This week on Women InSession, we talk about our top 3 overlooked foreign films and what makes them so special despite the little they’ve received! There are countless foreign films that come out each year, and while we do see many of them, some of the better films still slip under the radar and it’s always fun to highlight those that deserve more love.
Panel: Kristin Battestella, Zita Short, Will Bjarnar
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!
For the final month of 2024, Criterion has a stacked lineup of two re-releases and four new additions to the closet. While Fellini and Wim Wenders get a second life with a film of theirs, the Coen brothers add a new film to the collection – arguably the best they have made to date. Two 2023 releases, one on the dangers of A.I. and the other a story of protecting the environment, also enter, while a new Hong Kong action classic is released for a new audience to discover. For the last time this year, these are the releases this December.
8 ยฝ (1963)
The first re-release is Federico Felliniโs masterpiece on a creative block that resonates with anyone involved in making something. Guido (Marcello Mastroianni) is a film director whose next film is collapsing around him as much as his personal life. His wife, his mistress, his muse, his mother – all are coming onto Guido while his planned sci-fi films have many problems he canโt solve. Among the greatest films about the filmmaking process, it has been sixty-one years since and remains as relevant as Fellini orders his personal circus to make the biggest spectacle anyone has ever seen.
Paris, Texas (1984)
The second re-release is Wim Wendersโ road trip through the American West which won him the Palme dโOr. Travis (Harry Dean Stanton) is a drifter who is picked up by his brother (Dean Stockwell), currently taking care of Travisโ son, and now looks to find his estranged wife (Nastassja Kinski). It is a gorgeous look at a country that was desolate physically and emotionally as Travis himself walked through the desert at the start of the film with Ry Cooderโs haunting slide guitar score.ย
Eastern Condors (1987)
In a story similar to The Dirty Dozen, a group of prisoners are sent into Vietnam on a secret mission to blow up an abandoned bunker full of weapons to prevent them being found by the Viet Cong. It becomes a scramble to fight through the military to complete the mission at any cost, no matter how many men fall. Sammo Hung directs and stars as the leader of the group with an eccentric cast with various tricks of their sleeves, presenting an explosive battle throughout the whole movie that matches other American action films of the era.ย
No Country For Old Men (2007)
One of the most defining films of the 2000s, the Coen Brothers adapted Cormac McCarthyโs novel and won the Oscar for Best Picture and Best Director. After stumbling upon a drug deal gone bad and $2 million in a satchel, a Vietnam vet (Josh Brolin) finds himself being chased by a deranged, psychopathic bounty hunter (Javier Bardem, one of the most terrifying characters in film history), while an aging sheriff (Tommy Lee Jones) is trailing behind them trying to make sense of the shocking violence. Itโs a Western noir with tinges of dark comedy – the perfect Coen brothers mix – and delivers on every level, to which it is very rare a film could do nothing wrong in its story.
The Beast (2023)
In the future when artificial intelligence has controlled the world, a woman (Lea Seydoux) starts to feel emotions that require her memory to be erased, but she refuses to give in. Her past lives come back to haunt her with different encounters with another man (George Mackay) and she wants to keep all of her feelings rather than be purified.ย Director Bertrand Bonello amazingly constructs this sci-fi as a warning to what A.I. can take away from us and how essential such emotions are to remember.ย
Evil Does Not Exist (2023)
Following up his Oscar-winning Drive My Car, director Ryusuke Hamaguchi tells about a man who learns his village being threatened by a real estate project and fears the damage it will do to their environment. The man then finds himself in the middle between his home and the disillusionment of being there and being hired as a caregiver for the company looking to take over the whole area for their profits. It is a battle line that Hamaguchi approaches with the same tone as Drive My Car, with a measured compassion that does not overdo itself.ย
This week on Chasing the Gold, Shadan and Erica discuss Wicked and where they think it’ll land come Oscar nomination morning! The film is off to a hot start at the box office and it’s been mostly well received critically, it’s going to be an Oscar player. The question is where and how far can it go? We had a lot of fun digging into that in this conversation.
On that note, check out this week’s show and let us know what you think in the comment section. Thanks for listening and for supporting the InSession Film Podcast!
Directors: David Derrick Jr., Jason Hand, Dana Ledoux Miller Writers:Jared Bush, Dana Ledoux Miller Stars:Auliสปi Cravalho, Dwayne Johnson, Hualฤlai Chung
Synopsis: After receiving an unexpected call from her wayfinding ancestors, Moana must journey to the far seas of Oceania and into dangerous, long-lost waters for an adventure unlike anything she’s ever faced.
In Moana, a young, confident, naรฏve Moana (Auliโi Cravalho) sings about how far sheโll go. Every Disney animated musical has a song that becomes synonymous with the film, and the Oscar-nominated โHow Far Iโll Goโ (written by Lin-Manuel Miranda) became intertwined with Moana the film. Regarding Moana, the franchise, just how far theyโll go gets a bit more confusing. Over the past year, something has consistently been changing with this franchise, whether it be the announcement of a live-action remake, a Disney+ series, or that the once Disney+ series would be cut down and made into a film, that film being Moana 2. This announcement came as a bit of a shock since it was in February that Moana 2 would be released in November; this gave everyone involved only 9 months to change their show into a feature film. However, Disney seemed to be scrambling as their slate of releases seemed fairly weak; when I say fairly weak, Iโm saying that for the first time since COVID in 2020, it looked as though there wouldnโt be an animated Disney film released theatrically.
Thus comes Moana 2, which begins sometime after the end of Moana. Moana is a little older, much wiser, and now considered the leader of her island. As a Wayfinder, she travels the sea, still with her trusty pig and chicken sidekicks, searching for other people on other islands. She canโt find much but uncovers a pot that shows different people on an island under the stars. She returns this pot to her home and has a vision of her wayfinding ancestors, who tell her the story of an island called Motufetu that connected all the people in the ocean before it was sunken by the storm god Nalo who believed breaking up the people would provide him with more power. If humans were to touch this island, it would restore the channels in the sea and allow people to connect once more. Meanwhile, the demigod Maui (Dwayne Johnson) is searching for Nalo for his own reasons but gets caught by Matangi (Awhimai Fraser), Nalo’s henchman, who Nalo has trapped inside a giant clam. Moana must find Maui and make it to Motufetu before it is too late.
Moana is one of Disneyโs best works in the last 20 years. The songs are beautifully written and performed, the film is gorgeously animated, and the emotional beats work so well not just as a film but telling a Polynesian islander story, one that hasnโt been explored much in cinema. Moana 2, on the other hand, misses almost every mark that the original nailed. The performances by Crevalho and Johnson, especially in the singing parts, are strong, but the rest of the cast never melded as they should have. These characters were never given enough time to flesh out and grow and instead were mainly stuck to the tropes they were started with before the film began.
While the original songs were one of the first film’s best aspects, they are instantly forgettable here. I couldnโt even begin to think about which one would be the film’s theme, but thatโs also because I donโt think there was a theme to explore. Because of that, nothing in this film comes close to the staying power of โHow Far Iโll Goโ or even โYouโre Welcome.โ There just was a different vibe, and the loss of Lin-Manuel Miranda (no matter how much heโs been meme’d) hurts the film’s overall tone. Every song was too on the nose (I wasnโt the biggest fan of one of the film’s opening numbers ending with โI am Moanaโ), or it felt incredibly out of place to the point it became unnecessary.
However, the biggest issue came in the pacing. As mentioned before, this was an almost completed Disney+ series that was transformed into a film that showed throughout. Scenes felt episodic rather than thematic, with some shots included that were clearly meant to serve as title cards or cliffhangers for the series format. It took far too long to get into the action of the story, and when they finally did, everything was resolved within a few scenes. Even moments assumed to struggle were set up as almost cheap ploys to bring these characters together; again, it felt like something that would take 3 or 4 episodes to get to. The third act also needed to be more complex to feel earned. The filmmakers tried their best to bring out genuine emotion, but even some of the best scenes had turnaround resolutions that killed any momentum the film might have had. It felt like a rushed project with much material that could have been used left unseen.
The visual aspect was also a hit or miss. One of Moanaโs best traits was water use and the beautiful lights the water and some sea creatures could bring out. Moana 2, at times, looked gorgeous, but something about it felt artificial on the big screen. It became obvious early on that the animation itself wasnโt made for cinema, and this was a case where it almost became harder to look past. Some gorgeous shots and sequences began to feel misplaced as the scenes never lined up. The longer the film went on, the more apparent it became which scenes were finished before the change and which ones still could be adjusted.
Still, with all that, Moana 2 somehow finds a way to be at least average. There is enough good material to make a certain audience of a certain age while watching it, but it doesnโt hold a candle to the original’s beauty or wonder. It was a rushed project with rushed results that neither Cravalho nor Johnson could save, even if they tried their best to hold this thing up. Ultimately, I was just left massively underwhelmed and disappointed, but I guess thatโs what I have come to expect from a studio that used to create joy. Hopefully, they can turn this franchise around, but with yet another live-action remake on the horizon, how far theyโll go might be too far to return.
Zendaya’s face as Tashi Duncan dominated the posters for Luca Guadagnino’s erotic tennis drama Challengers. The former prodigy, now wife and manager of fading champion Art Donaldson (Mike Faist), with her purple reflective sunglasses. Art and his once closest friend, Patrick Zweig (Josh O’Connor), and once again rival images inside the frames. She hovers, and she watches. It’s Tashi who is watching years after the men watched her at the beginning of her career.ย
There have been many arguments about who is playing whom in the love triangle and what the game and goal are. Is Tashi a ‘home wrecker’ when she starts dating Patrick? What about when she eventually coaches and marries Art?
Is she the spark who challenges exactly how much Art and Patrick care about tennis and how much they care about each other? Is she the boss? The excuse? The person holding things together? Theโฆ villain?
Zendaya and Mike Faist in “Challengers.”
Insession Film‘s Nadine Whitney asked the question of Zendaya at a November 23 press conference for Challengers with co-star Mike Faist in attendance.ย
Nadine Whitney: People have called Tashi a villain because of her will. Do you believe that is a double standard, considering how men in sports are treated?”
Zendaya: (Laughs) I just want to say, don’t get me started on this. Mike knows I’m a Tashi advocate, okay? She’s not a villain. Even if you are the villain, you’re not really supposed to look at your character that way. My job is to empathize with her, to understand where she’s coming from, and to humanize her.
What I think was interesting to me is, although I think she can be quite harsh and unapologetic in the way she goes about things, it was my job, again, to find where her pain is stored and, to me, the trauma of losing your career. The idea of never allowing yourself the time to grieve, and then also, I think, being in a marriage where I think, at least this is how I perceived it, she’s in charge all the time, she’s making all the decisions, answering all the things, and being accountable for two people, and vicariously living through them as well. Her life, since she was a kid, has felt soincomplete because this one true love, which is tennis, has been ripped away from her.
It is different for us as actors; we can continue to work however long we want to, and if we’re lucky, we can keep doing it. Whereas an athlete, there’s a limit to how much you can put your body through, and especially if you get an injury. I empathize so deeply with this idea of loss because I love my job, I love what I do, and I couldn’t imagine it just all being taken away from me, and then someone being like, “Well, the only way you can do it is if you vicariously live through someone else.” or, “You can only direct and you can never play a character again,” or, “You can only be a DP, you can never play a character again.”
I tried to put myself in her shoes in that way andย put myself alsoย in a marriage that ultimately isn’t equal.ย They don’t feel like partners; it feels like one person telling another person what to do, and that’s pretty much it, and someone else is okay with that.ย That works for some people, butย I don’t thinkย it necessarilyย isย healthy for these two people.ย It’s just this deeply codependent feeling of needing the other person to fulfill something that you can’t fulfill on your own.ย Does she do some things that Iย wouldn’t necessarilyย do personally?ย Yeah, but at least I can understand where it’s coming from.
Ultimately, I think what’s really beautiful about this is everybody isย deeplyย flawed and makes mistakes, and I don’t think you can say that one person is the quote, unquote, “villain” or the “bad guy.”ย They’re all making decisions,ย they’reย all hurting each other,ย they’reย allย unhealed and lost and just trying to get through, and they do about it in just the messiest ways.ย So, I don’t know, that’s my more mature answer.ย
But then, my other answer is the real villain is Art. Next question? No, I’m kidding, but not really, if I had to choose a villain!
It’s a debate, and that’s what I appreciate honestly about making this film. I think something that makes me so excited, even when I’m at the grocery store, and people come up to me, andย they’llย be like, “I just saw Challengers; what happened?”ย And they want to talk to me and discuss the characters and who they feel wasย in theย wrong, who theyย feelwas treated the worst, or whoย reallyย won in the end, and what were their intentions.
And truly, while I think I have some answers, I also don’t. I think there is an open-ended nature to it that allows for conversation, allows for people to make up their own ideas, and upon second and third watch, your opinions will change, and I appreciate that because that’s the reason why we make things, so people can enjoy it and take it home with them and make decisions for themselves about the characters.
(Mike Faist reacts) Damn!
Damn! Indeed. Zendaya says the ball’s in your court. At least one thing is for sure โ with Challengers,ย you get great tennis. That much we toldย ya!ย
This week on the InSession Film Podcast, we discuss more movies we’ve caught up with in the last few weeks, including We Live in Time, Kneecap, Hundreds of Beavers and Fancy Dance. We also talk about that horrible trailer for the live-action How to Train Your Dragon.
– Opening Banter / Box Office (0:28) We open the show this week with some more fun banter before getting into our weekly box office segment. As expected, Wicked and Gladiator II dominated the box office with some big numbers. Wicked is especially on its way to being in the top 10 for the year.
– How to Train Your Dragon (13:28) Last week on the show we talked about the first images released for the new live-action How to Train Your Dragon, and now we got our first footage with its new tease trailer. And it’s bad. It’s bad bad. Given our love for the franchise, this is setting up to be a major disappointment.
– More 2024 Catch-Up (47:29) As we’ve done in recent weeks, we had more catch-up to discuss as we talk about the romantic-drama We Live in Time, the fun music biopic in Kneecap, the goofy comedy Hundreds of Beavers and the vital Fancy Dance. All of these films are captivating in their own way, and we had a great time talking about them. JD also gives some brief thoughts on the documentary Sugarcane.
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!
On this episode, JD and Brendan discuss Ridley Scott’s new film Gladiator II, starring Paul Mescal and Denzel Washington! We’ve been looking forward to this film all year, partially because we are big fans of that first Gladiator, but more so because of who Scott has become over the last decade. He’s become one of the most fascinating filmmakers in recent years, and he did not disappoint with Gladiator II.
Review: Gladiator II (4:00) Director: Ridley Scott Writers: David Scarpa Stars: Paul Mescal, Pedro Pascal, Denzel Washington
Director: Ridley Scott Writer:David Scarpa Stars:Paul Mescal, Pedro Pascal, Denzel Washington, Connie Nielsen
Synopsis: After his home is conquered by the tyrannical emperors who now lead Rome, Lucius is forced to enter the Colosseum and must look to his past to find strength to return the glory of Rome to its people.
Gladiator II, directed by Ridley Scott, is a movie I am torn about. The highs of Gladiator II are some of the greatest parts of this year’s movies. The lows are ultimately disappointing and unforced – odd in such ways that it leaves the remaining experience fractured. In the hours since watching the film, I find myself wishing that it was a legacy sequel more in the vein of Blade Runner 2049 – helmed by a crew willing to distance themselves from the past to create a film as rich as the first and not indebted to it.
Some parts of Gladiator II echo that type of legacy. Itโs obsessed with Marcus Aruiliousโ โdream of Romeโ – that vision of a Rome where all people were free and lived in safety. That dream would be what ultimately set in motion Maximusโ plot for vengeance, but it wouldnโt be investigated in greater detail for the remainder of that film.
In Gladiator II, the dream of Rome becomes personified in Hanno (Paul Mescal) and Macrinus (Denzel Washington) – two individuals who live in tension with that initial dream. As we watch both these individuals find who they are, we begin to see how they fight for the soul of Rome. Macrinus is the ultimate antithesis of that dream: Macrinus rules through wealth and terror. Washington gives weighty dialogues about the power of being a free man in the Roman empire – the goal of the Colosseum isnโt to free yourself from your oppressor but to become the oppressor. Macrinus is the ultimate scheming character – gaining power by leading others to their hubris. The senate and twin emperors fall for his charms consistently – the charismatic Macrinus is disarming with his words. Washingtonโs ability to convey that faux vulnerability with a smile and a flicker of his hands is second to none. Washington has a knack for playing the lovable villain, and in the role of Macrinus, he shines. As Macrinus gains power and removes that mask of vulnerability, the layers of Washingtonโs performance are far more obvious. Entire shifts of demeanor occurring as a character heads off screen can be found, and Washington translates frustration into these small movements that enable the audience to follow the schemer with ease. Every word that falls from Macrinusโ mouth is primed to manipulate his subject – and while nearly every other character in the film falls for his charms, Hanno is the only individual to not be convinced.
Hanno is easily the strongest character in the film for me – because his loyalties arenโt to any one living person in Rome, but rather that long lost dream of Rome. Mescal rides this fine line between rage fueled anger and melancholic defiance that really works for me. There are a plethora of scenes in the film where Macrinus comments on Hannoโs unending rage– scenes that can feel out of place in the presence of Mescalโs walled-off expression. That straight face is Hannoโs purest act of defiance – he cannot be bought like Macrinus believes him to be. Hanno is far more secretive than Macrinus – he hides his true identity (or casts it away), and acts solely for himself in the arena. The rage that Macrinus speaks so highly of is present in every beat of the action – Mescalโs mastery of the choreography creates a performance that is as wild as Macrinus believes him to be.
I adore the way that Mescal is able to use apathy to create meaning in a scene. The script gives Mescal these moments of biting dialogue that utilize Mescal’s uncanny ability to โmaskโ his emotions. Itโs these moments that better show Hannoโs deeper conflict: Choosing whether to build a better Rome or abandon this world to its tyrants and return to his wife in the afterlife. That core idea is very similar to that of Gladiator, but through the status of Hanno, itโs able to cut across with far more nuance in this film. Mescalโs lack of rage and embracing of apathy enables this character to grow far more intrinsically than Maximus did in Gladiator. There are moments in Gladiator II that attempt to create extrinsic motivation for Hanno in his quest to bring that dream of Rome to lightโฆbut sadly, these moments are far too reductive to truly work.
That extrinsic motivation is linked to this film’s legacy characters – the politicians and senators of Gladiator who ultimately found themselves in charge of Rome after Commodusโ death in the Colosseum. These schemers are sadly at a loss of true narrative agency. While their actions provide the catalyst to launch Hanno into the third act with a reformed identity, they fail to serve the story in any new thematic ways. Gladiator as a film gains greater meaning through its schemers’ attempts to dethrone Commodus – it highlights how complacency leads to evilโs rise and stems from a protective component of Maximusโ identity. Maximusโ escape plan being foiled is enabled solely by Quintus – and ultimately, that tension is broken in the final moments when Quintus chooses to not interfere during the final showdown of that first movie. The b-plot is fundamental to the story of Gladiator – in many ways, being the driving force that showcases our characters having the agency to undermine Commodus. In Gladiator II, the B-plot is a condemnation of the subtle art of politics. Our schemers are unable to unseat the Twin Tyrants, only enabling a newer, far crueler individual, to gain power. That idea is a good idea – but itโs also shown to be the status quo from the minute the opening titles reveal that Twin Emperors have taken over Rome. The backstories of Hanno and Macrinus build this exact same idea. And they manage this without being reductive, carbon copies of the previous film.
This is the fundamental failing of the story created by David Scarpa and Peter Craig. The inclusion of Gladiatorโs legacy characters falls flat – the story has little for these old schemers to do. Lucilla and Gracchus may both be the same rebels we knew from 24 years ago, but when their story hits the exact same beats – and the exact same snags – it fails to be fresh and innovative. These schemers’ failures may be what grants Macrinus his rise to power, but it’s done far too slowly, uninterestingly, and doesnโt effectively intertwine with the story of Hanno.
That comes at a substantial cost for General Acacius (Pedro Pascal) – the new husband of Lucilla, who has so little agency in this film. The story is far too sympathetic to him too early into the film for Hannoโs revenge narrative to fully take off, and yet, Acacius is too pinned down by the narrative to add anything substantial to this story. Pascal is great in the film, being both charismatic and noble in all the ways that make him endearing to the audience despite his short screen time – but his talents are wasted in a film that traps Acacius into a two-dimensional character without any narrative agency. Connie Nielsonโs Lucilla is dealt the same hand – and while she is given a heavier task in navigating the loss of Lucius – her role in the narrative is still extremely limited.
In discussing Gladiator II and its themes of a Dream of Rome, I feel that I have failed to highlight why I care so deeply for this movie. The screenplay and writing can be, at times, derivative, leading to entire sections of the plot feeling far too exposable for an epic of this size. But I say this because I believe in this dream of Rome – a dream that comes to life through the sheer scale of Gladiator II.
Ridley Scott certainly knows how to get the most bang for buck on a film set. Few directors can consistently create visual marvels for the silver screen – and Scott does it at such a pace that it must be celebrated. Over the past 5 years, weโve been gifted with Ridley Scottโs signature low-fantasy styles with The Last Duel (2021) and Napoleon (2023). Both of these epics have the grand costumes Iโve come to expect, and highlight how Scott has evolved as an action director – but they donโt have the same sense of scale offered by the Roman Empire. That scale is what feels so unique to Gladiator II, and while it was present in its predecessor, it feels far bigger here.
One major shift from the previous film is the inclusion of naval combat. The film opens with the battle of Numidia, and here is where we are first introduced to the ships of Rome. Hanno (Paul Mescal), is the general of Numidiaโs defense, and we are given mere moments to take in the beauty of this massive city – before being swept over the waves to be introduced to the great General Acacius & the full navy of Rome. Each of these ships is far more forbidding than any ground army could be – armed with catapults & boarding towers too large to be overcome by a single fighter. As the arrows from both sides fly, it becomes quickly apparent that something larger must be used to resolve this battle – the ships are coming, and arrows alone wonโt stop them. At this moment, the full power of Numidia is revealed – the catapults and trebuchets that launch flaming balls hungry for the wood of these Roman ships.
The artwork of creating ancient war machines for the big screen is at its height with Gladiator II – when trebuchets, catapults, cavalry, massive warships, and greater walls are captured on camera, it’s impossible to look away from this technical marvel. Even when the action becomes more and more theatrical within the Colosseum, it never loses its sense of danger and scope. This is aided by the tactile feel of the world – the environment, set design, and costumes are all gorgeous. Where the practical effects end and the digital effects begin, I cannot say, for this world is truly enthralling. Arthur Maxโs production design is a grand statement to this majestic world: It shows a Rome full of beauty that you wish was real. The costumes, the shadows, the prop blades, the makeup – it all exists to showcase the disproportionate world of Rome in its glory.
This grand artwork isnโt unique to Gladiator II – indeed, Gladiator has some of the best set and costume designs put to film. But the major cinematic upgrade is shown in the film’s action. Whether itโs the natural evolution of Ridley Scott as a more accomplished action director, or the inclusion of editors Sam Restivo and Claire Simpson, Gladiator II is a major step up from its predecessor in its action scenes. Where Gladiator was an action film created through covering broken continuity with phenomenal sound design, Gladiator II doesnโt need to fake the action. The geography of the action is followable throughout the fast-paced action – and it makes for a grand spectacle worthy of the silver screen. Now, when we see the action on the floor of the Colosseum, we are far more able to take in this beautifully broken empirical world. Through stronger editing in the action, Gladiator II is able to transport you into the world of Rome with ease. And the action now plays a stronger role in the characterization of key characters – Mescal is able to entertain as a wild beast through the choreography, and tell a story without any lines of dialogue. Itโs a massive step up from its predecessor in these technical elements.
Although the story wanders, Gladiator II sold me an entertaining time at the movies that inspired hope that a better world can exist. I feel far more connected to Hannoโs conflict than I did to Maximus – and Mescalโs performance walks a line between apathy and duty so perfectly for me. Add to this a stunning performance from Denzel Washington, and its easy to see why I am giving Gladiator II a thumbs up. Itโs worth watching on the big screen and adds to the mythology of Gladiator in fascinating, worthwhile ways.
Saturday Night has been one of this yearโs film surprises, with an exciting young ensemble cast and a lovely return for director Jason Reitman. The biggest surprise, though, is Matt Woodโs performance as the iconic comedian John Belushi. To say it took our breath away is an understatement. It was an absolute honor to sit down with Matt to discuss his performance in Saturday Night and his connection to John Belushiโs unique brand of comedy.
On this episode, JD and Brendan are joined by Erica Richards to discuss Jon M. Chu’s highly anticipated musical Wicked! We are big fans of the Broadway musical, so we were always intrigued by this one, even if the marketing left something to be desired. Despite how JD and Brendan felt about the film, it was incredible to hear Erica’s deep passion for the material and what it means to her.
Review: Wicked (4:00) Director: Jon M. Chu Writers: Winnie Holzman, Dana Fox Stars: Cynthia Erivo, Ariana Grande, Jonathan Bailey
This week on Women InSession, Zach Youngs joins us to discuss our favorite Nicole Kidman movies and performances! Kidman is one of the best working today, and has such a fascinating career, especially when you include her choices as a producer and how that’s affected her acting roles. But she always gives a great performance regardless, and when she’s at her best, there’s no one like her.
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!
I like to romanticize editing as an art in and of itself. Unlike painting, sculpture, stage performance, or photography, film gets the benefit of an edit. A scene in a movie can shift the audience’s allegiance with a shot here and a smash cut there. In my last piece about editing, I wrote about how beautifully and expertly an editor can shift the tone of a scene or an entire film. I likened it to an assemblage of emotions. Now, Iโd like to focus on how an editor can play with time.
An editor is like an omniscient being, always seeing time laid out before them. Working with their director, they can extend or cut short any sequence to build a reality for the characters within the narrative. They create the time of the film, not our reality’s runtime, but the time in which these characters will ever exist. Sometimes, that existence is over the course of a relationshipโ where it starts and where it ends, all mixed in with each other like in We Live in Time. Sometimes, it’s 90 minutes of nerve-wracking anxiety before a TV show premieres like Saturday Night. Sometimes, it’s a dreamy couple of weeks where a transactional relationship turns into something more like in Anora. The editor controls how we understand and experience time.
One of the greatest tricks at play in We Live in Time, edited by Justine Wright, is that we find ourselves in a story already in progress but not in the way we expect. Someย scenes move Almut (Florence Pugh) and Tobias’ (Andrew Garfield) story forward, but in a way that is a flashback to their past. Every jump forward or backward helps build and fill in their years together. It serves to ease us into the fact that the ending, as hard as it is, is inevitable but ultimately fulfilling because of the challenges we saw them overcome over years of courtship, frustration, and love.
In contrast, Saturday Night, edited by Nathan Orloff and Shane Reid, is a train on a track barrelling ever forward, picking up speed as it heads into the station instead of slowing down. The fact that the story for the film is explicitly set during the 90 minutes prior to the first episode of Saturday Night Live hitting the air is a rigid construct with little room to move time in any way but forward. With the long tracking shots and the complicated crowd scenes, it’s a wonder, like that first episode of Saturday Night Live, that these editors could make it coherent. That’s the beauty of the craft, though, to hide the sweat and the seams to make something effortless and like they could have shot the film in one go over that specific 90 minutes.
The most incredible, madcap use of time in almost any film this year, comes from Anora, edited by Sean Baker (who also wrote and directed the film). The sequence comes as the love-drunk young couple Ivan (Mark Eydelshteyn) and Ani (Mikey Madison) are discovered, and henchmen Garnick (Vache Tovmasyan) and Igor (Yura Borisov) are dispatched by family fixer Toros (Karren Karagulian) to assess the situation. Tensions come to a head, and Toros, having been called from the scene, claims he is on his way, just ten minutes away. Within that ten minutes, all hell breaks loose. Ivan bolts, Ani is captured, and Garnick and Igor are on their back feet. The action cuts between what is happening at the mansion and Toros making his way through New York City traffic. The goofiness of these men trying to contain this situation is compounded by the fact that Toros is still on the line and can only hear the madness occurring. It’s scary, exciting, and ludicrously funny.
The way films are edited acts like a compilation of people’s memories. Memory for one person is fuzzy. Memory can be lost, but with the addition of other memories, a new era can be established. A well-edited film is a perfect piece of time in a character or group of character’s lives. Editing dictates how this cacophony of memory is understood and brings the memories into better focus. Time is constructed and wielded to create empathy for the fiction occurring on screen. It may be too long, or it may be too short, but in the end, it was all the time it needed.
Director: Jon M. Chu Writers:Winnie Holzman, Dana Fox Stars:Cynthia Erivo, Ariana Grande-Butera, Jonathan Bailey
Synopsis: Elphaba, a misunderstood young woman because of her green skin, and Glinda, a popular girl, become friends at Shiz University in the Land of Oz. After an encounter with the Wonderful Wizard of Oz, their friendship reaches a crossroads.
Modern movie musicals are a little afraid of themselves. In their marketing they rarely show actors singing. Within the films they rely heavily on editing and close ups, which can completely detract from the dance sequences and complex movements. Singing and dancing are paramount to the genre; it’s strange for a musical film to not want to market that to potential viewers. Wicked is even afraid of telling us that it is an incomplete story. Much like Dune in 2021, it is only after release that everyone is officially informed that this particular film is actually Wicked: Part I. It doesn’t help either that 21 years after the original musical’s run on Broadway, the story feels a little dated.
The songs are beautiful, but feel dissonant somehow like they are dated and too well worn. The story is powerful, but doesn’t say enough. The themes are universal, but they ring a bit false. Within the musical genre it’s also very difficult to establish real emotional rawness because it has to move on quickly. There is an emotional core to the story, but it feels as if when the story hits those notes, the filmmakers want to move on. If you’re really going to bring this story to life, it could have used an actual story update instead of just a major movie face lift that should have included new orchestrations for the songs. It’s obvious from the vehemence of the fan base for the original stage musical that those would be very unpop-u-lar choices.
In spite of that lingering, nagging negativity, Wicked: Part I will still take your breath away. Director Jon M. Chu is proving to be a director who can pull off some incredible sequences and who hires incredible artisans. Production designer Nathan Crowley has created an enchanting world filled with beautiful, unique sets and props. The costumes designed by Paul Tazewell are otherworldly and absolutely gorgeous. Even Alice Brooks’ cinematography feels immersive, like we’re in the film with the characters, walking and dancing apace. Frances Hannon and Karen Cohen led a makeup and hair team that created some really stunning looks for each character.ย
The comments in the first paragraph notwithstanding, there are some incredible dance sequences that show off this talented cast. Especially the incredible song, “Dancing Through Life” featuring Fiyero (Jonathan Bailey) in the library. Bailey plays it with so much oozing sex appeal and charisma that it makes every person in the scene, and every person in the audience, immediately melt into gooey lust at his charm.
In contrast, there’s also a spectacular scene later as Elphaba (Cynthia Erivo) realizes that her presence at The Ozdust Ballroom is to be the butt of the joke. In the middle of the circle of people who laugh and snicker at her, she makes a choice about a dance. The scene is virtually wordless as she choreographs the dance for herself. She thrusts her arms, taps her heels, and just moves in a unique and pained way. Glinda (Ariana Grande-Butera) joins Elphaba not to mock, but to encourage her and to assuage her, Glinda’s, guilt at playing a heartless prank on someone who didn’t deserve it. It becomes a dance between the two of them and it is beautiful to watch.
It’s hard not to watch Cynthia Erivo as Elphaba. Yes, she has incredible pipes, but she also has immense acting talent. Her emotional journey is played out in silent looks, in miniscule facial expressions, and large emotive eyes. There is a scene toward the end as her mentor, Madame Morrible (Michelle Yeoh), villainizes her to all of Oz. Rather than cutting away to Madame Morrible speaking, we only see Elphaba’s reaction. It’s a pitch perfect movement on Erivo’s part. She goes from disbelief, to devastation, to anger over the course of the speech.
As good as Cynthia Erivo is, Ariana Grande-Butera is astounding. She fits into Glinda like she was born to play her. Her singing is beautiful, but her comedic chops are simply perfection. There are so many laugh out loud moments and phrases that she tosses out expertly without missing a perfectly coiffed stride. Her playing hard to get with Fiyero is so delightful and such an excellently played scene. She owns every bit of the screen.
The effects, both practical and computerized, and the choreography are also truly spectacular. In spite of its story flaws, Wicked: Part I is an extremely entertaining and affecting ride. The acting ensemble is terrific and the original cast cameos are worth it. It’s a film that makes you wish it were five hours just to see it and Wicked: Part II in a single sitting so it doesn’t lose so much momentum with a year gap in between.
There is a concept that circulates every award season and is pervasive in every conversation about the performance categories. It’s called a “Legacy Oscar.” Essentially, a “Legacy Oscar” is about rewarding a performer who has been consistently good for their entire career but has not receivedย the recognition they deserve for their body of work. It can take many forms but is typically a multiple nomineeโthink Glenn Close (8 nominations, no wins) or Amy Adams (6 nominations, no wins)โwho may not be โpast their primeโ but is someone the Academy wants on their winner roster before it’s too late. This โlegacyโ recognition can also be a performer who has never been nominated for an Oscar but has had a terrific careerโthink Emmanuelle Riva (Amour), Charlotte Rampling (45 Years), or Isabelle Huppert (Elle).
Sometimes, this concept and the wave of emotional reminiscing about a performer’s career can lead to a win. It’s often not necessarily that that particular performance really is the best of the season, but one that arrives at the right time. The concept that it has been a long enough wait is a strange one when it comes to judging art, but really, all an Oscar is is a slap on the back from peer to peer. It has happened several times in Best Actress in the nearly century-long history of the Academy Awards.
In the last 25 years, at least three Best Actress wins, even if they were deserving, can be categorized as “Legacy Oscars.” In 2010, Kate Winslet won her first Oscar for The Reader after five previous nominations for Best Actress and Supporting Actress. In 2012, Meryl Streep took home the trophy for The Iron Lady. It was her third win, but the time between win number two (Sophie’s Choice, 1983) and win number three had been 29 years, and the consensus was that Streep was due for another coronation. In 2015, Julianne Moore won her first Oscar for Still Alice after four previous nominations in Best Actress and Supporting Actress.
It’s a tradition that has spurned endless debates, and the performances from the films of 2024 will be no different. Many are still to be seen, but several have already been released this year and buzzed about (even in this very column). Here are two to consider as the final films of the year make their way into the crowded field.
Saoirse Ronan is one of the actresses vying for her “Legacy Oscar” this year. Yes, Saoirse Ronan. At 30 years old, she is already a four-time Oscar nominee. Her first nomination was at 13 years old in 2008 for her supporting performance in Atonement. She went on to be a constant name on the lips of every pundit in the 2010s by securing nominations for her lead performances in Brooklyn (2016), Lady Bird (2018), and Little Women (2020). She has been a consistent and tremendous performer for her entire career and her work in this year’s The Outrun is just another showcase for her spectacular talent. It’s her most assured and mature role to date and she eases into it effortlessly. She’s a boundless talent, and while often the “Legacy Oscar” comes as people worry a performer doesn’t have another good role on the horizon, this win would be a terrific early career (yes, despite the data, she’s still only getting started and has a long career ahead) achievement for her.
Demi Moore is in a very different position than Ronan, but also in consideration for a “Legacy Oscar.” Despiteย good performances throughout her careerโGhost (1990), A Few Good Men (1992), G.I. Jane (1997), and Margin Call (2011), Moore has been left on the sidelines of the Oscar conversation. Then came The Substance, a body horror allegory tailor-made for an actress with Mooreโsย tremendous talents. She bares her soul in the film and captures a magic that few could even come close to, with such raw emotion coursing through every movement and line delivery. If there is to be a “Legacy Oscar”ย win or nomination this year, it couldn’t go to a more deserving actress in a more deserving role.
Lately, though, the paradigms have shifted, and the voters can and will throw a curveball into a race that was decided several precursors before or is deemed a performer’s time to win. Just remember Glenn Close’s face as Olivia Colman’s name was read on Oscar night 2019, which was supposed to be her triumphant walk to the stage. Anything can happen, and legacy can be overthrown for history. As we learned last year, with the history-making nomination of Lily Gladstone, that kind of narrative doesn’t have the solid foothold it thinks it does as Emma Stone walked home with the gold even as nearly every pundit had Gladstone as a sure bet.
This week on Chasing the Gold, Shadan is joined by Adriano Caporusso to discuss their Oscar predictions and how the awards race is shaping up! We are nearing the end of the year and the race is starting to escalate as more and more of the major players are being released. Join us as we get into where things stand right now and what films will be most represented at next year’s Oscars.
*These predictions are as of November 21, 2024
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!
It seemed for a while there (pre-pandemic) that superhero films were building to something. It seemed a sort of legitimacy was developing within critic’s groups and awards circuits as the genre ballooned and evolved. Then the whispers became an out loud conversation as Deadpool (2016) cracked into Best Motion Picture Musical or Comedy and Best Actor in a Motion Picture Musical or Comedy for Ryan Reynolds at the Golden Globes.ย
The followingyear found Logan (2017) placed in the middle of the Best Adapted Screenplay nominees. The year after that, Black Panther (2018) shattered the glass ceiling, being nominated for seven Oscars, including Best Picture, and winning three (Score, Costume Design, and Production Design). Then Joker (2019) laughed its way to eleven Oscar nominations, including Best Picture, Director and Actor, and winning two (Score and Actor).
It seemed like the time for ignoring superhero films as merely paltry entertainment was over. The legitimacy of capes and cowls had arrived at last. With rumors of the next great auteur filmmaker, Chloรฉ Zhao, taking on an obscure and mythology-heavy superhero team, the Eternals, for Marvel, it seemed as if we would be treated to a lauded and praised superhero film at least once a year. It wasn’t to be, though.
After the smashing successes of the climactic end to the Infinity Saga and a disastrous campaign to salvage the bad press of the Justice League film, Marvel and DC entered a slump. Would they have stayed in a slump if a global pandemic hadn’t shut down movie theaters and film production? Absolutely. The majority of the blockbuster slate of films for the year 2020 and a few slated for 2021 were completed by the time the shutdowns occurred. It was too late, and the fatigue had mounted. The majority of superhero films that followed into 2022 and 2023 couldn’t capture the old magic. They made millions, sometimes hundreds of millions, of course, but lost fans, box office dominance, and the goodwill of the critics.
So with a titanic shift in Marvelโs strategy, a dissolution of the shared universe hopes of the DCEU, Sony grasping at their thinning web of influence in the Spider-Man adjacent universe, and the extended production shutdowns because of the writers and actors strikes of 2023, we entered 2024 with fewer superhero titles than in many years. It’s unlikely that this year’s crop will have any hope come Oscars time, except maybe crammed into the Visual Effects category.
If Deadpool & Wolverine had tried to claw a modicum of its autonomy from the snowballing juggernaut that is the MCU, it could have had a chance. The two characters have already had their brushes with glory, but corporate synergy masquerading as a plot does not make a great film. The ego trip masquerading as charm Ryan Reynolds puts onto the screen is also wearing very thin.ย
So, too big swings toward genre mashups fail when neither is committed wholeheartedly. Even if you don’t like the original Joker (this writer is included in that category), the seamlessness of translating a comic book villain to a crime drama made a great deal of sense. Translating the same villain into a musical fever dream? Not so much. Maybe Joker: Folie รก Deux just didn’t swing hard enough, or the Venn diagram of people who like dark and moody superhero films and those who like musicals is far too thin a margin to build a major release on.
Though they’re in a slump now, the absolute glut of superhero franchise films hitting screens in 2025 may rebuild the momentum the genre has lost in the awards sphere. It’s very unlikely as they have built their empire to run only on the level of appeal that can’t be described as massive but more like total. It would be better if they took a tough look at their properties and tried to make better and more inventive films, but money talks louder than art, and superheroes will always have a one-in-five chance at the Visual Effects category.
The festivals and end-of-year rush to the screen have thrown the Best Picture race into chaos or at least sloughed off my greatest hopes for my summer favorites to break through. So, from the last column to this one, there is a rather grand shift of films. Only three titles from the previous column remain as the field narrows weekend by weekend and as precursor awards begin their deliberations and announcements.
This is a curated list of possible nominees amongst the films that have been theatrically released. It’s fun to speculate on what may be coming later in the year, but I’ll focus only on what has had its widest possible release at the time of publication. The list will evolve as we get closer to show time. The list will be split into three categories.
The first category will be called “Safe Bet.” These films are the most likely to carry through the season and into the list of Oscar nominees. The next category will be called “Strong Potential.” These films have something going for them but may not have enough momentum to last the season. The final category will be called “Hopeful.” These are films that I want to highlight as worthy contenders that are likely to be ignored.
Here’s where I see the Best Picture field at this point.
I’ve discovered that rather than trying to categorize the five nominated films in Best Original Screenplay into archetypes like you would with Best Pictureโ the Indie Darling, the Blockbuster, the Genre Defier, etcโ it works better to place the films into a few macro-genres. I see three macro-genres as the most dominant categories to place original screenplays. I call these macro-genres “The Real,” “The Weird,” and “The Dramedy.”
“The Real” is the most controversial in my mind. It’s a screenplay using historical figures but not drawn from a single source. Avoiding a single source is how they sidestep the Adapted Screenplay category. These screenplays are either broad, covering a long period of history, or microscopic, covering a singular event in a figure’s life. This category includes films like Maestro (2024), Judas and the Black Messiah (2021), and Vice (2019). They’re apocryphal texts that rely heavily on the “based on a true story” title card.
“The Weird” is filled with everything from sci-fi parables to horror, magical realism, and everything that’s out of the ordinary. “The Weird” is where the subjective nature of art appreciation is tested when our perceptions of reality are challenged. Films like Everything, Everywhere All at Once (2023), Get Out (2018), and Ex Machina (2016) are great examples of when a concept can speak to deep questions about humanity.ย
“The Dramedy” encompasses the broadest swath of films because it lacks the kind of genre vision of “The Weird” or the grounding of a story you can research like “The Real.” It’s the kind of film that streamers have embraced in abundance. They’re human stories that blend drama and comedy, told well, and in a way we may never have thought of. Some prime examples are Past Lives (2024), Sound of Metal (2021), and The Big Sick (2018). They’re stories that stick with you and change your perspective.
In the last couple of months, we have seen an uptick in original films. Many have been put forward by pundits and prognosticators as potential awards nominees. Here’s where several of these recent original features fit into the macro-genres.
The Real
Even though the production of Saturday Night, written by Gil Kenan and Jason Reitman, has nothing to do with the production of the 50th season of the TV show it’s based on, Saturday Night Live, it is quite a marketing gimmick for both entities. The film is well-written and thoroughly researched, impressively packing in a great deal of pop culture lore into a film shorter than two hours.
There is also an unlikely coincidence that The Apprentice, written by Gabriel Sherman, is out in the same year its subject has been reelected to a second term as president. Its reliance on anecdotal stories and public records is a picture of the man he was and a blueprint of the man he became. It joins other films of living political figures that took the same multi-source material route to be considered original films, like W. (2008), Southside with You (2016), and Vice (2018).
Serial killers are a topic of discussion and obsession for many people. While films that feature them often focus on the grizzly details or the killers themselves, Woman of the Hour, written by Ian McDonald, focuses more on a would-be victim. The killer’s real crimes are portrayed, but the crimes themselves aren’t there to be titillation for the viewer. They reinforce the ideas at the core of the film. It’s really the little asides or small details that make the writing stand out.
The Weird
The Substance, written by Coralie Fargeat, is a satirical allegory that goes beyond merely poking at the long-held beliefs of those in power. It’s a visceral and gruesome testament to the lengths people will go to get back some of what they’ve lost. The script brings horror, comedy, and real dramatic stakes to its mind-bending world. It’s a film that, in this world of segmented zeitgeists and niche culture, might go down as a word-of-mouth cult classic.
Sometimes, a film about change is really about not understanding the real change you need to make in your life. A Different Man, written by Aaron Schimberg, takes on the complicated ideas behind appearance and society. What the film posits is that it’s O.K. to try and change the way you look. Yet, as you see in the film, you must change for the right reasons and can’t go back if you suddenly realize you were wrong. It’s a tantalizing tale that gets very strange indeed.
The Dramedy
Sean Baker’s films are a little haphazard, but Anora, written by Baker, has a coherent purpose that many of his other films lack. This film looks at class and love in a way that shifts our allegiances and makes us laugh through our tears. He pulls off a tremendous tonal balancing act with a character journey that is nearly perfect in every aspect.
Love stories can be complicated, raw, and feel real, which makes them truly worth watching. We Live in Time, written by Nick Payne, plays out a relationship through different periods of time but never loses its connection to the two characters at its core. A film like this is so elegant in design but never feels like too much of a manipulation because it keeps you guessing how it will all come together.
***
September and October have completely upended my previous Original Screenplay predictions, and I have come up with a brand new set of five films. Here is where I see the Best Original Screenplay race as of now. The list is limited to films that have had their release in theaters or on streamers.
Pundits handicap Oscar nominations on a spectrum between activism and dispassionate observation. Even those who typically lean toward the latter pole will occasionally (when wading through the uncertainties of a categoryโs bottom slots) give the edge to a film or performance they personally enjoy over one that presents formidably on paper. Colman Domingo, for example, had all the requisite precursor nods for Rustin heading into nominations morning. Still, plenty of awards enthusiasts went out on a limb and predicted that Andrew Scott (All of Us Strangers) or Zac Efron (The Iron Claw) would end up 2023โs fifth Leading Actor contender. These were expressions of faith in votersโ adventurism rather than attempts to actually shape the race. After all, Scott and Efron were part of the conversation for films that were conceivably within reach of a nomination before anyone started overestimating their chances. Anointing contenders has traditionally been a task performed by festival programmers and regional critics associations. Some of that influence has been democratized; the historic performance of Everything Everywhere All at Once has understandably conditioned us to be on the lookout for unconventional, internet-backed passion picks. This year, however, good-natured โhopedictingโ has been replaced by a call-to-action style of punditry for which the success or failure of September 5 and The Substance will prove a critical test.ย
A dramatization of the hostage crisis that unfolded during the 1972 Munich Olympics, September 5 was virtually unheard of until Hollywood Reporter Oscar columnist Scott Feinberg single-handedly jumpstarted the filmโs campaign by placing it in his Best Picture predictions (at the very top, no less). Was Feinberg reading the tea leaves or shrewdly canvassing on behalf of a movie he personally favors? American Fiction crashed the race a year ago as a festival breakout, but the eventual Best Picture nominee and Adapted Screenplay winner first claimed the TIFF Peopleโs Choice Award; Drive My Car won a slew of prizes from critics before anyone took it seriously as an Oscar contender. Tim Fehlbaumโs historical drama, on the other hand, played the festival circuit with zero profile until THRโs chief awards pundit made the online film world collectively go, โWhat the hell is September 5?โ That anonymity has played to the filmโs advantage by positioning it as one of the seasonโs few word-of-mouth discoveries (despite, of course, its candidacy having been manufactured by a top industry trade). Now that September 5 is part of the mixโand placeholders like Blitz and Saturday Night are rapidly sliding down the ranksโnominations for Picture, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress, Original Screenplay, and Editing are all in play. Will the film rack up nods like Argo and Spotlight, have a modest showing like The Post, or get ignored entirely like She Said? Though weโre still awaiting word on several latecomers, including a Bob Dylan biopic, September 5 is this seasonโs real complete unknown.
The journalistic thriller may not have pedigree on its side, but it at least fits the mold of an awards contender. The same cannot be said of this seasonโs other major dark horse, Coralie Fargeatโs The Substance.
Until recently, most pundits refused to even entertain the possibility of Robert Eggers scoring a Best Director nomination for his Nosferatu remake (despite its origin in one of cinemaโs oldest IPs). โTheyโre not going to nominate a horror movie.โ Those voices have dramatically changed their tune for not just a horror movie, but one of the grossest horror movies since David Cronenbergโs The Fly. That the academy declined to even shortlist Julia Ducournauโs Palme-winning Titane for Best International Feature only a few years ago hasnโt staunched the tsunami of genuine passion backing The Substance. Bolstering the filmโs chances are Demi Mooreโs status of being overdue, a lack of viable options directed by women, and a political climate not dissimilar to the one in which Get Out became an unlikely awards darling. Whereas that film was released only a few months after a contentious election that primarily focused on race, Fargeatโs feminist body horror overtook the zeitgeist during a political cycle that drew battle lines along womenโs rights. Could the symbol of a gender-centric rebuke to a second Trump term really be Monstro ElisaSue?
Perhaps, but thereโs little reason to believe voters would ever naturally gravitate toward a viscerally repulsive option like The Substance. The filmโs participation in this seasonโs awards derby is owed entirely to online stans who fashioned a Hail Mary bid for Makeup & Hairstyling into a full-fledged campaign. In addition to Makeup & Hairstyling, The Substance is currently competitive for nominations in Picture, Actress, Director, Original Screenplay, Editing, and Sound. The filmโs most optimistic proponents envision a package that even includes Cinematography, Production Design, and Supporting Actress. The conditions for such an anomaly are highly specific, but Twitter will nevertheless hopedict races from now on with renewed zeal if The Substance indeed becomes a major Oscar contender.
Though very different from each other and endorsed by very different corners of film discourse, The Substance and September 5 will reveal just how much of awards season is a game of self-fulfilling prophecies. Should their underdog campaigns reap success, expect to see more pundits in the future prognosticating the Oscars with their hearts rather than heads.
On this episode, JD and Brendan review Adam Elliot’s latest animated feature in Memoir of a Snail! We’ve been looking forward to the films all year as big fans of Elliot’s previous feature in Mary and Max, but also it’s been a phenomenal year for animated film. Memoir of a Snail did not disappoint. Someone give Elliot a hug.
Review: Memoir of a Snail (4:00) Director: Adam Elliot Writer: Adam Elliot Stars: Sarah Snook, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Jacki Weaver
Power is almost always equated with violence: all of those old-school movie heroes, from John Wayne to Arnold Schwarzenegger, were males who proved their worth on screen through killing, mutilating, beating the villains, and saving the day. But thereโs another level of power: the power to be vulnerable, to open up, to inspire and get inspired. Then, there are subtle male vulnerability expositions that leave viewers curious and wide open, like fish with hooks in their mouths.ย
Thatโs Divine G (Colman Domingo) in Sing Sing. Greg Kwedar’s new prison drama is based on books about and stories by Divine G, a former Sing Sing Maximum Security Prison inmate, and his work as part of the Rehabilitation Through the Arts (RTA) program. It has everything a cinephile could hope for: powerful performances, tight and narrow frames, a handheld camera that dances with the actors as they rehearse for a play, and lighting that leaves a grainy, hazy feel to a beautifully oppressive film.
Thatโs the key to Sing Sing, and Domingo, one of the major, most deserving Best Lead Actor contenders in this awards season. Thereโs beauty in the breakdown. A subtlety to a taboo subject such as male vulnerability. Itโs nuanced because itโs a prison setting, and men have to live their tough upfronts to the end. Itโs poetic because our main protagonist is a playwright, a man incarcerated for a crime he didnโt commit. For someone like Divine G, thereโs no greater pain. An artist under lock and key, trapped in a world where he canโt get out. What greater torment than to be Divine G as he tries to hold on to light in the confinement of a prison cell, grasping for dear life in this Rehabilitation Through The Arts (RTA) program and finding his creativity and inspiration by building a life within a life?
This character arc sounds complicated and messy, potentially unsettling in the hands of a less profound and magnetic actor than Domingo. Itโs easy to dismiss other performances this awards season after watching him dominate the screen, eating up every scene like a howling ghoul but doing it with sad, desperate eyes and lips that have a smile plastered on them half the time. He walks a fine line between hope and despair, but even at the most heightened moments of openness and embracing everything there is to indulge in from the bleak existence of incarceration, his underlying melancholy works like a trigger warning, anticipating any hint of mutiny to go off script.
Divine G defies oppression and plays the role of a surrogate father to his fellow inmates. He’s not exactly a hero, but more of a provocateur when needed, and he can bring a nurturing, distinctly maternal โ not paternal โ energy when the situation calls for it. But itโs not until the film fleshes out his interactions with fellow inmates โmost prominently Mike Mike (Sean San Josรฉ) and Divine Eye (Clarence Maclin)โ that the film plays out differently. Only then do we witness Divine Gโs protective facade begin to crack, his false optimism crumble, and his anger and frustration with injustice build to a powerful breakdownโan intense scene that only actors of the highest versatility can convincingly deliver. Domingo takes the audience through the rollercoaster of emotions going through a man hanging by a thread to the hope in his heart, trying everything to avoid the fact that heโs been unjustly treated and doesnโt deserve to have his free artistic soul held captive.
In one scene, Domingoโs Divine G extends his hand across a window as if he can reach the Hudson River, and I feel compelled to reach out to him so that our hands would touch. A performance that allows a person to break through emotional barriers is worthy of award prestige and recognition. Domingo has delivered several awards-caliber performances, including Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom and through Zola and Rustin (which earned him his first Oscar nomination last year). In Sing Sing though, he does something entirely different, building on the past but refining the present. For this feature, his Academy Award nomination is not only a must, but his win is also a triumph, not just for a brilliant, sensitive artist, but for the power of the arts as represented in the film heโs carrying on his shoulders.
