Delaney, Ellie Kemper, Aisling Bea, Kenan Thompson, Tim Simons, Ally Maki, Pete Holmes, Andy Daly, and Devin Ratray.
Synopsis: A married couple tries to steal back a valuable heirloom from a troublesome kid.
During a scene in Home Sweet Home Alone in which the McKenzie family watches a sci-fi remake of the fictional gangster flick Angels With Filthy Souls,ย Hunter (Tim Simons) aptly says, “Ugh, this is garbage! I don’t know why they’re always trying to remake the classics. Never as good as the originals.” He inadvertently expressed what’s likely to be the common consensus towards this terrible sequel/reboot/remake. It was never going to be as great as the original, to begin with. What’s even more shameful is that this one could’ve been really good, considering the acting talent on display and the fact that its production designers literally built an entire house as its main set to have fun with its booby trap-filled climax. But it never seems interested in delivering a modern re-tread on one of the greatest Christmas films ever made and instead constructs its entire plot over one, giant, misunderstanding.
And that misunderstanding ruins the entire movie, and it’s even worse when your lead kid is incredibly unlikeable. Ten-year-old Max Mercer (Archie Yates) is left home alone by his family after they all ordered separate Ubers on their way to Tokyo to spend the Holidays there. The kid must now defend his house from Jeff (Rob Delaney) and Pam (Ellie Kemper) McKenzie who are trying to have a conversation with Max, as they believe he stole a valuable Schneider Kinder doll worth over $200,000. Max overhears them talking about “an ugly boy”, and thinks they are going to kidnap him (that’s right!) so he concocts the most sadistic booby traps of the franchise yet over the biggest misunderstanding possible, inflicting Jeff and Pam, who aren’t even criminals, a level of pain they’ve never experienced in their life before.
Home Sweet Home Alone uses what Roger Ebert calls the “idiot plot” throughout most of its runtime, which requires that everyone in the movie behave like the dumbest person imaginable. None of the characters ever solve their problems in a rational way (otherwise there wouldn’t be a movie after all) and jump to the most inane conclusions possible. “Oh, the couple is talking about an ugly boy? Surely, they’re talking about me! I guess I should create a wide array of booby traps to possibly kill them, I don’t know!” Even worse, Jeff can’t bring himself to talk to Max as he believes he is committing a crime, but how are you committing a crime if all you want is to talk to the kid or his mother? He’s so afraid of wanting to talk to Max, that he’ll devise an evil plan that will transform himself and his wife into burglars (for absolutely no reason at all), whilst the home alone kid is ready to physically torture them. The movie also tries to give us a portrait of both sides of the spectrum, but none of them are compelling in any way since they constantly behave like idiots. One wants to brutally torment the couple over a misunderstanding, while the other can’t bring themselves to think rationally. If they did that, the movie would be over in 30 minutes.
What’s even worse about this picture is that none of the traps are funny. Instead, the audience is treated to an over forty-minute sequence where the most unlikeable spoiled brat devises violent Saw-like traps, without an ounce of childlike imagination. The first three Home Alone movies understood the mind of a child wanting to defend himself from real criminals who were likely going to inflict pain on him. This led to extremely funny traps bringing a sense of wish-fulfillment fantasy to children who wanted to stand up to bullies. They had their icon in Kevin McCallister, constantly ignored and berated by his extended family, now taking matters into his own hands to not only defend the house but stand up to his own psychological and physical bullies. Max Mercer has no bullies–he’s purely evil by nature. In the first scene where we meet him, he gives his mother a hard time and then repeatedly insults Jeff for no reason at all. Who does he think he is? It gets even worse when he starts to swear and thinks the entire world revolves around him. There’s no reason for us to sympathize with Max. The movie gives us no reason to–he’s just an overly imaginative kid with an extremely twisted mind.
We actually want to sympathize with the “villains” (who aren’t really villains, they’re looking to get what is rightfully theirs to pay off their debts and avoid selling their house) instead. Both Rob Delaney and Ellie Kemper have great chemistry together and make some of the more cringe-worthy scenes of the film palatable to watch, and I’ll admit I laughed at some of the movie’s coincidental mishaps. It’s a shame to waste Archie Yates’ talent like that. The kid was infectiously hilarious through his deadpan line delivery in Jojo Rabbit, and the best part of that movie, and to turn that genius into the most unlikeable child in a Home Alone movie yet is an absolute disappointment. Yes, he’s more unlikeable than Fake Kevin in Home Alone 4, which is truly saying something.
Now that doesn’t mean that Home Sweet Home Alone is worse than the fourth installment, absolutely not. Aesthetically, it tries to do something different and puts a bigger emphasis on the visual scale of the traps than the physical reactions of the actors in the first three films, which did hold my attention throughout the climax. But its illogical plot comprised of three idiot protagonists, unfunny traps and jokes, and a recycled plot from the first Home Alone doesn’t make it worthwhile either. I guess it’s best, from now on, that this franchise is better left alone (no pun intended) and concentrate on making original films instead. Now that would be terrific.
Sports movies hit us emotionally for many reasons, and a lot of the time it’s when they begin with this iconic text – “Based on a true story”. Real-life sports and cinema are no strangers to each other, in fact they’ve been successfully married for decades. The best examples have capitalized on what has becoming the single most iconic sports movie trait – they’re inspirational. This weekend’s King Richard will no doubt join the same club (even its tagline includes the word “inspire”), and like many of the best sports films, their stories are true.
So game on, what is your favorite biographical sports film?
This week on the InSession Film Podcast, we discuss Kenneth Branagh’s latest film Belfast and also Rebecca Hall’s directorial debut in Passing! Plus, a few brief thoughts on the horror film The Night House.
Another week, another episode with one-word titles. Additionally, we’re talking about two black and white films that are passion projects from their respective directors. Passing may not be in the awards conversation, but it’s certainly earning some of the best critical analysis we’ve seen across the board this year. Belfast is also receiving great praise, and with it, a lot of Oscar buzz. They were both really fun to talk about, and maybe there were some #JDTears shed along the way.
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: Belfast (6:01) Director: Kenneth Branagh Writers: Kenneth Branagh Stars: Jude Hill, Caitriona Balfe, Jamie Dornan
– Notes / Discussion (1:09:27)
For our break segment this week, both JD and Brendan offer up their thoughts on the horror film The Night House, starring Rebecca Hall in front of the camera. We felt this was a nice transition to the back half of the show to talk about her filmmaking debut in Passing. It’s also one of the best horror films of the year, and maybe one of the nicest surprises along the way.
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!
This month, Brazilian filmmaker Luiz Bolognesi latest documentary The Last Forest, was released on Netflix. It is a documentary of the Yanomami people, capturing their way of life, culture, and myths for all to see. The documentary is a stunning portrayal of how different, and yet human, these indigenous people are. I had the opportunity to speak with the director about the film, and how it was made. Luiz’s passion for stories and storytelling was on display throughout the entire interview, in which we discussed the process for making this documentary, how Luiz got the Yanomami people involved in the decision process, and how the rest of the world can get involved in the fight for the rights of indigenous peoples in Brazil. The entire interview is transcribed below.
Benjamin: Hello Luiz, How are you today
Luiz: Hello, good to meet you.
Benjamin: You worked on the last forest, your latest documentary, and like many of your projects, it covers a tribe indigenous to South America. What draws you to these stories?
Luiz: I am very interested, and I aim to know the way of life of these civilizations, that have been here for thousands and thousands of years before we European people had arrived here. And they have different ways to understand life; different ways to lead an economy. They are much more holistic, they are much more sustainable, and they are much more linked to the moment of living now and not so engaged with the project of controlling the future. And that means they are less anxious and the stress in the lives of indigenous people is much lower. So I love to make the cinema to become a kind of window where white people and indigenous people can change better than in general happen. So I have been working on some films with them, and I love to work with them. As I do doc-fictions, they tend to be very good actors and actresses, because the level of stress is so low, they are very tapped into the moment, which is good for cinema.
Benjamin: Definitely! Speaking of performances, how did you get these very naturalistic performances? What is the process like getting them involved in that?
Luiz: I think the main point was the inclusion of the main Shaman, Davi Kopenawa, not only as the main character but also having him write the film with me. I think that was the turning point in this equation. He was the one who would lead the stories; deciding which stories we would tell in the movie. And because of that, they feel very comfortable. And in order to shoot the film, I had been living with them for five weeks, three of which were prior to shooting. So we had to get confident and comfortable about one another. We did this because they are very worried about the lies that white people tell them all the time. People arrive, saying they are friends when they just want to take the women and the gold from the lands, so they are very used to that. So they need some time to know who you are and then they can trust you. And as I invited Davi to writing, and as I really lived with them for 3 weeks, we made meetings to discuss the script with other people from the community as they usually do. They don’t decide things by themselves, they are very communitive in making decisions. As things continued like that, they were every day becoming more confident and they started to feel I belonged with them. And because of that, it was possible to turn on the camera, something they didn’t know in this place. They had never seen a film before. Davi, who wrote with me, he knew what film was, because he has been to cinemas and speaks Portuguese. But to all the other people there, they haven’t ever seen a film and they haven’t ever gone to a cinema, and they don’t speak Portuguese.
So for them, they understood what camera it was, they understood the way we were going to do, and they understood that sometimes they were going to make things that had happened before, so they are playing as actors, and they took that very well. Originally, we weren’t allowed to shoot the Shaman rituals. But after 5 weeks, when we were leaving in 3 days, they made a very great ritual and invited us to be with them and to shoot everything we want. But, when we asked them for subtitles because Iย translated it after we had shot everything. Only in the editing room did I know what I had shot. They speak all the time, and sometimes I would be shooting for twenty-five minutes, and when I asked my translator what they had said would say “They said they are going to hunt tomorrow.” But they had been speaking for 25 minutes! So in the editing room, I made subtitles and translated the film, and I found out what film I had done. But, when I asked them if I could translate the words of the shamans during the ritual, they said no, because white civilization is not prepared for that. You are not prepared, you haven’t been preparing yourself to listen to the shabiri spirits. So as you see in the film, we don’t have a translation for the words of the shamans during the ritual, because they didn’t allow us. Not even I know what they are saying. What I do know is that for them, it’s not the shaman that is speaking. At that moment, the spirits of animals talk in their mouth, but what they are saying, I don’t know.
Benjamin: Yeah, that’s absolutely fascinating. When did you start this project? In the final moments of the film, it discusses the impact of the pandemic on the Yanomami culture. So when did you start shooting, and how did pandemic protocols affect this film as a whole?
Luiz: When I started shooting this film, it was four months before the pandemic begins. So for shooting, it was no problem. Then, I edited the film during the pandemic. So, I told them, when the film was complete, I was coming back to show them the finished film. It was very important to me and them. But, during the pandemic, I would not do that. So, we had to wait a long time to go back when they had all gotten two vaccines. During the pandemic, they had cases of Coronavirus in their community, and everyone got the disease, but nobody died. So it wasn’t until after this that I got to show the film to them. The impact wasn’t on the shooting for the film. But interestingly, before the pandemic arrived, the shaman told me it was coming. They said that there is a great disease coming because you are going to the forest and moving the land where we couldn’t, and shouldn’t move it, in order to take gold and metals, because they are there and have to stay there. And as we remove these metals, an unnormal disease is coming. Which then happened! And now, as I speak to them presently, they are saying that another disease is coming, stronger and worse than this one. The great problem they had when I was there was not the pandemic, but the invasion of gold miners. And I went there because I wanted to make a movie about that invasion. But Davi told me they didn’t want to make a movie about gold miners. Their desire was to make a film about them, to show to the world how beautiful they are, how strong they are, and along the way, we would also talk about gold miners. He told me, “I don’t want to show our people as poor people that need help all the time. You are the ones who need help, you are sick, you are destroying the land, but we need help. So we will talk about gold miners, we will show in the film that they are near and destroying everything, but it is not going to be about them.” For me, the film was going to be about that. But they decided that it would be an important issue raised by the film, but not the main course of the film.
Benjamin: That’s super cool to me because I can’t imagine watching this film without seeing how much of this culture is being preserved in it. And to know that came directly from them is magical. You mentioned that you had Davi writing the film with you. What was the writing process like with Davi?
Luiz: When I went to him, inviting him to be the screenwriter, he told me Cinema is a dream, where everybody has the dream at the same time. So if I am going to write with you, you have to come to my land, stay with me some nights, you have to dream, I have to dream, and then the next day we talk about that and we decide what film we are going to do. Because for them, dreams are real. They believe that what happens at night happened. For us, it’s a kind of fictional narrative. For them, no, the dreams are true. For example, one day I was walking with a hunter, and he said to me he was very tired. And I said he had just woken up, how are you tired? And he replied that all night, he had been running, escaping from the jaguar. And for him, that had really happened. So, I went to the community alone and stayed there two weeks. Every day they invited me to make things, to watch things happen with them, and at night, they turn on the fire and Davi invited the elders and some important hunters to talk to me. And then I explained to them that Film is a kind of myth that you create and talk about whatever we want. So I asked what they wanted to talk about, and they decided. One of the things they decided was to talk about Yomama and Yuasi, which are the Gods that created the forest and even the Yanomami. And I was unsure how we were going to do it, it’s a marvel picture, not a small documentary! And I used to go to sleep not knowing how to do that, and I had a lot of anguish about that. And I found that I had to go to them and ask what to do, and how to do. So I asked them how they wanted to tell that story, so they told me how to do it. I was told to go to two brothers, who aren’t gems as in the story, but they are very similar to one another, and they would tell me how to do it.
So I went there, talked to them, and the next day they came with the costumes and art for the Yomama and Yuasi, and they showed me where we would shoot the story. And that’s how things happened. But one moment during the day, women would come to me and talk to me, a lot. And they would have lots of questions for me, like how is your life, how is your wife, how many daughters you have, are they married, why aren’t they married, how many wives do you have, lots of talk with them. But at night when we are going to make the decisions, the women were not invited. And I asked Davi if we could invite some women to talk with us about the story, and he said no, this is a space traditionally for men. Women usually in our stories and traditions don’t come to the decision table, this is your place. And that wasn’t very comfortable to me, so I told him that in the white world, things are changing a lot and women don’t accept anymore this situation. I think it would not be good if we make a film about the Yanomami and don’t listen to women. And he left, and I thought I went too far from what I should be doing because they are a traditional people, and how can I bring this kind of us to their tradition. But, half an hour after, he came back and told me he understood what I meant. He knew I spent a lot of time talking to Ehuana, one of the women of the film. And he said “I know you talk too much to her. She is a very strong Yanomami woman. You are allowed to talk to her and to tell the stories that women want to, and you don’t have to come back to me. You do it the way they want to do it because I understand the way you are working, and that’s fine for me.” And that really showed me how open-minded they are, which is so different from us. We are so difficult to change, and they are so open-minded. So the script was like that, where they made decisions and together we found a way of how to tell that story. And in the editing house, it was my mission to mix and to balance the dreams, myths, and what we call reality, and to balance it in a way that allows us to understand this culture that can be difficult to understand.
Benjamin: The Last Forest is an absolute Marvel of a film. The last question I have for you is how can we get involved and help the Yanomami people secure their rights to the land and to their rights as a people?
Luiz: Yeah, it’s very important and something Davi said was one of the most important things of the film. “To get people,” he said, “from the world engaged in our fight to preserve the forest and our culture. We are not only fighting for the future of our children but for the future of every child of the planet because if we destroy the forests as we are doing, climate change will make too many pandemics and we will not have water anymore. And people are going to die and suffer a lot. So our fight is the fight of everybody on the planet.” I think that’s what makes the film important, that through the emotional connection, people get engaged with the fight of indigenous people of the Amazon forest to protect the forest. It’s important that people in countries make pressure against president Bolsonaro, and the only way is to say we won’t buy Brazilian products until you respect Indigenous people, until you show you are capable to protect and not burn the forest. This kind of movement is very important to help them.
Benjamin: Thank you very much for your time, this has been fantastic.
Luiz: Great, I thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to talk to you. Thank you so much.
The Last Forest is available to stream on Netflix.
Director: Rebecca Hall Writer: Rebecca Hall Stars: Tessa Thompson, Ruth Negga, Andrรฉ Holland, Bill Camp
Synopsis:Irene Redfield, a refined, upper-class 1920s woman, finds breezy refuge from a hot summer day in the grand tearoom of New York City’s Drayton Hotel. Across the room, she spots a blond woman staring her down.
What does it mean to pass? After the War of 1812 and during the American Civil War, Black and brown enslaved people would pass as white in a desperate attempt to avoid racist violence and disenfranchisement. Based on the novel of the same name written by Nella Larsen, Passing (2021) is set in 1920s Harlem and centers on two childhood friends, Irene (Tessa Thompson) and Clare (Ruth Negga). Both women are Black but with one key difference, Clare has chosen to pass as White. They meet years later by chance and Irene barely recognizes her; Clareโs new identity is initially very convincing.What follows is a subtle exploration of the politics of racial identity and the ways we are all trying to pass as something we are not. Written and directed by Rebecca Hall, Passing is shot in black and white and, fortunately, Hall fought for this aesthetic. By shooting in black and white, as an audience, particularly a Black audience, we are unable to exact the โโinternecine violenceโโ that we do to one another when it comes to colorism. We do not get to decide who deserves to โpassโ as white or not as Irene and Clare both appear white on screen. Save for Clareโs blonde hair, there is little difference between them and this forces us to question how Clare has managed to hide her true identity for so long.
Clare is adamant that she has everything she wants, but as the movie progresses, we see how profoundly lonely she is, and she laments that she misses โโNegroesโโ and wants to laugh and be in their company. The material gains are not enough, she longs for community. However, Irene accuses Clare of not having sacrificed anything. It is a grave misjudgment of the situation as Clare has sacrificed belonging to her true culture. Despite passing, she has not perfectly assimilated into the white community, demonstrated by her self-hatred. Her husband (Alexander Skarsgard) is a white man who is oblivious to her Blackness, has no qualms about voicing his hatred of Black people, all whilst affectionately nicknaming her “Nigโ” and this cements Clareโs loneliness. Not only is she lonely, but every day she is in imminent danger of her true identity being discovered.
Irene, in her own way, is also passing. She passes for a woman in a happy marriage who is free and safe. Safety is a theme that repeatedly comes up. Irene is desperate to protect her sons from the realities of growing up in racist America. However, her husband, an educated Black man, a doctor no less, places no value on their sonsโ innocence and childhood. Sex is a joke and lynchings make for bedtime reading. This scene is a frank depiction of the ways young Black children are forced to reconcile with issues that are beyond their comprehension. It is a vain attempt to be better equipped to endure the harsh realities of living in a racist society with little understanding of the effects on their psyche.
โโWeโre all passing for something. Arenโt we?โโ
ย
The men in Passing are walking contradictions. John and Brian (Andre Holland) both claim to hate what the other represents โ whiteness and superiority, Blackness and inferiority. However, John is married to Clare, who he doesnโt know is Black and Brian gradually becomes enamored with Clare, knowing she is passing for white. Irene astutely alludes to this phenomenon during the dance scene in the following dialogue: โโItโs just plain exoticism. An interest in whatโs different. Something you feel in the presence of something strange, even perhaps repugnant to youโฆโโ. John and Hughโs (Bill Camp) ignorance largely speaks to the ignorance of white people regarding the social construct of race. They invented it but cannot see it when itโs right in their face.
Thompson portrays Ireneโs unravelling facade of safety, happiness, and freedom with controlled authenticity. The pot boiling over with white froth, the white confederate teapot that she intentionally drops, and the black crack in the ceiling. Irene is losing control and the only power she has is knowing she can out Clareโs secret at will.
The present participle of the title is deliberate. This seemingly little detail highlights that what Clare is doing and what so many Black and Brown people were forced/pressured to do is a continuous dangerous fraud with no end in sight. It is a lifelong commitment. It evokes that there will always be a chance that theyโll be caught and they will no longer be passing, they would have failed.
Passing is a nuanced exploration of the prison of pretense. It is an exercise in futility pretending to be something one is not. The privileges are short-lived and come at great cost. To successfully pass, to deceive oneself and others, one has to kill what one is trying to hide. It is the ultimate sacrifice to reject oneself in the hopes that the system will accept one as its own. The music will stop sometime and we will all have to stop dancing and face up to the secrets we keep hidden. After all, weโre all passing as something, arenโt we?
Itโs fall of 2013, Iโm 21 years old and my phone rings from a NY state area code as Iโm walking with coffee in my hand to my production office at the time. I answered the phone with an intrigued โHello?โ and I hear โ Hi, is this Joey? This is Penelope Milford, I heard you were trying to find me.โ That was the introduction to Penelope Milford I had in my early 20โs, at the time I was working with the late Misty Upham ( Frozen River, August: Osage County) on a film project I wrote, would be directing, and starring in as well with Misty, and Karen Black. At the time we had taken the project to Grant Henslov and George Clooney as Misty had just finished working with them on August: Osage County when we had met. She and I met and then she hired me to write for her and then we joined forces as creative partners. I wrote a script called โNeon Dreamโ that had a part that I knew would be perfect for Penelope, but the issue was, where was she? There was no contact info for her on IMDb, so I had to legit track her down and boy am I glad that I did.ย
As the years went on from the project I offered to her ( project became stuck in development hell) I always remembered how kind Penelope was and wanted to showcase her amazing personality in any way I could, so on my 29th birthday last year in February I called the number I still had in my phone all those years later on the off chance it was still hers and she answered with โHello?โ I said โ Is this Penelope Milford still? Hi, I donโt know if youโll remember me but my name is Joey Gentile, you and I talked about 7 years ago regarding my project Neon Dream, do you remember?โ She responded with โ Oh, hi Joey! I do remember you! Your script was one of the best pieces of writing I ever read, it was so good, how are you?!โ And like that, we were reconnected. ( For the record that was her actual response, Iโm not oiling myself up) I invited her onto the podcast I share with my amazing co-host Brandon Stanwyck, and exactly one month later on March 23rd, 2020 ( which was Penelopeโs birthday) she granted us the gift of having her first big interview in years, what a delight it was. We kept in contact over the year that was 2020 and when I knew I would be working on this new Youtube project for Insession I knew that I had to ask her to be apart of it, to grant me her first on-screen interview in a long time, and she did so.ย
Milford on Corey Hay’s show the day after the Oscars
2 weeks ago I sat down in front of my Macbook, a few days before Halloween, my pumpkin lights behind me when I signed into the interview, and saw Penelopeโs face in front of mine. A smile that could light up a room greeted me with โJoey! Itโs so nice to see youโ came from the other side, โI love your pumpkins behind youโ she said which made me smile even harder than her. Her warm demeanor is contagious even beyond screens, and this was the first time we were face to face since our first conversation in 2013.ย
Sitting down with her and having the conversation with her about her career was like sitting down with an old friend who I hadnโt seen in so long yet time meant nothing, itโs like we picked up from where we left off. Discussing her experience the year she was nominated for Best Supporting Actress at the Academy Awards for Coming Home was quite the moment for me, the hilarious brass and bluntness of her year, or the joyous moments either way it was comforting and fun to discuss.
Photo from her performance in ‘The Golden Seal’ (1983)
In the future, if there is anyone who truly deserves a moment back in the sun it’s Penelope. She is beyond talented and deserved better in Hollywood, and I hope that me writing this piece and sharing her time with you on video shows the passion she has for the art of acting and you too can become a new Penelope Milford fan, or if youโve already been one it deepens your love for her work.
Penelope Milford gives one of the Oscars’ greatest supporting turns and we hope you enjoy the interview.
Greek cinema today for many boils to one of its major exports into Hollywood, Yorgos Lanthimos. Prior to his Oscar-winning The Favourite, he was globally recognized with an Oscar nomination for his film, Dogtooth, from 2009. The late 2000s/early 2010s is what some critics called the Greek New Wave (or “Weird Wave”) as other directors including Panos Koutras and Athena Rachel Tsangari also had international hits with similar themes. While the country rioted over the debt crisis in 2008, these new, younger filmmakers came out with a startling, absurdist message of society in the midst of social anarchy. However, this is just the latest era in an industry self-contained 100 years ago and far from other European nations.
The First Half
The pioneers of Greek cinema also helped out countries that make up the Balkans (Albania, North Macedonia, and Bosnia to name a few countries) plus modern-day Turkey. Two brothers, Yanaki and Milton Manaki began as photographers and traveled the continent before reaching London where they bought their first movie camera and took it back home to Greece. They began shooting short documentaries and were even hired by the King of Yugoslavia and the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire to photograph and film various royal events. The First World War disrupted their work and their studio was bombed in 1916.
Others picked up a camera and recorded the battle Greek soldiers faced in their next conflict, the Grecco-Turkish war from 1919 to 1922. It wouldn’t be until 1924 when they had their first commercial success with the comedy Villar in the Women’s Baths of Faliro.ย The director Dimitris Gaziadis founded the first major film studio called Dag Films and produced a string of successful films into the 1930s. A 1931 movie,ย Daphnis and Chloe,ย featured the first nude scenes in European cinema and was the first export film from Greece. The industry, however, had its growth cut off due to a brain drain from numerous artists due to the new government’s dictatorship, followed by Nazi German occupation during the Second World War.
A Golden Age
After the Second World War and Civil War (1946-49), Greek society settled down to rebuild as a nation, beginning a new period of creative work in the movie industry. As film festivals began all over the continent, Greece was eager to show more of its work and its talent. During the 40s, Greek actress Katina Paxinou went to Hollywood and won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her performance inย For Whom The Bell Tolls.ย The company Finos Film was founded and became one of the most productive studios in Europe, giving new directors their place to make Greek classics.ย
Writer/director Michael Cacoyannis began with the internationally acclaimed Stellaย (1955) and would receive multiple Oscar nominations for Best International Film, plus a joint-Hollywood production ofย Zorba The Greekย (1964) starring Anthony Quinn which was nominated for Best Picture.ย Stellaย starred Melina Mercouri, arguably the “First Lady of Greek Acting,” and she would marry American expatriate Jules Dassin, who would direct her inย Never On Sundayย (1960), which earned both of them Oscar nominations for a Greece-produced movie. Other key figures include Alekos Sakellarios,ย Nikos Tsiforos, Nikos Koundouros, and Irene Papas, who would also work in Hollywood on bothย Zorbaย andย The Guns of Navaroneย starring Gregory Peck, David Niven, and Quinn himself. Color in film arrived in the mid-50s and most of their works were comedies or adaptations from traditional Greek tales. The Thessaloniki Film Festival, one of the oldest in Southeast Europe, began in 1960 and has attracted many internationally acclaimed directors with annual tributes to a different auteur every year.
The biggest name of all from this era was Costa-Gavras, who would attend film school in France because his father was a member of the Communist Party, which was banned at the time. Gavras, a political leftist, was abroad when the public murder of a popular politician and the events leading to a military coup in 1967 inspired his political thriller,ย Zย (1969). Starring Yves Montand, Irene Papas, and Jean-Louis Trintignant, the film was a smash around the world and a direct call to protest against the brutal regime which had banned anything remotely leftist in nature. The title itself refers to the Greek slogan which translates to, “He lives,” referring to the murdered politician.ย Zย would win the Oscar for Best International Film plus a Best Picture nomination and launch Gavras’ career.
Into Contemporary Times
The dictatorship ended in 1974 and liberal moviemaking was back again, this time with the help of Melina Mercouri, who had transitioned to being a politician as the Minister of Culture in the 1980s. She helped the Greek film industry receive support from the government in funding more projects and distribute the movies more often to major film festivals. Michael Cacoyannis, Costas Ferris, and Theo Angelopoulos became major players during this era; Angelopoulos himself would win the Palme d’Or at Cannes in 1998 for his filmย Eternity And A Day,ย making it the first Greek film to win the award. While Costa-Gavras had also won it for 1982’sย Missing,ย he did so with a film produced in Hollywood.
That leads to the recent decade where Greek cinema has been noted again with some interesting, dark, scandalously comic work. Dogtooth is aย surreal-looking story about a couple who keep their three teenagers as prisoners at home and continuously lied about what happens in the outside world. It’s a concept straight from the idealism of Luis Bunuel in mocking the horror of Greece’s vision that things were supposed to be good when it was all problematic underneath. Another is 2012’sย Attenbergย by Athena Rachel Tsangari, a tragic comedy about a young woman caring for her dying father while keeping herself isolated from the rest of society because of her sexual inexperience. Played at the Venice Film Festival, jury head Quentin Tarantino publically applauded the film. And, 2009’sย Strellaย by Panos Koutras examines the unlikely affair between a middle-aged ex-convict and a younger trans prostitute.
One final note about the country’s film industry is the music. The composers have worked on hundreds of Greek films throughout their careers, overlapping multiple projects to create a melody that has molded the Greek style in moviemaking. Manos Hatzidakis and Mikis Theodorakis are two legends in Greek film composing, but the most recognized internationally is Vangelis, who won the Oscar for his immortal score inย Chariots of Fireย and would later scoreย Blade Runnerย andย Alexander.ย It adds to the uniqueness of the Hellenic state and its interpretation of storytelling for many audiences.ย
Director: Rawson Marshall Thurber Writer: Rawson Marshall Thurber Stars: Dwayne Johnson, Ryan Reynolds, Gal Gadot, Ritu Arya, Chris Diamantopoulos
Synopsis: An Interpol agent tracks the world’s most wanted art thief.
[/info]
Dwayne Johnson has proved himself a competent, charming, capable screen presence, yet his physique marks him as an outsider. It’s funny to watch him and think of him as an FBI profiler with that body. It’s not to say that there isn’t one FBI profiler out there with a bodybuilder physique, but it strains credulity. It was the biggest laugh in the film when Johnson says his title with a straight face.
It’s also pretty boring that every thief, law enforcement agent, archeologist, and treasure hunter is also an expert in mixed martial arts. It’s obvious why this is exciting for the audience because we are treated to complex moves, impressive stunt ensemble performances, and deft, if a little too quick, cutting from combatants to reactions and back to combatants. Though, what happened to the exciting thought of a cat and mouse thriller on its own? Why can’t an art thief and their platonic lover of a law enforcement agent just be that? It always comes down to firing endless amounts of bullets and blowing up lots and lots of things.
Rawson Marshall Thurber’s intriguing game of a script is bogged down in action set pieces.ย Red Notice’sย characters are failed by the lack of interest in their development or stories. They become weapons of mass quipping, firing off charms and sensuality without having anything to back them up, which makes the eventual twists, double crosses, and triple crosses a bit of a shrug toward a lackluster emotional landing. Though, Gal Gadot has never been more interesting than she is as a smarmy antagonist with a few screws loose.
What keeps you invested in seeing the film to the end is that there is a twist. The clues are there throughout and the idea is at the back of your mind, but to put it all together completely is difficult, which is the mark of a good twist. There are no red herrings to follow, just an itch on the back of your neck that won’t be satisfied. Though, as soon as the twist is revealed, the film takes a downward turn that makes you wonder if they thought of anything beyond that point other than, “could there be franchise potential here?”
It would be better to write thatย Red Notice is horrible, that the filmmakers had no idea what they’re doing or that it looks poor. Yet, Red Notice is competently made and with intention. It’s something you’d expect to have a car commercial in the midst of a chase scene and to hint at a more exciting world of gentleperson art thieves, but never really get there. It’s a fair to middling action comedy that’s got three of the biggest stars in the world doing everything they possibly can to charm you into submission. The worst thing that can be written aboutย Red Notice is that it is just fine when viewed from a laptop and a bigger screen would have added nothing to it.
What follows is a subtle exploration of the politics of racial identity and the ways we are all trying to pass as something we are not. Written and directed by Rebecca Hall, Passing is shot in black and white and, fortunately, Hall fought for this aesthetic. By shooting in black and white, as an audience, particularly a Black audience, we are unable to exact the โโinternecine violenceโโ that we do to one another when it comes to colorism. We do not get to decide who deserves to โpassโ as white or not as Irene and Clare both appear white on screen. Save for Clareโs blonde hair, there is little difference between them and this forces us to question how Clare has managed to hide her true identity for so long.
