This week’s poll is a fun on! We’ll be talking about Greta Gerwig’s Little Women this weekend on Episode 356, a film that stars the great Saoirse Ronan, an actress that is quickly becoming one of the very best working today. She already has three very well deserved Oscar nominations, and it’s likely she could land a fourth in about a month or so. Regardless of awards though, Ronan’s on-screen presence is palpable and completely immersive. So, we thought it would be appropriate to ask you about her best performances for our poll this week.
With that said, what is your favorite Saoirse Ronan performance? Vote now!
Director: Scott Z. Burns Writer: Scott Z. Burns Stars: Adam Driver, Annette Bening, Jon Hamm
Synopsis: Idealistic Senate staffer Daniel J. Jones, tasked by his boss to lead an investigation into the CIA’s post 9/11 Detention and Interrogation Program, uncovers shocking secrets.
[/info]
There will be a moment when you’re watching Scott Z. Burns’ new film The Report when you’ve simply had enough. For me, it came about the third time we see brutal torture depicted onscreen. I don’t mean to completely write off the film with that statement, because I do believe this is a strong film with a fantastic lead performance from Adam Driver. However, it’s also a film that commits a cardinal sin in my mind – it isn’t fully settled on the best way to tell its story.
Even from the film’s title, you realize that the artists behind the film want to take a creative approach to the subject matter. In trailers and promotional material for the film, the title appears as The Torture Report before the word “Torture” is blotted out in red ink – giving us the film’s actual title The Report. But torture will never be far from your mind as you watch this film. Burns makes that very clear with repeated scenes where we view the torture with each grotesque detail.
Some may view these scenes and find them not to be grotesque. These are the people the film seeks to unmask. Two characters in the film, in particular, feel exactly this way when they see the terrorists that are now in their custody. But what does torturing another human being – even one that has committed unconscionable crimes – really accomplish?
To get at this idea, the film follows the true story of Daniel J. Jones (Adam Driver), a Senate staffer tasked with investigating the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program and their post-9/11 tactics. Jones begins the film as an upstart government employee looking to break into the Washington bureaucracy. The first scene takes place in the office of Denis McDonough (Jon Hamm), a bit of foreshadowing to a later scene involving them both. McDonough encourages Jones to get some foreign policy experience in Washington. After we watch the reaction of government officials to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the story jumps ahead to when Jones has been selected by Senator Diane Feinstein (Annette Bening) to investigate the CIA.
If it seems like a lot is happening in that paragraph, it’s because the film’s intro is absolutely jam-packed with information. It rushes through these important setup points and doesn’t really give us any strong connection to Jones. And this is where the film’s cardinal sin begins to take shape. If this is a movie about the work that Jones does, we need a better setup – pure and simple. We need to have a stronger identification with his character’s intentions rather than simply being told what his intentions are.
However, I’m not really convinced that this movie is about Jones’ work, at its heart. That’s because it repeatedly gives these detailed interludes where we watch as terrorists are tortured using the techniques that any of us who grew up in the shadow of 9/11 will remember all too well. These interludes absolutely flummoxed me. They are brutally vivid in their depiction of torture. I won’t say they are even in the top tier of most violent scenes that I’ve watched in a film, but they impacted me in a way that was especially harsh.
As I was considering my feelings about this, my mind drifted to the Best Picture winner Spotlight. That film tells another story of individuals who are dedicated to finding and uncovering the truth about disturbing events. The difference in that film is that the disturbing events are never shown on screen. We are either shown their aftermath, or we are told about them by the victims. Some might say that this goes against the “show don’t tell” storytelling rule, but I disagree. In thinking about how a reporter unearths a story, you have to consider that they don’t see the actual events either, they talk to people who can help them uncover the story. So when we see the victims telling us what happened, the movie is showing us rather than telling us. It is showing us the work of the reporters and the harrowing scars that are still portrayed in the faces of the victims. That is all we need to see, and if Spotlight had shown us actual scenes of abuse, it would have been a lesser film, in my opinion.
In the same way, Jones never sees actual torture, so why are we allowed to? This has the makings of an incredibly powerful film, but it is too self-indulgent. In some ways, I felt like the movie was looking down upon us as the audience. It’s as if we’re not expected to have attention spans long enough or deep enough insights to be able to stick with a film that delves into the work that is done in dark Senate offices. That is where Jones’ heroism took place.
Here I also have a quibble with the filmmaking. There were repeated moments where a lingering shot on Driver’s face would have given us an opportunity to consider the weight that was pressing down upon his character. Instead, we’re given quick cuts that gave me even more reason to think that the filmmakers doubted the attention spans of their audience. I want a film that trusts its audience, not one that looks down on it.
But enough of the bad, let’s get to why I think this is truly a good film. It begins with the incredible performance of Adam Driver. He has quickly risen to the foremost ranks among actors today, showing his ability to bolster large blockbusters and carry small indies with equal skill. Here he gives a performance brooding with the quiet rage inside Jones. This is a man consumed with the idea of justice, yet he sees so much injustice around him. With systems that are set up to keep him from bringing any kind of accountability to them, you can imagine that Jones might feel angry and frustrated. Yet he keeps working – an act of immeasurable hope. Driver brings all these qualities to the performance, and he makes the film what it is.
But that does not mean that all the plaudits should be reserved for him alone. The entire cast is fantastic, and this is quite the cast! Bening is great as Senator Feinstein, and other powerful supporting turns come from Hamm, Corey Stoll, Tim Blake Nelson, Ted Levine, Maura Tierney, and Douglas Hodge. It’s one of the strongest casts I’ve seen in a film this year.
The Bush administration is obviously pinpointed for its role in creating this massive scandal. But the Obama administration doesn’t come off very well in the film, either. The former may have created the horrible situation, but the film makes the case that the latter did not do enough to clean up the resulting mess.
Overall, the film gets us to consider the mindset that we had in the aftermath of 9/11. Were we just looking to retaliate for retaliation’s sake? Did we feel the need to do something and to have that “something” be as brutal as possible? The film makes the clear point that the driving force in these decisions was fear. Fear that a certain department would be held accountable for the terrorist attacks. Fear that another attack was coming. Fear that the answer would be interpreted as not having been harsh enough. When fear is the driving force, bad decisions are made.
As you’re watching this film, you may think of another similar film from recent memory – Kathryn Bigelow’s Zero Dark Thirty. This film wants you to make the connection so badly that it actually has the audacity to show a promo for the film on a television screen part way through the film. It reeked of superiority. It was almost as if this film wanted to say, “See? We handled torture right.” I’m not sure I would agree with that statement, even if I would agree that Zero Dark Thirty makes the mistake of depicting torture as having too much import in the search for Osama bin Laden.
Overall, I felt this was a film with a powerful story to tell. It just was never quite sure how to tell it. Still, you should watch this film for the performances alone, and the story that is told has just enough thematic heft to get you to consider the aftermath of 9/11 in a palpable way. I just think that a truly great film is hiding in there but is never quite allowed to reveal itself.
This week’s episode is brought to you by the InSession Film Store. Get your IF gear today!
This week on the InSession Film Podcast, our very own Aaron Charles joins us as we review Noah Baumbach’s Marriage Story and continue our Ingmar Bergman Movie Series with his 1974 film Scenes From a Marriage! JD also gives his thoughts on Queen & Slim, while Brendan reviews The Report and Brittany Runs a Marathon.
Aaron has been a great writer for us and we’ve been wanting to get him on the show for some time now, so it was a pleasure to finally make that happen. We had a lot of fun talking marriage, divorce and the human experience of it all. As was the case last week, because there was so much to explore with these films, the show went a little long. So we apologize in advance, but we are confident you’ll enjoy the conversation.
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: Marriage Story (4:45) Director: Noah Baumbach Writer: Noah Baumbach Stars: Scarlett Johansson, Adam Driver, Laura Dern
– Notes / Queen & Slim / The Report / Brittany Runs a Marathon (1:09:21)
As noted above, JD caught up with the controversial Queen & Slim and offered up his thoughts, as inconsequential as they may be. Brendan also saw The Report, so we double dipped on the Adam Driver this week. He also saw Brittany Runs a Marathon and we briefly talked about that as well.
– Ingmar Bergman Movie Series: Scenes From a Marriage (1:32:49) Director: Ingmar Bergman Writer: Ingmar Bergman Stars: Liv Ullmann, Erland Josephson, Bibi Andersson
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 week on the InSession Film Podcast: Extra Film segment, Ryan and Jay are joined by the great Kolby Mac to discuss one of the late critical darlings of the year, Queen & Slim, and the latest mega-blockbuster from Disney, Frozen II.
Queen & Slim has come late in the year and crashed the party on many 2019 best-ofs with powerful direction, dynamic performances and challenging material. Kolby Mac joins to give a fresh perspective on what the film means to the culture, at large, the film’s messaging, and what might not quite work for the film.
After that thorough, in-depth conversation about one provocative film, thew conversation gets a little fluffier, as Ryan and Jay talk Frozen II. Jay gushes about his (surprising) love for Olaf, Ryan shrugs at nearly every element of the film. The review has everything!
On that note, have fun with this week’s Extra Film segment and let us know what you think in the comment section below. Thanks for listening!
– Movie Review: Queen & Slim (2:57) Director: Melina Matsoukas Screenplay: Lena Waithe Stars: Daniel Kaluuya, Jodie Turner-Smith, Bokeem Woodbine, Chloë Sevigny, Flea
– Movie Review: Frozen II (1:04:20) Directors: Jennifer Lee, Chris Buck Screenplay: Jennifer Lee, Allison Schroeder Stars: Kristen Bell, Idina Menzel, Josh Gad, Jonathan Groff
We try to make this the best movie podcast we possibly can and we hope you enjoy them. Subscribe today on iTunes, Spotfiy or Stitcher, and please leave us a review on iTunes. You can also find us on Soundcloud, PlayerFM and TuneIn Radio as well. We really appreciate all your support of the InSession Film Podcast.
To hear this Extra Film episode and everything else we do, download our apps on the Amazon Market for Android and the Podcast Box app on IOS devices. The mobile app covers all of our main shows, bonus podcast’s and everything else relating to the InSession Film Podcast. Thanks for your wonderful support and listening to our show. It means the world to us!
Director: Brian Kirk Writer: Adam Mervis, Matthew Michael Carnahan Stars: Chadwick Boseman, Sienna Miller, J.K. Simmons
Synopsis: An embattled NYPD detective is thrust into a citywide manhunt for a pair of cop killers after uncovering a massive and unexpected conspiracy.
[/info]
There are films that you may not be super excited to see but do want to watch purely to turn your brain off for a few hours maybe after a rough day or a long work week. 21 Bridges is one of those films and I knew this even before purchasing my ticket. With a decent cast led by Chadwick Boseman and a so-so trailer I completely understood what I was getting myself into and honestly some times a film like this is exactly what you need. Nothing heavy just an easy to follow plot, some proper action and suspense, and some fair acting. That’s what you can expect from director Brian Kirk’s sophomore theatrical release. His resume mainly consists of directing episodes for some television series such as Game of Thrones and Dexter and also Hard Sun, a short-lived series on Hulu that I actually enjoyed. For his second swing at theaters, he made a decent hit.
The film centers around Detective Andre Davis, played by Boseman, and his investigation of a drug heist gone wrong. It is fairly obvious, for the audience at least, to make some connections early on and see the road the story is heading down. The film is full of corruption, moral ambiguity and a cop that has a reputation for skirting the edge of upholding the law and adhering to the law. It is all stuff you can find in any detective drama or thriller which makes for easy viewing, there are really no surprises here. For some, this might make for a boring film but I enjoyed it. We too often have films that spend so much energy trying to be clever that they end up being both unnecessarily long and unnecessarily twisty. This film is neither and with great pacing especially for this genre of film. It does slow at some points but not for too long. Additionally, the action is good both in quality and quantity. The meat of the film is not in the action but in the suspense; following the story and watching it unravel. 21 Bridges is good storytelling with a few turns but an overall steady ride.
One thing that does surprise me about 21 Bridges is Boseman’s performance. I absolutely love him as Black Panther‘s T’Challa, he brings a certain style and dignity to the character, but his role as Andre Davis just felt flat at times. There is a lack of depth to Davis and there are moments where I am not sure I understand what he is feeling. This may also have to do with the writing; we are offered some hints to Davis’s past, which seems pivotal to understanding his character, but the story never really elaborates on it. It isn’t a bad performance but definitely not one I was expecting from such a seasoned actor, especially from one with such a great performance already under their belt. That being said I do very much enjoy Stephen James’s portrayal as Michael, one of the criminals involved in the heist. I looked him up after watching the film and was happy to learn he stars in ‘If Beale Street Could Talk’, a film I am very sad to admit I have not watched yet but, after seeing him in 21 Bridges, I am much more excited for. Unlike Davis, James gives Michael a lot of depth, so much so that Michael is the character I feel the most empathy for and connect with…and he is a criminal. This is also without knowing much of Michael’s past, what we are provided comes late in the film and if anything reinforces the depiction that James has illustrated so excellently.
You won’t leave the theater with lots to discuss with 21 Bridges but you will leave satisfied. It is a solid film that is doing just enough to keep the audience happily entertained. For lovers of detective thrillers, it won’t disappoint and is worth the price of admission. I hesitate to make this comparison but at times the film reminded me of 2008’s Street Kings directed by David Ayer. Street Kings has an edgier feel and is more loose with the violence, but it has similarities including its pacing and their lead characters. Both Andre Davis and Keanu Reeves’s Detective Tom Ludlow seem to have a similar set of principles. 21 Bridges is a simple crowd-pleaser, it won’t be landing in many people’s Top 10 for 2019 but it will satisfy that quick craving for good cinema.
Directors are meant to break walls and tackle social norms, especially in a country like Japan where certain areas are no-go to the public. Death, nudity, Japan’s conduct in the war is all avoided to keep attached the pride of Japan, a country still full of nationalism and tradition that melts with the country’s rapid industrialization and modernity after 1945. Not to Oshima, who saw it fit to go right at the problem. In a country that is mainly conservative and votes that way, Oshima was a leftist who was influenced by the French New Wave. Unafraid of freedom of expression, Oshima sought to shock the audience and critique everything he felt was wrong with the country, backward to some extent and not being able to accept certain things that went on in people’s private lives.
Political Extremes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5cUsaaO6mo
He released his two first films in 1960, but it was his second film that put him on the map. Night And Fog In Japan is about political memory between the Stalinist communists (which Oshima opposed) and the Zengakuren, a student-based group of anarchists and communists who are critical of the American presence in the area. It lasted for three days in the cinema when the leader of the Socialist Party was assassinated by a far-right protester and the film was pulled in fear of more violence forming. Oshima then made his own independent company to prevent any more studio interference. While sex is center, In The Realm Of The Senses is set the 1930s during Japan’s military buildup entering the Second World War. The government is cementing control on what people should believe and behave in private as the male lover is a businessman all about making money. And in Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence, Oshima grades on the Japanese officers conduct while running a POW camp.
Society As A Failure
Death by Hanging was a shot across the lake on the country’s use of capital punishment. A man is at the gallows for murder, but when the noose drops, he does not die and has no memory of his crime. The officials don’t want to do the hanging again unless he confesses for his actions, which proves to be a lot harder. Oshima utilizes the theatre of the absurd from the German author Bertolt Brecht to study guilt and consciousness, as well as Japan’s past history of violence against the Koreans durian the war. Before the action begins, a narration provides how the process goes for the condemned before the hanging until the person, simply known as R, comes out of it alive.
In 1969’s Boy, it is a true story about a family who resorts to crime by forcing the son to intentionally throw himself in front of a car and make the drivers pay the family. While they are criminals engaging in fraud and child abuse, something similar in Shoplifters, Oshima gives a humanist touch, feeling bad for the family who are that desperate rather than condemning them. His followup, The Ceremony, critiques those who desire to keep on what they have left in tradition in the face of a rapidly changing world. To keep the family pure of such outside material, they go to shocking lengths.
Sexual Desires
Nudity is something not meant to be seen, which is why In The Realm Of The Senses is his most direct explicit challenge of Japan’s social conservative norms with explicit sex. Yup, what you find on PornHub (above is the actual trailer from the Sydney Film Festival) can also be seen in Oshima’s portrayal of a true story infamous crime involving a prostitute, her lover, and a shocking climax that stunned the country in 1936. Their passion even rubs off on their other women and are unafraid to bare all on camera, something only Oshima could have the confidence in. Homosexuality is portrayed in both Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence and Oshima’s final film, Taboo. The first film is his most mainstream movie, shot in Japanese and English with David Bowie as a British POW who has an unlikely friendship. Taboo takes place in the mid-19th century with a young and handsome newcomer to the country’s special police force whose talent is matched by others’ attraction to him in the all-male group.
Oshima died in 2013, aged 80. His work lives on because of the notoriety he put on the screen and people were impressed by his messaging. In the Realm of the Senses was his biggest commercial hit, but found himself in legal trouble for obscenity, which he got away from. “Nothing that is expressed is obscene. What is obscene is what is hidden,” Oshima told the court. He had, what The Guardian wrote as, “a deeply ambivalent attitude to Japanese society,” as well as to commercialism which the country embraced. It was this political and cultural critique Oshima spoke of in his 40-year career which defines him today.
Director: Tom Harper Writer: Tom Harper, Jack Thorne Stars: Felicity Jones, Eddie Redmayne, Himesh Patel
Synopsis: Pilot Amelia Rennes (Felicity Jones) and scientist James Glaisher (Eddie Redmayne) find themselves in an epic fight for survival while attempting to make discoveries in a gas balloon.
[/info]
Ever since their breakthrough with Manchester by the Sea, the best film of 2016, Amazon Studios has been struggling and attempting to find their footing as a hot indie studio. They failed with making their big Sundance acquisitions of 2019 splash, as Brittany Runs a Marathon made seven million at the box office, and The Report barely got a theatrical release. While Honey Boy is flailing in an attempt to eek out critics’ awards, Amazon Studios’ last bet for awards consideration is The Aeronauts, and if you’re wondering why I’m talking about the studio’s attempt at winning Oscars instead of the the movie itself, well, The Aeronauts feels and acts like a desperate ploy for awards consideration, not really a movie The Aeronauts is a generically stuffy, overall meh drama from Tom Harper (even though it might as well be Tom Hooper), one of the most promising directors of the year. This is his second film this year after Wild Rose, and it’s easily the lesser of the two. It’s a costume drama/period piece/Oscar play with two previous Academy award nominees about air balloons. Hey, at least it’s 90 million dollar budget is on Jeff Bezos’ coin.
We’re saddled with two of the most “eh?” actors of the 21st century, Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones. The two have played against each other before in 2014’s Best Actor winner, The Theory of Everything, but with this new film, Jones is the standout this time. She’s playing the sadly fictional pilot Amelia Wren, a daredevil who is stuck with Redmayne’s uptight scientist James Glashier (a real historical figure). The two attempt to take an air balloon higher than ever before to prove Glashier’s theories about weather. As they spent time in the balloon together, laborious background and exposition occurs via flashbacks. Suddenly, the weather changes. Hijinks ensue.
What’s great about The Aeronauts is Harper’s direction and visuals. There’s a beautiful, almost painted look to George Steel’s cinematography, and the period detail is solid, if unnecessarily prominent. For a movie that takes place mostly in the air, it’s stunning to look at. While this is a great visual film, there’s not much of a narrative to speak of here. Redmayne (casually annoying) and Jones are forced to create real people off of vague characterizations, and both attempt their hardest. The biggest issue is how the flashbacks slow down the excitement to be found here. Every time Harper cuts to a scene of old white men yelling about how Glashier can’t prove his theories, the building anxiety is stopped and has to be restarted with Jones’ character having to climb onto the ropes to fix something. If this film were a seventy minute, close quarters thriller set in an air balloon, maybe it would be something exciting. As is, it’s more of a halfhearted attempt at winning awards.
This weekend on Episode 355 we are finally going to be diving into Noah Baumbach’s Marriage Story, one of our most anticipated films of the year. It of course stars Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver as a couple going through a divorce. Both performances are being hailed as maybe the best of their respective careers. So, we thought that would be great inspiration for our poll this week. Specifically that of Johansson, who has had a varied career with many great performances along the way.
With that said, what is your favorite Scarlett Johansson performance? Vote now!
Director: Elizabeth Banks Writer: Elizabeth Banks, Evan Spiliotopoulos Stars: Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott, Ella Balinska
Synopsis: When a young systems engineer blows the whistle on a dangerous technology, Charlie’s Angels are called into action, putting their lives on the line to protect us all.
[/info]
Charlie’s Angels has been one of the staples in campy action since 1976. There’s been several TV shows, a handful of movies, and even a video game. The newest addition to the franchise comes from writer/director Elizabeth Banks. This is Banks’s second feature film after Pitch Perfect 2 (2015) as a director and her first as a writer. The film does a great job bringing the Charlie’s Angels style action back to the big screen, but fails in its storytelling and messages.
The film follows “Angels” Sabina (Kristen Stewart) and Jane (Ella Balinska) as they try to protect systems engineer, Elena (Naomi Scott) from an assassin after she exposes her employer’s new revolutionary technology as dangerous. They are assisted by their handler and mentor Bosley (Elizabeth Banks) as they try to track down the bad guys and save the day.
The main characters are, keeping with tradition, written as stereotyped personalities (something they’ve done since the original tv show). There’s Sabina, the heiress / dumb blonde. Jane the former operative, highly trained weapons expert devoid of emotion. And finally, Elena, the smart one who’s good with computers. I understand that this has been the standard when it comes to action movie characters – they feel like they have to include those stereotypes to make a “successful” movie (especially one starring women) but it feels old and tired. Another problem I had with the film was its overcomplicated plot. There were too many shocking reveals of potential bad guys and attempted plot twists for something that’s supposed to be a fun action movie. It didn’t work, it felt weird, and I didn’t like it. My biggest problem with the film was it didn’t know what kind of movie it wanted to be. It bounced between serious action movie, campy action flick, and girl power movie but didn’t deliver as any of those. I think the only way a Charlie’s Angels movie could work is if they took the campy route. There is too much history with the franchise to try and make it any more than it’s been in the past (which was mostly horrible stereotypes, objectifying women, and excessive innuendo…) They could have taken that questionable history and made it fun and campy, yet still appropriate, and less cringe worthy for a modern audience.
Even with all my complaints, Charlie’s Angels did have some things going for it. I loved Kristen Stewart in this film. It’s been a while since I’ve seen her in a comedy and I think she was one of the highlights of the movie. She was funny and she seemed to have embraced the ridiculousness of it all. She has some of the best lines and costumes in the movie. The other Angels were okay, they worked well as a group and had good chemistry. This film has some clever action sequences, missions, and fight scenes. So even though the story is a bit wonky, it keeps you entertained. One of my favorite things they included in the movie were the nods to prior Charlie’s Angels material. You can see cameos from people who’ve starred in the franchise as well as costumes and other odds and ends if you’re paying attention. The end credits are also great and full of fun cameos.
Charlie’s Angels falls into the grey area of not good, but also not bad. I didn’t like the story and its failure to overcome the franchise’s history with objectifying and stereotyping women. I know I shouldn’t have gone into the film with high expectations, but I wanted more from Banks as a filmmaker. Overall, the film has plenty of fun action sequences and moments of comedy to keep audiences entertained. It certainly doesn’t deserve the heaps of negative criticism it’s received since its release. I wish I could say I liked it more, it definitely had the potential.
This week’s episode is brought to you by the InSession Film Store. Get your IF gear today!
This week on the InSession Film Podcast, Matt St. Claire joins us to discuss Rian Johnson’s latest, Knives Out. We also continue our Ingmar Bergman Movie Series by reviewing his 1982 film Fanny and Alexander and JD sits down with director Trey Edward Shults to talk about his latest film Waves. Plus, brief thoughts on Frozen II, Dark Waters and Honey Boy.
A big thanks to Matt for joining us once again. He’s always a lovely guest and this time was no different. We had a fun conversation on Knives Out and we hope you enjoy as we did. Also, a huge thanks to Trey Edward Shults as well for sitting down with JD to talk Waves. It was a lively discussion and we hope it provokes you to go and see the film. We apologize in advance for the show being a little long this week, but we’re confident you’re going to like what it has to offer.
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: Knives Out (5:15) Director: Rian Johnson Writer: Rian Johnson Stars: Daniel Craig, Chris Evans, Ana de Armas
– Notes / Frozen II / Dark Waters / Honey Boy (51:31)
As noted above, JD caught up with Disney’s Frozen II and Todd Haynes’ Dark Waters, and decided to give his thoughts on both of those films. Brendan also gave his thoughts on the Shia LaBeouf written film Honey Boy.
– Trey Edward Shults Interview (1:23:53)
JD and Trey talk about the cast of Waves, its themes on love and hate, the film’s cinematography and much more!
– Ingmar Bergman Movie Series: Fanny and Alexander (1:38:28) Director: Ingmar Bergman Writer: Ingmar Bergman Stars: Bertil Guve, Pernilla Allwin, Kristina Adolphson
Main Review: Marriage Story
Top 3: N/A
Ingmar Bergman Movie Series: Scenes From a Marriage
[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!
Synopsis: Parent and child journey through the outskirts of society a decade after a pandemic has wiped out half the world’s population. As a father struggles to protect his child, their bond, and the character of humanity, is tested.
[/info]
2019 has clearly been a year where we’ve had to grapple with some films from both the artistic perspective, but also a business point of view as well. Whether it’s Amazing Grace and the questionable timing of its release, or Leaving Neverland and how damaging it is to Michael Jackson if you choose to believe the subjects of that film, or the new Nate Parker film coming out later this year that Venice embraced for one reason or another, there’s been some films we’ve had to grapple with on those terms. And in a similar vein many may have to do the same with Casey Affleck and his latest directorial effort Light of My Life.
Light of My Life is set in some sort of dystopian future where a pandemic has wiped out all of the female population. However, Caleb (Casey Affleck) has a daughter Rag (Anna Pniowsky) who survived the plague and is now posing a young boy in public in an attempt to stay safe. They mostly live in the woods, though, which comes with its own hardships and adversity. As they travel north to what they hope is safe lodging, things are becoming testier and more troublesome for the both of them.
My first thought after seeing Light of My Life was actually Manchester By the Sea, a film that must have took a lot out of Affleck because here he once again plays a father, but this time one that is desperate to save his child at all costs. Quite the reversal there for him. That probably wasn’t his inpsiration, but I couldn’t help but think about the polarity between the two in terms of how deeply thorough and vigilant Caleb is in making sure that Rag is safe at every turn. Of course, what happened to Lee in Manchester By the Sea was just an accident, but Caleb wants to avoid that in any way he can, and actively prepares himself accordingly. And what Light of My Life suggests as it relates to the foundational love that exists between parent and child is thought-provoking and poignant.
The film’s pathos especially resonates thanks to Affleck’s David Lowery inspired direction. There are sprinkles of dramatic tension throughout, and I do love how and when Affleck decides to incorporate them, but the film mostly concerns itself with mood and meditation on its moral and ethical conflicts when it comes to its themes on parental responsibility, love, and what it means for a young woman to have her childhood stripped from her. It’s certainly reminiscent of last year’s Leave No Trace in that regard, but it’s also comparable to The Road and A Quiet Place given Light of My Life post-apocalyptic setting. Affleck also succeeds because of his approach to visual storytelling. There isn’t any conventional exposition, however, there are more than enough visual cues or organic lines of dialogue that it’s clear what’s going on in this world. Affleck doesn’t care to indulge in the details of what created it, instead it’s merely a backdrop that allows for the intimacy between Rag and Caleb to linger and marinate. The right move in this critic’s opinion. But simultaneously, Affleck takes advantage of all of that dramatically to enhance the emotional growth between Rag and Caleb. So, despite mostly (and rightfully) underplaying its post-apoocalypitic nature, there’s enough of it to serve this story and its themes.
None of this matters though without these central performances. Affleck may be a divisive figure, but as an actor, he knows what he’s doing and he’s great here. Anna Pniowsky is going to go down as one of the best discoveries of the year for many people. She’s terrific and in many ways the beating heart of the film. Their dynamic is felt, it’s genuine and elevates the emotion between them.
Light of My Life may not be for everybody given its tonal and methodical approach, but its evocative themes and engaging characters worked for me.
This week on the InSession Film Podcast: Extra Film segment, JD joins Jay to discuss the latest from Trey Edward Shults in Waves, while Ryan and Jay review the Amazon documentary One Child Nation!
So, this one is a doozy. We’ve joked all year about how Jay and JD have become friends after being mortal enemies last year. Well, the rivalry is back baby! All joking aside, the conversation was quite inspired and delightfully teetering as the guys talked about Waves. At the very least, we hope you enjoy it as much we did.
On that note, have fun with this week’s Extra Film segment and let us know what you think in the comment section below. Thanks for listening!
– Movie Review: Waves (4:51) Director: Trey Edward Shults Screenplay: Trey Edward Shults Stars: Taylor Russell, Kelvin Harrison Jr., Alexa Demie, Sterling K. Brown
– Movie Review: One Child Nation (1:00:22) Directors: Nanfu Wang, Jialing Zhang
We try to make this the best movie podcast we possibly can and we hope you enjoy them. Subscribe today on iTunes, Spotfiy or Stitcher, and please leave us a review on iTunes. You can also find us on Soundcloud, PlayerFM and TuneIn Radio as well. We really appreciate all your support of the InSession Film Podcast.
To hear this Extra Film episode and everything else we do, download our apps on the Amazon Market for Android and the Podcast Box app on IOS devices. The mobile app covers all of our main shows, bonus podcast’s and everything else relating to the InSession Film Podcast. Thanks for your wonderful support and listening to our show. It means the world to us!
Now, as we enter the last 31 days of 2019, as well as the last of the 2010s, Criterion has in store four new works, harking back to 1933 and through to 2006. A woman brought into the darkness of society, a thriller on the Scottish Highlands, a sci-fi epic, and a road trip complete Criterion’s releases of the collection.
The Story Of Temple Drake (1933)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmB43rldVm8
It is one of those pre-Hays Code films that is cited as to why there were restrictions on what movies could show because of the portrayal of a fallen woman. In this case, the titular character comes from a noble family, gets involved with the wrong man, and is pimped into prostitution. The climax at the end, compared to William Faulkner’s actual depiction in the novel it is based on, angered conservatives, Christian organizations, and temperance groups that it is among the first rape & revenge films of its kind, forcing movie studios to follows the new strict guidelines which wrapped Hollywood from the 30s to the 60s.
Tunes Of Glory (1960)
Alec Guinness plays the commander of a Scottish battalion in post-war Britain, one who the soldiers respect for being a lot like them, only to butt heads with an incoming, by-the-book, and bullish replacement played by John Mills. The battle of wits plays out in the barracks until the shocking end, but the bagpipes play on with every moment the regiment does. It is one of British cinema’s underrated films in the era; outside of an Oscar nomination for Screenplay and multiple BAFTA nods, Tunes of Glory is overlooked as a working examination of the military class system than in society.
Until The End Of The World (1991)
Following his highly successful Wings of Desire, Wenders finally got to make this project he had conceived back in the seventies as the ultimate road movie. His sci-fi film, presented in Wenders’ 287-minute Director’s Cut (you thought The Irishman was long), follows a woman who seeks out someone who has the power to make art into real life and cure the blind. With William Hurt, Sam Neill, Max von Sydow, and Jeanne Moreau, Wender’s epic, poorly received upon release, has been reevaluated as an underrated masterpiece getting its dues finally.
Old Joy (2006)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkdJV1X4fwI
Kelly Reichardt has been a major indie film player and one of the most notable female directors in the last twenty years. Her second film follows two friends on a camping trip as they find out how much they have changed as one remains a nomad and the other has gotten married and a father-to-be. Made for $30,000, Reichardt’s sophomore effort continued to show her tight-knit ways of exploring the friendship dynamic away from the city and followed it up with more brilliant, low-key works that have defined her career.
Next up, the first films of the 2020s in January – also my 30th birthday. But first, a final word…for the 2010s, that is, not of this wonderful blogging thing we all love to do.
The first thing is to thank JD Duran for being gracious in letting me go old school with the promotion of movies and not follow the current line of new releases. He was happy to get me because he wanted to diverse InSession Film’s content and I am glad to do so. The same extends to Brendan Cassidy, Ryan McQuade, Aaron Charles, Kate Boyle, Daniel Brilliant, and everyone else who I probably have missed. Then, there’s the rest of the Film Twitter family who likes to link up with us and share my stuff and others; the list is too long there. It amazes me that I started doing this a year and a half ago. I’ve made more friends on Twitter just through movies than complaining about the political scene where I used to languish in for a headache about Trump, Brexit, and every small policy. I wish I started getting in years earlier to have longer connections than now. But it has been an amazing ride that I hope lasts longer as we enter the 2020s!
Director: Alma Har’el Writers: Shia LaBeouf Stars: Shia LaBeouf, Noah Jupe, Lucas Hedges
Synopsis: A young actor’s stormy childhood and early adult years as he struggles to reconcile with his father and deal with his mental health.
[/info]
Shia LeBeouf is one of the most fascinating actors working right now, and Honey Boy is a love letter to a time in his life that helped shaped him into the artist he is today. That meta element alone in LaBeauf’s screenplay is intriguing, but beyond that, Honey Boy is a beautiful film about generational addictions and the fallout that comes in the aftermath. Elevated by great performances and Alma Har’el’s stunning direction, the emotion that comes with those ideas is quite powerful here.
Honey Boy bounces between two different timelines. One where Otis (the Shia Labeouf stand in) is a twenty-something (Lucas Hedges) and is in therapy for wreckless behavior, and another where Otis is a young teenager and actor (Noah Jupe). Young Otis lives in a small apartment with his father James (Shia LaBeouf) who is unreliable and too busy dealing with his own problems to be the kind of parent Otis needs. This results in Otis coping in ways his father doesn’t approve of, slowly building friction between the two until it all collides in the end. All of this is coupled with older Otis in therapy realizing that his father is the root of his emotional unraveling at that time.
It would have been easy for LaBeouf, as a screenwriter, to simply lay out all of his fathers demons and call that out as an excuse for how that made him bitter and volatile. But that’s not what he does. Instead, LaBeouf puts himself into his father’s shoes (somewhat literally as he does play his father in the film) and attempts to examine how his own personal experiences shaped him into who he was. And what we find out is that James’ mother (LaBeouf’s grandmother) was an abusive alcoholic who had severe problems of her own, thus having a massive effect on his father. The film doesn’t dive any deeper than that regarding LaBeouf’s lineage, but we can infer that if it went down the line we would probably find more addiction and emotional fallout. This gives James a compelling duality that makes sense of his behavor and abrasiveness. At the same time, though, Honey Boy doesn’t excuse the troublesome behavior. It simply demonstrates that it’s not black and white, that there are two sides to the coid and why James struggled to defeat his demons.
All of this makes Honey Boy a poignant experience. Watching young Otis yearn for his father’s attention is heartbreaking as we see James continuing to fail as a parent. It’s especially effecting because LaBeauf’s screenplay, heightened in Har’el’s mesmerizing direction, reverberates that all Otis wanted was his dad’s love. He didn’t need Hollywood elegance or anything outlandish, he just wanted James to be around.
It’s in that where Shia LaBeouf should be considered for an Oscar next February. He gives a career performance, slipping effortlessly between someone who loves his son, but as I’ve noted, a victim to generational addiction. He’s endlessly magnetic. Noah Jupe is equally as stunning in his performance, especially in the latter parts of the film where Otis is longing for fatherly comfort.
Honey Boy may disappoint those who are eager to see a conventional biopic as this is not one of those experiences. It’s artfully crafted and purposful with how it tells its story. Perhaps some of its meta qualities at the end will be too cute for some, but mostly it’s a great film that has a ton of earned emotion. The last shot of this film with linger with me for a long time to come and I cannot wait to see what LaBeouf has up his sleeve next.
On Episode 15 of Chasing the Gold, Ryan is joined by Casey Lee Clark and Lauren LaManga of Next Best Picture to discuss the 2020 Best Picture Race! As the 2019 is winding down, the Oscar season is coming. In the last episode, Ryan discussed the films in the Best Picture race and this week he, along with his guests, take a deep dive into the acting categories. So many wonderful performances to talk about but there are only so many spots for nominations. They go through all the options in the 4 races, including some performances they would love to see make it on Oscar night.
On that note, have fun with this week’s Chasing the Gold and let us know what you think in the comment section below. Thanks for listening!
We try to make this the best movie podcast we possibly can and we hope you enjoy them. Subscribe today on iTunes, Spotfiy or Stitcher, and please leave us a review on iTunes. You can also find us on Soundcloud, PlayerFM and TuneIn Radio as well. We really appreciate all your support of the InSession Film Podcast.
To hear this Extra Film episode and everything else we do, download our apps on the Amazon Market for Android and the Podcast Box app on IOS devices. The mobile app covers all of our main shows, bonus podcast’s and everything else relating to the InSession Film Podcast. Thanks for your wonderful support and listening to our show. It means the world to us!
[divider]
Help Support The InSession Film Podcast
If you want to help support us, we would greatly appreciate it! For more info, CLICK HERE.
This weekend sees the release of Knives Out, the latest from director Rian Johnson, and boy is it a wild ride. Johnson may have a divided fan base when it comes to Star Wars: The Last Jedi, but mostly he’s a director that people love, and for good reason. His films are clever, unique and endlessly entertaining. So, we thought that would be great inspiration for our poll this week.
What is your favorite Rian Johnson film? Vote now!
Director: Chris Buck, Jennifer Lee Writer: Chris Buck, Jennifer Lee Stars: Kristen Bell, Idina Menzel, Josh Gad
Synopsis: Anna, Elsa, Kristoff, Olaf and Sven leave Arendelle to travel to an ancient, autumn-bound forest of an enchanted land. They set out to find the origin of Elsa’s powers in order to save their kingdom.
[/info]
The first Frozen film (2013) was a worldwide phenomenon from which most adults still haven’t recovered. Its most popular song, “Let it Go,” is still heard entirely too often, from people of all ages. Frozen II doesn’t quite live up to the hype and standards of its predecessor. I enjoyed the first film – it’s entertaining and fun, while the sequel seems to be made entirely of recycled ideas and multiple obvious “made for 3D” moments.
Frozen II takes place soon after the events of the first film. We get a little more information about Anna and Elsa’s parents and background of the areas surrounding the kingdom of Arendelle. Elsa is settling in as queen when she starts to hear a voice calling to her from the North. Elsa sets off in search of whoever is calling out to her with the original team in tow – Anna, Olaf, Kristoff, and Sven.
I was surprisingly disappointed with this film. I’m normally a huge fan of animated films, especially ones involving Disney princesses. I don’t think I was allowed to watch anything but Disney animated movies until I was about 10. Usually these films succeed with adult audiences on their nostalgia factor alone. Unfortunately, Frozen II was a letdown. I don’t think it lived up to the hype and expectations set by the first film. The story felt recycled; there was absolutely nothing original or anything I hadn’t read in a mythology book or seen from Disney before. The film didn’t have a new or strong message like the original – anything different they tried to sneak in felt forced. The songs were just okay, but not as catchy as anything from Frozen. It felt just a smidge better than Disney’s straight-to-DVD sequels. Another complaint I had was that there were obvious “made for 3D” moments. That’s my biggest pet peeve when it comes to new movies. I understand many films are released in both 3D and 2D, but there shouldn’t be any scenes that look weird or awkward in 2D because they are trying to make something special for the for 3D version. I’m sure not everyone will feel this way, but the movie just didn’t sit well with me.
Frozen II wasn’t all bad. The animation alone is worth a trip to see it on the big screen. I was amazed at the detail they included. The texture of character’s hair and clothing were amazing, and the landscapes were also gorgeous. There are a few Disney “Easter eggs” hidden around if you keep an eye out for them. For example, you can spot a miniature Baymax and Dumbo made of snow. One of my favorite elements of the movie was Olaf. I know a lot of people have said he’s annoying, but I love his comedic relief and awkward questions. At one point he is retelling (and acting out) the events of the first film to new characters and it’s hilarious. My other favorite part of the film was Kristoff’s song “Lost in the Woods”. It’s the best blend of 80’s power ballad and 90’s boy band song, and Jonathon Groff is perfection. Even the Weezer cover is great.
Frozen II has affable intentions, but overall it fails to meet the expectations set by its predecessor, and it lacked real substance. It has some great elements, such as the animation and the humor, but sadly I did not enjoy the film. Kids will most likely enjoy it as they did with the first, and maybe die hard Disney lovers as well, but re-setting expectations is recommended.
This week on the InSession Film Podcast, we discuss Marielle Heller’s A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood and continue our Ingmar Bergman Movie Series with his 1978 film Autumn Sonata! JD also gives his brief thoughts on One Child Nation and Last Christmas.
While we are actively planning for Marriage Story and Scenes From a Marriage in a few weeks, it’s uncanny how we have accidentally paired up our Bergman Series films with 2019 films that are eerily similar in their themes and ideas. This was the case a few weeks ago when we discussed The Lighthouse and Peronsa on Episode 349, but it’s also at play this week with A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood and Autumn Sonata. We even joke about how their the same films, which in many ways they are, despite them being tonally very different experiences. So, that is to say, we had a lot of fun with this episode.
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: A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (5:06) Director: Marielle Heller Writer: Micah Fitzerman-Blue, Noah Harpster Stars: Tom Hanks, Matthew Rhys, Susan Kelechi Watson, Chris Cooper
– Notes / One Child Nation / Last Christmas (41:49)
As noted above, JD was able to catch up with a few films this last week. One being the documentary One Child Nation, arguably the most heartbreaking film you’ll see in 2019. He also caught up with Paul Feig’s Last Christmas, and gave his thoughts on that film and its twist that so many people are talking about
Main Review: Knives Out
Top 3: N/A
Ingmar Bergman Movie Series: Fanny & Alexander
[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!
With Jay out, JD steps in his place and joins Ryan to review two of the most anticipated films of the fall. First up is Honey Boy, the semi-autobiographical account of Shia LaBeouf’s childhood. With a screenplay written by LaBeouf, he goes back and forth through events leading to his current placement in life. Noah Jupe and Lucas Hedges play versions of him while he commits to the role of his dangerous father. Beautiful direction by Alma Har’el mixed with the raW performanceS and personal script led to one of the best discussion Ryan and JD have had together all year.
Then, in the back half of the episode, the guys discussed the newest political thriller,The Report. Based on the United States Torture report, Scott Z. Burns captures the perfect balance of making an entertaining film while also exposing the truth. With wonderful performances from Adam Driver and Annette Bening, The Report is a film not to miss, leading the guys to agree on both films this week in terms of quality.
On that note, have fun with this week’s Extra Film segment and let us know what you think in the comment section below. Thanks for listening!
– Movie Review: Honey Boy (3:01) Director: Alma Har’el Screenplay: Shia LaBeouf Stars: Noah Jupe, Lucas Hedges, Shia LaBeouf
– Movie Review: The Report (54:11) Director: Scott Z. Burns Screenplay: Scott Z. Burns Stars: Adam Driver, Annette Bening, Jon Hamm
We try to make this the best movie podcast we possibly can and we hope you enjoy them. Subscribe today on iTunes, Spotfiy or Stitcher, and please leave us a review on iTunes. You can also find us on Soundcloud, PlayerFM and TuneIn Radio as well. We really appreciate all your support of the InSession Film Podcast.
To hear this Extra Film episode and everything else we do, download our apps on the Amazon Market for Android and the Podcast Box app on IOS devices. The mobile app covers all of our main shows, bonus podcast’s and everything else relating to the InSession Film Podcast. Thanks for your wonderful support and listening to our show. It means the world to us!
Director: Roland Emmerich Writer: Wes Tooke Stars: Ed Skrein, Patrick Wilson, Woody Harrelson
Synopsis: The story of the Battle of Midway, told by the leaders and the sailors who fought it.
[/info]
Roland Emmerich’s newest film, Midway, is a synthesis of mediocre CGI war effects, a cacophonous sound mix, lackluster dialogue, and a script that never seems to catch a gear. For those seeking an epic war film, Midway may hit the right notes. However, some filmgoers may have difficulty keeping up with the film due to its pacing problems, paper-thin characters, and lack of purpose.
Midway begins with the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and chronicles the events that led to the pivotal Battle of Midway in June of 1942. In a large-scale war film like Midway, the number of characters can grow exponentially. Emmerich finds a way to combat this by allowing his audience to follow a handful of characters as they progress steadily toward Midway. Arguably, the main character is dive bomber pilot Dick Best (Ed Skrein), a cocky yet capable pilot who may or may not fight like he doesn’t mind dying. Others that fill the mix are an unassuming intelligence officer, Edwin Layton (Patrick Wilson), a robust leader in Wade McClusky (Luke Evans), and a swath of famous Admirals, William Halsey (Dennis Quaid), Jimmy Doolittle (Aaron Eckhart), and Chester W. Nimitz (Woody Harrelson). As the Battle of Midway inches closer through smaller battles and skirmishes, Emmerich introduces us to both sides of the war. In an attempt to tell a rounded story, Emmerich includes the Japanese strategies and expectations for these battles at sea. Admittedly, this paints a clearer picture of the events that lead to the Battle of Midway, but clearer does not necessarily translate to richer story.
The battle scenes in Midway are adequate and serve the story well. However, the camera is either too close or too far from the action for any discernable connection. At some points, there is too much action on screen, which works as a cloudy distraction from the effects. It’s almost as if the filmmakers knew the effects weren’t working well, so their only solution was to add more. Aside from the visuals, the sound mix is regularly muddled and incoherent. Dialogue is lost in the barrage of bullet ricochets, explosions, and propeller noise. This wouldn’t be a problem, because war movies are supposed to be loud, but at times characters are speaking directly to the actions of the film and a viewer can easily miss beats that move the story. The effect is a confusing story made even worse by the incoherent, yet important dialogue.
The plot of Midway is all over the place. A viewer could get whiplash from all the locations that Midway visits in its 138 minute run time. The characters do their best to elude to the next location, but after a while it becomes very difficult to keep up. New characters are introduced and killed, plotlines are rarely concluded, and even though the story has a known climax and dénouement, it travels in circles in order to reach that established finishing point. The clunkiness of script is detrimental to the film as a whole. If it were simplified and focused more on characters, Midway might actually be a worthwhile endeavor.
The characters and the actors portraying them are a shining glory in an otherwise muddled film. Skrien, Evans, and Wilson embody their namesakes and drive what little emotion there is in the film. The cast of Midway is borderline stellar. However, the lines they are given and the hoops they must jump through diminish any grandeur their presence purportedly elicits. In moments of hearth and home, moments that are supposed to give the war meaning, feel hollow and lost. This makes the battle scenes and action meaningless, and worse, often gives the action a certain glorification as if the action is paramount. Emmerich never properly sets up why they fight and what they fight for; instead, he emphasizes the wonder of war and the exhalation of death. The bravery of these soldiers is never questioned in the film, but at times Midway makes their sacrifices feel futile, which is sorrowful.
Overall, Midway is a loud, booming explosion of a film. An epic that spans the globe and places a spotlight on the men and women who fought bravely in World War II. Often sputtering and always demanding, Midway does not do an adequate job of setting up the stakes of the film, and therefore the characters, try as they might, cannot suture this film back together. The focus of a war film should be on the men and women who fight and for what they are fighting. Without that setup, Midway is just a spectacle of violence.
