Saturday, May 17, 2025
Home Blog Page 24

Movie Review (Festival du Nouveau Cinéma 2024): ‘The Second Act’ Shows Human-Made Cinema is Worth Saving


Director: Quentin Dupieux
Writer: Quentin Dupieux
Stars: Léa Seydoux, Vincent Lindon, Louis Garrel

Synopsis: Florence wants to introduce David, the man she’s madly in love with, to her father. But David isn’t attracted to her and wants to throw her into the arms of his friend Willy. The characters meet in a restaurant in the middle of nowhere.


Quentin Dupieux is not a serious filmmaker. His films should not be taken seriously. They should instead be approached ironically, knowing that he doesn’t really want to say anything beyond flipping off the audience for wasting their precious time with him at every turn. Yet, many film critics unfamiliar with his work insist that there’s a deeper meaning behind his provocation or surface-level humor, partly explaining why The Second Act is one of his worst-reviewed movies. They think Dupieux is trying to say something about cinema’s (doomed) future in an era where streaming services (ergo, the Netflix logo appearing at the top of this) and artificial intelligence attempt to kill art as we know it. 

Tout ce qu'il faut savoir sur « Le Deuxième Acte » de Quentin Dupieux, qui  ouvre le Festival de Cannes - Elle

But he doesn’t have anything to say, and he knows it. In fact, he has repeated on multiple occasions that his films “don’t have any messages except to relax you and make you feel good. It’s like a calming bath, with a little bit of acid in it, to distract you from this distressing world we live in.” Once you know this inextricable fact from Dupieux’s body of work, one begins to approach The Second Act as a meaningless distracting affair that will culminate in nothing and is designed to make the audience pissed off at the lengths Dupieux takes to upset people. It’s all paradoxical, and if you’re trying to extract some form of sense into this work, you’re not only missing the point entirely but going to have a terrible time with it. I saw many reviews where the throughline was, “He’s trying to say something but isn’t saying anything.” Exactly. He’s not saying anything. You’re just the butt of the joke! 

But I can see why people may think Dupieux is saying something. In the first degree, the movie is absolutely designed to make you vehemently angry, with glib jokes that poke fun at everything and everyone, which include reactionary boomers who have a narrow-minded viewpoint of the world (in this case, homosexuality) and far-left activists who have to be careful in using the right words to not offend anyone. In fact, this is how the movie starts: with an almost unbroken 20-minute-long dolly shot of David (Louis Garrel) and Willy (Raphaël Quenard, always incredible with Dupieux) walking towards a café named The Second Act to meet Florence (Léa Seydoux) and her father, Guillaume (Vincent Lindon). 

In this very long scene where the two walk (and walk ad infinitum, a classic joke from Dupieux), one is more attuned to the times, while the other isn’t afraid of making deeply transphobic remarks if Florence ends up being so. But he corrects himself once he realizes people are (literally and figuratively) watching by looking at us and apologizing. It’s probably the only time that Dupieux has ever apologized to us, and it immediately jolts our attention that he has broken (once again) the fourth wall. It seems he wants to ensure no one gets offended until we realize the two are shooting a film and playing fictitious characters. 

Just like his last project, Daaaaaali!, was one long dream within a dream (within a dream within a dream), The Second Act is one massive metatextual film that’s never fully clear when it is the fake movie (apart from a Georges Delerue-esque score that punctuates moments of intense drama whenever the characters are in the fake movie’s diegesis), and when the movie on the making of the movie kicks into gear, only to reveal that it’s also part of the movie, and so on and so forth. He has no set rules in his movies, and one has to suspend their disbelief at every turn to know that he will break any convention he possibly can to make this experience feel somewhat discombobulating for the viewer. 

But that’s part of the fun of watching a movie like this. You eventually surrender to its unconventional narrative trappings because each actor goes from one ironic undertone to another. The most impressive of the bunch is Lindon, who breaks the fake movie’s diegesis just as the plot is starting to be set in motion and prompts another 20-minute-long dolly walk, this time with Florence (we eventually see how Dupieux pulled both sequences off with a bravura final shot that should give Jean-Luc Godard’s voiceover opening credits of Le Mépris a run for its money). It’s there that most should realize this film isn’t going anywhere, but they eventually make their way to the café, where a nervous waiter, Stéphane (Manuel Guillot), can’t pour wine without violently shaking his hands. The movie is now in total shambles because he has to practice doing it right before they can shoot again, which culminates with Dupieux’s sickest punchline in years (that he eventually repeats at the end, further hammering home that his films always swerve around in circles with no exceptions). 

Of course, Dupieux is an acquired taste. If you don’t vibe with any of his previous films, chances are The Second Act won’t do much for you. But the thrill of watching his movies is seeing respectable actors, such as Benoît Poelvoorde, Alain Chabat, Jean Dujardin, Adèle Exarchopoulos, Anaïs Demoustier, and Gilles Lellouche, among others, perform in ways you’ve never seen them on screen before. And it seems unreal that he would ever work with Léa Seydoux, Vincent Lindon, and Louis Garrel, three of France’s biggest stars, with legitimate global reach (Dujardin won an Oscar for The Artist but hasn’t a presence in other markets than France as strongly as Garrel and Seydoux). 

That’s why it feels miraculous to see them in this movie and deliver some of the best work of their careers. Garrel, in particular, an actor who is usually restrained in his emotional composure and intonations (see, for example, Martin Bourboulon’s The Three Musketeers diptych), now goes all in on Dupieux’s proposition and delivers a farcical turn that’s both unflinchingly hilarious and deeply sincere. Lindon has already tapped deep into his vulnerabilities throughout his career, most recently in Julia Ducournau’s Titane. Now, he just wants to let loose (a little bit) and have fun. He’s in perfect synchronicity with Quenard’s always ironic tone, leading into some of the film’s funniest  – and most surprising – laughs. 

Of course, with any Dupieux film, the highs of its gonzo comedy can often be brought down by scenes that go on for far too long, which he tends to do, even if his movies have never exceeded 95 minutes. You could feel this exhaustion near its conclusion, which seems par for the course for such a cyclical movie. But he smartly understands that it’s getting a bit long, leading him to wrap the movie in an experimental fashion that boldly asks filmmakers to leap more primal techniques as cinema becomes more expensive and is now (as in the case of the fake movie Dupieux showcases) led by artificial intelligence. It’s the only image in The Second Act from which you can extract meaning because Dupieux urges all of us to think about how a human can move a camera so it can be employed to its fullest potential. 

Artificial intelligence does not have the power to do what Dupieux does here, nor does it have the knowledge to create a human movie with characters steeped in reality and, above all else, emotion. The soul of The Second Act’s final shot is staggering. It’s an almost rallying cry against the trappings of A.I. that will never create something as meaningful as the mile-long track to pull off four impressive dollies that are always in different variations (medium shots, close-ups, extreme close-ups, long shots, you name it). 

A.I. may take away many things in cinema and kill the artform in ways that the doomers might have predicted long ago, especially if studio executives put their anti-art plans in motion. However, it will never remove a human’s desire for creativity, especially if they have ideas they want to see realized on screen. Human beings have an innate desire to create to survive, whether in the arts or in life. Without human-born creativity, we’re as good as dead. As a result, the final shot of The Second Act is a potent reminder of this fact, and it’s up to us to resist this affront to imagination and emotion by supporting human-made creativity, such as, among others, the trolls of Quentin Dupieux. 

LE DEUXIÈME ACTE Bande Annonce (2024) Nouvelle, Louis Garrel, Vincent Lindon

Of course, this film isn’t much of a jab at the audience as Daaaaaali!, only because he eventually reveals a vulnerable side of himself and tells us that the thing he loves doing the most may not be worth it anymore if it goes in the direction it’s heading. Like the Titanic hitting an iceberg (an apt metaphor used countless times in this film), the movie industry is close to hitting it straight ahead and killing itself for the worse, potentially damaging in ways that should’ve never been teased in the first place (for example, the use of digital necromancy or generative A.I. used to create opening credits sequences). 

It may not happen as quickly as some have stated, but it will occur if they do not reverse course now. As such, a change is in order, and Dupieux may be among the few filmmakers to instill it. Ironically, sure, but flipping off the audience in every movie could prove more effective than the audience thinks it is because they automatically attempt to reject it. However, by resisting, they, too, are conditioned to look away at robot-made garbage and call it out as the anti-art piece of hubris it is. 

I was wrong when I initially said that you could not extract meaning from Quentin Dupieux’s films. I should have said most of his films because The Second Act’s final image represents, in a simple gesture, why human-made cinema is worth saving by people who care so deeply about an art form that’s sadly in shambles. By doing this, Dupieux instills a warning to everyone: never accept machine-driven work. Always support human-made art. One path will ensure the perennity of cinema, while the other will destroy it. Which one will you take?

Grade: A

Movie Review: ‘Your Monster’ is a Whirlwind of Chaotic Beauty, Romance, and Spooky Fun


Director: Caroline Lindy
Writer: Caroline Lindy
Stars: Melissa Barrera, Meghann Fahy, Tommy Dewey

Synopsis: After her life falls apart, soft-spoken actress Laura Franco finds her voice again when she meets a terrifying, yet weirdly charming Monster living in her closet. A romantic-comedy-horror film about falling in love with your inner rage.


Your Monster is, hands-down, the most fun I’ve had with a rom-com in recent memory. It’s like a Beauty and the Beast story, but instead of a fancy castle, it’s set in your mom’s house, and the Beast is a total grump with a serious case of “get out of my closet” syndrome. Add in some delicious rom-com vibes, a dash of horror, and Melissa Barrera delivering a performance so fabulous that you can’t take your eyes off her, and you’ve got a film that’s an absolute blast!

Your Monster' Review: Melissa Barrera in Droll Musical-Horror-Rom-Com

Barrera plays Laura Franco, and let’s just say, her life is a total mess at the start. She’s just gone through surgery, her terrible playwright boyfriend Jacob (Edmund Donovan, who you’ll definitely want to boo off the screen) has dumped her, and now she’s recovering in her mom’s empty house. Yep, her mom is MIA—no texts, no notes, nothing. But don’t worry, her bestie Mazie (played by Kayla Foster, who’s bubbly in all the best ways) is by her side, doing her best to keep Laura from totally falling apart.

Now, this is where things take a turn way off the rom-com map. One night, during a super creepy thunderstorm, Laura meets the monster in her closet. And when I say “monster,” I mean full-on monster—sharp teeth, growly voice, and absolutely no chill. He’s been living there for years, and he’s not happy about Laura moving back in. In fact, he gives her two weeks to pack up and get out. Yep, two weeks! Imagine having an eviction notice from a creature living behind your shoes—wild, right? But as you probably guessed, things don’t go as planned.

So here’s where Your Monster really shines. The movie is technically a romantic comedy, but it’s got all these little quirky twists that make it feel like a breath of fresh air. It’s not just about the will-they-or-won’t-they, it’s about how Laura starts piecing her life back together with a little help from, well, her childhood closet monster (Tommy Dewey). The chemistry between Barrera and Dewey is so much fun to watch—it’s awkward, sweet, and downright swoon-worthy in parts (seriously, there’s a scene with Szechuan chicken that had me melting). It’s giving major “weird but wonderful” vibes, and I am here for it.

But don’t let the cutesy parts fool you—this movie has some depth. Laura’s not just some damsel waiting to be saved. She’s struggling to figure out who she is after a breakup and a major health scare, and Monster (yes, that’s his name—love the simplicity) isn’t just your average growly guy. He’s got his own baggage too, and their relationship becomes this fun, messy, heartwarming journey of self-discovery for both of them. By the time Laura is ready to go after a part in Jacob’s Broadway play (one he literally wrote for her while they were together), you’re fully rooting for her. The way the film balances light, funny moments with real emotional beats is what makes it so special.

Your Monster (2024) – Plot & Trailer | Horror-Comedy | Heaven of Horror

The visuals in Your Monster are stunning. Will Stone’s cinematography turns even the smallest sets into whimsical playgrounds, and there’s a Halloween party that is absolutely to die for. The lights, the costumes (thank you, Matthew Simonelli!), the vibes—it’s a rom-com dream come true. And let’s not forget the soundtrack. It’s a mix of classic love songs and original music that just wraps you up in the feels.

As the movie heads toward its grand finale, things get surprisingly intense—think Black Swan, but with more monster claws and romantic swooning. It’s one of those films that doesn’t shy away from its horror roots, but still manages to keep everything feeling light and fun. The final act is a bold mix of heart and humor, with just enough blood to keep it exciting.

At its core, Your Monster is a love letter to anyone who’s felt lost, brokenhearted, or like their life is falling apart. It’s about finding the strength to move forward, even if you need a little push from the monster living in your closet. And honestly? That’s what makes this movie so special. It’s not just cute—it’s got layers, and it knows how to tug on your heartstrings while making you laugh and squeal in delight.

Bottom line: If you’re looking for a rom-com that’s equal parts charming, hilarious, and a little spooky, Your Monster is your new obsession. Get ready to fall in love with monsters, messy lives, and the magical, chaotic beauty of it all.

Grade: A

Chasing The Gold: Interview with Josh Margolin, Writer/Director of ‘Thelma’

When I wrote my original Chasing the Gold piece about why June Squibb should be nominated for Best Actress at the Oscars, I did it for the love of the performance and the film. That piece has been an absolute blessing, as it has now led to two career highlights. First, I was given the chance to speak with the incomparable June Squibb about her work in Thelma. The second is what follows, which is my interview with the terrific writer/director of Thelma, Josh Margolin. 

We discuss writing, filmmaking and what it is like to write using people you know and love as the basis for characters. It was a very fun conversation. Also, after all this, if you’re not yet convinced about the film’s excellence, check out InSession’s most prolific festival correspondent Alex Papaioannou‘s review of Thelma from back in January when he saw it at Sundance. Enjoy the interview!

Interview: Josh Margolin on honouring his grandmother in action love letter  Thelma and the stunt work of June Squibb - The AU Review

Zach Youngs: What was the film that made you want to pursue filmmaking?

Josh Margolin: Oh, man. That’s a great question. It’s funny because it’s hard to remember an exact moment when it all clicked for me. In some ways, it’s hard to remember a time before I didn’t think I wanted to do this. I’ll say one moviegoing experience that really stuck with me— or that I still  think about sometimes because it felt really seminal— was going to see Minority Report in theaters. The [film is a] mixture of ideas, visual mastery, and excitement. I just couldn’t stop thinking about it. There’s something about it that just cracked something open for me.

ZY: Where do you start when you’re writing a script?

JM: I usually start from an idea or a nugget of a story that I can’t get out of my head. I keep thinking about it, dreaming about it, and getting excited about picturing it. Usually, I just start writing down things I want to see or sequences that are coming into my head and feeling vivid and interesting to me. Sometimes that’s happening simultaneously with the concept itself feeling crystalized. I can say with [Thelma], it was really about starting from this nugget of an idea based on something that happened in real life and getting excited about starting to explore the different ideas [this nugget] was bringing up in me through this particular lens, which for this movie was a lo-fi action thriller. I also wanted to explore the trials and tribulations of aging, anxiety, family, and all those things, as well as celebrating my grandma’s spirit, tenacity, and grit.

ZY: What was the real event that inspired Thelma?

JM: My grandma, Thelma, she got a call from someone pretending to be me saying I was in jail, in an accident with a woman, I needed to be bailed out, [and] she needed to send money. She’d gotten calls like this in the past, but for some reason, wrong day, wrong moment, she was caught off guard enough that she totally bought into it and panicked. [My family] couldn’t reach me, so they panicked. Luckily, in real life, they called my girlfriend, who was able to say, “He’s here. He’s asleep.” Everything was fine, and we were able to intervene before she sent the money, but it came down to the wire. Seeing [my grandma] get duped in this way as she was living alone for the first time in her 90s also started to signal this new era for her and pricked up some of my fears about this new era she was entering. I think the swirl of anxieties I was swimming in at the time, paired with that incident, is where Thelma was born.

ZY: Since Thelma is based on your grandma, are the other characters in the film also based on family members?

JM: A lot is drawn from real people, but I would say a lot is also exaggerated. Particularly with the parents. They probably have the narrowest portrayal because they sort of have to be the de facto antagonists of the movie, aside from perhaps the real antagonist. They are the forces of doubt heading in both Daniel [Fred Hechinger] and Thelma’s [June Squibb] direction. With all of those characters, Thelma and beyond, I tried to take as much DNA from real life as possible and then funnel it into what was serving the movie. I always wanted to write it so it felt true and resonant with the feelings of the people I know, but also, certain things needed to be crystalized or simplified or focused for the needs of the story.

ZY: When your family saw the movie, did they see themselves?

JM: I was nervous at first. [But] I think they got a kick out of it. Especially because my parents [saw] Clark [Gregg]  and Parker [Posey] play versions of them in the movie. There was also enough distance of, “O.K., right. I’m not looking in a mirror as much as I’m looking at things I recognize in myself.” I was pleasantly surprised and relieved that everybody was very game and excited about it. I was definitely stressed out about it.

ZY: After you finished the script, what was the process like for getting the film made?

JM: It was a very homegrown process. I brought the script into a writer’s group that my producer Zoë [Worth] hosts along with Chris Kaye, my other producer. [The group is made up of] my partner in life and often in work Chloe Searcy, and a couple of our pals. That was kind of the first stop after I had a full draft of it. They were all really encouraging. I ended up teaming with Zoë and Chris to produce the movie because they had been looking to make an indie. In some ways it was super surreal to see it build piece by piece and then suddenly be in production in the Fall of 2022, which was a very short window compared to some gestation times for movies. I think some of the actors connecting to it in the early days and jumping on board really helped create the snowball that eventually picked up enough pieces to gain that momentum that put it on its feet. Obviously, you have to adapt to different things, and there are realities around that, but I think by being pretty bullish about it and having the benefit of being like, “Well, this may never happen,” – we were able to just keep charging ahead. Our first day was in my grandma’s actual condo, and that was a very surreal feeling to start this process in the real location where I spent my whole childhood with her, so it was very full circle in a way.

ZY: Were you very protective of that environment? How much did production end up changing?

JM: I had a great production designer, Brielle Hubert, who did an awesome job with the movie. So much of [the set] was there because my grandma had accumulated a lifetime of things. It’s hard to fake that, especially on a low-budget [movie]. So having the real space was something [Brielle] and my director of photography David [Bolen] were excited about. Brielle ended up shaping certain environments in subtle ways. There weren’t any huge redos. She would make sure everything felt correct to the character in the movie and that nothing was pulling us out of that reality. That place had such strong bones, so it didn’t change in any fundamental ways, and I felt that when they did want to make adjustments, it felt right.

ZY: Did you always want to direct Thelma yourself?

JM: I did always want to direct the film. That was another piece of why it felt great to go into it with pals who saw it similarly. I think I started off wanting to be a director of some kind and I pivoted a little more toward performance and then I kind of swung back. I did feel really strongly that I wrote [Thelma] because I wanted to make something. I wrote this because this felt like a story I really wanted to tell. I think at no point did it feel like one that I wanted to write and then pass off because it’s such a personal story for me and one that I felt that I had a lot of stake in. I felt very protective of the tone of the movie. I wanted to make sure it all felt of a piece.

ZY: How do you feel about awards buzz around the film?

JM: Honestly, it’s been hard to wrap my head around. It’s been very cool and very humbling. I’m just amazed that so many people have connected with it in the way that they have. I was talking to my producers and saying, “So far everything past getting this movie out has felt like gravy.” Everything past getting into Sundance has felt like gravy. It’s been amazing that people have continued to see it and it has made its way out into theaters. The fact that it’s even in any of these conversations just feels very surreal to me and very humbling. It was such a bootstraps indie that we were making in my grandma’s condo and now it’s in this conversation in any capacity that feels really wild to me.

ZY: What’s next for you? Has Marvel called you yet?

JM: [Laughs]! My plan A is trying to write another original movie that I hope can feel fun and personal but cinematic and theatrical in its own right. Transitioning from the release of the movie to going back into “writing brain” has been really fun. 

ZY: It was really nice talking to you, Josh.

JM: Yeah, great talking to you, thanks for taking the time. 

Women InSession: Alien, Aliens & Body Horror

This week on Women InSession, in the spirit of spooky season, we discuss ALIEN, ALIENS and some of our favorite body horror films! There have been some great body horror movies in recent years, but it’s a genre that has been prominent over the decades, and we had a lot of fun going through the ones we like the most.

Panel: Kristin Battestella, Jaylan Salah

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!

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
Women InSession – Episode 106

Chasing the Gold: Festivalpalooza

This week on Chasing the Gold, Shadan and Erica are joined by ISF writer Hector A. Gonzalez, who’s seen 115 movies during all of the festivals this year! So we talk about his experiences and what films he thinks will be the biggest players this awards season.

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!

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
Chasing the Gold – Festivalpalooza

Podcast Review: Piece by Piece

On this episode, JD and Brendan discuss the Morgan Neville documentary about Pharrell Williams Piece by Piece! While using LEGO animation is a unique way to tell this story, there’s sadly a lot to the film that leaves plenty to be desired.

Review: Piece by Piece (4:00)
Director: Morgan Neville
Stars: Pharrell Williams

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
InSession Film Podcast – Piece by Piece

Movie Review: ‘Freydis and Gudrid’ Explores the Soul Musically


Director: Jeffrey Leiser
Writer: Jeffrey Leiser
Stars: Micaëla Oeste, Kirsten Chambers, Bray Wilkins

Synopsis: A group of merchants and vikings navigate dramatic events both within and without in this epic musical based on the Icelandic Vinland sagas. As secrets are exposed, two women have a reckoning.


My relationship with opera, like many Egyptians, started with Aïda, Giuseppe Verdi’s tragic masterpiece set in the Old Kingdom of Egypt, which premiered in my homeland in December 1871. This hasn’t necessarily made me an opera expert, but despite the language barrier, this seductive, complicated art form has stayed with me as a companion and turned me into a different kind of person who appreciates musicals and musical theater.

Film, on the other hand, is a creative medium that can be stretched to its extremities to create a difference—something similar to operatic cinema. Beautiful Icelandic landscapes intertwine with theatrical singing, actors lining up and facing the camera. It all feels like fourth wall-breaking but alienating from an average film viewing experience.

Freydís and Gudrid: An Original Viking Opera Hits High Notes in Drama and  Romance — Original Cin

In his Norse operatic film adaptation, Freydís and Gudrid, director Jeffrey Leiser defies the macho Viking lore, by giving the voice and the presence to his two female protagonists; Freydís mourns the death of her brother and takes on a journey with the pregnant Gudrid and her husband Karlsefni to retrieve the brother’s corpse and bring it back to Greenland and avenge his death. On the voyage, Freydís and Gudrid have a reckoning. Their relationship starts antagonistic, with rivalry over past wounds. But the shared hardships and the burden of war weigh down on both of them, so they find a moment of peace after years of unnecessary grudges.

Sam Kreuger’s cinematography works well within constraints and budgetary limitations. Despite most of the scenes taking place in front of a green screen, he manages to perfectly capture the essence of ancient Icelandic folklore through a careful black-and-white backdrop of the events.

A film like this commands a niche audience. Freydís and Gudrid is not the average movie-watching experience, for it defies what comprises a traditional musical film setting, with hits and misses throughout, making it difficult to fully connect with it. It demands attention and a profound love for opera, albeit too much for its own good. The curiosity for the Vikings’ lore is interwoven with Lesier’s talent in composing and orchestrating the film’s songs and music. His passion for writing music and big-scale musicals shows in the careful crafting of the film as a long opera from start to finish. Not once does he slip or lose command of his tools.

One of the most interesting elements of this film is how different Freydís and Gudrid are from one another. The two titular film characters are played beautifully by professional opera singers (Micaëla Oeste) and (Kirsten Chambers), respectively. Leiser showcases the differences between their characters, while Freydís is bloodthirsty and hell-bent on revenge, always seeking the next fight, Gudrid is motherly, nurturing, and kind.

Freydís and Gudrid (2024) Movie Review: Ambitious Operatic treatment of the  Vinland Saga is frustratingly hollow - High On Films

This feature may not be what many would call “their cup of tea,” but in a world where modern audiences are tired of seeking the mundane, one remake, sequel, and prequel after the other; originality must be praised and admired for choosing the courageous act of showing a brand new cinematic language. It may have benefited from a bigger budget and been more fitting for the big screen, but it serves its purpose, which is not to distract from the characters singing the story.

Admittedly, this film may have worked as an opera on stage with more satisfaction, but Leiser’s decision to bring it to a wider audience to watch it on the big screen is the perfect way of demystifying art. It’s not the History Channel series, nor Robert Eggers’ epic, The Northman. It has nothing to do with how Marvel explores the Norse lore, but it works for the uniqueness factor, the dazzling songs, and two great female singing performances. Freydís and Gudrid is an exploration of the soul, an enchanting parting of the traditional into the unknown.

Grade: B+

Movie Review: ‘Smile 2’ Easily Outpaces the Original


Director: Parker Finn
Writer: Parker Finn
Stars: Naomi Scott, Kyle Gallner, Drew Barrymore

Synopsis: About to embark on a world tour, global pop sensation Skye Riley begins experiencing increasingly terrifying and inexplicable events. Overwhelmed by the escalating horrors and the pressures of fame, Skye is forced to face her past.


Six days have passed since Rose Cotter self-immolated in front of her policeman ex-boyfriend Joel (Kyle Gallner) passing the parasitic monstrosity to him. Joel has made the decision to save himself by murdering someone else in front of a witness. A couple of syndicate connected drug dealers who killed an innocent mother and child are his targets. Desperate and sleep deprived, Joel’s planning skills aren’t finely honed. He manages to kill one of the dealers, but a shoot-out ensues, and his planned witness dies leaving an accidental witness. Although free of the parasite he still meets a grisly end as he flees other members of the syndicate. Crushed by a passing truck, Joel’s body and blood leave a ghastly bloody slick on the New Jersey road shaped like a pulpy red smile.

I'm Really Pleased With How It Came Out:' Smile 2 Director Explains The  Movies Brutal Opening Scene

Parker Finn’s sequel to his 2022 debut horror feature Smile begins with a remorselessly bleak tone. The muted colors of a New Jersey drug den are replaced by a gothic-pop film clip showing the dark tressed superstar Skye Riley (Naomi Scott) singing her hit single ‘Grieved You.’ Skye, now with short blonde hair, is on the Drew Barrymore show discussing her comeback ‘Too Much for One Heart’ tour. Skye has been out of the public eye after being hospitalized due to a car crash that claimed the life of her actor boyfriend Paul Horton (Ray Nicholson). Both were intoxicated and Skye is promising her fans she is now sober, her days of cocaine and alcohol bingeing behind her. “I’m a different person.”

Media scrutiny hasn’t gone away, nor has her massive fandom. Skye’s ushered out of the studio by her ‘stage-mother’ Elizabeth (Rosemarie DeWitt) and Elizabeth/Skye’s personal assistant, Joshua (Miles Gutierrez-Riley). Elizabeth is checking Skye’s approval on social media and Joshua is doing what he can to keep both women happy. Skye puts in her earbuds to block them both out and the scene transitions to her rehearsing choreography with backup dancers for the tour. She’s the center of attention and a ragdoll. The routine is intensely physical, and Skye is still suffering from the multiple physical injuries (back surgery, internal surgery, and a knee surgery with a scar that mimics a grin) and the mental trauma from the accident. With her history of addiction, she isn’t allowed any painkillers. She texts Lewis Fregoli (Lukas Gage) a high school friend and drug dealer for some Vicodin.

Lewis was the accidental witness in New Jersey. When Skye arrives at his apartment, he is paranoid, confused, and places a sword at her throat. In Skye’s eyes he’s in the middle of a psychotic episode. He’s also snorting massive amounts of cocaine. He tries to tell her about the weird spooky shit that has been going on – the thing that follows him around smiling. He takes a weight and smashes his own face in after smiling at her. Skye is the new host.

Parker Finn’s choice of a much larger canvas for his ‘viral possession’ horror pays off. In placing the parasite inside someone who is constantly followed by fans, the media, potential stalkers, and who must remain secretive about her issues because of the millions of dollars being invested in her tour; Finn points at media virality itself. Skye’s very public substance abuse issues before the accident mean that she’s already considered someone who can relapse at any moment. Elizabeth ‘handles’ her daughter rather than listening to her. 

Skye’s expensive New York apartment in a suitably faux-gothic building is a prison. Her bedroom is dark with Edvard Munch’s ‘The Vampire’ on the wall next to tasteful bondage photography and Maria van Oosterwijk’s dark Dutch floral still life hangs over her bed as oversized wallpaper. Skye’s reputation as a tortured pop poet comes from a ‘darkness’ inside her. She has unattended mental health issues, including trichotillomania as an anxiety response. Her brand is ‘damaged, but sexy’ – a trope used often in pop culture for women.

The only person Skye feels she can turn to is her childhood best friend, Gemma (Dylan Gelula) who she alienated during her addiction phase. Gemma’s immediate acceptance of her honest apology seems like a positive step, especially as Gemma listens to Skye’s story about Lewis and the strange things she’s been experiencing. Gemma offers some comfort including staying with her overnight. But Skye’s reality is warping, infected by the parasite and the sense that she is indeed the narcissistic diva and toxic human that she suspects she has been since the ‘fame monster’ took over her life.

Smile 2' Review: Naomi Scott in Parker Finn's Horror Sequel

Smile 2 is an incredibly slick production. Parker Finn and cinematographer Charlie Sarroff up the ante from the first film by using extended takes and dizzying angles, and Cristobal Tapia de Veer’s score is a sophisticated sonic nightmare. Unlike M. Night Shyamalan’s recent ‘concert’ film conceit in Trap, the production feels like it’s a full scale multi-million-dollar tour being staged. Naomi Scott, who is in every scene after the opening, is a genuinely talented singer/dancer and actor. Lady Raven (Saleka Night Shyamalan) wasn’t convincing as a pop star who would have legions of devoted fans, whereas Naomi Scott’s Skye Riley is the real deal as an edgy pop princess fans could, and would, become parasocial with.

A tattoo behind Skye’s ear is of an angel/devil whispering into it. Parker Finn set the rules in the first film that the monstrosity liked wearing the skin of people whose minds were already compromised. People fighting internal demons such as guilt, childhood trauma, and grief. Skye has been fighting for control of her life since she became famous. Whether Elizabeth is a caring mother or a woman looking for payment on the investment of her time and work acting as her daughter’s manager is up for interpretation. Unlike Smile where Sosie Bacon’s Rose had some form of support network that gave the audience a sense of how the parasite was playing with her mind, Smile 2 launches into the effect on Skye being almost immediate. Skye can’t admit to the authorities that she was at Lewis’ drug strewn apartment. She can’t tell Elizabeth. She can’t tell the harmless and hapless Joshua. Music gave her everything she thought she wanted, and it ruined her life.

Parker Finn uses an excellent combination of practical and digital effects. Although some of the scenes come from the body horror 101 playbook – there is a lot of viscera- he combines them well with the glitter and glamour of the ‘perfect package’ that famous people are supposed to project. Skye already feels monstrous because of her scars and the entire tour is about her emerging from a cocoon as a beautiful butterfly (there are some inevitable Cronenberg homages – the cocoon is a chamber reminiscent of The Fly).

One of the more disturbing scenes features Skye hallucinating an obsessed fan getting into her apartment and stripping naked with his stained underwear on the polished black tiles leading to her bathroom. Another is when her backup dancers attack her waiting for her to move before they get closer. 

Smile 2 is a pitiless experience. Expect the requisite jump scares and being uncertain which parts of the movie are inside Skye’s infected mind and which are real. Skye already exists in a state of ‘unreality’ before she becomes a host: whether that be her depression, addiction issues, the pressures to deliver for the tour, or her inability to go anywhere without being recognized and asked to ‘perform’ humility, gratitude, and grace. 

Smile 2 easily outpaces its predecessor. It isn’t only the increased budget and scope that makes the film more enthralling, it’s the idea that ‘Skye Riley’ is already a skin Skye is wearing and she’s hemmed in by parasitic attention. The old Skye, the new Skye, the infected Skye – none of them have control. Smile 2 is a cruel beast waiting to go viral.

Grade: B

Podcast Review: Saturday Night

On this episode, JD and Brendan are joined by the great Bryan Sudfield to discuss Jason Reitman’s new film Saturday Night! His resume hasn’t been great the last decade or so, but Reitman brings the goods this time with a frenetic, chaotic look at the first episode of Saturday Night Live.

Review: Saturday Night (4:00)
Director: Jason Reitman
Writer: Jason Reitman, Gil Kenan
Stars: Gabriel LaBelle, Rachel Sennott, Cory Michael Smith, Dylan O’Brien

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
InSession Film Podcast – Saturday Night

Episode 606: Top 10 Horror Films

This week’s episode is brought to you by Twisters. Follow us on social media for your chance to win a FREE digital code!

This week on the InSession Film Podcast, inspired by Variety’s horror rankings last week, we discuss our Top 10 horror films of all-time! We also talk about the discourse around that article and Joker: Folie à Deux’s continued downfall at the box office.

– Opening / Box Office (8:23)
We open the show this week by briefly talking about football and JD’s fun weekend with his Lions beating the Cowboys. However, we quickly turn our attention to our weekly segment “Is the Parade On or Off?” with more discussion about the box office. We specifically get more into Joker: Folie à Deux‘s historical downfall and its 81% drop. We also talk about Terrifier 3‘s win over the weekend and The Wild Robot‘s continued success.

– Variety Article Discourse (48:44)
Last week, Variety dropped their Top 100 horror films of all-time and it ended up sparking some fascinating discourse. Some of it, however, was truly mind-boggling. Specifically with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre at #1 (spoiler alert). There were people who could not for the life of them understand that decision. Which then provoked others to ardently defend the film and “how could there be any other film at #1?” The extremism was once gain wild, and so we had to talk about it.


RELATED: Listen to Episode 516 of the InSession Film Podcast where we discussed our Top 10 Movies of 2023!


– Top 10 Horror Films (1:10:29)
In the spirit of spooky season, and Variety’s article as inspiration, we decided to discuss our favorite horror films of all-time as well. We didn’t go too in-depth on each one for the sake of time, but we do reveal our Top 10. 

– Music
The Exorcist Theme – Robert Miles
Halloween – John Carpenter

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
InSession Film Podcast – Episode 606

Next week on the show:

Woman of the Hour

Help Support The InSession Film Podcast

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

VISIT OUR DONATE PAGE HERE

Interview (Femme Filmmakers Fest): Johanna and Jonathan Gustin of ‘Dicks That I Like’

At this year’s Femme Filmmakers Fest, Zita Short had the chance to speak with director Johanna Gustin and director of photography Jonathan Gustin about their short film Dicks That I Like (2024). 

Zita Short: What do you think the unique potential of short-form cinema is when compared to long-form feature films? 

Johanna Gustin: The typical process that a young filmmaker goes through when trying to break into the industry involves making one short and then several shorts and then a feature film. Leaving that aside, there is an accessibility to short-form productions that ensures that you can reach a wide audience. You put your video up online and everybody can watch it. I guess I didn’t make this film for everyone. I didn’t make it with a super broad audience in mind. You can make a short film with a very niche audience mind and avoid worrying about monetization. It’s always nice if you can monetize but you don’t have to. The bar for entry is very desirably low. 

Zita Short: What was the development process for this short film like?

Johanna Gustin: One of the joys of short documentaries is that the journey from first conception to shooting can be very, very short. I had been peripherally aware of Daniella, the subject of the documentary, for a little while, because she was notorious in Berlin expat circles for holding these workshops. I called her up and she told me that she was holding a couple of sessions soon and would be open to us shooting them. Everything went by so quickly after that. We ended up renting 200 dollars worth of lights. 

One of the things about shooting a documentary is that you have to be very open to the project completely changing once you get involved in the process. Initially I thought this documentary would be more focused around the workshops themselves, but I began to really connect with Daniella’s art and decided to incorporate more of her photography work into the short. I found her photographs so beautiful and I wanted to explore the female gaze on the male body. There were still a lot of the same interests in there but my focus shifted somewhat. 

Jonathan Gustin: There were multiple workshops that we shot so the film really came together in the edit. We had a lot of footage and we had to cut a lot of it down to get to the point where we are now. We kind of stitched everything together to come out with the finished product. 

Zita Short: With the increasing popularity of documentary films in the mainstream sphere, we see the line between scripted content and documentary filmmaking beginning to blur. Do you think this development is positive?

Johanna Gustin: I would love it if we saw more documentaries being financed. This is a very multifaceted question that requires a complicated answer. I think part of that is that YouTube and streaming have changed everything. Part of the problem is that television networks don’t want to finance anything anymore. Starting with the reality television shows of the 1990s, we saw this whole popular documentary renaissance emerge. A lot of that might look like fairly trivial content from the outside but I don’t really think you have to work that hard to go from something like “Teen Mom” to a more complex true crime documentary that asks thorny questions about ethics. I also think that there’s a path from consuming mainstream documentaries to consuming really weird, indie documentaries that are on Vimeo and YouTube. If you go down a weird YouTube algorithm, you have interesting documentary-based storytelling at your fingertips. 

Jonathan Gustin: As a documentary filmmaker I feel like the last few years have seen a lot of development in terms of experimentation with the documentary form. 

Johanna Gustin: I think that there’s a big concern about documentaries being authentic. There is this very postmodern concern with authenticity and we’ll see how that gets monetised by big studios. This has become a real point of difference for the documentary genre and I’ll be interested to see how it affects the industry. I am hopeful that it will create growth and allow people within the community to gain more opportunities. 

Zita Short: You’re based in the Berlin expat community at a time when the city is making an active effort to attract creative types and intellectuals. Do you think it’s important for governments to provide financial support for the arts?

Johanna Gustin: I think that funding is hugely important. We recently attended another short film festival and kept noticing how every second filmmaker was Canadian. One of the reasons for this over-representation was that the Canadian government provides significant funding for locally produced short films. We have moved back to the United States after being based in Berlin and we are concerned about the struggles that you have to go through in securing funding here. Berlin is not perfect and presents its own problems but the attitude that people have is completely different. When you are surrounded by other artists in a big city you have the confidence to go out and shoot a film in a guerrilla fashion. It’s just not possible to have major artist communities in big American cities anymore for a variety of complex financial reasons. We think that Berlin might end up going the same way as so many American cities and become unaffordable for the average young artist. We even arrived in Berlin too late to experience the heyday of Berlin. It might as well be Paris or New York City at this point. 

Jonathan Gustin: We are now based in the Bay Area so the rent is still high. 

Johanna Gustin: It’s not easy. 

Zita Short: The documentary engages with a lot of second-wave feminist theory about female solidarity and the power of collective action. Could you discuss how these workshops help women to achieve empowerment? 

Johanna Gustin: All of the workshops that we focused on featured a diverse set of women. They had all come to this place, to sculpt a dick, for different reasons. There is something therapeutic about the sessions but they also avoid being overly prescriptive. Everyone wants and needs something different. They get into some intense conversations about being a woman in the arts. They didn’t necessarily anticipate that being the case. None of them were uncomfortable or appeared to regret it. It was an empowering experience for all of them. 

Not that there aren’t things to criticize about second-wave feminism. I think this current wave that we are in is more intersectional and broad and group-focused. I think you see that in the documentary. Feminism is not just one thing. 

Jonathan Gustin: We were also really moved by the female-only workshops. There was just something different about them. A specific energy in the room. In the edit Johanna picked the all-female workshop. 

Johanna Gustin: I think it would have been a very different documentary if we had chosen footage from a different day. So much of modern-day feminism involves showing men all of the ways in which sexism is still present and pervasive. There was absolutely that tension present in the workshops that involved men. 

Zita Short: What inspired you to go into filmmaking?

Jonathan Gustin: I get bored very easily and filmmaking gives you the chance to constantly try new things. I always feel as though something exciting will occur on the next project and I just can’t imagine doing anything else. 

Johanna Gustin: I came to filmmaking later in life. Jonathan, as someone who grew up with German arts funding, had enough of a safety net to go into the entertainment industry from a young age. I kept trying to sideline my interests and go into something more practical. That’s a very American attitude. It wasn’t until I met Jonathan, who was already working in the industry, that I felt confident enough to follow my ambitions. I realized that the thing I thought I wasn’t very good at was something that I needed to pursue. It’s great that I was able to come at this with several decades of life experience behind me. 

Movie Review (NYFF 2024): ‘Blitz’ is a Frightening War Film All About Juxtaposition


Director: Steve McQueen
Writer: Steve McQueen
Stars: Saoirse Ronan, Harris Dickinson, Benjamin Clémentine

Synopsis: Follow the stories of a group of Londoners during the events of the British capital bombing in World War II.


Steve McQueen’s Blitz may only take place over two or three days, but it feels like a lifetime. That’s not meant as a dig towards the pacing of the film. Rather, it’s an observation about how the London Blitz is captured during McQueen’s latest feature. He opens the film full of panic and terror. There’s not a single moment for the audience to get settled in their seats. McQueen instead straps us into sheer horror after on-screen text delivers the context during which this film takes place: London in September of 1940. It’s a cinematic assault on the senses. McQueen and composer Hans Zimmer overwhelm our eyes and ears with a cacophony of screeching music, piercing sound, and thrashing visuals. The blazing building fire that’s roaring like a monster is only drowned out by the occasional dings of a metal-capped fire hose manically swinging all over the street from the sheer pressure of water being pushed out of it. All this time, bombs continue dropping from the heavens. It’s a hellscape that sees citizens desperately trying to seek shelter wherever is closest. When the shelters fill up, they turn to the underground tube stations. In this stunner of an introduction, McQueen’s film proclaims itself as a film that is unafraid to discomfort audiences immensely, while also providing the groundwork for a war film that’s far more complex and interesting than most of its contemporary counterparts. Yet even so, McQueen is a filmmaker that always finds a way to extract some purity out of the most heinous and upsetting of situations. That’s no different in Blitz, the Closing Night film of the 62nd New York Film Festival.

Blitz': Steve McQueen's WWII Film Is Almost Shockingly Conventional

This may be a story set over 80 years ago, but McQueen’s script imbues both a timeless and timely nature to the film. One of the first things we hear Rita (an excellent Saoirse Ronan) say to her son is to just “wait until this is over… then life will get back to normal.” It’s practically a direct address to audiences. There is something that has gone horribly wrong if people feel compelled enough to send their children aboard trains out of the city, never knowing if they’ll see one another again. And that’s the exact drama that grounds Blitz on a personal level. George (Elliott Heffernan, in one of the immediately all-time great debut child performances) is being evacuated from London by his mother, Rita. It’s an unimaginable situation for both of them, or one of the countless other families who made the same devastating choice. And this scene is one of many in which McQueen makes the chilling choice of pitting humanity versus technology. As the train pulls away and Rita desperately tries to get in a few more words with George, the screeching of the steam engine drowns out practically all audio completely. The bombs being dropped nightly achieve the same effect with equally frightening volume. This is a film that feels destined to take home a major award for sound design. Its brilliance extends beyond merely being loud and fear-inducing. It conveys the sense that what’s occurring in these circumstances is cosmically wrong. The scales of life itself are being tipped in such a way that it may be impossible to ever recover from. For all the ways in which Blitz could be seen as predictable, McQueen never takes the standard approach to how he goes about telling this story.

In fact, the structure of this film, and the way it depicts the people living in London at the time, is a choice that feels like only McQueen would think to make. There are many jaw-dropping moments littered throughout Blitz. One, in particular, may have caused more shock amongst the audience than any other film I’ve seen this year. And instead of holding on it, McQueen barely provides an opportunity to register it. It’s a stark depiction of the ways in which war desensitizes us to tragedy. There’s just so much noise in the air that stopping to reflect on any single tragedy would cause our entire world to collapse in on itself. McQueen frequently employs cutaways in this manner, and he also heavily utilizes flashbacks alongside this style to fascinating effect. After a particularly shocking scene, we’ll often witness a memory or dream George or Rita is having. These flashbacks are the warmest parts of Blitz. They look gorgeous, and more often than not, McQueen saves his flashiest filmmaking techniques for these sequences. But once again, this isn’t merely an instance of a filmmaker taking the simple approach of showing life before the Blitz. It’s McQueen showing us all that was lost, both the beautiful and the ugly, and questioning the stakes of humanity itself.

Blitz is a film full of, and about, juxtapositions. War obviously reveals the heinous nature of humanity. But in many of the flashbacks McQueen crafts, he also pairs the stolen joy and stolen life with acts of true ugliness. There are systemic prejudices aplenty and racist remarks tossed around often. During times of immense tragedy, we look to the past in the hopes of remembering what we’re moving forward for. But what happens when the past provides a different evil? One that’s as blatant as any, yet casually accepted throughout much of society? It’s a fascinating approach to grappling with the unwritten histories of London, which is something that Blitz does very often. Take the joy that emanates off the screen when Rita dances with George’s father. It’s a necessary break from the constant tragedy of the rest of the film, but only until McQueen highlights the racism present in the hearts of some individuals outside the walls of a nameless club. Or how, as hellfire is being rained down from the sky, those hiding in shelters will still reveal their xenophobia and racist ideologies. What should provide some comfort in moments of fear instead reveal harsh truths not just about the world we inhabit, but those who inhabit the world alongside us. It would almost serve as an indictment on humanity were it not for the flip side of the coin McQueen makes sure to include. While these portions of the film are, at times, rather blunt or cliché, they’re essential. And it’s something that can be easily forgiven when learning how McQueen pulled all these scenes directly from the research he conducted to ensure the historical accuracy of Blitz.

Trailer for Steve McQueen's 'Blitz' Stars Saoirse Ronan and Others

At its very core, Blitz is a film that demands better from the people around us and the world itself. McQueen’s direction is potent, featuring bone-chilling imagery or moments that will cause your heart to swell. He’s one of our very best filmmakers, and his latest is no different in showcasing his mastery at capturing a devastating tone. One only needs to look at the extended club sequence which occurs in the final act of the film. McQueen takes us from the horror of a bomb falling in mid-air directly to the extravagance of a club. With a single cut, McQueen forces our minds to race at the implications of what’s occurring. Through a brilliant one-take, McQueen extends this sequence as long as he can. The editor tries desperately to keep up with the exciting choreography happening both onstage and in the crowd. The diegetic music from the horn section of the band is getting louder and louder. The lead singer is bringing the crowd to their feet, and all feels right in the world after nearly 90 minutes of tragedy. Through this entire sequence, McQueen is trying to ease our worries and knowledge of what’s to come. Yet that is only possible for so long. Because the real truth of the matter is simple: reality cannot be ignored. In a chilling turn, McQueen rips us away from this sequence, revealing it as another quasi-flashback of sorts. We push forward in the face of such horror to get back to moments of joy such as this sequence. But we cannot simply go on with the normalcy of everyday life while such pain is still being spread. There is a necessity in seeking comfort in times of distress, but it cannot blind us to the truth that horrors are occurring throughout the world.

We all hope to have a source of comfort in our lives. For Rita, it’s George. And it’s never more apparent than in the beautiful ballad sequence McQueen crafted for Ronan. Delivering an original song co-written by McQueen, master composer Nicholas Brittell and songwriter Taura Stinson, Rita sings into the BBC microphone for all of London to hear. She’s also surrounded by a sea of women, all fellow co-workers in the factory making munitions for soldiers on the front-line. The song feels as if it could have been pulled directly from the time period, and projects a real sense of solace. This is immediately followed up by one of Rita’s colleagues rushing the microphone to demand the government open more shelters in the underground stations. Again, McQueen is providing juxtapositions at every turn. People want to be comforted in such distress, but they also want their worries to be heard. They want their fears and their frustration to be met with a genuine sense of care from the powers that be. They want to believe that the welfare of their individual lives matters above all else. There may be moments of peace throughout Blitz, but on the whole, it’s a film whose imagery often frightens with staggering impact. McQueen is crafting images in a war film that are rarely, if ever, seen on the big screen.

Blitz is the Opening Night film of the 62nd edition of New York Film Festival.

Grade: B

Movie Review (NYFF 2024): ‘On Becoming a Guinea Fowl’ Takes a Twisted Turn Through Trauma


Director: Rungano Nyoni
Writer: Rungano Nyoni
Stars: Susan Chardy, Elizabeth Chisela, Esther Singini

Synopsis: On an empty road in the middle of the night, Shula stumbles across the body of her uncle. As funeral proceedings begin around them, she and her cousins bring to light the buried secrets of their middle-class Zambian family.


The road is long, lonely, and dimly-lit; all the more reason for Shula (Susan Chardy) to jam out during her late-night drive home from a friend’s dress-up party. The theme is unclear; Shula’s outfit appears to be part Eyes Wide Shut, part blow-up sumo wrestler costume from Spirit Halloween. We only see the lower half of her garb once she’s gotten out of the car, having come to a slow stop in the middle of nowhere in order to confirm what she believes she’s seen on the side of the road: A familiar-looking dead body on the side of the road. Once she’s sure it is who she initially thought it was, she makes a call, not to the police, but to her father (Henry B.J. Phiri). ““Dad, it’s Shula,” she says in Bemba. “I’ve found Uncle Fred’s body on Kulu Road.” 

On Becoming a Guinea Fowl' Review: Rungano Nyoni's Mesmeric Return

Her lack of emotion – of any inflection, for that matter – is disarming and humorous in equal measure. How can Shula be so stoic given what she has just seen? There must be something we don’t know about Uncle Fred that is causing her to react this way, no? These questions, among many others of similarly ambiguous nature, may not be answered explicitly over the course of Rungano Nyoni’s On Becoming a Guinea Fowl, but it would be far from fair to say that any of them are left in the dust alongside Fred. Things in this dark, tragicomic familial drama are more complicated than the questions and answers one might find on an Ancestry.com quiz, as they stretch back generations, not merely to the moment Shula made what should have been a horrifying discovery.

Further proof that Shula’s response to Uncle Fred’s death is shared by others in her family comes in the form of her cousin Nsansa (Elizabeth Chisela), who drunkenly arrives to the scene by happenstance and can only laugh at the fact that her uncle’s body is lying just feet away from a brothel. Their states at the start of the film – Shula’s muted response, Nsansa’s cackling fit – immediately paint a not-so-vague picture that tells us something about their past with Uncle Fred. Did he hurt them in some way? Abuse, perhaps? The implications are evident yet not immediately spelled out, paving the way for what might culminate in an obvious reveal for some viewers, but a heartbreaking one nonetheless. 

Said revelations come later, long after Shula and Nsansa end up at Shula’s mother’s home for the funeral proceedings, a long process that sees the entire extended family gathering in one home to grieve together over a number of days. But the tone quickly turns from solemnity to haste once Fred’s 20-something widow joins the group, as not only has the family descended upon one setting to mourn, but to stake their claim to Uncle Fred’s estate. He’d done well for himself, and despite the typical way these things would go – the widow normally receives her husband’s assets and holdings – Fred’s siblings and cousins argue that she never cooked, cleaned, or cared for him properly; a series of maltreatments that led to his sudden passing. When Shula first encounters the young woman, she’s searching for a place to urinate outside; Shula’s mother refused to let her use the bathroom indoors due to how she “caused” Fred’s death. 

The anger for the loss of a beloved (and powerful) male figure in this family is primarily what propels On Becoming a Guinea Fowl forward, especially when juxtaposed with how Shula, Nsansa, and their younger cousin Bupe (Esther Singini) grapple with the traumatic impact their uncle had on their lives, even if they believed it to have been left in the past. By burying their uncle, they inadvertently dug up old wounds, and the way Nyoni renders the gutting moments when these three young women attempt to express their previously-concealed agonies to their mothers and aunts makes for some of the more haunting non-horror sequences captured on film this year. Just two features into a promising career, Nyoni has already leveled up as an architect of narrative tension from her previous picture, 2017’s I Am Not a Witch, a film that similarly examined the preservation of family and cultural ideals despite the truth, especially as revealed by the young members of the story’s principal unit. Much of that is a credit to Chardy’s startling lead performance, a debut for the Zambian-English actor that fuels Nyoni’s pressure-cooker with its reserved nature. 

That the director never gives in to the conventions of lesser narratives by having Shula arrive at a point where she unravels – or worse, returns to a Western home where she can pretend that the events of the previous days never unfolded as she returns to her apartment and/or cubicle – shows the confidence Nyoni has in the viewer’s investment. Admittedly, it’s not too difficult to latch onto the beats of a story like this, where the heroes and villains (for lack of more appropriate distinctions) are clearly identified. But it’s in her character’s complexities, expertly rendered and brought to pass during the family gathering, where Nyoni asserts the film’s intellect and understanding of what makes for a stirring, turbulent drama, especially one as culturally-specific as this.

Which brings us to the film’s title: Throughout the picture, Nyoni cuts from Shula and her family to clips from a television program called “Farm Club,” specifically an episode that looks at the guinea fowl, a “special and unusual” bird found in Africa. Like much of On Becoming a Guinea Fowl’s subtext, the animal’s role in its own environment, let alone its relationship to this particular story, is unspecified, but as more about Uncle Fred and the young women who survived his abuse becomes clear, we come to learn that the guinea fowl has a distinct way of ensuring that other animals in its surroundings are kept safe from predators. Is the metaphor rather on the nose? Perhaps, but only when verbalized as plainly as this. Nyoni, meanwhile, lets the idea of the guinea fowl simmer, the same approach she takes to Shula’s realization that breaking free from her culture’s traditions may be the only way to survive the chokehold they have on her family, until the two collide in an unforgettable finale that is as empowering as it is unsettling. Sometimes, self-preservation is the only proper method of survival. Otherwise, you don’t become a guinea fowl: You become one of the prevalent predators the bird was warning you about in the first place.

Grade: B+

Chasing the Gold (NYFF 2024): ‘Happyend’ Reveals The Difference Between Cold Surveillance & Warm Cinema

Stepping into Neo Sora’s Happyend, one might expect something much closer to a sci-fi film with a dystopian hook. And in many ways, the film, celebrating its U.S. premiere in the Main Slate of the 62nd New York Film Festival, is just that. Sora is grappling with the prospect of a near-future Japan where rapid climate change is stirring fear of a cataclysmic earthquake, peaceful protests are being dispersed with unnecessary violence in the streets, and those in charge (both wide-scale and within the mere confines of the school most of the film takes place in) are extending their powers far beyond the norm in the name of keeping the peace during extenuating circumstances. So, of course, like any great sci-fi hook, this “possible future” looks a lot more timely and relatable than many would like to admit. Still, I wouldn’t really call Happyend a sci-fi. It has occasional elements that may lean a bit into the genre, but this is a coming-of-age film set amidst the groundwork of a time period eerily reminiscent of our own. It’s clear that Sora’s biggest interests lie in how his small cast of characters react to the world around them. He even admitted that much of the interpersonal drama in the film was mined from certain personal experiences. Rather than look at Sora’s film to see how it balances these two halves (InSession Film’s Will Bjarnar already handled that), what was most essential to this column is how Sora melds the initial surveillance hook of Happyend with the emotional core of his characters. Through the inspired visuals of cinematographer Bill Kirstein, the raw emotions of these students are depicted in ways that are not only honest but human.

It wasn’t until about a third of the way through the film that Kirstein’s work began to click into place for me. Much of his initial work is rather subtle. It isn’t until Sora introduces the concept of the unsubtly titled Panopty that Kirstein’s intentionality reveals itself. The company is installing surveillance cameras around school. Meant to track and dole out demerits to unruly students, the several ideas floating around Happyend begin forming a complete picture when the campus grounds take on the form of a brash panopticon. In the most basic of terms, a panopticon is a form of control set on the idea that a group will never know whether or not they’re being watched. The hope is that, under the worry of even thinking they’re being constantly surveilled, groups are more likely to “behave.” The key difference in Happyend is that Sora crafts an idea where the students always know they’re being watched; their transgressions are broadcast on a giant screen for all to see. The fascinating element of Kirstein’s cinematography is how he’s able to manipulate the traditional look of surveillance cameras so directly.

There’s a very standard way to frame surveillance camera footage in a way that immediately translates to an audience. We’ve all seen it at one point or another, whether in film or reality. Often placed in corners, surveillance footage takes the form of a high, wide angle, capturing (hopefully) everything in a single space. One of the greatest examples of surveillance footage being used in recent memory is this sequence from Lynne Ramsay’s 2017 film, You Were Never Really Here. Surveillance footage is stationary, designed to capture something specific at a locked-in place. There’s a cold, methodical feeling to seeing footage from a security camera. And the same can be said for the footage shown in Happyend. Kirstein’s crystal-clear digital imagery is replaced by something slightly grainy. It feels intentionally less than by design. The students stare blankly into the Panopty cameras as rectangular grids with their student ID numbers hover around them. Any semblance of cinematic excitement is intentionally stripped away. These rich, varied characters who are captured with such fervor in their daily lives are stripped of their individuality. In the rest of the film, whether out clubbing, making DJ mixes in their private classroom, or hanging out amidst a disco ball and under warm lighting, Kirstein gives these characters such character in the way he films them! But when these hollow Panopty cameras come into play, there’s a clear push-and-pull in terms of the visuals of Happyend. It removes any sense of humanity, something Happyend grapples with both thematically and visually.

With each new look at the massive Panopty screen, one can’t help but think about the more emotionally potent sequences of Happyend. As written earlier, Sora’s film very much plays out as a coming-of-age film. Specifically, it’s a film about being forced to grow up in a world that would much rather you remain comfortable in your pre-formed status quo. It’s about sometimes growing apart from lifelong friends. So with that, there’s obviously a lot of emotion running through these high school students. And that will always lead to arguments and emotional revelations. But rather than capture these arguments and painful discussions head-on, Kirstein takes a bold approach to hiding them. Within the visual language of Happyend, it certainly pays off.

The juxtaposition between the themes of the film and its visuals certainly won’t be lost on the audience. In a film so centered around every part of us being made public, Kirstein literally shies away from catching the heat of its more intense sequences. He instead chooses to capture them in a myriad of interesting, often gorgeous, ways. The two lead characters, Kou (Yukito Hidaka) and Yuta (Hayato Kurihara), argue shortly after Panopty is installed in their school. The rest of their friends are on a balcony overlooking the two. Just as the argument gets heated, the group gets startled and drops a lightbulb attached to a long wire. The wire goes taut, and as the bulb begins swinging back and forth, Sora cuts. We then see the image Kirstein captured to reflect this particular argument: It’s merely their oversized shadows reflected onto the blank wall. The scene, completely silent, takes on a striking quality. It’s the first time we have really felt the tension that has been growing between Kou and Yuta. Chances are, it’s also the first time either one of them is really acknowledging it. Sora described finding himself in the heat of an argument sometimes, unsure of how he got there in the first place. This image succinctly captures such a strange feeling. It’s the instant realization that, internally, things are shifting, and they can no longer be kept silent. It’s a moment when these feelings become larger than us; instead of being something we silently contemplate when alone, they’re projected onto a wall for all to see. Something like this also occurs in the several sequences where Sora decides to add a layer of levity to the film. Kirstein captures a handful of conversations in really wide shots. Both parties are in the frame, and the camera doesn’t move, zoom, or shift at all. It merely exists, and it’s too far to hear anything. The rest of the group comically provides their own commentary as we lean forward and hope to pick up kernels of information. Through this, we see a human approach to surveillance. The Panopty cameras in the film may literally capture everything they see. But technology could never fill in the blanks with as much character as we see showcased by friends.

No matter how many cameras are put up in this school, they can never capture the intricacies of how this group of friends feel. It will never allow us, or anybody else, to view the surveillance footage in the minds and feelings of a developing crush. A rising resentment. A social and political curiosity. Kirstein’s camera often peeks around corners or peers through slats in a windowpane. We see everything from tender embraces to nervous interactions and confused emotions. These purely human moments are mostly captured through barriers. But they aim to show us more than any surveillance camera could hope to capture with its cold, unflinching lens: the intricacies and the pains of growing up. Through his cinematography, Kirstein captures the unseeable. In a world that has been designed to leave no individual with any secret for themselves, Kirstein provides these characters the solace of solitude while also allowing us to gaze from afar. As an audience, we, too, are surveilling these characters. But it’s out of a warm curiosity rather than a cold grasp for dominance. No matter how much surveillance is present in the world of Happyend, or our own world, those cameras will never be able to capture the true intricacies of our internal moments. Only through the beautiful power of cinema can cameras reveal the wondrous, frightening, and complex potential of human emotion. And how Sora and Kirstein go about revealing such a fundamental truth about capturing imagery is as exciting as can be.

Happyend is celebrating its U.S. premiere in the Main Slate of the 62nd New York Film Festival.

Movie Review (NYFF 2024): ‘Queer’ is a Surreal Mix of Romance and Loneliness


Director: Luca Guadagnino
Writers William S. Burroughs, Justin Kuritzkes
Stars: Daniel Craig, Lesley Manville, Drew Starkey

Synopsis: Lee, who recounts his life in Mexico City among American expatriate college students and bar owners surviving on part-time jobs and GI Bill benefits. He is driven to pursue a young man named Allerton, who is based on Adelbert Lewis Marker.


Earlier this year, Luca Guadagnino gave audiences what will likely be the most popular film of 2024, Challengers. Since then, he’s had many eyes on his next move. So it was quite exciting to hear that he was striking while the iron was still glowing hot. But Guadagnino is not a filmmaker to simply retread familiar ground. There are, of course, thematic links between many of his films. His latest, Queer, which is celebrating its U.S Premiere as the Spotlight Gala film of the 62nd New York Film Festival, is no exception. But Guadagnino is a filmmaker who has been known to take bold departures in style for the sake of keeping audiences on their toes. After all, this is the man who followed up the gorgeous Call Me By Your Name with Suspiria, one of the most disturbing films of the decade. It also happens to be one of the best of that decade; certainly one of the best films of 2018. The point is, Guadagnino is a filmmaker who doesn’t seem to enjoy taking the easy road. And it often pays off. So it’s with great pleasure that I tell you Queer, based on William S. Burroughs’ novel of the same name, is wildly inaccessible when compared to Challengers. This is meant as wholly complimentary. For as it currently stands, Queer is one of the best films of 2024.

Queer Reviews - Metacritic

Reuniting with Challengers writer Justin Kuritzkes, the glamor of a tennis-obsessed love triangle may be gone, but the inherent messiness of desire and obsession is still very much present in Queer. It can all be seen in the introduction of William Lee (Daniel Craig, who turns in an astounding, all-in performance). Lee roams the streets of Mexico City in the 1950s. In many ways, Guadagnino practically frames the opening of this introductory chapter as a ghost story. It’s something that the film will repeatedly return to through its striking, surreal visuals; but more on that to come. For now, all the audience can gather is Lee’s fundamental loneliness. He‘s searching for something. Companionship feels the most likely. But if he cannot establish a legitimate connection with one of the many individuals he thrusts himself upon, then a nighttime embrace will have to do. Craig’s eyes reveal the emptiness within him these actions bring forth, but it appears giving into the vice of his heart and carnal pleasures is better than the heroin he’s addicted to. Leave it to Guadagnino to take the deep romance he excels at capturing, and warping it into a painfully raw experience. But he also doesn’t make his lead character as cut-and-dry as it would appear.

Yes, Lee resembles something of a drifter stuck in place. He’s an expatriate, having not been on his home soil for quite some time. But the way he confidently struts around via expertly soundtracked montages, you couldn’t tell that he might be homesick, lovesick, or more likely, a devastating combination of both. As Guadagnino reveals more about Lee, we begin to see that it’s all somewhat for show. It’s upon meeting Eugene Allerton (Drew Starkey) that Guadagnino goes about addressing the facade Lee puts on with striking fashion. It could be argued that much of Guadagnino’s filmmaking never calls attention to itself. In many of his films, he lets the image or the performances speak for themselves. But in Queer, which I’d argue is his most densely layered film, he piles on metaphors and cinematic trickery to leave his audience scrambling for meaning. But these sequences are deeply exciting, perhaps none more so than Guadagnino’s initial usage of scrambled A/V imagery to elicit a sense of feeling disconnected. These surreal images that manifest ideas of an apparition are also incredibly tactile to convey meaning to the audience. It’s worthy of gasps, not just because of the emotions at play. It remains a testament to Guadagnino constantly upending audience expectations at every possible turn.

All we’ve seen of Lee begins to strip away as he and Eugene spend more time with one another. But this isn’t strictly a romance captured by Guadagnino. It’s far more compelling. Starkey turns in such an internalized performance. He can switch from hot to cold on Lee at a moments notice. Much of Queer grapples with self-identity, and how we’re perceived by the people around us. It’s clear that this is a defining factor in the decisions Lee makes. When Lee isn’t being tormented by his obsession with Eugene’s approval and affection, the two radiate genuine attraction and chemistry. And of course, it looks gorgeous. Queer captures the beauty of basking in golden rays of sunshine while sitting undisturbed, reading side-by-side. Yet there’s a palpable distraction emanating from the body of the person beside you. It’s so romantic, and yet, Guadagnino occasionally steps in to remind us of the darker side of feeling like we must put all of ourselves into the body of another.

The second half of this film descends into territory that’s completely surreal at times. But Guadagnino begins planting the seeds very early on. There’s one sequence in particular; a nightmare Lee is having, which cracks open the infatuation we’ve seen into something far more depressing and upsetting. As written earlier, Lee is a haunted man. He’s been hurt, and while he may not be entirely innocent, he carries his pain with him in the form of frightening, visceral visions of past experiences blending together in a cramped, dark alleyway. It’s clear that, despite abandoning his home country, he has been unable to run away from what drove him out in the first place. As such, Lee is a man lost not only in place, but within himself. During an extended sequence (beautifully soundtracked to Prince) which draws out the arduous process of his shooting up heroin, Lee appears with head just out of frame. It’s only when the drugs have entered his blood that the camera pans up, revealing not a man on a mission, but a sad, lonely, contemplative individual whose only true company has been cigarette smoke, alcohol, and the drugs laid out on a table in front of him. It’s rather devastating, and Craig’s face is one any viewer could find themselves lost in. It’s over the next two chapters and a stunning epilogue that Lee and Guadagnino’s statement on obsession and yearning begins to form a complete and tragic picture, but it all begins to culminate in this moment.

Queer review – Daniel Craig is needy, horny and mesmeric in Guadagnino's  erotic drama | Venice film festival 2024 | The Guardian

In a sequence fueled by ayahuasca that inextricably links this film to Suspiria more than anything else in his filmography, Guadagnino seems to posit the idea that no matter how much we want to give our all to another individual, it’s impossible. We can feel an unquantifiably powerful connection, but that may be as far as something can go. And much like the arc of the second chapter of this film, we need to recognize such a fact before it’s too late. We can miss what we’ve been searching for all along if we’re too obsessed with something unattainable. And again, Lee is left with a clear sense of longing as the soul-crushing theme from composers Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross rings out. Guadagnino obviously knows how to make a film as romantic as can be. But at its most brilliant, Queer posits the notion that that can sometimes inevitably lead to a life of devastating loneliness. A life of being lost among familiarity, never feeling completely comfortable. Is this familiarity enough to bring solace? Or does it merely exist to remind us of the deeper pains we once felt? We may try to force the obsession out of our minds, but doing so could also tragically cast us away to a life of feeling hollow. If all we seek is comfort amidst the chaos, perhaps being trapped in a prison of our own emotional making is better than living a life of meaningless relations and heavy drug usage? Queer doesn’t go so far as providing those answers, but rather, leaves us with an appropriate sense of devastation. Guadagnino never takes the easy route when making his films, and the characters he becomes attached to rarely have simple decisions to make either. But that’s what makes this film, and all his other films, some of the most compelling of their time. May he continue to never provide the answers to life we seek, and may he always find new ways to ravage our emotional states with each new release.


Queer celebrated its U.S Premiere as the Spotlight Gala film of the 62nd New York Film Festival.

Grade: A-

NYFF Capsule Documentary Reviews: ‘DIRECT ACTION, ‘exergue – on documenta 14,’ ‘My Undesirable Friends: Part I — Last Air in Moscow,’ ‘Youth (Hard Times),’ and ‘Youth (Homecoming)’

While the most-discussed title of significant length at this year’s 62nd edition of the New York Film Festival is almost certainly Brady Corbet’s three-and-a-half-hour historical epic, The Brutalist, the longest films in the program remain documentaries. That is, it’s hardly the first time that the programming team behind every New Yorker’s favorite annual period of cinematic discovery has populated its three new-release sections – Main Slate, Spotlight, and Currents; Revivals, obviously, is made up of remastered and/or restored works from the past – with documentaries running multiple hours. At last year’s fest, the first installment in Wang Bing’s Youth trilogy, subtitled Spring, was a Main Slate selection that ran 215 minutes. In that edition’s Spotlight section were Frederick Wiseman’s Menus-Plaisirs Les Troisgros, a four-hour vérité tour of a three-star Michelin restaurant in central France, and Steve McQueen’s Occupied City, a magnificent four-and-a-half-hour film that examined the horrifying realities Nazi-occupied Amsterdam during World War II. Other recent selections include Wiseman’s City Hall (NYFF58, 272 minutes), Lynn Novack’s College Behind Bars (NYFF57, 222 minutes), Charles Ferguson’s Watergate (NYFF56, 260 minutes), and Wiseman’s At Berkeley (NYFF51, 244 minutes). Okay, so not only do they like expansive non-fiction, but they have a soft spot for the genre’s foremost nonagenarian; then again, who doesn’t? 

This lineup, though, is different. I’ve been attending the festival since its 55th edition in 2017, and I’ve never seen a crop of docs like the one attendees have had at their disposal this year. In terms of length, NYFF62’s documentaries are close to unparalleled; in terms of the number of length projects, there’s almost certainly no past competition to look to as references for what this grouping has to offer. From filmmakers who have frequented the festival before to two first-time selectees, the following five documentaries surely aren’t for the unambitious viewer. But should you have the time (and patience) for each work of varying mammoth proportions, the dividends will pay handsomely.

Direct Action • Cinéma du Réel

DIRECT ACTION | Ben Russell & Guillaume Cailleau 

Shot entirely on Super 16mm and made up of five-minute long shots, stacked one after the other, DIRECT ACTION may sound more like a meditative exercise than a documentary. In a way, that’s not untrue, as the three-and-a-half-hour experience certainly has a calming quality to its events, even as they unfold with intensity thanks to the impassioned subjects at the film’s center. Ben Russell and Guillaume Cailleau’s daring documentary is in direct conversation with the people and community it paints a portrait of, a refreshing approach that most filmmakers would eschew in hopes of quickly hypnotizing their viewers, forcing investment in the story upon them without doing the leg-work that is required to achieve such an accomplishment naturally. Set in the Notre-Dame-des-Landes commune in western France, DIRECT ACTION chronicles the efforts of a group of people upholding a ZAD (Zone to Defend); they work to dissuade state officials and large corporations from destroying invaluable land for the sake of new revenue streams for the government, in simple terms. Over the course of the film, we see them play chess, feed animals, plan protests, and more. It could be boiled down to a “slice of life” film if not for its urgency and authenticity, as Russell and Cailleau refuse to mine action nor mayhem from their characters in order to make something “more interesting.” DIRECT ACTION need not be any more enthralling than it already is; any other approach, frankly, would likely lessen its impact. | B+

exergue – on documenta 14

exergue – on documenta 14 | Dimitris Athiridis

At a whopping 14 hours, Dimitris Athiridis’ comprehensive look at what made the controversial 2017 edition of documenta – a quinquennial art exhibition held in the German city of Kassel, a possibility, let alone a reality – is easily the longest film on NYFF’s 62nd program, yet consuming it is hardly as much of a trial in patience as it seems on paper. Focusing primarily on the exhibition’s artistic director, Adam Szymczyk, and his team of curators, Athiridis’ film feels rather Wisemanian in nature, as not only is as vérité as any film at the festival this year, but is also hardly a one-subject study. The 2017 edition divided equally between Kassel and Athens, an ambitious swing for the project, and its contents examined colonialism and neoliberalism in equal measure. That’s just one piece of the documentary. It also dives into the rampant presence of racism and imbalances of power in the contemporary art world, how this exhibition somehow went over budget by 6 million euros, and how all of these complicated obstacles collide in the making of a revelatory work of art. Fitting, then, that exergue deserves a similar distinction, as it maintains its comprehension and care for its subjects – people and artwork – while also managing to be a genuinely thrilling piece of cinema. When previewing NYFF62 on the Film at Lincoln Center Podcast back in September, the festival’s long-time artistic director, Dennis Lim, acknowledged exergue’s length, encouraging audiences to give it a try even if they have to dip in and out over the course of 14 hours. He caveated the thought, however, by noting that he wouldn’t recommend that strategy; neither would I. In totality, the exergue experience is certainly overwhelming, but exhilaratingly so. It warrants your consideration. | A-

My Undesirable Friends: Part I — Last Air in Moscow

My Undesirable Friends: Part I — Last Air in Moscow | Julia Loktev

“When you’re fighting one head of a dragon, he grows another head,” says one of the many characters who appear throughout Julia Loktev’s masterful five-and-a-half-hour documentary, My Undesirable Friends: Part I — Last Air in Moscow. “But your time isn’t wasted. You’ve gained experience [and] visibility.” While that sentiment comes in the film’s first chapter, it surges throughout Loktev’s expansive, urgent film, a vérité look at the lives of young Russian journalists at work in a nation that silences its only truth-tellers. For despite their best efforts at (metaphorically) decapitating the snake that has led their oppressive state for the last decade and change, Russia’s top officials need not acknowledge nor practice the art of honesty. Whatever sets their agenda in motion the easiest and fastest, the better.

But Loktev’s film is hardly the sort to spend the majority of its time on recounting all of the reasons Vladimir Putin is a malicious totalitarian dictator. For that, she’d need a longer runtime, and it would be nowhere near as interesting as this follow-along doc, one that passes through the lives of foreign agents working for news networks and websites that attempt to strike the difficult balance between delivering the truth and risking the invasion of Russian militants in their offices due to press that speaks “negatively” of the state’s leaders. When the film begins in October of 2021, there is some leniency in regards to that practice; when Russia invades Ukraine four months later, any false move is met with detainment.

Largely filmed by Loktev on an iPhone, My Undesirable Friends has an evident lived-in quality to it, and not solely because the director and her characters – that’s what she calls them, as opposed to “subjects,” because they are the heart of the story – form a strong, somewhat unspoken bond over the course of many months working in the same orbit. Its primary strength, though there are a great many, is in Loktev’s ability to capture these journalists working tirelessly to fight a system that can’t be beaten. Not unlike another NYFF selection from this year, No Other Land, this first part in what Loktev has described as a multi-part project – the second, “Exile,” is currently in progress – is a vital work of activism that will almost certainly never reach nor mean anything to the audience that most desperately needs to see it. But the fact that it was made at all, and that those involved are not only still working while in exile, but alive, is the sort of miracle that the film’s primary subject, Anna Nemzer, says she will keep hoping for in its fourth chapter. In more ways than one, My Undesirable Friends is a miracle in and of itself. | A-

Youth (Homecoming)" Review: Wang Bing's Reflective Trilogy Closer

Youth (Hard Times) and Youth (Homecoming) | Wang Bing

When the festival’s Main Slate was announced in early August, jokes aplenty were made about a few familiar faces making reappearances at NYFF for the umpteenth time. The South Korean stalwart, Hong Sang-soo, returned to Lincoln Center with two new films – A Traveler’s Needs and By the Stream – for the fourth consecutive year, and that’s only because he managed a mere single film in 2020. Otherwise, his streak would be longer. He has yet to take Jean-Luc Godard’s throne as the most-screened director at the festival. The French master had a film play at this year’s edition despite having passed away two years ago; chalk it up to movie magic. 

Yet if Wang Bing keeps apace with his sprawling body of work, they may have some company in the coming years. For just one year after Youth (Spring) held its U.S. Premiere at NYFF, Bing has returned with the final two installments in his Youth trilogy, respectively subtitled Hard Times and Homecoming. Where Spring introduced a community of rural migrant workers at textile factories in a town outside Shanghai and the growing pains they may be facing in the near future, Hard Times aptly examines the combative conditions that come with working long hours for low wages, and Homecoming portrays moments of respite for the laborers as they celebrate cultural festivities with their families. A few of them even get married. Screening the final two parts back-to-back would cost you seven hours of daylight; in many ways, it would be worth it.

The experience, while epic, is exacting, to put it bluntly. Bing’s filmmaking is observational and comprehensive in nature, so don’t expect to be lulled into the proceedings with emotional music swells and walk-and-talks focusing on difficult upbringings. Instead, we’re dropped back into the lives of Bing’s subjects with no warm-up – if you can manage it, revisiting Spring is worthwhile prior to the final two installments – and the films are better for it. The tension Bing mines out of menial grievances in Hard Times spills over into thematic examinations of police brutality, among other powerful and resonant topics for audiences from all walks of life. Homecoming, in short, is like a reward for your continued investment in the previous portions, as it’s both slighter and softer than its preceding entries. It still maintains the trilogy’s overarching style – a work of inspection, not introspection – yet as a coda, it places a perfect cap on Youth: The lives of the subjects we met 10 hours ago will continue, but leaving them at Homecoming’s conclusion leaves us feeling like we’ve watched them grow and move forward, one small step at a time. |B-

Chasing The Gold Interview: June Squibb, Star of ‘Thelma’

After praising June Squibb’s performance in Thelma in a piece I did for Chasing the Gold, InSession Film was contacted by June Squibb’s team to see if I would be interested in a Zoom interview with her. Of course, I said, “Yes!” What follows is a delightful conversation I had with June Squibb about Thelma, her process, and the ever-present specter of awards buzz.  Enjoy!

Zach Youngs: Well, should we jump right in?

June Squibb: Sure.

ZY: What was the casting process like for Thelma?

JS: Well, Beanie Feldstein and I had done The Humans together. Josh [Margolin, writer/director of Thelma] and Beanie have been long-time family friends. She was at their house, and they were talking about Josh’s new script. So she said, ‘Who do you want to do it?’ And Josh said, ‘Well, I’d love June Squibb, but I don’t know how to get the script to her.’ And Beanie said, ‘I’ll get a script to her.’ So she texted me saying, ‘I’m going to send you a script,’ and I texted back, ‘O.K.’ And that was it! [laughs]. Literally, that’s how the script came to me. 

When I read that script, I knew I had to do it. It was like, ‘This is something I’ve got to do.’ And when Josh and I finally talked he said, ‘We thought we’d have to talk you into this.’ Instead, he picked up the phone, and I said, ‘O.K. I’m in. I’ll do it.’ [laughs]. That’s how it all happened.

ZY: Do you find that you have to do many auditions at this stage of your career?

JS: I don’t audition, and that happened after the Oscar nomination [for 2013’s Nebraska]. It’s just all at once; everybody calls you, and you don’t have to audition anymore.

ZY: How much of Thelma was on the page, and how much did you intuit and bring to the character?

JS: I think it was really almost all on the page. [Josh] wrote a really wonderful script. And every actor that signed on said the same thing, ‘I read that script and felt I had to do it.’ I think there was not one of us that didn’t say that. And I think we all brought quite a bit to it. Not lines, the script was really [well written].

ZY: Was it hard to convince people that you could do your own stunts for the film?

JS: It was. Because I had to show them. They went into it feeling I wouldn’t do any of it, like driving the scooter or any of the physical things. And I said, ‘Well, let me try.’ So they let me on the scooter, but they were all scared to death that I was gonna kill myself. And the stunt coordinator [Ryan Sturz] ran along beside me the first time I was on the scooter. But I got pretty good at it and they realized I could do it, and the same with the physical stunts, too. The bed rolls and getting through the antique store and all of that. They realized I could do it, so they let me do it.

ZY: What was the emotional journey like for you to get into Thelma’s head and really embody the character?

JS: Well, I just felt when I first read it that I knew who this woman was. And I spend hours on a script before I start shooting. I really do. I learn that way, and take a long process if I have the time. And I just read the script over and over. I just know the script so well before I start shooting. And so Josh and I didn’t talk that much. He sent me pictures. He had taken short movies of his grandmother, Thelma [the real-life inspiration for the character], doing things like going to the store, at a birthday party, in the car. You know, different things like that. And I saw all of those, and that certainly gave me a feeling for her. And we started shooting in her apartment, her old Brentwood condo, which she had moved out of during the pandemic. And I learned an awful lot about her being in her apartment, I’ll tell you that [laughs].

ZY: Was there any redecorating of the set or did it stay as it was when she was there?

JS: No, they left it very much as she had left it. They added things like photos that made it more about us. But basically, [the place] had so many books. I cannot tell you, wall after wall of books. So you knew she and her husband, who died a few years before, they must have read constantly. So things like that you just knew by being in her apartment.

ZY: What’s it like to be mentioned alongside and compared to older, male action stars?

JS: [laughs] I laugh a lot, I’ll tell you. They had me doing some short, short, short films about, ‘I’m gonna kick your [expletive]!’ We did it with Arnold Schwarzenegger, and we did it with Glen Powell and… I forget who all we did it with, but it was funny, and people laughed at it. They thought it was funny.

ZY: Do you feel like you have more action movies in your future?

JS: I don’t know that I have action movies [laughs]. I think I still have work in my future. In fact, I’m pending one right now, and you know I have things coming out. And I’m going to be a [regular on a cartoon show] after the first of the year. So I still have things I’m doing. I don’t think any action… [laughs] I don’t think I’ll be doing too many more action films.

ZY: Let’s talk awards season. You’ve been through it before with Nebraska [nominated for Best Supporting Actress]. How do you feel about it this time? Do people want you to do some campaigning and things like that?

JS: Yeah, we are for Thelma, we are campaigning. The script has also been mentioned in the awards situation. So I think both with my performance and the script, Thelma could be included in the awards. God knows if or which one [laughs]. Certainly, from doing it before you realize it’s a very iffy situation.

ZY: It’s a long process, too! Everything started right around Sundance for Thelma

JS: It does. They were talking about [Thelma] at Sundance. We weren’t, but people were talking to us about it. ‘Well, this will be up for the Oscars,’ or ‘You’ll be up for the Oscars.’ This or that and, you know, I hope we are, but you just don’t know.

ZY: You’ve had such a long career. Do you still focus on awards or are you onto the next job?

JS: Well, I try to do both because number one, the [rankings], I read those. If they’re in my face, I’m aware of it. And actually I’m closer to the end with this than I was with Nebraska. ‘Cause I started [with low odds for a nomination] I think with Nebraska. And came up all the way. So, I enjoy it. I mean, it’s not something I don’t enjoy. I realize when I say I’ll do it, what it means. Time. You just go from one thing to the other with it. But I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth it for the film. I’m very proud of Thelma. I really am.

ZY: It’s a film that really surprises you and grabs you in a different way. Both of my grandmothers have passed on, but I saw a lot of them in Thelma. I saw my parents too. It’s a film that speaks to a lot of people, I think.

JS: Yeah, I think on so many different levels. I think we have enough comedy that if you’re in for a comedy, you’re going to get the laughs, but also I think we make a lot of statements about things that not a lot of films do.

ZY: Yeah, especially about the aging process and how you have to rely on people in certain situations.

JS: And that’s important, I feel.

ZY: Yeah, absolutely. Well, thank you so much, June!

JS: Well, you’re welcome, Zach.

ZY: It was an absolute blast.

JS: [laughs] Good!

Movie Review: ‘Bad Genius’ Show Off the Pressures of Academia


Director: J.C. Lee
Writers: JC. Lee, Julius Onah
Stars: Benedict Wong, Callina Liang, Jabari Banks

Synopsis: A group of seniors of an entrepreneurial high school team up to take down a rigged college admissions system.


Bad Genius Review: SAT Cheating Thriller Gets a Passing Grade

“What makes a good girl go bad?” is a question that’s now a cliché. J. C. Lee’s remake of the 2017 Thai film by Nattawut Poonpiriya gives a somewhat different answer to the one found in his teen cheating scandal turned heist movie. No matter how good Lynn Kang (Callina Liang) is, there is no such thing as a free ride even for full scholarship students at the elite Exton Pacific Academy. Lynn knows this as she’s done the math (in her head) and presented it to school principal Irene Walsh (Sarah-Jane Redmond). Lynn is okay with staying in public school especially if it means her dad Meng (Benedict Wong) doesn’t have to go further into debt on their already failing laundry business across town. Ms. Walsh makes Meng and Lynn an offer that’s hard to refuse – the scholarship and some financial relief. After all, Lynn represents what Exton is about – excellence.

What Ms. Walsh means is ‘quid pro quo’ – Lynn gets the scholarship and Exton can prove that it welcomes diversity. Ms. Walsh isn’t the first person who wants to take advantage of Lynn’s genius as she too quickly learns, but by the time she does she’s already a player in a game she’s rigged to lose.

Lynn is being brought up by her kindly single dad after the death of her mom due to factory related illness. All the hopes and dreams of a better life for Lynn are embodied by Meng. Lynn is the ‘first generation immigrant’ kid who doesn’t have time for anything beyond studying and hopefully helping Meng when he will allow her. Her best friend was her mom, and the only time she felt like she was doing something she loved and was for herself was when she was playing piano with her. Meng insists that Lynn will go on to be an MIT graduate. Secretly, Lynn wants to go to Julliard and study music. Either way it will cost more money than either of them have ever seen.

Money is no issue for most of the students at Exton. Lynn is quickly befriended by Grace (Taylor Hickson) who is barely keeping her grade average up enough to stay in her extra-curricular drama course. Grace seems sincere and self-aware enough to know that “pretty” is all she has going for her (and modest wealth compared to other Exton students). She ‘friend bombs’ Lynn, and before Lynn is even aware, she’s helping Grace cheat on her math tests. From there, it’s an introduction to Grace’s very wealthy boyfriend, Pat Stone (Samuel Braun) who lays out the land for her. If she helps him and some of his friends keep their grades up there is good money in it for her. At first, Grace demurs but after a function for students which is a barely disguised fundraiser and Meng is baited into buying $1000 worth of facial cream by Walsh and meeting Bank (Jabari Banks) who tells her that they’re just mascots. Bank is struggling financially too. His mother owns a small Nigerian diner in a less salubrious part of Seattle. She’s learned never to turn up to these ‘celebrations.’

Lynn is furious. She is smarter than her rich and, let’s face it, White classmates. Bank is the only person who comes close to rivalling her intelligence and it isn’t long before Walsh pits them against each other for a college scholarship. Meng is working two jobs, and all she sees around her are people who are at Exton because their parents are Seattle ‘royalty.’ If Exton is going to use her, then she will return the favor. Her tutoring group expands, and Lynn comes up with an ingenious way to signal the answers to mid-terms. It’s all going very well until one of the tests is given with two papers because the marks of some of the students have been unreasonably high considering their academic records. Lynn gets caught and her scholarship is rescinded, and her dad takes out a loan he can’t possibly repay.

The next part of the film revolves around an audacious plan to ‘steal’ the SAT scores. Cue the Ocean’s Eleven for teens as Lynn comes up with an ingenious way to get the test answers to her so-called friends in Seattle by going to Philadelphia. Bank, who had wanted nothing to do with the whole thing is pulled in as he was beaten by some ‘gang’ members outside his mom’s diner the night he was supposed to interview for the Cartwright scholarship.

Bad Genius is a fun mixture between low-stakes/high-stakes heists and a commentary on how easily privileged people use those they believe are desperate. Every promise made to Lynn is one which can be easily taken back by her flippant faux friends. It isn’t only her friends who make promises, but their parents too – they need to keep up their family reputation by having the scion end up at the alma mater regardless of talent or intelligence.

Benedict Wong Is a Proud Papa in a Sneak Peek at 'Bad Genius' [Exclusive]

By using a non-linear narrative and quick edits, J.C. Lee’s film is rarely dull. It doesn’t come together as well as it should by the end of the film, stretching out a section where the nail biting “Will they get the questions to the undeserving” becomes a little more important than what will happen if Lynn and Bank get caught; two people without safety nets, and one who we find out later is a lot less safe than the audience presumed. However, Lynn is a genius after all, and she has done the math already.

Callina Liang is terrific as Mei-lin Kang – a young woman exhausted by the myriad of pressures on her. She adores her dad, and he adores her – but his focus on her success has meant he hasn’t stopped to see if she is actually happy. Benedict Wong is wonderful as Meng who finally sees how lost Lynn has become to herself and affirms what she has needed to hear – she only has to be his daughter and nothing else matters.

Bad Genius isn’t digging too deeply into the issues around how standardized testing puts many people at a disadvantage, especially people of color. Its audience is primarily teenagers who get just enough of an idea of how rigged the system is. Bad Genius has a protagonist to cheer on as the “good girl gone bad” being smart enough to become wise.

Grade: B-

Women InSession: Scream vs Halloween

This week on Women InSession, we are joined by guest Athina (@TheReelPrincess) to debate two of our favorite horror franchises, Scream vs Halloween! There’s so much to love about these legendary horror films, and with spooky season upon us, we thought it would be fun to talk about why they have such long-lasting appeal.

Panel: Kristin Battestella, Jaylan Salah

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!

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
Women InSession – Episode 105

Movie Review: ‘The Apprentice’ is a Remorseless Warning


Director: Ali Abbasi
Writer: Gabriel Sherman
Stars: Sebastian Stan, Jeremy Strong, Maria Bakalova

Synopsis: The story of how a young Donald Trump started his real-estate business in 1970s and ’80s New York with the helping hand of infamous lawyer Roy Cohn.


Many films, such as Rocky, The Pursuit of Happyness, and Minari, are about the American Dream—a concept that involves equal opportunity, peace, and success, which every American strives for. Usually, these narratives focus on an individual or individuals who have been dealt a bad hand and have to work hard for a better life, not only for themselves but also for their families. However, what if there was a telling of the American Dream in which an individual wasn’t dealt a bad hand; therefore, they didn’t have to work harder, but rather dirtier as a way to achieve something that, to most, is unfathomable? This is what Ali Abbasi attempts to do in his follow-up to his Cannes hit, Holy Spider, with The Apprentice, a story about the creation of Donald J. Trump.

The Apprentice' Movie Timeline: Stan, Strong, Director On Trump Movie

The Apprentice begins with a speech from Richard Nixon regarding his involvement with Watergate, stating, “People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I’m not a crook. I’ve earned everything I’ve got.” Shortly after, we are shown a very young Donald Trump (Sebastian Stan) in a private and exclusive club in which he is the youngest member in history. This catches the eye of Roy Cohn (Jeremy Strong), who invites the young Trump over to sit at his table. Once Trump tells Cohn he is in real estate, he realizes that he is the son of Fred Trump, a businessman who is currently being sued by the Government and the NAACP for segregation in his apartment homes, “Trump Village.” Trump listens to Cohn’s advice and eventually approached him to become his new lawyer.

From the first interaction between Trump and Cohn, it’s evident that both Sebastian Stan and Jeremy Strong anchor the film. At this point, Trump is young, hungry, motivated, and insanely impressionable, and a sense of wonder shines through Stan’s performance taking in every small detail and locking it away to use for later. When Cohn begins to find dirty ways to get ahead, Trump, who is hesitant at first, takes notice, and it’s clear how Cohn unlocks the side of Trump willing to do whatever it takes to get even further ahead. The first half of this film engages with Stan and Strong in a way that displays a rise to power. The more Cohn takes, the more Trump grows into the monstrous figure he is known to be. There is that sense of wonder in a young Trump, but there is also a slimy and conniving side of Cohn that Strong can tap into with vile ferocity. For the first half of this film, there isn’t much that hasn’t been done before, crossing off many of the traditional procedural biopic tropes that must be hit in every version of telling this story. It can feel thin narratively, giving off more of a quick lesson into how Trump built his empire and the back alley deals and blackmail that helped him along the way. However, once this film transitions into its second half, and Donald Trump has fully become a power-hungry shell of his old self, The Apprentice truly begins to take off.

Ali Abbasi, who brings a ‘70s-era, almost documentary-like flair to the film, never holds back from displaying Trump in a frightening light. Donald Trump attempted to file a lawsuit against this film, with people on his legal team claiming it “should never see the light of day,” the latter half is exactly why he wouldn’t want anyone to see it. The erection of the Trump Tower and the people that Trump has in his pocket gives him a sense of invulnerability, allowing him to believe that he can say and do what he wants. Nothing matters to him, not his wife, who he calls unattractive before sexually assaulting her, not his brother, who was sent off by Trump right before his death, and not even Roy Cohn, the man who got him to the position he is in, and the man who also notices the monster he is becoming. One of the quotes from this movie, “In life there are killers, and there are losers,” personifies Trump as he is killing off anything vital to him in the quest for power. However, he doesn’t care what happens to these people because the more he grows (literally and figuratively), the less human he becomes. Abbasi’s film becomes almost Frankensteinian in that the monster has now been set loose, which is everyone else’s problem to handle.

Trump Biopic 'The Apprentice' Gets U.S. Release Date - The New York Times

During these moments is when both Stan and Strong shine brighter than ever. Roy Cohn falls ill, and even though this figure doesn’t deserve sympathy, Strong portrays him so that, as a viewer, you are reminded that he is still a human. There’s an emotional center in Strong’s transition between monster and human that causes you to feel hurt for a character who caused so much pain. However, the opposite could be said about Trump, as there is a volatility in him that Stan embraces in a haunting way. Donald Trump might be one of the most impersonated people on the planet with his distinct voice and gestures, but what Stan pulls off is nothing short of remarkable. He doesn’t just have the look, the gestures, and even, at times, the voice down that every other impersonator can do; he completely captures the person that Donald Trump is. Sebastian Stan delivers the performance of the year, embracing one of the most terrorizing and petrifying villains of the year all the way to the final shot.

The Apprentice isn’t a film that will tell you anything you don’t, or shouldn’t, already know. It’s stylized well by Ali Abbasi, with some of the performances of the year from Jeremy Strong and Sebastian Stan, but where The Apprentice excels is as a reminder for the people who may have forgotten just how evil Donald Trump can be. It is a biopic with no remorse for its subject in a way that should serve as a warning sign to all who see it. 

Grade: B+