Friday, July 4, 2025
Home Blog Page 69

Op-Ed: Andersonian Grief: Depression

0

The following piece contains frank discussions of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts. If this type of discussion tends to upset you, please take care before continuing to read this piece.

WALT

I hope the roof flies off, and I get sucked into space. You’ll be better off without me.

LAURA

Stop feeling sorry for yourself.

WALT

Why?

LAURA

[sighing] We’re all they’ve got, Walt

WALT

That’s not enough.

We can sometimes see a physical manifestation of someone’s feelings. There are those of us who have a hard time not looking like how we’re feeling no matter how hard we try. We simply exude pain, joy, exhaustion, anxiety, fear, anger, and contentedness. It’s hard to tell what a character in a Wes Anderson film is thinking when we first meet them, they often have their faces at rest, but it’s likely they’re experiencing depression. Anderson builds this very human condition of being depressed into each and everyone of his films in some way. It ranges from mild ennui to ideations and attempts of suicide. For most Anderson characters, their grief cycle begins with depression. It’s how they experience the initial loss, whatever it may be.

In that case, this could be why people experience these films as cold and emotionless. The characters are often cynics and sometimes curmudgeons, but many are ambitious and passionate as well. What sets them apart is that these characters don’t learn life lessons that help them to be less sad. They start sad and they end sad. These films are about people attempting to cope. Some, like Herman Blume (Bill Murray, Rushmore) make poor decisions that push them further away from where they want to be. Some, like Moses Rosenthaler (Benicio Del Toro, The French Dispatch) attempt to bring attention to their problems by taking drastic measures rather than seeking help in a healthy way. Some deny, get angry, or bargain. Some combine it all together to attempt to move themselves on to something else.

Francis Whitman (Owen Wilson, The Darjeeling Limited) is one of these people that combines a lot of feelings at once to try and combat his depression. While all the Whitman brothers are all definitely depressed, Francis is the brother who is the most desperately down. He plans a spiritual journey for his brothers to bring them closer together (denial). He wants this trip not only to bring them closer, but to unite them with their estranged mother (bargaining). When things don’t work out or when someone dispels the magic of the occasion, Francis lashes out (anger). He uses it all as a smokescreen for what’s truly going on with him.

It isn’t until the three brothers are doing their preflight rituals in the airport restroom that Francis finally lets down his guard. In the shot, the camera looks out as if it’s the mirror in the restroom, a shot Anderson chooses for many of his films. Francis pulls off his bandages to reveal the extent of the damage to his face from the motorcycle accident. As they survey the damage, Francis tells his brothers that the accident was intentional, that he crashed his bike in a suicide attempt. As the brothers look at him through the lens of the mirror, then in their physical dimension, they suddenly see Francis and this trip differently. Francis has always seemed like the rock of their group and now, they see his vulnerability and permeability. He’s brought down for them and for us. Not out of pity, but out of respect do they follow him from there.

Pity is also the last thing Roebuck Wright (Jeffrey Wright, The French Dispatch) needs. He’s intelligent, witty, and verbose to name a few of his more excellent qualities. He just also happens to be gay and in the Andersonian universe that is a rare sight. There have been characters whose sexuality has been hinted at, Margot Tenenbaum (Gwyneth Paltrow, The Royal Tenenbaums) is seen in the arms of another woman, or Gustave (Ralph Fiennes, The Grand Budapest Hotel) who “goes to bed with all [his] friends,” which doesn’t deter, but encourages Dmitri (Adrien Brody) to even more vehemently hurl homophobic slurs his way. Then there’s Alistair Hennessey (Jeff Goldblum, The Life Aquatic), a character who is mocked, misunderstood, and maligned is often referred to as “half gay.” Yet, this is the first time in an Anderson film in which a gay character is allowed to define himself.

Unlike other gay characters, Roebuck Wright isn’t a tragic gay in the way of queer best friends through movie history. He is the mover of his own destiny and his depression from grief isn’t due to the fact that he’s gay, but in the fact that he can’t live the life he wants even if he’s honest about who he is. He tries to tamp that depression down through his work. It’s only his editor, Arthur Howitzer, Jr. (Bill Murray) who can see through the words and asks why he didn’t include the best part of the piece. Roebuck tosses it off as too sad. Arthur says he needs to include it.

The scene Roebuck removed is of himself sitting with the poisoned and now recovering Nescaffier (Stephen Park), who tells Roebuck of a taste he had in his mouth. For the chef, this taste was something otherworldly, beautiful, and fleeting because he tasted it in the depths of the poison he used to defeat the kidnappers. In that moment, Roebuck understands that his life, the life he wants for himself, is fleeting. Any happiness he experiences living authentically can be taken from him by the majority who looks down on him. Roebuck grieves the life he will never live and so he’s depressed underneath his erudite, confident exterior. He’s just a sad man in a cage being watched over by someone who knows his secret and despises him for it.

Everyone has guessed Richie’s (Luke Wilson, The Royal Tenenbaums) secret. He isn’t good at hiding his feelings for Margot in spite of his attempts. Richie’s been in love with Margot ever since he figured out what love is. It’s most evident as Margot gets off the bus to meet Richie and we see from Richie’s perspective the way he sees her as a gliding angel coming toward him. He has his own life and loves, but it’s Margot that affects his decisions and moods the most. She’s the reason he quit tennis and the reason he lives at sea. It’s his anger at the list of lovers she’s had, a compound, concrete fact of her dismissal of his feelings for her, that pushes him to his ultimate decision.

The scene of Richie in the bathroom when he decides to take his own life is one of Wes Anderson’s most devastating. Much like when Francis looks through the mirror to us when he describes his suicide attempt, Richie’s pale blue eyes gaze at us in silent determination. Anderson uses jump cuts to speed up the process as Richie clips off his hair, trims his beard, shaves his face, and uses his razor blade to slice into the veins in his arms. He stares at us as we realize what he’s done, then he looks down at the blood pouring out of him to see what he’s done to himself. The scene is wordless because Richie’s decision, his depression, and his determination are all present in his stone face.

Richie survives, but he isn’t miraculously happy to be on the other side. He’s still in a deep depression. It isn’t until Margot comes to see him and asks to see his stitches that Richie’s need to be free of his pain becomes truly evident. The stitches aren’t a single line down his arm, they aren’t a couple lines across his wrists, Richie cut deep and jagged lines all over his arms. He wanted this to work. He wanted so badly to not be in pain any more. Margot will never love Richie the way Richie loves Margot. By attempting to send Margot a message, Richie finds that his depression will continue until he finds a way to accept that he and Margot will never be. The hardest part of his grief is acceptance and not fighting against it as he has.

Those in a depression don’t always look sad, they don’t always act sad, they don’t always say sad things, listen to sad music, write sad poetry, or watch sad movies. This doesn’t change the fact that they have found a void within themselves. This void can’t be tamed by the sheer force of will, no matter how much we wish it could.. It can’t be tossed aside through righteous anger, denied with a fantasy land, or disappeared by bargaining our way out with the right amount of anything. Depression is the black cloud amongst Wes Anderson’s candy colored worlds. It lives with his characters like the grief they all carry. It’s how those characters deal with it that defines them.

Wes Anderson’s characters start sad and they stay sad, but as they stay sad, they accept that as a part of their lives. Their sadness, linked to their grief, is a starting point toward the next phase of their lives and typically toward the resolution of the film they’re in. They may stay sad, but their sadness is a little less having gone through something that changes the way they see the world. Like all of us who experience depression, the feelings never truly go away, but they ease. It’s a nuance of life and one that Anderson explores frequently, but uniquely in every film he makes. It makes his characters relatable even if they’re unrelated to most of our reality.

Movie Review (FCEPR 2023): ‘Banel & Adama’ is a Beautiful and Artistic Debut by Ramata-Toulaye Sy


Director: Ramata-Toulaye Sy
Writers Ramata-Toulaye Sy
Stars: Khady Mane, Mamadou Diallo, Binta Racine Sy

Synopsis: A young couple in Senegal must contend with the disapproval of their remote village.


After a series of award-winning short films, French filmmaker Ramata-Toulaye Sy has delivered her feature-length debut in Banel and Adama – a love story showered in magical realism and lyricism. While its tale of star-crossed lovers is not executed to its fullest potential, the images concocted and shot by cinematographer Amine Berrada are utterly haunting and transcendent, which makes you forgive the narrative issues. This year’s FCEPR lineup does have its array of distinct pictures in its modern cinema slate. But in terms of artistry, this one stands out the most. 

As its title says, this film centers around two young people, Banel (Khady Mane) and Adama (Mamadou Diallo),  in a Senegalese village at an unspecified time. You can see it as a Romeo and Juliet-like love story, where instead of seeing the Renaissance traits of the aforementioned tale, we see Ramata-Toulaye Sy adding elements of magical realism and religious traditions, seen through the lavish cinematography by Amine Berrada and the sand-covered African plains. These two lovers are very infatuated with one another; Banel often writes their names on a notebook in a lovelorn manner. They can’t be apart, particularly Banel, who refuses to work in the field and only wants to help Adama herd the cows. She has been asked to step back, and the women in the village push her to have a baby, which Banel doesn’t want to do. You might think that these rebellious attitudes are to act against the village or its traditions, but that isn’t the case. 

They genuinely care a lot about those traditions and follow every rule apart from those mentioned. But Banel and Adama have their dreams, separate from what the village elders say. Each day, before the sun goes down and the moon shines, they try to dig out some abandoned houses buried by a sandstorm. These houses are deemed cursed, left behind for a specific reason. But that isn’t stopping them from uncovering what lies beneath the sand, all to the disapproval of Adama’s mother (Binta Racine Sy). Things have been complicated for both Banel and Adama as tragedy shifted their way of life. Banel was forced to marry Adama’s older brother, Yero, the tribal chief of the village during the time. Yet, once he passed away during an unforetold accident, Adama offered to wed the widow. And the elders accepted the offer, seen by them as an act of tribute and purity. 

Loss brought them together, and, at the same time, it has grown a sense of disloyalty in both Banel and Adama, as they feel they have dishonored the late Yero. When spending time on her own, Banel reflects a lot upon past and forthcoming tragedy. Early on, you learn that she didn’t love Yero; Adama was the man Banel always loved – meant for each other to spend the rest of their days together. A particular belief comes through the viewer’s mind, where you start to wonder whether she was involved in that demise to get her way. Was she complicit in Yero’s murder? Or was there a mystical element involved amidst the cataclysm? Ramata-Toulaye Sy plays with this notion by adding elements of witchcraft into this tale of star-crossed lovers. This paves the way for the incidents later in the story. 

Adama’s mother occasionally cites that Banel puts ideas into his head, one that would separate him from the traditions of the village. Adama has refused to accept his new role as tribal chief because he only wants to be happy with Banel. Spending time with her is the only thing that makes him most content. At first, the village accepts his wishes, as he will not be forced to fill the role that was destined for him. But as a massive drought hits him, killing all of the crops and cows, they believe Adama’s refusal is the culprit. This creates a conflict between Adama, Banel, and the village. As he seeks answers and remedies, Banel continues to care less about what happens and only wants to live her life with the man she loves. The community continues to blame Banel for all these troubles that are not her fault. 

Mane and Diallo, both being first-time actors, have incredible chemistry with one another. They pull off the vivacity and desperateness needed for the role with ease. With quite difficult roles to sink their teeth into, the two actors play lovers as if they have known each other for years – their work is very impressive considering the multi-layered material being given to them. With only an eighty-seven minute runtime, Ramata-Toulaye Sy showers Banel & Adama with magical realism, adding beauty and color to the film’s enchanting factors and lyricism similar to Terrence Malick’s best works. Visually, it is very distinctive and artistic, especially for a directorial debut. The vivid yellow, orange, blues, and moonlit reds are all so captivating, making most of the shots feel like expressionistic paintings. One of the few issues with the film is that the story perse is occasionally flimsy, a constant issue that happens in most directorial debuts. 
Some parts of the narrative get lost amidst magical realism and lyricism. Although it adds to the aesthetic and magnetic beauty, Ramata-Toulaye Sy focuses a tad too much on the stylistic asset rather than polishing the story a bit more to increase its impact. Of course, the images, both haunting and transcendent, do move the viewer. But I don’t believe that they do so on a more prominent level due to the love story’s execution. At least, you sense the confidence in the French filmmaker’s direction and visual language. Deft camera movements followed by atmospheric exercises in mood make Banel & Adama quite an emotive and formal project.

 

Grade: B

Movie Review (FCEPR 2023): ‘Sisterhood’ is Nothing But Smoke and Mirrors 


Director: Dina Duma
Writers: Dina Duma and Martin Ivanov
Stars: Antonija Belazelkoska, Mia Giraud, Marija Jancevska

Synopsis: The friendship of two adolescent girls is threatened the moment they have to face the dire repercussions of their manipulative behaviour.


There are a couple of coming-of-age stories in this year’s lineup for the Festival de Cine Europeo de Puerto Rico (FCEPR). Whether it is from their main slate (Secaderos) or their presented classics (Rosetta), there are plenty of variations of these types of narratives at the festival, particularly ones that center around women. But there’s a specific one that doesn’t match the others in the selection: Dina Duma’s feature-length debut, Sisterhood. Due to its rash and oblique development, the aforementioned film reaches a state of narrative obliviousness where the viewer gets lost in the smoke and mirrors of the story, building tension and immediately taking it back – replacing it with a scene that reaches an unrealistic persona. You get the point of Duma’s picture, but the messaging gets across disjointed and hurried instead of patient and delicate.

Sisterhood centers around two teenagers, Jana (Mia Giraud) and Maya (Antonija Belazelkoska), as they experience an array of scenarios that lie between the stages of childhood and adulthood. The film sets itself in North Macedonia, during a period of their youth where they see sex as the dividing line between these two phases. But that isn’t the only division that arises; there’s also the division between shame and reputation, remorse and prestige. With the focus on social media and its effect on people’s perception, these ideas of how these teens see one another take a destructive turn as peer pressure and bullying take center stage. This is how Jana and Maya’s friendship or dynamic works in the latter half of Sisterhood, where the former harasses the latter – to a menacing degree – to keep a secret that will ruin their lives for good. 

While the story might be centered far away from your hometown, it is highly probable that it has been repeated in your local neighborhood (at least to some extent). They used to do everything together. They were great friends, but it never felt like the two of them were BFFs completely. Their personas are very different from one another. And Jana’s occasionally erratic and dominant behavior forces Maya to follow her steps, even though she doesn’t want to. However, some good comes out of this relationship; when Maya’s father leaves the family, Jana comforts her. It is in these early scenes where the film is most effective, in the contrast of these two friends’ personalities and how each one handles and perceives a situation. You sense the harshness of how teenagers manage loneliness, separation, rejection, and sexual awakenings. 

Dina Duma, with the help of cinematographer Naum Doksevski, focuses on the characters’ body language and facial expressions to let these emotions linger and increase their effect. The actresses, Giraud and Belazelkoska, also do great work capturing the essence of these dilemmas and their equally heartbreaking climaxes. Being their acting debuts, they managed to impress. Every countenance and expression shown in the first half of Sisterhood feels genuine and authentic. You genuinely care and feel sorry for them, both in their clash against abandonment (hence their constant need to fit in) and the error of their ways, specifically Maya, who often separates herself from the world and deals with her problems alone. We see the film through her eyes as she’s set aside due to her shyness and innocence. 

You also notice how the other teens just want to escape their realities by constantly partying and doing rebellious antics, like smoking a cigarette, even on school grounds, and drinking the night away. You sense an underpinning sadness even in their “happiest” of moments. As soon as the party is over and head home, you feel their unhappiness oozing as they open the door. This is their escape, and, in a way, the only form of being free from the draining atmosphere of their homes is through that riotous connection riddled with defiance. That’s why Maya holds Jana dear, the only person willing to take her on that journey. She doesn’t like that type of lifestyle; Maya just wants to perceive that sense of connection and feel that she belongs. 

In one of those parties, the eventual and heartbreaking fracture between her and Jana begins. One detestable act by Jana, which she forces upon Maya, causes the first crack. How Dina Duma handles that deed causes Sisterhood to slowly feel detached from what could happen in real life. This ruins the delicateness and genuine feeling it built up until that point. Sisterhood shows how quickly relationships between teenagers can break, using bodies of water as a motif for this fluctuation of bonds in the modern era. Dina Duma’s main idea works throughout the film’s entirety. However, it doesn’t feel natural when she starts to build tension between Maya and Jana, separating itself from the intertwining of fragility and harshness. 

The second half of the film is dedicated to the rupture between these two teens, and it all feels so out of place as if there was another picture in mind. As the tension keeps boiling up, the more ridiculous the narrative decisions get, to the point where it sometimes becomes laughable. And it is a shame since the first act hinted at an exploration of its title. In addition, most dilemmas meant to move the plot forward feel rushed and careless. You never get the chance to understand the reasoning behind Maya and Jana’s actions that caused this turmoil. Once the tension goes somewhere, the film ends abruptly with an altercation between Maya and Jana. 

It leaves a sour aftertaste because not only is it dissatisfying, but also weirdly inappropriate in terms of its themes. After all this time seeing them avoiding each other, only talking to each other via text, this scene that’s supposed to contain the dramatic crux of this story ends up having no subtext or significance since Duma leaves us with nothing. The two former friends are left adrift in a sea of guilt, with the screen slowly turning blue. It is a great image to end up with, yet you feel zero emotion due to the poor structure and mishandling of the story. 

 

Grade: C-

Movie Review (FCEPR 2023): ‘A Brighter Tomorrow’ Continues Nanni Moretti’s Streak of Wearisome Pictures


Director: Nanni Moretti
Writers: Francesca Marciano, Nanni Moretti, and Federica Pontremoli
Stars: Nanni Moretti, Margherita Buy, Silvio Orlando

Synopsis: A movie director struggles with his relationship with his family, and with his latest movie, about the impact on the Italian Communist Party of the USSR invasion of Hungary in 1956.


Nanni Moretti’s latest, A Brighter Tomorrow, has the Italian filmmaker dwelling on the metatextual to provide a character study of a director facing an existential crisis. But the film-within-a-film narrative, with Moretti playing an annoying version of himself, grows more dull and pretentious by the minute.

The FCEPR (Festival de Cine Europeo de Puerto Rico) always lends some of its main slate spots to auteurs who are held dearly in their country of origin. They present their latest picture in what I consider one of the best cinemas here on the island. Last year, it was Arnaud Desplechin with Brother and Sister; in the newest edition of the festival, that spot belongs to Nanni Moretti’s A Brighter Tomorrow (Il sol dell’avvenire). Coincidentally, the two pictures being presented and the cinematic trajectories of both directors can be compared with one another. Desplechin and Moretti are some of the most celebrated contemporary auteurs in their respective countries, the former in France and the latter in Italy. Both filmmakers have a distinct artistic sensibility that the viewer can easily perceive. But, as the years go by, we see them going to territories that depart from their usual narratives, for better or worse. 

For Desplechin, it has helped him reach new heights with interesting works like Ismael’s Ghosts and Deception, right until 2022, when he delivered a melodrama that felt like an unintentional parody of modern French cinema. In the case of the Italian filmmaker, he has failed to adapt his cinematic language to a modern lens. His latest films feel stuck between two periods, where the charming tone that Moretti wants to present translates to the audience as detestable due to its occasional satirical nature intertwined with the attempt at conjuring humanistic emotions. A Brighter Tomorrow is no exception to his latest string of poorly conceived pictures. After delivering one of the worst films of the 2021 Cannes Film Festival with Three Floors, Morretti arrives with a picture that’s even more mawkish and tonally misguided. It contains a film within a film narrative that adds some metatextual layers to the story, but both are equally dull and frustrating.

There are some comparisons to be made between A Brighter Tomorrow and Mia Madre, one of Moretti’s most-liked recently-released movies. Both stories center around directors making a film while suffering from an existential crisis. Additionally, Moretti plays a man named Giovanni in the two pictures. What changes here is that Moretti switches the status of his role from supporting to leading. In essence, they are somewhat the same picture, tied by the same narrative of a creative person struggling to find artistic common ground as the world seems to crumble right in front of the lead. It’s sometimes a good idea for filmmakers to revisit themes and topics, as they tend to shine a light on a different perspective or seek another angle on stories that have already been told. But the main difference between Mia Madre and A Brighter Tomorrow is that one has a solid dramatic core, while the other feels emotionally detached from reality to the point where the audience can’t stand it. 

As mentioned, Moretti’s latest follows Giovanni, a film director who is having a hard time not only with his latest film but also with his partner, Paola (Margherita Buy). In other words, he’s having an existential crisis. She has also been his producer for over thirty years, helping him bring more than a dozen projects to life. So, it hurts Giovanni that Paola is not happy with him after all this time. She doesn’t even want to work with Giovanni on whatever project he’s concocting; hence, her decision to move onto a picture meant for international distribution. The type of movie Paola is making baffles Giovanni ultimately. He believes that film has nothing to say about life and its complexities. It is funny that the lead character says so because that same statement can be said of A Brighter Tomorrow

The film Giovanni plans to make, if the funds come in, centers around a Hungarian circus group stranded in Rome during the 1956 Budapest rebellion. The group goes on strike in solidarity during an invasion, standing with the Hungarians as they go against their comrades’ actions. Giovanni wants to rewrite history in some way, creating a fantasy-like retelling of similar events that occurred during the time. The editor of the Communist Party’s paper, Ennio (Silvio Orlando), is perceiving similar emotions to Giovanni, as he also is having an existential bout with himself and his beliefs. Giovanni’s feelings are put into contrast with that of the characters he’s writing for his following picture. Moretti believes that the intertwining between Giovanni and Ennio will pave the way for fruitful thematic layers to his latest work. But the opposite happens; the more he tries to create empathy and realistic emotional sensibilities, the less everything in the film rings true. 

Not a single narrative plot point feels close to something that can be perceived as human. Giovanni embodies Moretti – quirks, grumpiness, pompousness and all. And it hurts the film because Giovanni is treated like the best of his kind, a filmmaker who doesn’t miss a single beat, even if there are plenty of moments focused on his antics. That isn’t the only problem arising from that character development. Moretti doesn’t even present why we must view Giovanni in that manner. The reason is apparent: Moretti himself is incapable of doing something of that same stature his character is apparently in. The only way Giovanni (and, in an equal sense, Moretti) expresses his feelings toward cinema is by criticizing the younger generation of creators, whether it is seen in fights with his producers or debacles against screenwriters. 

The only thing he seems to draw from reality is that same thing. When Julia Ducournau’s Titane won the Palme d’Or in 2021, Nani Moretti posted a picture on his Instagram where he quoted that the win for the French filmmaker caused him stress and anxiety. Although he was probably mad that his film didn’t win that year, you notice the pattern in characters between Giovanni and Moretti himself – the pretentiousness of his satirical efforts makes A Brighter Tomorrow feel toothless and insipid. There’s no irony in the narrative, only contradictions in the backstory of his social media antics and what he writes for the screen.  

Grade: D-

Classic Movie Review: ‘Andrei Rublev’ is a Masterpiece on the Impermanence of Art


Directors: Andrei Tarkovsky
Writers: Andrey Konchalovskiy, Andrei Tarkovsky
Stars: Anatoliy Solonitsyn, Ivan Lapikov, Nikolay Grinko

Synopsis: The life, times, and afflictions of the fifteenth-century Russian iconographer St. Andrei Rublev.


This film was viewed as part of the event, “Tarkovsky: 6 Films, Master Works by a Master of Cinema,” at the Kentucky Theatre, accompanied by a Q&A by Raymond De Luca, Assistant Professor of Russian Studies and International Film Studies at the University of Kentucky

To continue the films of Andrei Tarkovsky, we move to what you might erringly think is a basic biopic. At least, you might if you simply read the film description above. It would be easy to ignore or skip this because most biopics are simply a dramatic retelling of a Wikipedia page. But please remember, that this is directed by a giant of cinema. Normal, basic, and unimaginative are not words that are linked to Tarkovsky, and for good reason.

Yes, ostensibly, the story of Andrei Rublev is linked to a Russian artist in the 1400s. But, like many great films, what this movie is about is not simply plot-based. Andrei Rublev is about many things, the least of which is Russian history. The film takes a daring look at revolutionary moments, the purpose and lack of permanence in art, and even moviemaking in general.

Andrei Rublev follows, you guessed it, Andrei Rublev (Anatoliy Solonitsyn), through seven important moments in his life, helpfully separated into chapters. It also contains both a prologue and an epilogue just begging for symbolic interpretation. In some ways, Rublev is the perfect source for one of Tarkovsky’s consistent obsessions, that of time itself. In a scene that could be considered fodder for the cutting room floor, Rublev and his compatriots walk past a tree and comment on their nostalgia and connection to it. The tree has likely been there for decades, but for each individual, it represents a different experience and a different length of time. Additionally, they note their own lack of attention on its importance until it is sure to disappear, another comment on impermanence.

Even before this, in the prologue, we are treated to a truly radical moment in film (remember, this is 1966!). We are shown a first person view of the initial balloon flight (and subsequent crash). This is accompanied not by cheers, but angry jeers from an audience below. We, in the audience, with the distance of time, understand the greatness of this leap, but like so many revolutionary moments, it is not understood in the present. Plus, the wild success of flight is quickly erased by its impending crash to the earth. For an impatient viewer, this may seem unconnected, but the substantial runtime does pay off this moment (in about three hours).

It would be easy to get caught up in character names and plot derivations, but I found them increasingly secondary to the struggle of art. Rublev is a great artist, that much is clear, but he is not a machine, birthed to create icons. He struggles, in many facets. Most clearly, he seems to balk at being ordered to create. This is a wonderful analogy to what many filmmakers must feel, being yoked to a studio system. In Tarkovsky’s case, this could be particularly felt, given his time and place. Rublev, the clear Tarkovsky analogue, is ordered to create art showing a religious purge of the sinners. He can easily create this, but he thinks deeply about the messages that he feels responsible for. He worries about the people who will see it, most notably poor, faithful individuals who already have a difficult existence. Rublev makes the difficult choice of turning his back on continued fame and money to perform art that is good and important.

Andrei Rublev has an extensive journey, with many side treks, but the final chapter tells the story of Boriska (Nikolay Burlyaev; star of Ivan’s Childhood). Boriska is tasked, or tasks himself with the making of a gigantic bell, a service his father previously provided. His father, along with many others, has died in a plague, and Boriska boldly lies and tells the Prince’s men that his father passed the secrets of bell making down to him, and only him. It is important to note that this bell, massive in size, is made to be placed at the apex of a church. This bell is the people’s connection to God, once removed, as they cannot speak directly. At the pinnacle of the film, when the bell is finally tested, a palpable tension is felt until, finally, the bell rings out. 

Andrei Rublev has watched the entire process in silence, but this connection creates a stirring in him, the artist. After years of struggle and torment, Rublev agrees to create art, being shown its purity by an adolescent. In many ways, Andrei Rublev is truly about the impermanence of art. No matter how much money and power funds it, all art can be erased. But the creation of it, the passion behind it, and the reasons we create art matter all the more. Andrei Rublev is a cinematic masterpiece, an effortful watch that rewards thought and consideration.

Grade: A

Podcast Review: The Marvels

On this episode, JD and Brendan discuss the latest entry in the MCU with The Marvels! We also have a little discussion on the MCU moving forward given the reveal in the mid-credits scene and how things might be ramping up after the events of this film.

Review: The Marvels (4:00)
Director: Nia DaCosta
Writers: Nia DaCosta, Megan McDonnell, Elissa Karasik
Stars: Brie Larson, Teyonah Parris, Iman Vellani

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
InSession Film Podcast – The Marvels

Podcast Review: The Killer

On this episode, JD and Brendan review David Fincher’s latest film The Killer, starring the great Michael Fassbender! We talked about Fincher a few week’s ago on the Main Show, which ended up being a great exercise given how The Killer is a return to form for him, and in some ways a commentary on his career. We talk about all of that and much more in this conversation.

Review: The Killer (4:00)
Director: David Fincher
Writers: Andrew Kevin Walker
Stars: Michael Fassbender, Charles Parnell, Tilda Swinton

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
InSession Film Podcast – The Killer

Women InSession: Wild Vampire Movies

This week on Women InSession, we talk about some unique vampire movies that we love, in particular Tony Scott’s 1983 vampire movie The Hunger!

Panel: Kristin Battestella, Zita Short

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 61

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

Bonus Podcast: Andrei Tarkovsky Retrospective

On this episode, JD is joined by Assistant Professor at the University of Kentucky Raymond De Luca to discuss his expertise with the great Russian filmmaker Andrei Tarkovsky! Raymond is currently running a series at The Kentucky Theatre in Lexington, KY, and it was an honor to have him on the show to talk about the legendary director.

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
InSession Film Podcast – Andrei Tarkovsky

Movie Review: ‘Nyad’ is A Great Domestic Drama with Ho-Hum Sports Aspects


Directors: Jimmy Chin, Elizabeth Chai Vasarhelyhi
Writer: Julia Cox
Stars: Annette Bening, Jodie Foster, Rhys Ifans

Synopsis: It tells the remarkable true story of athlete Diana Nyad who, at the age of 60 and with the help of her best friend and coach, commits to achieving her life-long dream: a 110-mile open ocean swim from Cuba to Florida.


Few biopics cut in footage of the real life subject. Usually the filmmakers wait until the end so the audience can rub their chins as they watch the credits and say, “wow, she really did talk like that,” or “they did a fabulous job with that make up.” Though, with Nyad, directors Jimmy Chin and Elizabeth Chai Vasarhelyi, splice in a lot of clips of news footage.

A viewer could guess that the reason Chin and Vasarhelyi felt comfortable adding in this footage is because their background is in documentary. Their previous works focused on extreme sports putting us with the athletes. It’s like they wanted to keep reminding us that Diana Nyad is a real person and she actually did the harrowing feats she’s known for. It does take away from the drama, though. Especially when you have two powerhouse actors giving amazing performances.

For the first scene of the film, after the credits and the introduction, it feels like we could be in for an enthralling domestic drama. Two women who are platonic partners who do everything together, know each other’s tics, faults, tells, and needs bantering and bickering. It’s funny and charming. You get lost in it until you’re reminded that there’s more to both of these women than just their squabbles over the Scrabble board. It makes you wish a less sports focused pair took on this story. It’s likely the flashbacks of Diana’s sexual abuse at the hands of her swim coach wouldn’t feel as jarring as well, but could land with the impact they should.

Continuously swimming long distances sounds so much like a silly, “because it’s there,” type of feat. It’s a bit pretentious and we can tell from what Diana is like, a self-absorbed intellectual, that that concept isn’t too far off, but Julia Cox’s script delves deeper into the story than that. Diana is unlikeable as a person, but she has so many hidden depths in her ambition and her drive. She has a spark that even though she prickles against people, she’s able to draw them to her with her awe-inspiring vision. That sings through in the conversations Bonnie and Diana have underneath the conversations they’re having on the surface.

It takes a phenomenal actress to wear a real person like a second skin. Annette Bening is one of those actresses. She plumbs the depths of her subject and builds her from the inside out with incredibly long looks, deep sneers, bulldozing verbal attacks, and a terrific physicality. Bening takes an unlikeable woman and makes her into a multifaceted human. She’s never better than when she shares the screen with Jodie Foster.

It’s been a while since Jodie Foster has shown up in a role like this. She’s been sorely missed. Even as your heart flutters at just knowing it’s Jodie Foster back in full charming force, you don’t see her after a while and can only see Bonnie on screen. Foster’s timing is impeccable and her physicality is perfect. She brings life to the film and, as Bonnie, helps us to see the softer sides of Diana.

There is plenty of action in the film and the swimming scenes can be harrowing. The swimming itself is kind of boring, though, and it’s obvious that they chose bits of the stories of each swim in an attempt to keep that drama alive. The most compelling parts were seeing the effects of prolonged exposure to saltwater, sea creatures, and the elements as terrifically rendered by prosthetic artist Leo Corey Castellano. Seeing Diana like that takes away a bit of the romanticizing of feats of human endurance aspect of the film and turns it into a bit of body horror. 

Nyad works best as a domestic drama. The relationship between Diana and Bonnie is the most intriguing aspect of the entire film. It’s an incredible story and Diana Nyad has had an incredible life, but the sports aspect of the film is just a kind of flavor for the dialogue between the two women and not that interesting to watch. The movie as a whole suffers for the attempts at showing pieces of the swims and brightens when it’s back to Diana and Bonnie.

Grade: B

Podcast Review: Priscilla

On this episode, Ema Sasic from Next Best Picture joins JD to discuss Sofia Coppola’s new film Priscilla! This is one of our most anticipated films of the year and Coppola doesn’t disappoint. We talk about her direction, the performances and why it’s one of the better films of the year.

Review: Priscilla (4:00)
Director: Sofia Coppola
Writers: Sofia Coppola
Stars: Cailee Spaeny, Jacob Elordi

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

Movie Review: ‘Wingwomen’ is a Layered Crime Comedy


Director: Mélanie Laurent
Writers: Cédric Anger, Christophe Deslandes, and Mélanie Laurent
Stars: Mélanie Laurent, Adèle Exarchopoulos, Manon Bresch

Synopsis: Tired of life on the run, two expert thieves and best friends recruit feisty Sam to assist them with one last job unlike any they’ve done before


Mélanie Laurent’s directorial efforts haven’t been as strong as her acting efforts. Her last movie, The Mad Women’s Ball, had interesting ideas but was far too scattershot to make an impact despite a remarkable lead performance from Lou de Laâge. However, in her latest behind-the-camera project, Wingwomen, Laurent deftly flexes her genre cinema muscles and delivers her best-directed project, with impassioned chemistry between its three lead stars. 

Working with filmmakers like Quentin Tarantino, Louis Leterrier, Denis Villeneuve, and Alexandre Aja has certainly helped her gain an understanding of how genre cinema operates, with four distinct visions of a more participatory approach for the audience embedded in the filmmaking process. Although the opening action scene introducing us to Carole (played by Mélanie Laurent) and Alex (Adèle Exarchopoulos) is clunkily edited and choreographed, subsequent action scenes are sleek and have a great sense of rhythm. 

It also helps that Laurent stages many of its best action scenes with a known track to punctuate its rhythm and tone. One bravura sequence sees Alex fight a bare naked assassin in a bedroom while Tchaikovsky’s Waltz of the Flowers blares out in the speakers, and the perceptible window in the frame is filled with fireworks. The overall conceit of this scene is ridiculous, but Laurent isn’t afraid of putting her main characters in one gritty situation after the next. There’s an incredible balance operating between uncomfortable (bordering on cringe) comedy and tough-as-nails action that Laurent consistently plays with throughout the movie. 

A perfect example of this happens when the trio of bandits, Carole, Alex, and newcomer Sam (Manon Bresch, extraordinary), travel to Italy to kill assassins who were hired to dispose of Carole and Alex after the two told their godmother (Isabelle Adjani) of their intentions to leave the shadowy organization they are working with. The aforementioned assassination attempt sequence plays with the idea that their “hideout” is an invisible bunker in the middle of the forest, rendering the assassins invisible in a vast environment of glass, but the actual Italy assassination begins to play with slapstick comedy tropes until the violence reaches a real – and emotionally cathartic – point. It feels satisfying to watch these women kick major ass and not be afraid to take matters into their own hands, but there’s an added layer of character development in Laurent’s film that makes it stand apart from the usual fare of caper dramedies. 

That layer stems from making each protagonist emotionally complex, whether giving weight to Carole’s “final mission” or representing a textured relationship between Carole and Alex, and seeing Sam’s progression from when she gets introduced on a racetrack to her final scene with the trio. We already knew how terrific Laurent and Exarchopoulos are in many pictures in France and abroad, but Bresch is a total revelation here. She is poised to become a massive star in France (and perhaps internationally) after this picture, pulling off the classic tropes of the “newbie” in a Danny Ocean-esque gang with serious aplomb but also giving as much depth as possible to her character’s traumatic past, regarding the death of her girlfriend. 

I don’t believe I’m exaggerating when I say that Wingwomen is one of the best explorations (perhaps even mediations) on friendship in any motion picture released this year and one of the main reasons why the film works so well. The chemistry between Laurent, Exarchopoulos, and Bresch fires on all cylinders in the sequences that count the most, and we can’t help but ultimately feel invested in their plight as they reach the finish line in their most elaborate heist yet. It’s also one of the best gay movies of the year, with a not-so-subtle subtext representing a friendship between Carole and Alex that goes beyond a traditional “best friends” schtick, whether intentional on Laurent’s part or not. The ending posits this relationship in an immensely emotional light, giving far more weight to their bond than the previous scenes ever did. 

The ending also brings one of the biggest plotholes of the movie, which unfortunately gets resolved far too quickly and in a rather unsatisfying way than another – cooler – approach could’ve elevated. Adjani, a staple of French cinema, is also terribly underused here, with a backstory that gets consistently teased between Carole and her godmother but never fully revealed, despite a stern and confident turn from her. But even amidst those slight flaws, the core of Wingwomen, an exploration of identity and friendship, never lets up. Add some incredibly-crafted action sequences to the mix, and you’ve got a winner. Perhaps if Laurent’s next film operates in genre trappings and elevates its ending and supporting characters more, it’ll be an even better film than Wingwomen

Grade: A-

Movie Review: ‘The Marvels’ is Patronizing and Uninspired


Director: Nia DaCosta
Writers: Nia DaCosta, Megan McDonnell, and Elissa Karasik
Stars: Brie Larson, Teyonah Parris, Iman Vellani

Synopsis: Carol Danvers gets her powers entangled with those of Kamala Khan and Monica Rambeau, forcing them to work together to save the universe.


It’s finally official: The MCU has an identity crisis. The Marvels is by far one of the worst entries in the studio’s history. This film is a goofy, schizophrenic, cluttered mishmash of tone and pace, with a lead performance with zero charisma or depth. The final product is a somewhat elevated Saturday morning television affair with a script so paper-thin that the story hardly justifies the merciful Marvel Studios’ 100-minute runtime.

The Marvels is set after Captain Marvel and Ms. Marvel and follows Carol Danvers (Brie Larson), aka Captain Marvel, who has her powers crossed with two other superheroes in the Marvel universe—Ms. Marvel (Iman Vellani) and Monica Rambeau (They Cloned Tyrone’s Teyonah Parris). How? Captain Marvel jumps through a wormhole to meet a Kree revolutionary, Dar-Benn (Zawe Ashton). 

Carol deals with her past, which haunts her throughout the film. For one, Monica’s mother was Carol’s best friend, who died, and Monica has not seen her since leaving. The other is the birth of Dar-Benn’s villain origin story. Captain Marvel, a.k.a. “The Annihilator” to the Kree race, is attacking the Supreme Intelligence and causing a global environmental catastrophe. This forces her to inform the Skrull people they will be moving to their planet as a haven. Of course, when Dar-Benn sees Captain Marvel, the Kree leader suddenly takes matters into her own hands.

The Marvels was directed by Nia DaCosta, who wrote the script with WandaVision’s Megan McDonnell and Loki’s Elissa Karasik, which makes the final product all the more shocking. How can a filmmaking team with a filmography filled with projects of unparalleled mischievous, clever fun create a film that is on par with children’s Saturday morning television programming?

For one, the script is filled with exposition. Marvel then does what they do best, covering up the excessively unneeded explanations with action scenes as a beard. DaCosta uses cartoonish special effects to distract you from prolonged flashbacks and explain more backstory that is unnecessary.

Some nutty scenes don’t seem to fit and come across as needless filler. For example, a visit to a planet where people only sing (yet they abandon that premise as soon as the plot needs firmer ground). And don’t forget about Goose, the Flerkin feline. In 2019’s Captain Marvel, we get too much of a good thing with her special powers. These scenes are strung together as a patchwork to cover how the film has no real reason to exist in Marvel’s timeline.

Marvel and the filmmakers let the cast down here. However, let’s get something out of the way. Brie Larson appears to be sleepwalking through the material. She has transformed her character into one utterly devoid of personality, charm, or depth in any scene that asks for any amount of emotion, from an intense evacuation of a planet in peril to what is supposed to be a poignant revelation of her past. It’s honestly confounding. 

The one saving grace is the wonderful, exuberant performance from Ms. Marvel’s Iman Vellani. The character has charm to spare, barely keeping the film afloat during long stretches because of her incredible comic timing and fresh personality. If anything, The Marvels may set up her character for future movies and would be wise to do so because she is so adorably funny in the role. Overall, the picture needs to be more cohesive and the final product is patronizing. The ending is uneventful and fails to make an impact for the audience. Many will make excuses for the Nia DaCosta film, calling it just “stupid” fun, but don’t fall for it. The Marvels is a massive disappointment.

Grade: D+

Podcast: Alexander Payne / Is Marvel In Trouble?Podcast – Episode 559

This week’s episode is brought to you by Koffee Kult. Get 15% OFF with our code: ISF

This week on the InSession Film Podcast, Dave Giannini fills in for Brendan again as we talk a little Planet of the Apes and the great Alexander Payne in anticipation for The Holdovers! We also discuss Marvel with The Marvels coming to theaters this weekend and if they should be concerned going forward.

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!

– Planet of the Apes (11:08)
This last week we saw the new trailer for Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes, so we spent a few minutes talking about our reaction to it and how we feel about the new Planet of the Apes trilogy that came out last decade.

– Alexander Payne (32:27)
With The Holdovers hitting theaters this weekend, we wanted to spend some time talking about Alexander Payne and what makes him a unique filmmaker. His films tend to be a little quirky and funny, but they’re equally poignant and human. We specifically talk about how he’s able to maintain that balance tonally. The cast in his films are also noteworthy and that’s something we highlight as well.


RELATED: Listen to Episode 516 of the InSession Film Podcast where we discussed our Top 10 Movies of 2022!


– Marvel (1:11:31)
The Marvel Cinematic Universe has seemingly hit a wall with Phase Four and the introduction of their Disney+ shows. While JD is a slight defender of Phase Four, there’s no denying that there’s something off about the MCU currently. We did talk about this briefly earlier in the year, but with the recent news about Robert Downey Jr. possibly coming back, and some of their Disney+ shows coming out since that previous discussion, we thought it was apt to revisit the current standing of the MCU and what challenges they face moving forward.

– Music
Their Pie – Mark Orton
Avengers Theme – Alan Silvestri

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
InSession Film Podcast – Episode 559

Next week on the show:

The Hunger Games Retrospective

Hunger Games Catching Fire podcast

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

Movie Review: ‘Fingernails’ is More Form Than Function


Director: Christos Nikou
Writers: Christos Nikou, Sam Steiner, Stavros Raptis
Stars: Jessie Buckley, Riz Ahmed, Jeremy Allen White

Synopsis: Anna and Ryan have found true love, and it’s proven by a controversial new technology. There’s just one problem, as Anna still isn’t sure. Then she takes a position at a love testing institute and meets Amir.


Jessie Buckley and Riz Ahmed deliver touching performances amidst the poor material given to them in Christos Nikou’s sophomore feature, Fingernails. While it might provoke thought-provoking conversations about love in the modern era and the nature of relationships, the high-concept, deadpan rom-com from the Lanthimos protegee contains little insight and intuition, leaving much to be desired. 

Everyone knows that love is a complex emotion, one that’s harder to describe or write about because it is more based on a resounding feeling in your heart and soul. If a person asks us to describe it in a few words, there’s a possibility that what we choose to say won’t do justice to how it feels deep inside. We all perceive this emotion differently. Our body gives us dissimilar, yet contrasting in essence, signals that let us know about this sentiment. It doesn’t happen often. But when it does, it is a fantastic feeling that can’t be replicated. Love can be the flame that lights your fire and a sword that pierces your heart. However, whether it lands on either one of the two strands (or eventually ends up in both), it is equally essential for us to perceive those feelings. 

In his sophomore feature, titled Fingernails, Christos Nikou explores this feeling, more so on the side of already constructed relationships, via a high concept that does both favors and disservice to its themes. The Lanthimos protégé creates a world where couples take on a weeks-long process, with various scenarios that range from diving off an airplane to seeking each other’s scent while blindfolded, to determine if they are actually in love with one another. As explained by the characters in the film, these scenarios help the couple build a stronger and more intimate bond. There are three results to this test: 0% (where neither one is in love with the other), 50% (one partner is in love, while the other isn’t), and the rare 100% (where both partners are “happily” in love). All the operators need to determine if they are a functioning couple is one of their fingernails. 

At the center of this concept, there’s Anna (Jessie Buckley) and Amir (Riz Ahmed). Anna is an instructor-in-training in the love institution where these tests take place. Meanwhile, Amir is the rising star concocting various compelling scenarios that place the couples in dilemmas to confront their feelings for one another. Even though he has only been there for three months, the institution’s head, Duncan (Luke Wilson), praises him plenty. “We’re not here to try and teach people to fall in love… we’re trying to bring them closer together,” Duncan mentions to Anna. As the days go by, Anna and Amir continue to work to help these people’s bonds, yet amidst it all, there’s a growing infatuation with one another. These emotional exercises put them (and the couples participating) in a challenging position in which they question the status of their connection. 

Both of them are in relationships that, from afar, seem as if everything is going well. But, at a more in-depth glance, Anna and Amir are having trouble. Of course, in that society, people in that line of work must have a match. So, it is interesting to see how they try to combat that lingering sadness with the happiness that making people connect brings them. Each “I love you too” that Anna says to her partner, Ryan (Jeremy Allen White), feels like a breath of exasperation that he doesn’t notice. It makes you feel for her – how she tries to make a fractured relationship work without the supposed help of a love-match test. Buckley always gives effective characteristics and piercing facial expressions to her characters. It tends to make the viewer palpably feel every emotion, no matter what persona she’s adopting for the role.

This scenario should serve as a strain to examine how it feels to be in a relationship in a modern world, where technology determines most aspects of devotion. Instead of swiping left or right, two people know they are a match by a machine that has their fingernails. People in that world are searching for an answer to life’s harsh questions about love and everything in between. But even if it isn’t the one they would want to hear, they prefer to endure these types of tests than to talk things over naturally. There’s plenty of frustration within the community upon seeing a person with a bandage on their pinky finger. The question quickly arises: “How did it go?” And the answer, rapidly responded, is almost always that they weren’t a match. 

You begin to examine how these people live in a world where a test determines whether or not there’s love in the air. There’s also the possibility that some couples lie that they have indeed taken the test and lie about their results. On paper, this concept seems fascinating and very thought-provoking. But, for a project about the nature of relationships, the film seems to express itself in a way that doesn’t seem like it knows much about love and its equally heart-rending and effervescent complexity. Nikou’s ideas regarding how the characters handle each situation are short-sighted. He uses the deadpan comedy as the catalyst for the slow separation and fracture of the relationships depicted on-screen. But, the problem is that there’s so much dead air (and space) in each scene, whose purpose is to expand on Fingernails’ themes.

The screenplay itself isn’t piercing enough to withstand the dullness arriving from the clinical structure of the film’s procedure. The lead pairing of Buckley and Ahmed is why you feel a minor spark coming out of Fingernails. Their endearing factors as screen performers hold their weight separate from the material they’re being given, particularly the former (who doesn’t miss a single beat in every project she attaches herself to). You get the immediate sensation that the Greek filmmaker is fascinated by this concept, and so is the audience, to a certain point. However, he dedicates too much time to the gags and details about the tests instead of developing proper characters and intricate situations that lead to us resonating and getting something out of the film. When you analyze the material, there’s plenty to chew on. However, what we see on screen has such little insight that it doesn’t deserve such intriguing conceptualization. 

Grade: C

Movie Review: ‘Quiz Lady’ Misses Opportunities to Answer Real Questions


Director: Jessica Yu
Writers: Jen D’Angelo
Stars: Awkwafina, Sandra Oh, Will Ferrell

Synopsis: A game-show-obsessed woman and her estranged sister work together to help cover their mother’s gambling debts.


Quiz Lady has a premise that will satisfy that itch for trivia junkies everywhere. Especially the ones who don’t have the guts to try out such programs, like Jeopardy, for example, which is parodied in the new Hulu comedy. The problem is that it is only used as a backdrop by those buffs who take the minutiae of the genre seriously. While a far more exciting angle would have been an inside look at the struggle to retain knowledge and compete in such a show, you cannot argue the winning formula of Jessica Yu’s socially challenged comedy. One full of heart and a bond that can never be broken.

Written by a Hulu-hired hand, Jen D’Angelo (Solar Opposites), the story follows Anne Yum (Awkwafina), a socially awkward woman who always has her nose in a book. When she’s not gobbling up bits and pieces of knowledge at a record pace, she has a remote in her right hand and is petting Linguini, her gassy pug, in the other while watching Can’t Stop the Quiz, a game show she has been watching every day since the tender age of 8. As the story progresses, we learn Anne often watched the program because her sister Jenny (Sandra Oh) would put on the program and turn up the volume to distract Anne from her parent’s continuous arguments. 

Now grown up, Anne is an accountant who crunches numbers and has no friends. Her sister Jenny is a people person who only has professional prospects except for suing the pants off chain restaurants that bring her food that’s too hot to handle. Having grown apart over the years, they are brought back together when their mom runs off to Macao because she is indebted to Ken (Jon Park), a local Chinese gangster, for more than 80,000 dollars. Of course, you see where the story is headed. To get their mother out of debt, Jenny encourages Anne to try out for a game show hosted by her hero, Terry McTeer (Will Ferrell). Only after a video Jenny shot of Anne goes viral does she become an internet sensation.

This is Jessica Yu’s first feature film in nearly 15 years after a career in documentary films and directing dozens of television episodes for various genres from some of the most respected franchises on networks and streaming. Quiz Lady is a departure for the well-traveled filmmaker. Her films are often funny and heartfelt, but even though they fluctuate from the wacky absurd to a commentary on the bond of sisterhood, they can sometimes fall on the side of manipulative.

However, that’s not to say those scenes are not compelling because most are—for example, a hilarious set of toxic males primping and even massaging a half dozen adorable pooches. There is also a scene-stealing Tony Hale, who connects with Awkwafina’s Anne, who runs an immersive Benjamin Franklin hotel deep in historical Philadelphia. 

Others, like a flashback explaining Anne’s behavior as a child because of trauma, are out of place and forced to create closure for the sisters later. This is an example of Quiz Lady pushing aside an attempt at darker humor with heavy themes but trading them off for absurd comedy that sticks out like a sore thumb.

Yet, what makes Quiz Lady work is the bold choice of reversing the roles of the leads. Awkwafina will typically play the quirky character with irritable tendencies. Instead, Oh is allowed to revel in the role of Jenny. Her reactions and line delivery are priceless. In particular, when Oh’s Jenny has to think quickly on her feet, like using white guilt or cultural appropriation to talk herself out of predicaments. (The scene where Jenny attempts to even out Anne’s drugged-out state to an internist is particularly amusing.)

Of course, Awkwafina’s infectious comedic style cannot be contained in numerous spots, but playing a straight woman for most of the film shows her progression as a comedic performer. She’s absolutely winning here. Along with amiable Will Ferrell, who gives the film a shockingly calm presence that’s needed, is amusing. Additionally, the slimy Jason Schwartzman generates a few laughs to produce something positive out of a small role.

Overall, Quiz Lady is an infectious comedy with plenty of heart and plenty of wacky humor that’s charming enough to drag the picture across the finish line for a mild recommendation. However, the film missed a real opportunity to flesh out the childhood trauma angle with darker comedy that could have given the film greater depth. 

Grade: B-

Classic Movie Review: ‘Ivan’s Childhood’ Obliterates Innocence


Directors: Andrei Tarkovsky and Eduard Abaloy
Writers: Vladimir Bogomolov, Mikhail Papava, and Andrei Tarkovsky
Stars: Nikolay Burlyaev, Valentin Zubkov, Evgeniy Zharikov

Synopsis: During WWII, Soviet orphan Ivan Bondarev strikes up a friendship with three sympathetic Soviet officers while working as a scout behind the German lines.


This film was viewed as part of the event, “Tarkovsky: 6 Films, Master Works by a Master of Cinema,” at the Kentucky Theatre, accompanied by a Q&A by Raymond De Luca, Assistant Professor of Russian Studies and International Film Studies at the University of Kentucky

Andrei Tarkovsky, likely only known in cinephile circles, is a difficult director to access. In many ways, he is clearly of his time and place. Additionally, as has been stated by many, he is better understood if you view the scripts as works of poetry as opposed to straightforward fiction. In viewing Ivan’s Childhood it becomes clear that this has been true since his foray into film in 1962. As a note, prior to this event, this reviewer had experienced three of his films, Stalker, Solaris, and Mirror. Ivan’s Childhood is a bit more straightforward and easy to follow, but is certainly not without flourish.

Ivan’s Childhood, at its root, tells the story of Ivan (Nikolay Burlyaev), a child who is actively surviving through World War II and attempting to be of help to the army as a scout. The title is designed to make the audience feel sorrow and loss quickly, and it is wildly effective. We only see moments of the child’s pure childhood in flashback. We see brief moments of his mother and his sister, of whom he has been robbed through the tortures of war. Ivan’s Childhood is an obliteration of childhood, of innocence. As we sometimes sit back and discuss death and war in a detached way, Tarkovsky shows us the cost. More importantly, he does not allow us to avert our gaze. 

Although the film is not bloody or gory, when people die, it feels real and tactile. There is a genuine loss of life that is shown to not matter in the grand scheme of things. When we meet Ivan, especially for a child, he is tough as nails. He desperately wants to help and constantly tells others that his small size is an advantage. Ivan believes he will never be seen or caught, despite the rampant death around him. 

One could argue that Ivan’s Childhood has a weakness of character in people not named Ivan. However, this feels like a feature, as opposed to a bug. Tarkovsky puts us in the place of a child. Adults are large, implacable, stubborn, and see the world in a different way. Unless he begs and pleads, Ivan is constantly at the whim of the adults. The only adult who stands apart is Ivan’s mother (Irina Tarkovskya) who is almost literally a beacon of light. Tarkovsky frames her as both a great beauty and focus of hope and acceptance. Tarkovsky’s consistent use of dreamlike images and shifting focus allows us to see his mother as Ivan sees her. A woman who could have made his life kind and easy, if not for war. In particular, a scene in which Ivan sees a star in a well will stay with the audience, causing both wonderment and confusion. Showing Ivan both above and below is a masterstroke, which focuses us on the change and the loss of his childhood.

Despite Francois Truffaut’s statement that there is no such thing as an anti-war film, I believe that Ivan’s Childhood accomplishes what he would consider to be impossible. Yes, there is heroism, risk, and goodness in many of the characters in the film. But there is absolutely no lionization of any of the Russian men featured here. Ivan’s Childhood has a particular point of view. That point of view is summed up in the cost of war. Despite being the titular character, Ivan is not inherently special. He is a child. A child who has been robbed. A child whose being has been mutilated due to the horrors of war. There are countless children like him, in every way, in every country in the world.

Grade: A-

Women InSession: Christopher Nolan / The Prestige

This week on Women InSession, we talk about the great Christopher Nolan and what makes him a distinct filmmaker. Specifically we talk about one of our favorites in The Prestige! It’s a film that most of us really love, and while it does have Nolan’s patented structure, it feels very different than a lot of his other films.

Panel: Kristin Battestella, Shadan Larki, Erika Richards, Amy Thomasson

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 60

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

Movie Review (Middleburg 2023): ‘American Symphony’ Explores Traveling Through Pain Together


Director: Matthew Heineman
Stars: Jon Batiste, Suleika Jaouad

Synopsis: Explores a year in the life of musician Jon Batiste.


Jon Batiste is someone that a general audience would know as the bandleader of The Late Show With Stephen Colbert, but there is much more to him than that. A New Orleans native, Baptiste oozes charisma as a musician, one who plays with a joy that is infectious to others with every block he plays on. Famously playing with a melodica, an instrument part-trumpet and part-keyboard, he and his band, Stay Human, started with Colbert when he was only 29 years old. But there was always more to Batiste, which is what American Symphony discovers.

From director Matthew Heineman (The First Wave, Retrograde), this documentary goes in depth with Batiste’s life, particularly in his relationship with his wife, writer Suleika Jaouad. Jaouad’s story alone is worth its own documentary as she struggles with a rare form of leukemia that has consumed her for over a decade. Heineman is there to capture the battle when the cancer returns and she has to endure another bone marrow transplant and chemotherapy, which takes its toll on Batiste as well while he’s writing a new musical piece  for Carnegie Hall, with the film’s title.

The highs and lows are not hidden as Heineman places us with them in their most intimate moments, but it’s when Batiste is playing his music and working with his ensemble that the best comes out from him. Batiste is made for something bigger, as evidenced by his bold approach to music and incorporating everything into one symphony for the world to hear. At the same, his album, “We Are”, is a critically acclaimed, Grammy winning triumph, yet Batiste hears from his critics that it is not real jazz or that his album is not deserving to win over major artists. Batiste is still an underdog looking for the respect that he deserves.

This showcase of the other side of an amazing American artist brings a better appreciation to what Batiste has been, especially for someone like myself. I never knew his background, like forming a band that would play in the subway or walking across the street, or the fact he had this lengthy relationship with this unfortunate situation which makes it hard for both him and Jaouad. In fact, Jaouad has done a TED Talk about living with this form of leukemia, which as she wrote in her book, “Between Two Kingdoms,” she was given a 35% chance to live. Even with her current second battle, Jaouad continues to defy the odds. She and Batiste are deeply committed to each other, even allowing Heineman and his cameras to their very private wedding. 

American Symphony is a simple but moving story of the spirit of music and the defiance over death through love. By the end, any appreciation for Batiste will be increased and his story with Jaouad will be raised because of the depths they have gone to endure through the pain and allow us to be with them. It is about going through hell as well as enjoying the small things, like sledding down a hill. As this couple is still in their 30’s, these are young people who are in their prime with the best yet to come and their time is now. 

Grade: A-

Movie Review (Middleburg 2023): ‘American Fiction’ is a Perfect Balance


Director: Cord Jefferson
Writers: Cord Jefferson and Percival Everett
Stars: Jeffrey Wright, Skyler Wright, John Ales

Synopsis: A novelist who’s fed up with the establishment profiting from “Black” entertainment uses a pen name to write a book that propels him to the heart of hypocrisy and the madness he claims to disdain.


In Spike Lee’s Bamboozled, it satirized American TV and content that isn’t really Black enough and used racist stereotypes to improve their ratings. In what feels like a spiritual sequel, Cord Jefferson, in his directorial debut, makes the same point with literature. Based on the novel “Erasure” by Percival Everett, Jefferson makes one of the best directorial debuts in recent memory with this stinger on how White readers still judge Black writers for what their content is about, as opposed to writing skills. One of the best screenplays this year by Jefferson adds an intelligence that bears a lot of fruit in story and satire that feels straight from Mad TV.

Jeffrey Wright plays Thelonious “Monk” Ellison, a professor and author based in California who is struggling to get his work published because, according to his agent (John Ortiz), it isn’t “Black enough.” The example of what type of Black novel that is getting published comes in Monk attending Sintara Golden’s (Issa Rae) reading of her book titled “We’s Lives in Da Ghetto.” White women give a standing ovation in front of Monk, who then sees his books in a bookstore not in the Black Lives section because his subjects are not about the genre considered as such. Being shafted for books which use Ebonic lingo and use tropes that have always been connected to Black stories angers Monk so much that he decides to write his own book called “My Pafology” under a pseudonym, Stagg R. Leigh. To his surprise, his book gets picked up.

Meanwhile, Monk has returned home to Boston to attend to his ailing mother’s dementia while reuniting with his siblings Lisa (Tracee Ellis Ross) and Clifford (Sterling K. Brown) who has unceremoniously come out of the closet. A sudden tragedy keeps Monk for the longterm in Boston and he is forced to tie up the affairs at his mother’s house. He then meets his mother’s neighbor, Coraline (Erika Alexander), which kindles a possible romance for the lonely author. With his brother’s outing causing consequences for himself too, Monk has to juggle many things, but nothing more important than his mother. That joke of a book he has written is now Monk’s way to pay for the expenses.

The range of Wright’s acting in comedy and drama is in full swing when dealing with the switching tones of the story and he does it with such ease. Ellison is someone who has pretended to be another person he is nowhere close to – a wanted convict who the FBI are now trying to locate. Having to degrade himself in this character, such as his suggestion for what the new title should be for his book, shows a tragic comic crisis of faith for Ellison. It is one of Wright’s best performances on screen, who has the right balance of confidence and melancholy dealing with these various problems. Brown is terrific as well, a tragic character that Monk has empathy for but finds Clifford’s behavior too erratic while dealing with his personal fallout.

What we have in the end is another conversation about racial profiling and stereotypes, but not as serious. Jefferson amazingly pulls out the right moments from Everett’s novel in laying down the difficult points that still affect how Black people are perceived. The great trick of it all is that Jefferson perfectly uses humor in the right places to get us through the story that does not stall nor does it lay it thick on viewers. American Fiction won the People’s Choice Award at Toronto and at Middleburg, which says how much people across the board will enjoy this film when it comes to theatrical release.  

Grade: A