On this episode, JD and Brendan discuss the debut film from Daina O. Pusiฤ in Tuesday, starring Julia Louis-Dreyfus! We’ve seen movies depict death in a visual way before, however I’m not sure we’ve ever seen anything like we see in Tuesday. It’s weird. It’s funny. It’s going to be polarizing. But that’s what makes the conversation all the more compelling.
Review: Tuesdayย (4:00) Director: Daina O. Pusiฤ Writers: Daina O. Pusiฤ Stars: Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Lola Petticrew, Leah Harvey, Arinzรฉ Kene
Jaylan Salah, after reviewing Nathan-ismbriefly interviewed the director, Elan Golod.
Jaylan Salah: What compelled you to take on this story?ย
Elan Golod: When I first stumbled upon an article about a retrospective exhibition of Nathan Hiluโs artwork, I was immediately captivated by the circumstances of his experiences serving as a G.I. guard at the Nuremberg Trials. I was also intrigued by the visual richness that Nathan’s vibrant artwork could bring to a cinematic portrayal of this remarkable narrative. When you initially are confronted with Nathanโs artwork, there’s this intriguing clash – a sort of cognitive dissonance – between the weighty themes he addresses and the lively, almost childlike, style of his art. That felt inherently cinematic to me.ย
JS: What do you think is the role of documentarians as archive keepers of history?
EG: I think documentarians play a crucial role in providing context and perspective to historical events, helping society understand the complexities of the past and its impact on the present. Documentary films can help amplify voices that may otherwise be marginalized or forgotten. By sharing stories like Nathan Hiluโs, I hope filmmakers like myself can facilitate dialogue and reflection, encouraging audiences to engage critically with the past and its implications for the future.
JS: How did you find approaching Nathan Hilu for this project? How were your interactions with him?
EG: Initially, when I cold-called Nathan to discuss my interest in his story, he seemed hesitant to open up. About 15 years prior, another team had approached him with plans to create a book about his experiences, but unfortunately, that project never materialized, leaving Nathan somewhat jaded. Despite his initial reservations, Nathan eventually agreed to let me visit him. Over several visits, I worked on building a rapport, gradually fostering a sense of trust and comfort between us. It was during this process that Nathan began to feel more relaxed and, eventually, agreed to participate in the filming of the documentary.
As our relationship developed, Nathan became increasingly comfortable in front of the camera. Over time, his initial reservations transformed into genuine enthusiasm for the filmmaking process. Despite his enthusiasm for the process, our filming sessions were far from typical interviews and felt more like a “show-and-tell” experience – Nathan would eagerly share the stories behind his latest drawings. It was tricky to get a word in edgewise with Nathan, but here and there I was able to guide the conversation towards the themes I wanted to explore.
JS: How difficult was it to visit such a dark time in the history of humanity such as the Holocaust?
EG: When starting this journey with Nathan Hilu, I didnโt set out to make a run of the mill Holocaust film. I was however fascinated by the opportunity Nathan offered to explore this weighty subject
from a fresh perspective that certain audiences might find more accessible. Wherever possible, I think itโs crucial to find ways to expand the conversation about the Holocaust in order to prevent the world from turning a blind eye to the lessons of the past.
Through Nathan’s story and others like it, we have an opportunity to prevent indifference and ensure that the profound significance of the Holocaust remains ingrained in our collective consciousness.
JS: Some of the montages cut between Hiluโs paintings and archival videos and photos were brilliantly assembled. How did you come up with the style for the documentary?
EG: The stylistic approach was born out of extensive experimentation in the editing process. At its core, our aim was to create a dynamic juxtaposition between Nathanโs subjective storytelling and the ostensibly more concrete, “objective” evidence provided by archival videos and photographs.
Through this intertwining we found we were able to inject layers of meaning and depth into the narrative. The drawings served as a visual representation of Nathanโs interpretation of events, while the archival footage and photographs grounded the story in the tangible reality of historical record. This juxtaposition allowed us to blur the lines between subjective interpretation and objective evidence, inviting viewers to consider multiple perspectives and engage with the narrative on a more nuanced level.
JS: As a storyteller, what is the most important theme that you want audiences to take from your film?
EG: I think the most actionable takeaway I would like audiences to take from the film is the imperative to take the time and listen to our elders. In today’s fast-paced world we risk overlooking the invaluable insights and experiences our older generations possess. By taking the time to truly listen and absorb the lessons they offer, we not only honor their lived experiences but also enrich our own lives. Their stories carry the weight of history and offer invaluable perspectives that can guide us in navigating the complexities of the present and shaping a better future. I think fostering intergenerational dialogue and cherishing the knowledge passed down from our elders can help us build a more empathetic and understanding society.
JS: Which were the most difficult scenes to shoot?
EG: By far the most tense and challenging scene to film was a pivotal confrontation where I had to challenge Nathan on certain aspects of his story.
This scene demanded a lot of sensitivity from both myself and my team. We recognized the importance of approaching the confrontation with a mindset of inquiry rather than judgment. Our goal was not to put Nathan’s recollections on trial but rather to delve beneath the surface, seeking a more profound understanding of the story he was sharing.
Throughout the filming process, we remained acutely aware of the emotional stakes involved. We understood the potential impact of our questions on Nathan’s psyche and the integrity of his narrative. Ultimately, it was our commitment to empathy and understanding that enabled us to navigate this challenging scene successfully. The result was a scene that not only added depth to the documentary but also underscored the complexities of storytelling and memory.
JS: What do you think is the artistโs duty toward the world? How do you think the work of an artist is comparable to a philanthropist or a missionary?
EG: I think artists have the power to contribute to cultural dialogue and provoke thought, inspiring change and progress. Like philanthropists, artists share a common goal of improving society, albeit through different means. While philanthropists may provide material support and resources to address social issues directly, artists address these issues by raising awareness, challenging norms, and inspiring action through their creative expression.
JS: Do you prefer the medium of documentary filmmaking to feature films in terms of telling an inspirational story based on/semi-based on an impactful real-life story? What do you think is the main difference between both media?
EG: When it comes to telling an inspirational story based on an impactful real-life event, I believe both documentary filmmaking and scripted films have their own strengths and limitations. I tend to prefer the more raw and unfiltered depiction of real-life events, providing audiences with a sense of immediacy and authenticity. As an editor, I also relish the process of discovery in the edit room. I recognize that scripted films have the ability to distill complex narratives into a cohesive and emotionally resonant story, using cinematic techniques such as visual storytelling and character arc development to engage viewers on a deeper level. Ultimately, the choice between the two mediums depends on the specific story being told and the filmmaker’s creative vision.
JS: What are you working on after the widespread acclaim for Nathan-ism?
EG: I am currently working on a short documentary about an artist within my own family while also doing research for a larger film project. These projects are both continuing my exploration of the intricacies of artistic legacy.
Director: Alice Englert Writer: Alice Englert Stars: Jennifer Connelly, Alice Englert, Ana Scotney
Synopsis: A former child actress seeking enlightenment at a retreat led by a spiritual leader navigates the close but turbulent relationship with her daughter.
It may be impossible to quantify how terrible the new Jennifer Connelly movie Bad Behaviour actually is. And yet, Alice Englertโs film had plenty of room to be much worse than its final product. This film clearly has such a rancid take on mental health that even Dr. Jamie Zuckerman, the advocate who coined the concept of toxic positivity, may rethink her lifeโs work because of this misguided script.
Iโm sure Bad Behaviour was meant to be award bait for Jennifer Connelly, perhaps even for an Oscar. Instead, the final product lacks logical thought, whether artistic or realistic. Its only concern seems to be propping up the performers with roles that do not gel, are inconsistent in tone, and work directly against each other in an unpleasant way, without any informative insight into themes that lack ambition and are shallow efforts at best.
Alice Englert and Jennifer Connelly in Bad Behaviour | Image via Ahi Films
The story follows Lucy (Connelly), a single mother and former child actress, who goes on a wellness retreat to find personal and perhaps spiritual growth. Life is hard for Lucy, who is going through a professional rut. She also has a somewhat strained and distant relationship with her teenage daughter, Dylan (played by writer and director Alice Englert), who is an actress and stunt performer in her own right.
When she arrives, it becomes clear that the goal of the exercise is not mental wellness. The exercises are being taped by the behind-the-scenes organizers (Ana Scotney, Alistair Sewell), who frequently try to coyly discourage participants from refusing two-party recording consent. The spiritual leader is Elon (Ben Whishaw), a figure who begins to resemble a snake oil salesman with his own rage issues.
Ben Whishaw in Bad Behaviour | Image via Ahi Films
Alice Englert’s script is filled with characters’ nonsensical behaviors, sugar coated with hateful, unpleasant actions. Whishaw’s Elon seems to be operating on Dr. Arthur Janov’s “Primal Therapy,” which has patients express their repressed emotions through primal screams or plain rage. However, the characters are flimsy, resembling those you might find in a situational or sophomoric comedy, and blatantly go against types that feel disingenuous.
You have the vain social media darling (Dasha Nekrasova), a narcissistic type, the angry muscle head (Robbie Magasiva), who is tender when it matters, and, of course, the Connelly character, a loving mother who attacks a fellow retreatmate after her slow simmer begins to boil over uncontrollably. Except, we never come to understand where any of these actions originate from and why they are manifesting. Itโs as if the actions are just there to shock the audience instead of enlighten them.
Jennifer Connelly in Bad Behaviour | Image via Ahi Films
Bad Behaviour is a New Zealand production, so you see some brief but beautiful natural landscapes. Still, it doesnโt touch on any social or political issues known for its rich cinema history. Some eye-opening artistic choices, like an out-of-place animated sequence, are genuinely head-scratching. Also, the film is too indulgent when examining artists’ motivations but is rarely relatable to general audiences. You have to walk a fine line, and the film fails in this regard.
Overall, Bad Behaviour has very little to say that comes close to being meaningful. It could have been an insightful look at mental health, not just for the participants but for a character like Elon, who could be susceptible to burnout. It could even show how mental health professionals suffer from issues of their own. Instead, Alice Englertโs script has Lucy and Dylan’s stories play out where they eventually intersect, which leads to a stunning lack of purpose for the film and the audience.
Excuse me while I head off for a primal scream of my own for my precious time being wasted.
Director Jeff Nichols has become a big part of InSession Film Podcast lore as he’s become one of our very favorite filmmakers working today. Long time listeners will know that Midnight Special was my favorite film of 2016 and in his Top 10 for movies of the 2010s. Take Shelter, Mud and Loving are all great as well, with Shotgun Stories being one hell of a debut. It was an absolute honor to sit down with Jeff to discuss his new movie The Bikeriders, opening in theaters very soon.
Synopsis: On a journey that spans the formative years of their lives, two sisters navigate their loving but volatile father during their yearly summer visits to his home in Las Cruces, New Mexico.
In the Summers is a personal debut feature inspired by the director Alessandro Lacorazza own relationship with their father and sister. Vicente (Renรฉ Pรฉrez Joglar a.k.a. Residente) is a fractured and damaged man creating complex legacies he passes on to his children- legacies which were probably passed on to him. His masculinity, as defined by class, place, ethnic background, opportunity, and the feeling that something unfair happened to him at some point is of particular interest.
The film begins and ends in the same airport in Las Cruces, New Mexico and is given chapters resonant of Dutch still life and memento mori painting to show how time passes. The first chapter features Vicente nervously waiting to pick up his daughters Violeta and Eva. Heโs been cleaning the house left to him by his mother. Heโs jangling with excitement to show them the swimming pool and make this summer, his first after losing custody rights with his Californian ex-wife, the best he can for the girls. Bubbly young Eva (Luciana Quiรฑonez) clearly adores him. The slightly older Violeta (Dreya Castillo) is more aware of what has really happened between her parents for Vicente to lose visitation rights and is less forgiving. However, his enthusiasm manages to win them over โ albeit in small and unsustainable doses.
Vicente is battling addiction, primarily alcoholism, although harder drugs turn up. He loves his kids, but he canโt be a reliable dad. In fact, heโs often a terrible dad. His focus on proving that he is smarter than he feels people give him credit for merges in with his general resentment and discontent and spills over to his kids at different points in their formative years. Vicente is so profoundly stuck in his own spirals he cannot see the intensity of his instability. The greatest tragedy is that he is clever, he does love his children, but in almost every interaction he has with them there is always a passenger โ his alcoholism. A night spent stargazing with Violeta and Eva would be perfect without the six pack of beer next to him. A birthday party is a trial by fire for Violeta and Eva.
At first, heโs trying to win over Violeta, someone who is smart but โnot pretty.โ He seems to miss the part where Violeta is clearly dealing with gender and sexuality issues, something his long-term friend Carmen (Emma Ramos) picks up on immediately. Carmen is the other parent for Eva and Violeta in Las Cruces. When Vicente is too far gone, she is the one the siblings turn to. Carmenโs weary eyes tell a story of life-long care for Vicente but with no illusions he is more than he is. Something a child learns over time โ for Eva perhaps more slowly than Violeta.
Eva reminds Vicente of her mother. He sidelines her for being โstupidโ and not caring about mathematics and science like he and Violeta do. Yet Evaโs adoration for Vicente is ritually self-punishing as she gets older. As she enters her teen years (played with heartbreaking authenticity by Allison Salinas) she has no idea who she needs to be to make Vicente proud of her.ย
The siblings must find a way to keep their own bond alive while dealing with a man who could embrace them or hurt them โ possibly both in the space of a conversation. The beauty of Lacorazzaโs script is that although Violeta and Evaโs relationship with Vicente is shifting, their sibling solidarity rarely does. From the child Eva helping Violeta to cut off her hair with paper scissors, to the teen Violeta putting herself in the line of fire to protect Eva.
By the second summer the clean house and the once fresh swimming pool are dirty and filled with muck. V (Kimaya Thais Limon) is more confident in their identity. V experiences their first crush on Vicenteโs student Camila (played at two ages by Gabrielle Surodjawan and Sharlene Cruz). Ava begins to fade into the background except when Vicente makes remarks about her appearance.
An accident that was always going to happen, does. Vicente has now done real physical damage as well as psychological damage to his kids.
By the third summer, V doesnโt turn up. Only Ava, and she is watching Vicente with a new partner, Yenny, and a new daughter. If things seemed to be terrible the previous filmed summer, they are worse now. Yenny (Leslie Grace) is obviously an addict. The house is in squalor and Vicente is not working. The baby Natalia is often left to cry, and Ava quietly moves into the position of caregiver to Natalia, Yenny, and Vicente. Otherwise, she drifts alone through the streets of La Cruces which are showing the wear of neglect.
The final summer brings together the now adult V (Lรญo Mehiel) and Eva (Sasha Calle). Vicente is finally sober and the sole parent to Natalia (Indigo Montez). But Ava is struggling with her own version of addiction and self-destruction. V realizes that, they too, have not avoided Vicenteโs influence. Some of it has been positive, a lot of it negative. They all love each other but it is too late to undo what has been done.
Renรฉ Pรฉrez Joglar Is excellent as the mercurial Vicente. Someone whose promises just donโt mean anything. Not the promise he showed in his youth, or the promise that next time it will be better. Perhaps he really has a chance to get things right with Natalia โ perhaps this time he will go back to school, and he will stay sober. Lacorazza doesnโt answer the question, what they do answer is that V, Eva, and Vicente have reached a point of melancholic acceptance. No matter how much you love someone you canโt ignore their flaws, especially when they can become fatal on the spin of a dime.
Alessandra Lacorazza is never patronizing their characters. They are observing them with compassion and clarity. Just as they are not damning New Mexico โ but showing both its cosmic and otherworldly beauty as well as the poverty and shuttered businesses. Alessandra Lacorazza also looks at Latine tradition with each chapter essentially opening with an altar of memories which show how time is passing. How every member of the family has value and how all the small mementos as well as the searing events mean something.
The memories of a bar where they play pool, how to break an egg to make an omelette, or the position of the stars, intermingle with seeing a parent passed out soaked in their own piss, or a violent shove. A dance which is not joyous but aggressive, and one that is just heartbreaking.
Rich with detail, In the Summers explores Latine and queer identity but doesnโt dwell on either being anything but who the people are; it is no huge burden or shame for the siblings. If there is any shame it is what Vicente carries as he falls into machismo lashing out as he has potentially had no healthy male connections in his life.
In the Summers is as tender as it is a powder keg. The siblings learn they canโt please someone who doesnโt know what they really want even if that was to please them. Beautifully acted and expertly shot by Alejandro Mejia, Alessandra Lacorazzaโs emotionally raw feature aches with authenticity. In the Summers is a legacy of love in all its vicissitudes.
Director: Caroline Vignal Writers: Caroline Vignal, Noรฉmie de Lapparent Stars: Laure Calamy, Vincent Elbaz, Suzanne De Baecque
Synopsis: Iris, a woman who has everything: a wonderful husband, two perfect daughters, a successful business – but no sex life. When was the last time she made love? Perhaps the time has come to find a lover.
Four years ago, Gallic filmmaker Caroline Vignal made a big splash on the festival circuit with the delicate, warm-hearted relationship comedy Antoinette in the Cevennes. The film was an unexpected hit with French audiences, drawing in over 700,000 spectators and even picked up a Cรฉsar award. The Rohmer-inspired character piece offered viewers a rambling, picaresque snapshot of the disordered life of a vibrant schoolteacher engaged in a doomed affair with a married man. It was a light, airy affair that nonetheless captured the psychological nuances of its protagonist with remarkable precision. As a filmmaker, Vignal was uniquely receptive to the concerns and desires that drive people to enter into dysfunctional relationships that canโt be sustained in the long-term.ย
With her third feature, Iris et les Hommes (2023), she returns to the subject of marital infidelity but shifts her gaze from Antoinette, flighty, exuberant mistress, to Iris (Laure Calamy), a middle-aged dentist who is disappointed by the lack of passion in her marriage. This shift in focus is accompanied by the adoption of a darker tone and an attempt to tackle heavier subjects. We first witness Iris sinking into a mild depression as a result of her inability to achieve physical or emotional intimacy with her husband, Stรฉphane (Vincent Elbaz). He is sweet-natured and shows signs of being an attentive father, but Iris worries that the spark in their relationship is dead. While attending a parent-teacher meeting, she is introduced to a dating app by a fellow parent and soon finds herself communicating with a wide array of potential suitors. The app opens Iris up to a whole new world of possibilities and she begins to lean on it heavily as she battles a mid-life crisis of sorts.
One naturally wants to applaud a romantic comedy that throws so many different ideas up on screen. Much as I adore this genre, it is fair to acknowledge that it is often brought down by an over-reliance on formula and an unwillingness to make audiences uncomfortable. For every Ernst Lubitsch or Gregory La Cava, there are dozens of studio hacks with no interest in fully exploring some of the more challenging dimensions of stories about people falling in and out of love. Vignal doesnโt possess Lubitschโs gift for biting class commentary or La Cavaโs deft touch with ensemble casts but she is a talented behaviorist. Here, she takes a clear-eyed view of the inevitable acknowledgment that human beings and their motivations can be ultimately unknowable. You have to accept a certain lack of transparency within any relationship and live with the knowledge that any form of objective truth will forever elude you. She brings this mildly provocative thesis statement to the table and maintains a pleasingly ambiguous stance on the actions of the protagonist but one is still left with the feeling that the film as a whole doesnโt coalesce into anything substantial.ย
This feeling of mild dissatisfaction could be chalked up to the fact that the film never delivers any big laughs. The big comic set-pieces, including a song-and-dance number set to a French-language cover of The Weather Girlsโs โItโs Raining Men,โ are too overworked to be truly lively and spontaneous. Antoinette in the Cevennes has a ramshackle, thrown-together quality that heightens the comic effect of the gentle, word-play heavy jokes that are skilfully threaded throughout the narrative. Iris et les Hommes has a harder time handling tonal transitions; often lurching violently between being a heavy family drama and light sex farce. Unfortunately, when the jokes are delivered in such a labored manner, it doesnโt do much to ease the transition between the two separate strands of the plot.
If this doesnโt manage to build upon the achievements of Vignalโs sophomore outing in ways that are productive, it still provides evidence that sheโs one of the more exciting filmmakers working in the romantic comedy genre today. There is something to be said for the fact that sheโs legitimately fascinated by the ties that bind married couples together, even in the face of work-related burnout and the anxiety that tends to accompany parenthood. Her rich, evocative portraits of complicated women who make questionable choices fill an important niche within the realm of contemporary cinema.
This week on Women InSession, we look back at a couple of early 90s comedies in My Cousin Vinny and My Blue Heaven! While one of these have gone under the radar, they both are extraordinary comedies that play up its tropes in some really funny ways that still hit all these years later.
Panel: Kristin Battestella, Amy Thomasson, Jaylan Salah
On that note, check out this week’s show and let us know what you think in the comment section. Thanks for listening and for supporting the InSession Film Podcast!
On this episode, JD and Brendan discuss Pixar’s latest film Inside Out 2, starring Amy Poehler, Phyllis Smith and Maya Hawke! Long time listeners will know that Inside Out from 2015 was JD’s favorite film of that year, so this was a highly anticipated conversation for us on the podcast. As you’ll quickly find out, there was much to discuss, especially with Riley’s hockey being a pivotal part of this one.
Review: Inside Outย (4:00) Director: Kelsey Mann Writers: Meg LeFauve, Dave Holstein Stars: Amy Poehler, Phyllis Smith, Maya Hawke
Prior to the world premiere of Vulcanizadora, I was able to sit down with multi-hyphenate filmmaker Joel Potrykus, and lead actor and longtime collaborator, Joshua Burge to discuss the film. During our conversation, we discuss everything from what the two feel about hiking to eternal damnation. This is a film that leaves its audience with a lot to chew on, and breaking it down with both Potrykus and Burge was an absolute delight. And yes, we do get into the imagery that will likely mystify many people as they stumble onto this film. Itโs a gnarly film, but made way for a really fun conversation that delved into a variety of different topics. As a slight warning, itโs of my belief (and Potrykus backs me up below!) that Vulcanizadora should be seen while knowing as little as possible about the film itself. While we largely avoid spoilers in the below transcription of our interview, thereโs some general allusions to what occurs throughout the film. Enjoy the conversation, check out my full review of the film right here,and most importantly, enjoy Vulcanizadora!
Alex Papaioannou: So, yeah, I loved the film.
Joel Potrykus: Aw, thanks man.
AP: I went in knowing absolutely nothing!
JP: I wish everybody would just go in knowing totally nothing!
AP: So letโs just get right into it! Are the two of you frequent hikers?
JP:ย [Smiles.] Josh, you start with that one.
Joshua Burge: I walk as a mode of transportation, so therefore hiking is not an appealing leisure activity. [Laughs.]
JP:ย I actually dig all that. I love going out in the woods and hiking and camping and all that business. But, yeah, I don’t think ‘ole Burge is into that kinda thing.
JB:ย Yeah, not my thing.
AP:ย It does really play like that in the film as well!
JP:ย I guess it does! [Joel and Joshua laugh.] You’re like, miserable. Not wanting to be there and I’m like, “Come on!”
JB:ย Yeah, you’ve got all that gear!
AP:ย Is all that yours?
JP:ย That backpack actually is mine. I bought it at a garage sale, but I never used it. My wife was like, “Why are you buying that? We have a kid now [Smiles.] You’re not gonna be taking him on weekend camping trips.” So that was in my garage forever. But I did buy the pants that zip away into shorts. But yeah, like the little pan and all that. That’s all my stuff.
AP:ย You finally got to bust it out. Worth the expense!
JP:ย There was a reason to buy it, I guess.
AP:ย Are those pants in the regular rotation?
JP:ย Those are not in the regular rotation… yet! [We all laugh.] They’re pretty practical and comfortable though, so it was great to shoot a movie in those out in the wilderness. Glad I didn’t have to wear a Tommy Hilfiger sweater and jeans. [Referring to Josh’s character in the film.]
JB:ย [Laughs.] Yeah, yeah.
AP: Getting back to the idea of going in knowing nothing. The dynamic at first plays very comically. Joshua, you’re performing the straight-man archetype and Joel, you’re just going off and doing your own thing. Then it makes the bleak shift about halfway through. So how do you balance that tone?
JP:ย Well, as you said, [my character] Derek’s the one doing all the blabbering and then there’s Marty. And I think seeing that on screen is what sells the tone. If there’s two guys having a good time on a camping trip, then all of a sudden there’s no sense of danger. But if there’s one guy who’s really excited, and there’s one guy who doesn’t want to be there, you know something’s up. There’s a reason that guy doesn’t want to be there.
JB:ย And I was just making sure that [my character] Marty would stay as silent as possible. Then that just adds to the dynamic. It makes it much more extreme to acknowledge that one guy is trying to make the best of it and have fun, and the other guy is just really solidifying that he’s not having it.
JP:ย So right away, without saying a word, I think audiences could figure out something bad is going to happen. Because there’s a big shift in dynamic and in the personalities between those two characters. And it was also important to kind of give a little feeling of unease at the end of every scene. So for Derek, he’s been all goofy, and then to wipe his smile away at the last second, I think helps.
JB: ย Just going non-responsive and not participating.
AP: So you two have been collaborating for a while now. You’ve known each other for a long time, and you’re playing such heavy roles, especially in that first half. What’s the approach in terms of going from goofing off with a friend before action is called, to then needing to immediately shift?
JB: ย Well, with these two characters, we had already been there before… [Turns to Joel.] I could say that now, yeah?
JP: ย [Looking down.] Not yet… [he smiles.] I mean I don’t know. [They both laugh.]
JB: ย It was just that revisitation of how difficult it is to act with Joel, because he’s hilarious, and it is hard not to break. [Laughs.] But you just have to keep going over it and over it in your head. That whatever you think of as your total nightmare, an uncomfortable state-of-being, and existing in misery and anger and loss. Frustration. Whatever those horrible thoughts are that put you there, to actually be able to use them to complete that portrayal.
JP: ย And it was like that, because we would be goofing around right before the roll. Sometimes I would doubt whether we were in the right headspace. But Josh is such a good actor. He doesn’t need to go into a corner for 30 minutes to go brood and get into character. It’s like, action, and the smile is gone. He’s dark now. So that is how it was. It wasn’t like, cut, and Josh would be angry and sulking, trying to stay in character. [They both laugh.] We were having fun. As soon as we rolled cameras, it was easy for me because I was still kind of the same guy. But for Josh, yeah, he had the heavy lifting in those situations.
AP:ย Obviously, another big element of the film is the device!
JP: Yeah.
AP: I mean, do you have a name for it that you’ve been referring to it as?
JP: No! Just the masks. And we talked a lot about what that would look like and how it would function. My original ideas were way more simple. It was my brother Charles who said, “Give me a week or two, and let me come up with a cool concept for this and design it and create it.” He typically creates all the… “appliances” in these movies. So we just talked a lot about it. There was no name for them, but it was just “the masks.” He just came to set with them ready to go and locked them on our heads. And it was game on. It was great.
AP: Was it always a mask in your head?
JP: Yeah.
JB: We arrived at the metal mask, I think, pretty quickly.
JP: Ball gag was talked about. Once we figured out how it was gonna happen, we knew we had to come up with a cool mask/headpiece to really freak audiences out.
AP: It’s… gnarly. Putting it on is one thing, and then seeing what happens right after… And that leads to my next question. Thinking it is one thing, seeing it in person is another. When you have it on your head for the first time, what is going through your mind?
JP: I think putting it on is almost scarier than when it happens. There’s way more mystery when it’s just being put on somebody. That, to me, is my favorite moment in the movie.
JB: I mean, it is an intense thing. Chuck did an amazing job building those masks without having our dimensions or any measurements to model it off of. So putting it on it fit great. But it also had a medieval aspect to it, where you’re going into the Iron Maiden or something. Some sort of contraption that you’re not supposed to get out of, you know? And that’s a very encapsulating kind of fear. A striking feeling to have.
AP: Like it’s comfortable enough to put on, but a bit too tight to take off.
JB: Yeah, there’s that real weight to it. And those real jagged edges that you can sense, even if you don’t feel them. It’s very real and present.
AP: And it’s definitely felt. I mean, there’s morsels throughout the film, so you start to realize what’s happening. But once those masks come out, you don’t even want to look. And I think it’s expertly handled.
JP: And what was more difficult is we did all the takes in that whole scene with the things in our mouths. Like, it was hard to breathe. You’re drooling…
JB: Drooling, and you can’t swallow.
JP: And I’m trying to direct and I can barely talk. That was another kind of discomforting part of it.
AP: I mean, how long did that take to set up and shoot once you have it in your mouths?
JP: We wanted to go as quickly as possible, but there were complications. We were shooting on a beach, and we kind of had permission to be there. But there were also other residents around, and they didn’t know what we were up to. So there was some interference from people, like asking what we were up to or being in the shot. And we’ve got this thing on our head, and these things in our mouths, and I can’t go talk to them. So it was probably the most hectic scene to shoot. The sun was going down, there were a lot of moving parts. And it was obviously uncomfortable for us. So that was a tricky, tricky scene. We tried to get it as efficiently as possible.
AP: And of course, shooting on 16 millimeter adds to that. Was that always the plan to shoot on film?
JP: That was the hope! And then once money came through, it was like, “This is it! Like it’s happening.” We’ve always wanted to shoot a feature on 16mm. It just seemed a little intimidating, but our DP Adam J. Minnick has done it many times before. So he convinced me that we could do it for this much money and in these conditions.
AP: So this is the first feature you’ve made since becoming a father! And your son is in the film. Can you talk about what that was like? And how was that first day of having him on set?
JP: So I feel that all the films that Josh and I have made until now have an almost indirect undercurrent of fatherhood. Grown men trying to figure out how to be men, and never having a father to show them. But it’s always just sprinkled in. And this is the one that most directly tackles the idea of fatherhood, and why these two guys are the way they are now. We get to see an old father, and we get to see a kid, and then a father in between both of them. So yeah, becoming a dad definitely shaped the story. I was ready to really fully explore why these characters are the way they are, and why I’m like the way they are. And… [Smiles.] I don’t know if there’s anything for Josh about why he is the way… [Laughs.] I don’t know! Josh and I typically don’t talk a lot about “what I’m bringing to the character” business.
JB: Yeah, we don’t really do that. But at the same time, there’s an understanding that we’re both coming from wherever we’re coming from. And again, the time passage is such a big deal for me on this film. The obstacles that people go through over a certain period of time. In this case, 10 years. And I just honed in on that, I think, more than anything. Like where your relationships are with other people, and the growth or failure of them. Those sorts of aspects were what I thought about most when taking on this dude.
AP: You share a scene with Joel’s son, Solo. What was that like on the day?
JB: Yeah! So… [chuckles] first of all, Joel wrote to me. And he said, “You know, we might have you just hang out and talk to Solo, and we’ll just shoot and see what happens. We might get something or we might not.” And I said, “Well, that sounds great, man. I’ll be prepared.” [They both laugh.] So we’re there. It’s halfway through the shoot, and we’re getting ready. And I was like “Want to try to run the lines?” [Animatedly replies] And Solo had every line down pat! Perfect! [Joel laughs.] Just right on it. And I have to say it, I did not! I did not. I was ill prepared. [We all laugh.] So I said, “Okay, Mr. Potrykus. I’ll learn my lines.” And I was not talking to Joel!
JP: [Laughing.] Yeah.
JB: So it was amazing. The little dude did an amazing job. And it was a thrill to be on screen with him and have that moment. It was a blast.
AP: ย
Solo will be in his dressing room while you learn the lines. [Laughs.]
JP: You know, my wife and I rehearsed him for months and months. We went over the lines, and were like, “You gotta look him in the eye, and you can’t look over there at the camera. You gotta look the person right in the eye and say it.” And once he knew the lines, then he felt comfortable locking eyes. And even about a week up into the shoot, I didn’t know. I was like, “Ehhh.” But then every time we did it, he just nailed it. And I just had such confidence in him. I didn’t even look at the monitor that day. I just sat next to him… It’s pretty emotional. I didn’t even have to direct him! He just knew it. I just wanted to see him do it in reality, because I knew that was the only time I’d ever see that. Forever after, I’d see him on the screen. To be able to be in that moment and be present. I mean, you have that every time you act. You get to experience the moment without the camera. And I very rarely get to do that. I’m usually looking at a monitor.
JB: Yeah! [Smiles.] That’s true.
JP: To be there and to see it happen was really cool. And I got all emotional. It was awesome.
JB: It was just a privilege for me, to be a part of it all. Just to see the little guy, and he was actually playful, you know? I mean, he was playing with a toy, and that’s what was going on in the scene. He was there! What you’re supposed to achieve as an actor is to be there, be involved, be real, and be what you are. And that’s what Solo was like naturally.
JP: He wasn’t in his head too much, like probably most actors get. [Chuckling.] You know, he doesn’t know what he’s gonna look like on screen. Sometimes, maybe actors can get self-conscious about that.
AP: Obviously, he’s not going to see the whole film, but have you talked to him about being on a big screen?
JP: He’s pretty indifferent about it all! [We all laugh.] He just doesn’t get the magnitude, and he kind of doesn’t care. When we were editing his scene, I tried to show him and he was just like, “Eh, okay. Cool.” He doesn’t seem like he wants to watch the movie, or even care that he’s not going to be allowed to watch it for a while. So he’s just kind of drifting through it.
AP: Fame doesn’t change him.
JP: He’s not jaded, his ego is still in check. [We laugh.]
AP: So, without divulging too much about where the film goes: A lot of it is about wanting to be held accountable for certain actions, I suppose, and in turn, there’s constant failure. And then in those final moments, we see what happens. Do you feel that there’s justice in those moments?
JB: I personally don’t see it as justice. I see it as a sense of relief. But I’m not… Josh, it’s your character. Yeah, it’s more of a burden being lifted. I don’t see it as justice either. Not to be religious about it, but there’s the Old Testament with the wrath of God and a burden is lifted.
JP: I think Josh’s character feels something he hasn’t felt in the whole movie at that moment. That’s the most important part of it.
AP: It feels like the only time you really see him smile. Or even emote, I’d say.
JP: That was definitely intentional. It’s something we talked a lot about.
AP: I know there’s the conversation about Hell. Did you pull that quote from something that you saw online?
JP: [Laughs.] I just made that up because that’s my version. That would be my Hell. To not be screaming in pain,ย but to be nervous… forever.
AP: In my notes I just wrote, “Isn’t that just real life?”
JP: [Smiling.] Yeah! But instead of just through your adulthood, it’s through eternity. Man… holy shit! [We all start laughing.] I think that may be the most hardcore thing in the whole movie! Just that fear of being nervous forever.
AP: Yeah! It feels like Derek is just constantly talking into the void. And Marty is just there, embracing it. And it feels like his reply is the time where you’re just like, “Ok, what’s going on in your head?”
JP: Yeah! I love that you don’t really know. Is Marty taking it to heart? Or is he just shaking him off? I think there’s something freaky in that. That he’s still locked in after all that.
JB: And I also think about the way that Marty then addresses it. “Well, there is no Hell.” That’s his rebuttal. It’s either to move the show along and get it going, or he just doesn’t want to participate and placate any of Derek’s notions about whatever is going on with Hell.
JP: I thought we had an opportunity to go a lot deeper into it. But I felt like “being nervous forever” is just the thing that I wanted to get across.
JB: ย That’s his concept of damnation.
JP: ย And if we could get there in a realistic, almost silly way at first. And to then end on that note. The whole movie’s structure is: Goofy into goofy into goofy, and then get ugly or dark right at the very end of a scene or an exchange of dialogue.
AP:ย And it totally recontextualizes the first half with Derek. I mean, he’s clearly a goofy guy, but this then brings the thought up of, “Oh, he’s just trying to kill time.”
JP: Yeah!
JB: ย He’s trying to prolong the inevitable.
JP: ย There’s something about him knowing that this is why they’re there. Him never acknowledging it, and still having this goofy persona, to me, yeah, recontextualizes everything. Like how is that guy trying to have fun, knowing what’s gonna happen?
AP: ย It’s so frightening and so masterful. I can’t wait to hear the reactions at the premiere.
JP: Me too!
JB:ย Yeah!
AP: ย How are you feeling going into it?
JP: ย I’m super stoked. This is exactly what we set out to make.
JB: ย I’m so excited. Seeing everybody’s reaction, and to see it on the big and large screen, too. I haven’t seen it that way. So I’m stoked.
AP: ย Out of curiosity. How long was the shoot?
JB: ย Eight days.
JP: ย Was it eight?
JB: ย Eight total shoot days. 14 working days, two to travel and whatever. Eight day shoot.
AP: ย That’s amazing.
JP:ย Yeah, it was super, super efficient.
AP: That’s all I have! Again, thank you both for taking the time. Congratulations on the premiere, and I can’t wait to see the reactions that come out.
JP: ย I’m going on Letterboxd tomorrow morning! [We all laugh.]
When it comes to box office success and general audience appreciation, legacy sequels are pretty straightforward. Lots of nostalgia for a beloved property, some crowd-pleasing cameos, plucky new heroes to accept a passed torch โ if you follow the formula and get a halfway competent team on board, theyโre as much of a safe bet as anything in Hollywood can be. Star Wars: The Force Awakens was exalted on release. Ghostbusters Afterlife didnโt offend anyone. The first Hobbit (legacy prequel but still bent over backwards to get as many nostalgic references in as possible) received good reviews. Scream (2022) had a lucrative blast skewering the very idea of legacy sequels. Jurassic World was a box-office behemoth.
But things get a little trickier when the time comes to follow your nostalgic investor-pleasing return to the well. Consider the pattern: The Last Jedi went for knotty ideas and thematic subversion that thrilled many but invited backlash so severe that Lucasfilm followed it with a two-and-a-half-hour-long apology, which appeased nobody. The Hobbit sequels tried for something more colorful and elastic that was ultimately met with a shrug by exhausted audiences. Scream VI was inventive in its kills but had nothing new to say, which is a cardinal sin for a Scream movie. Terminator tried to reboot its reboot with another reboot, arrogantly assuming that audiences burned several times before would listen when the producers insisted that this time theyโd got it right (they hadnโt). Halloween had absolutely nowhere new to go in Ends or Kills, unless you count focusing on a teenage delinquent as your main antagonist rather than Michael Myers.ย
And then thereโs Jurassic World.
Like so many of these rebooted franchises, all three Jurassic World films cleaned up at the box office despite the critical consensus being that theyโre kind of terrible. And thatโs not unfair. They are kind of terrible. At their best, theyโre goofy crowd pleasers with enough dinosaur action to keep you engaged, but even that reading assumes youโre not at least a little bit disheartened by the descent from one of Spielbergโs greatest blockbuster classics to flaming locusts.
Granted, few long-running franchises are ever able to match the power of their first instalment, and Jurassic Park, like Jaws before it, is no exception. The difference is that Jaws never lent itself to a sequel, while the original Jurassic Park is rife with implications about where it could go next. This is partly what made its two initial follow ups so underwhelming; both were content to mostly keep the dinosaurs on the island, the humans on the run and the status quo exactly where it was at the end of the first film.
By contrast, the World films tried to fulfill the promise of the original and entirely screwed it up. But what really rubs salt in the wound are the moments throughout where you catch fleeting glimpses of just what these movies could have been.
Itโs always a bit eye rolling when a movie made by a mega-corporation takes tame pot-shots at the capitalist system that gave it birth (cough, Barbie, cough), but Jurassic World largely gets away with it because the seeds of the parkโs destructive commodification are very much planted by Ian Malcolmโs warnings in the first Park. Seeing the new version plastered with big brands while executives wholesale inventing a dinosaur to please investors feels like, well, basically what would happen in real life. In one of the best scenes in the film, the scientifically outdated appearances of the dinosaurs are addressed not only with the fact that they have been altered by spliced DNA, but the insinuation that they were deliberately manufactured to resemble what people in the โ90s thought dinosaurs should look like. Given the lengths the film goes to remind you of the hallowed original, itโs a surprisingly sharp edge that very nearly pushes Jurassic World into thought-provoking, satirical territory. The suggestion here is that itโs more important these โdinosaursโ give people what they think they want than be in any way representative of their extinct forebears. Itโs not especially hard to track where that metaphor is aimed.
But even ignoring any meta implications, this plot point has prescience. Consider the very real efforts to โresurrectโ the Woolly Mammoth or the Thylacine, a marsupial predator hunted to extinction by settlers in early 20th century Australia. While cloning has long been the presumed method of bringing them back, more recently a complex process has been raised for discussion that effectively amounts to taking a living relative of the extinct animal and reverse engineering its DNA to come up with a close approximation. If it looks like a mammoth, is it a mammoth? Will it matter to the inevitable crowds flocking to see the โde-extinctโ animal?
Jurassic World almost engages with this question, but it canโt resist putting the focus more on crowd pleasing nostalgia or scenes where the T-rex and raptors team up against the lab designed monster in a righteous takedown that ignores the fact that theyโre all lab designed monsters. Itโs a lot of fun if you like seeing dinosaurs fight (which in fairness most sane people do) but it comes off as a hollow cover version of the original film, lacking in soul, tension, wonder, thoughtfulness or dynamic characters.ย
Fallen Kingdom gave the first indication that these new films had any intention of moving beyond the โhumans chased by dinosaurs on an islandโ template that characterized all previous films in the franchise. While the first half of the film is precisely that, the second pivots to something weirder and more interesting. The idea of billionaires bidding at auction on exciting new dinosaurs rings very true, even if these filmsโ insistence on positioning raptors as a desirable asset for a military that has drones does not.
Then thereโs the introduction of Maisie Lockwood (Isabella Sermon), revealed to be a clone of the deceased daughter of Jurassic Parkโs hitherto unmentioned co-founder. Some criticized this plot point as too silly, ignoring that it was the inevitable result of the technology introduced in the first film. Of course the very rich would bring back their loved ones if they could. But the film does next to nothing with the reveal, showing little interest in engaging with the ethical ramifications of it. Benjamin Lockwood (James Cromwell), the cloner in question, is presented as a benevolent old man who misses his daughter โ a depressing case of modern blockbuster reluctance to engage with moral ambiguity lest somebody be made a little uncomfortable.
To that point, even Maisieโs final choice to release the dinosaurs into the wild never really gets held to account, in either this film or the sequel that is ostensibly about the consequences of that very decision. Furthermore thereโs one beat where protagonists Owen (Chris Pratt) and Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) are called out over their culpability in creating this new world, which again could have made for some desperately needed character development or thematic weight, but is quickly skipped over in favorof more cool imagery and John Williams evoking music.
Fallen Kingdom often feels like three different films mashed together, but itโs comfortably the most fascinating of the World films, and the one least concerned with nostalgic pandering. However, one aspect is consistent with the films on either side of it; a tendency to gesture towards compelling ideas before running as far as possible from them. Thereโs a certain smugness to the way these scripts seem to expect points for even mentioning thorny concepts, while missing the fact that thorny concepts only make for drama if theyโre, you know, dramatized.ย
If Fallen Kingdom is the most interesting, then Dominion is the most frustrating. Following the previous filmโs genuinely thrilling cliffhanger, Dominion was set up to finally realize the promise of Crichtonโs premise. What does a world where dinosaurs and humans coexist look like?
Unfortunately, we still donโt know, because everyone was too busy focusing on the locusts.
You can sort of see why Dominion made this choice. Director Colin Trevorrow worked overtime in interviews to stress that it wouldnโt be credible for dinosaurs to have taken over the world when only a handful of them escaped in Kingdom. While this is true, credibility didnโt seem to be a problem when Owen was crawling unaffected away from lava that was inches from his face. These films can never decide if they want to be silly blockbusters or serious science fiction continuations of Crichton and Spielbergโs work.
Dominion briefly comes to life in the Malta chase sequence, but thatโs because itโs the only scene in the film that almost delivers what was promised; dinosaurs wreaking havoc in the human world. The audacity of having most of the action then take place in another remote dinosaur reserve while trying to claim itโs different because itโs in the mountains rather than an island demonstrates Starkiller Base levels of audience contempt.
And in case bungling an irresistible set up wasnโt enough, Dominion also reunites the three protagonists of the first film then proceeds to do nothing worthwhile with them. Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) is now a one-note crusader while Alan Grant (Sam Neill) waffles along behind her, looking more like a confused old man than Neill has ever looked in his whole career. The film insists on romantically getting them back together because it assumes thatโs what audiences want, but even Jurassic Park III understood that there was power and humanity in a melancholic separation due to different desires. Say what you will about that film, but at least Alan and Ellie felt like the same people they were in the original, with the same foibles that always would have doomed them as a couple. Meanwhile Dominion leaves Jeff Goldblum to spout embarrassing pseudo-philosophical dialogue that evokes his way of speaking in the earlier films provided you remove all wit and meaning.
But one of the worst offenses is how the film retcons Maisie Lockwood so that she is no longer the product of a billionaireโs hubris, but the lovingly designed offspring of a genius mother. Itโs a choice that so obviously exists to avoid having to engage with Maisieโs angst over who she is if sheโs not โrealโ or the bigger questions that invites. It serves as the final nail in the coffin of this franchise; these movies canโt even commit to their own halfway interesting ideas.ย
The Jurassic World Trilogy was damned by reverence. The films started out scared to chart their own path and when they were finally forced to, they vacillated between ridiculous action, vaguely mumbled sci-fi dilemmas, and a need to remind the audience at every turn how good Spielbergโs film was, which amounted to little more than self-sabotage. Unable to embrace either insanity or intelligence, the films arenโt much of anything. Which stings because the potential for something far better is right there, tauntingly out of reach.
An original film can be anything from a new way to tell an old story to something entirely out there and unique. The out-of-there films should be far more represented by the Best Original Screenplay category. We should be celebrating more cinematic swings that take the audience to somewhere that has only ever existed in one person’s mind. This year, there may not be a script any more out there, or deserving, than that of I Saw the TV Glow written by Jane Schoenbrun.
I Saw the TV Glow taps into a particular kind of nostalgia that draws the audience in. It speaks to those of us who remember the importance of being in a certain place at a certain time, glued to the couch. It’s a film for those of us who share an obsessive need to dissect a piece of culture that feels tailor-made for us. It’s about an unfulfilled need, whether it’s the premature end of a beloved TV show or something else entirely.
I Saw the TV Glow has this pervasive conversation about nostalgia throughout, but even more than that, it is wrapped in a layer of truth about the transgender experience. It isn’t a story about someone experiencing the triumph of discovering themselves but the agony of their denial. I Saw the TV Glow‘s themes of toxic nostalgia and fear seep into every layer of its character’s journey to self-discovery and willful ignorance of one’s self.
Jane Schoenbrun’s script is a work of art. She crafts a simultaneously detailed, delicate, beautiful, violent, terrifying, and wondrous world. It resonates with the time it portrays, with the eraโs elements subtly woven in. The script aims not to transport us to a bygone era but to help us understand our present. It delves into the layers of Owen’s (Justice Smith) fear, inviting us to reflect on our own.
I Saw the TV Glow is not only remarkable for its world but also for the depth of its characters. Owen is our point of view, our narrator, and ourselves. Owen is a proxy to help us decide if we would have followed Maddy (Brigette Lundy-Paine) and if we would have said yes to a more fully realized life. At the same time, Owen is our fear. We agree with Owen that Maddy is asking too much and that what is out there is not as safe as what is already here. Yet, Maddy is what we want, what Owen wants. She embodies courage, determination, and the understanding of self.
I Saw the TV Glowโs script is a force to be reckoned with, just as is the final product. It stands out as a wholly original piece, offering a unique and refreshing perspective. Jane Schoenbrunโs talent shines through in her ability to express herself in unconventional, eerie, and deeply moving ways. This is the kind of script and film for which the Best Original Screenplay category was designed. Itโs a vision that could only exist in its current formโa true cinematic masterpiece.
From now until nomination day, I’d like to keep a running list of films that could break into the Best Original Screenplay category. With only five slots, it will be difficult to narrow down. Yet, narrow it down, I must. I’ll keep it to five and rotate some films out and maybe back in as the mood or the prevailing winds shift. Below, in alphabetical order by title, are the top five, as I see it.
Babes – Ilana Glazer, Josh Rabinowitz
Challengers – Justin Kuritzkes
Civil War – Alex Garland
I Saw the TV Glow – Jane Schoenbrun
Love Lies Bleeding – Rose Glass, Weronika Tofilska
Director: Jeff Nichols Writer: Jeff Nichols Stars: Jodie Comer, Austin Butler, Tom Hardy
Synopsis: After a chance encounter, headstrong Kathy is drawn to Benny, member of Midwestern motorcycle club the Vandals. As the club transforms into a dangerous underworld of violence, Benny must choose between Kathy and his loyalty to the club.
The more perceived control you have, the larger your reach, the more it falls through your grasp. The expansion of power and control is a surefire way to tempt fate and lose who you are. When we look back at how our plans, relationships, or connections begin, that is when they could be held, even if for just one beautiful moment. Will events happen no matter what we do? Maybe, but it is hard not to think about the moments that our paths diverge into unnecessary complexity. The characters in Jeff Nicholsโ The Bikeriders travels many of those divergent paths and they find it impossible not to regret and look backwards, a deep incongruence with the consistent imagery of the motorcycles burning up the road, moving forward as quickly as possible, towards expectant freedom.
Although it is a story of power and ostensibly focused on The Vandals Motorcycle Club, that is a complete misdirect. That path, while interesting, is clearly secondary to the relationships of its three main characters. The impetus of the story is set in motion when Kathy (Jodie Comer) chooses to meets her friend at a biker bar to give her some money. There she meets a ragtag cast of characters, most importantly her future husband, Benny (Austin Butler) and the President of the club, Johnny (Tom Hardy). It is no coincidence that she meets them both back-to-back, as this trio will be on a collision course throughout.
The only struggles the film has are in its beginnings, as it struggles slightly to find its footing and pace. There is a bit too much narration from Kathy, especially given that we see just about everything that she details almost immediately afterwards. The script, also from Nichols, could do with slightly more trust in the audience. But these are minor complaints. Overall, the film is excellent, not just due to the actors, but also to the big screen worthy sound and visuals. Of particular note, the sound design truly harnesses the power of the motorcycles and hammers home the intimidation factor of the club.
Importantly, the three of the lead performances are stunning, and all in different ways. Hardy continues to be at the top of his game, especially in the space between lines of dialogue.ย His use of silence, facial expressions, and head movement to change the perspective of powerful moments puts him in a league of his own. Comer is the steadying force in this film, a challenge she more than meets, along with keeping a difficult accent with copious amounts of speech. And Austin Butler. I wasnโt convinced of his movie stardom quite yet, but count me in now. It is not just his introduction, which is a masterclass in gazing at a leading man from cinematographer Adam Stone. The forced lack of emotion in Butler is deeply important to the narrative structure and the character arcs of The Bikeriders, and he never wavers.
Yes, on the surface, it still is the story of the rise of a motorcycle club, but where the film shines is in the longing of both Kathy and Johnny for the love of Benny. They both have it, but only partially. Benny is distant and unknowable. Kathy has him as a husband, but he is a spouse that is never fully present. At the slightest provocation, he will threaten to leave, clearly unable to communicate beyond emotional explosions. Johnny, if anything, has a more intimate relationship with him, but this merely increases Bennyโs fear of closeness. Their intimacy is often filmed in shadow, with faces half obscured, almost seeing these two men as one whole. Hardy and Butler are perfectly incomplete, and, in another time, might be able to truly connect. But in the hypermasculine world of both the time period and the context of a motorcycle club, we all know it is impossible, despite our deepest romantic hopes. Their relationship is equal parts genuine and deeply frustrating. The film contains both a deep sorrow and a desire for hope that is a difficult balance, but is purely human. All of these characters are, in one way or another, misfits. The Bikeriders manages to portray even disturbing men as real people, with hopes and dreams. Michael Shannon, in a small but memorable part, has a speech about his past that passes a hush over the constant noise of the carousing men that is awe inspiring to watch.
The Bikeriders is about many things and can be interpreted in several ways. Jeff Nichols clearly has a deep understanding of impossible relationships and the good enough endings, even if they lack true intimacy and passion. โThings are goodโ becomes a near indictment of settling for what Benny can give. If youโre looking for enlightenment about the history of motorcycle clubs, this will deeply disappoint. But if you search for painfully close relationships that make us look back, both wistfully and with deep regret, The Bikeriders, thanks to three impeccable performances, will fulfill exactly what you are looking for, all while breaking our hearts.
Director: Vincent Grashaw Writer: Will Janowitz Stars: Tim Blake Nelson, Glenn Plummer, Andrew Liner
Synopsis: Tim Blake Nelson stars as ‘Bang Bang’ Rozyski, an eccentric retired pugilist obsessed with rectifying the sins of his past.
When weโre first introduced to Bernard โBang Bangโ Rozyski (Tim Blake Nelson), itโs far from a pretty sight. Heโs drunkenly dancing around his home in nothing but boxers, bottle of alcohol in hand. To be fair, what heโs doing couldnโt really be called dancing, I just donโt know what else youโd call it. Regardless, he appears to be having a bit of a breakdown. And heโs just an absolute mess. But Vincent Grashawโs Bang Bang isnโt attempting to hide that fact. Instead, it puts the behavior on full display for the audience. Over the course of its runtime, this brazen behavior develops from comical for the viewer into something far more upsetting. Itโs the slow realization that weโre being introduced to a man who, at the end of this path, may not ever find a semblance of peace. Itโs just a way to kill time in the hopes of wrapping it all up sooner.
As written earlier, Nelson portrays Bang Bang as a hurricane of curses and alcohol. His overall brash demeanor is also always on display. Heโs consistently drenched in sweat. Heโs beat-down, always popping pain medication for his hips. His clothes are mainly covered in stains, likely from the ketchup sandwiches he sustains himself on. His harsh attitude reaches new heights when, upon a surprise visit from his daughter and grandson, Justin (Andrew Liner), he outright refuses to provide any help in watching him for a bit while his mother is out of town. Eventually, he acquiesces upon being in the room with Justin again. This is such a great role for Nelson. Both his voice and particular look lend themselves incredibly well to such a stand-offish character. Yet, you fully believe him in his rare tender moments. It speaks to the talent Nelson has as a performer. For example, at one point in a supermarket, he literally drops all he is doing to help a stranger. A lesser actor would make this seem jarring after all the anger we have seen projected thus far. But here, it creates more of an enigmatic presence than anything else.
There’s no denying that this is a star vehicle for Nelson. But thereโs more stewing beneath the surface of Bang Bang. The film is set in Detroit, although not being shot there hinders part of the film. Still, the script does not beat around the bush when it comes to all the turmoil and hardships the city has endured for decades. Bernard is a broken man in a seemingly broken city. He feels left behind. He feels like the world has left his home behind. He feels like those who he grew up around and fought against have left him behind. In the latter case, he details that most have ended up dead at a young age or in jail. Yes, heโs angry at the hand heโs been dealt in life. But he appears to be even more internally furious and pain-ridden that the hands donโt stop getting dealt. So through Justin, we see him attempt to pick up the pieces. Maybe for all the pain heโs dished out, heโll be able to channel it into something that will do some good for the family name. This is, in many ways, an inspirational sports story. But itโs told with more vulgarity, violence, and vitriol than any youโve likely seen before. Those moments are when Bang Bang is at its best. Itโs primarily everywhere else in the film that it begins to lose some steam.
It feels as if Bang Bang wants to say something about the history of Detroit, but never quite reaches a substantial point to make. Instead, there are simply general observations and musings on the city. It takes away a bit of the overall effect of the film, even if the film is not directly about the city itself. To link the character and the setting together so often in the film would have you think that it would amount to something in the end. And then the other perplexing element of this film is the moments in which it chooses to be tender. On one hand, thereโs an interesting dichotomy at play between Bang Bang, who the public sees, and Bernard, who Sharon (Erica Gimpel) sees. The two are old friends, possibly even ex-lovers, who find themselves in the midst of a fling. At one point, Grashaw places the two of them into an incredibly vulnerable sequence. Itโs unlike anything else in the film, and is handled very beautifully in terms of how the scene looks, as well as how it plays out in isolation. But within the feature as a whole, it seems to completely clash against everything around it. It feels as if itโs pulled from a different film. To clarify: if taken completely out of the film and played on its own, itโs a well-executed and performed scene. Thereโs just such a stark contrast between the sequences that bookend it, let alone the rest of the film, that it doesn’t feel as if it earns this sudden turn. Thatโs not to say the scene diminishes the character, but it just poses a series of questions that the film doesnโt seem all that interested in.
But as I wrote earlier, this film basically operates as a vehicle for the always excellent Nelson. And itโs in his hands that it thrives in any sort of way. He has the ability to hide a lot of pain behind mannerisms and phrases that leave you equal parts laughing and in shock. Early on, a cop tells Bang Bang that being nasty is overrated. It doesnโt seem to faze him in the slightest. And to be honest, the audience wonโt be either. This is due to the fact that Nelson plays this character with that vitriol in a way that is wildly refreshing for a sports drama. And then, in the final moments, thereโs a radical shift. While not entirely earned as a character reveal, itโs a touching and important disclaimer about the entire film. Again, this rides on the back of Nelson. Despite all his flaws, you canโt help but be a bit endeared to his prickly persona. And then the film ends on a rather touching note. Itโs one of much importance that I donโt think should be held to the final moments. Whatโs been alluded to throughout now serves as a dedication to those in similar real-world circumstances. Rather than frame those earlier tender moments as merely an event, perhaps it would have played better as a clearly broken man desperately trying to fill the hole in his heart. Bang Bang, at the very least, is an occasionally interesting film with a very strong-willed lead performance. It wouldnโt hurt to have more sports films with as much grit and grime as this one. Importantly, it never glorifies the lifestyle. It admits that there are many ways in which the sport of boxing can ruin lives. Itโs just up to the individual to decide how far they want to take it. The film just hopes the individuals have the ability to choose for themselves.
Bang Bang celebrated its world premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival in the Spotlight Narrative section. More information on the film can be found right here.
This week on the InSession Film Podcast,we continue our Best Picture Movie Series with Elia Kazan’s 1947 winner Gentleman’s Agreement! We also talk Pixar, hot takes and Sony buying Alamo Drafthouse.
Check out this weekโs show and let us know what you think in the comment section. Thanks for listening and for supporting the InSession Film Podcast!
– Pixar and Hot Takes (1:05) After some opening banter, we begin the show this week with a massive Pixar rabbit hole. We talk everything from our Pixar movies, the latest discourse on Pixar hot takes and how we feel about the studio overall heading into their latest film in Inside Out 2.
– Sony Buys Alamo Drafthouse (49:37) We had to spend at least a few minutes on the news that Sony, one of the few major film studios out there, has now re-entered the theatrical distribution market after buying up Alamo Drafthouse. It’s the first time in decades that a major studio has done something like this, and as you can imagine, it has many people worried as to what it could mean in the long run.
– Best Picture Movie Series: Gentleman’s Agreement (1:03:26) We continue our Best Picture Movie Series in the 1940s with Elia Kazan’s 1947 Oscar-winning film Gentleman’s Agreement! While you have to respect Kazan’s convictions and courage for making this film, there are unfortunately some major aspects that do not hold up well through a 2024 lens. There are good things and you can see why people at the time voted for it, but sadly this is a film that despite its affable intentions, it doesn’t quite hit the mark.
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!
Director: Amanda Nell Eu Writer: Amanda Nell Eu Stars: Zafreen Zairizal, Deena Ezral, Piqa
Synopsis: An 11-year-old girl who is carefree until she starts to experience horrifying physical changes to her body.
Menarche and menstruation tales run through folklore and fairytales in almost every culture. Although some scholars make a distinction between mythology and folklore, they do tend to have crossovers when dealing with matters of the body (as opposed to finding explanations as to why it rains and the like). โEveโs curseโ would be the most obvious example in the Judeo-Christian bible, but even apocryphal or syncretic texts such as tales of Lilith (Lilit, Lamia) the one who does not bend to Adam is demonic and a shapeshifter. Sleeping Beauty is a menarche tale with the pricking of the princessโ finger on a spindle representing the shift into maidenhood โ one that shares her curse with a kingdom. Werewolf tales have obvious connotations with the moon cycle and the menstrual cycle (The Company of Wolves and Ginger Snaps). Amanda Nell Euโs Malaysian coming-of-age fantastique Tiger Stripes uses the image of the harimu jaidan or weretiger as an avatar of change for the pre-teen protagonist, Zaffan (Zafreen Zairizal) is experiencing bodily.
Zaffan and her friends Farah (Deena Ezral) and Mariam (Piqa) are in their final year of primary school and studying for their exams. Zaffan is already a wild thing โ dancing with abandon to pop music in the bathrooms. Zaff is a lot freer than Farah and Mariam, but her freedom is based in innocence and curiosity. She wears a bra she found somewhere, experimenting with womanhood but not ready for it. Womanhood means shame. In a society where ignorance about female bodies and desire is built into patriarchal control does a girl want to โgrow upโ?
Walking home after school the girls place puffy stickers on signs showing a rural Malaysia caught between emerging capitalism and provincialism. The lush forest is the place Zaff inhabits with an abandon that Farah resents. Zaff isnโt afraid to pull off her hijab and throw herself into the local watering hole. Generally, Zaff isnโt afraid until she is made to fear. The thing she is made to fear the most is her own body, and, in turn, her body becomes a site of fear.
Zaffโs mother, Munah (June Lojong) has told her daughter nothing of what will happen to her body once she begins menstruating. All a shocked Zaff is told is that she is โdirty now,โ and handed a sanitary product and told to wash. Farahโs jealousy of Zaff is given free rein as she moves to ostracize her through organized bullying. Mariam watches with confusion as her friend becomes โotherโ to everyone. Stories of a wild woman called Ina circulate; a woman who lives in a tree sent there because she did not keep herself clean. Before Zaffโs body begins to shift into something else it is already monstrous in the eyes of her classmates. Zaff is a โslutโ and โwhoreโ who stinks and brings with her evil spirits according to Farah and her new coterie of followers.
Zaff is changing shape. Small things which could be explained by hormonal changes such as hair loss, changes in appetite, and skin issues become, over time, her becoming a supernatural being. But as disturbing as these changes are initially and as painful and grotesque; they are not where the fear in Euโs work resides. Zaff becomes a shadow of her former self because she is oppressed by women and girls acting on behalf of a religious and social environment which has made them loathe themselves. Zaff hides in plain sight for as long as she can trying to fit in with what is expected of her until her animal power is provoked and lashes out.
Amanda Nell Eu is bringing a specifically South Asian flavor to an old tale, but she is also placing it specifically in the context of Malaysia now. A place where women hold jobs but are still taught โThe father goes to workโ and โThe mother cooks at homeโ in English language classes. Where girls participate in Cadet activities and are expected to do well in school to get scholarships yet are bound by cultural shame over a biological function.
Zaff is considered a point of contagion where other women and girls begin to experience mass psychogenic reactions when in contact with her. An exorcist is called in (something which is remarkably common) to rid the school and community of the evil inside a girl. Dr. Rahim (Shaheizy Sam) and his obvious scam to provide spiritual purity to the area and stop the hysteria does more harm than a โtigerโ being left alone.
Amanda Nell Euโs Tiger Stripes employs its fantastical elements with a deft hand. The film isnโt asking the viewer to see realistic โmonstersโ in the girls and women who have been ostracized, because they arenโt monsters at all. For Mariam, Zaff is her friend who is just one step ahead of her in the line to self-actualization. Whatever has taken hold of Zaff isnโt a threat to Mariam but rather something intoxicating and liberating. Instead of forming part of a pack who would hunt Zaff down, she asks her friend to show her the โUwUโ โ reminding the audience that they are young girls.
Tiger Stripes is sharp-clawed but soft-pawed. Eu is angry at the patriarchal prison which cages girls and sees their emerging bodies and desires as monstrous. Inside the anger, however, is a story about a young rebel, her best friend, and the beauty of their ferocity when they no longer have to keep it hidden. A thrilling addition to the empowered rebel and feral girl canon.
Director: Michael Angarano Writers: Michael Angarano, Christopher Nicholas Smith Stars: Kristen Stewart, Rosalind Chao, Michael Angarano
Synopsis: Rickey, an energetic and free-spirited young man who convinces Glenn, his long-time friend who’s settled into domestic life, to go on an impromptu road trip from Los Angeles to Sacramento.
Whenever I think of my small group of close-knit friends, I canโt help but feel lucky. I look back to a time when I considered my friend group to be massive. Growing up, I was a loud mouth who always wanted to crack jokes. But at the end of the day, I had very few people who I could actually consider a friend. We did everything together, but now, almost two decades later, we chat maybe once a year, and itโs the social pleasantries of saying happy birthday or something similar. As I said, to have the friends I have now makes me feel very lucky. A few of them Iโve known for half of my life at this point. But whenever I think back on those past friendships, I canโt help but feel a sense of yearning. Your first friends in life. Theyโll mean something to you forever. But of course, as we grow up, we become different people in a way. And do those new sets of people still have what held the friendship together in the first place? With his latest directorial effort, Sacramento, the multi-hyphenate Michael Angarano makes the attempt.
I use that phrase because, more often than not, a lot of relationships are maintained through making an attempt. The effort of reaching out goes a long way. For a society that has now found itself structured around these instant communicators in our pocket, why do we sometimes find it so hard to reach out? It has never been easier in the history of human existence. But even still, we often donโt send that text or make that call. And I can write that not only from personal experience, but can confidently say that many of us have shared a similar sentiment. There may be a reason for not reaching out. But it could also just be the simple passage of time. Thatโs the case for Glenn (Michael Cera) and Rickey (Angarano), two lifelong friends who have grown apart in recent years. This may seem like a shock to Rickey, but Glenn tells Rosie (Kristen Stewart), his wife, the reason behind his choices. Beyond time merely pulling them apart, Glenn and Rosie are expecting a baby. And Glenn merely feels that Rickey has not made it to that stage of his life yet. Angarano plays the role of an immature free spirit. Itโs not difficult to imagine heโs never really held a steady job or a long-term relationship. Part of it certainly stems from personal choice and feeling like heโd rather enjoy what life has to offer. And while we can still do that at any point in our lives, there does come a time when we need to accept the new responsibilities that come with time. From how we meet Rickey, itโs clear that heโs not ready for that commitment to maturity.
We first see him, alone in the woods, sitting naked on a chair. He hears somebody shout to him about his exposed genitalia with jest in her voice. They are separated by a lake, and decide to meet in the middle. Rickey jumps in without a second thought, only for Tallie (Angaranoโs real-life wife, Maya Erskine) to change her mind. This is the story of how Rickey meets Tallie. We cut to hours later, and the two are sharing casual banter while quickly realizing they have nothing in common. But that doesnโt matter, because itโs apparent this is a whirlwind meeting of two people who have undeniable chemistry. We jump in time a year, and while Tallie is nowhere to be seen, this idea of a whirlwind relationship is again seen between Rickey and Glenn. The former shows up, unannounced, and asks Glenn to lunch. Glenn, a clear bundle of nerves and panic-related anger issues, is flabbergasted. This is added to when he sees that Rickey is driving the car they seemingly grew up driving together. Itโs been all fixed up at a cost greater than the initial purchase price. Itโs here we begin to feel sad for Rickey. Glenn merely wants to get the lunch over with, but Angarano plays the character in such a way that you canโt help but empathize with. Heโs forcefully holding onto whatever friendships he can in whatever ways he can manage. One gets the sense that Glenn is the only person left in his life. And while Glenn and Rosie are expecting a child, it seems as if Glenn isnโt much different than Rickey. Rosie repeatedly says as much throughout the film, voicing her frustrations with Glennโs inability to care for himself, or his lack of releases in the form of other relationships.
While this does feel like a film solely interested in the dynamics of adult male friendships, the ways in which Erskine and Stewart are relegated to the outskirts is a bit upsetting. Theyโre obviously both very talented and have great screen presence whenever in the film. But one canโt help but feel their characters are underserved. Stewart for example, is in maybe 5-7 minutes of the film, mostly to poke fun at Ceraโs character. But in this comedy lies the opportunity for poignant observations from partners about immature men who feign having it all together. It just feels as if their lack of screen time undercuts the overall drama of the script at large. To flesh out both Rosie and Tallie a bit more would likely go a long way in making the entire cast of characters feel more three-dimensional. But even with such flaws, Sacramento is constantly charming, and consistently funny.
Angarano and Cera play well off one another, and the film sticks with them for a large swath of its short runtime. It also plays up the pains that come with aging, even if we still may be considered young. I personally felt seen when Cera, fighting a hangover, details how heโs โonly a manโ when relaying the three beers and two shots he had. Sacramento examines this idea of aging affecting us all in different ways in ways that are often interesting, but always comical. Time may pull us apart, and aging certainly takes its toll on us all. But itโs with the company we keep, and the memories we have made over a lifetime thus far that will help us weather the storm in the end. Maybe we can revisit those connections we once held but let fall to the wayside. Maybe those once-a-year dinners or quarterly texts could grow into something beautiful again.
Sacramento celebrated its world premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival in the U.S. Narrative Competition section. More information on the film can be found right here.
This week on Chasing the Gold, Shadan is joined by Hรฉctor Gonzรกlez once again to discuss his experience at this year’s Cannes Film Festival! This time around Hรฉctor talks about the films he really loved at Cannes and why these films will resonate at the end of the year.
Movies Covered in Part 2:
13. Something New, Something Old, Something Borrowed
12. Universal Language
11. The Other Way Around
10. All We Imagined as Light
9. Oh, Canada
8. Blue Sun Palace
7. Anora
6. Misericordia
5. Caught by the Tides
4. The Shrouds
3. The Hyperboreans
2. The Substance
1. It’s Not Me
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!
Synopsis: In rural Western Massachusetts, 11-year-old Lacy spends the summer of 1991 at home, enthralled by her own imagination and the attention of her mother, Janet. As the months pass, three visitors enter their orbit, all captivated by Janet.
Some say animation is not cinema. Yet, the new Netflix streaming film The Imaginary is a breathtaking example that challenges even the most cynical and closed-minded views of what makes film an art form.
After last yearโs embarrassment of riches like the transcendent Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, the exquisite artistry of The Boy and the Heron, and the shell-shockin’ good time of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem, can we finally let the genre have a home of its own in the cinema lexicon?
The Imaginary is one of those filmsโa wonderful and creative breath of fresh air that is destined to be hailed by critics and audiences alike. The animation is gorgeous, and the story lives up to the limitless possibilities. This family film of unparalleled empathy and unspeakable compassion sparks a passionate fascination with what movies are and what so-called cinema can be.
Thereโs magic in it.
The story (and we will be going with the American voice cast) follows Amanda (Evie Kiszel), who has been struggling living in a single parent household. She has begun to distract herself with her best friend, Rudger (Louie Rudge-Buchanan), who happens to be a figment of her imagination. The imaginary Rudger can only be seen and interacted with by Amanda, and her mother, for obvious reasons, Lizzie (Hayley Atwell), cannot see him.
However, things come to a head when a nefarious character named Mr. Blunting (Jeremy Swift) comes to town, even to the family’s front door. He is looking for Amanda, and she is shocked when she finds out that the creepy man can see her imaginary friend and knows who Rudger is. After avoiding him and his little minion, who looks like a rip-off of Wednesday Addams, Amanda is injured, taken to the hospital, and has yet to wake up.
Rudger now faces the possibility of disappearing because if Amanda dies, he will go away, and no one will remember him. However, he runs into the precocious Emily (Sky Katz), the delightful Hippo, Snowflake (Roger Craig Smith), and a talking feline with heterochromia, Zinzan (Kal Penn), who takes him to the Town of Imaginaries, where they think Mr. Blunting is a folklore or urban legend. The question then becomes: can Rudger get back to Amanda before Mr. Blunting can get to him or before he fades into eternity?
The Imaginary is an adaptation of the book of the same name by A. F. Harrold and illustrated by Emily Gravett. There is an eye-opening team behind this project. Directed for the big (and small) screen by Yoshiyuki Momose and written by two-time Academy Award nominee Yoshiaki Nishimura, it is a stunning film by any standard, live-action or animation. The eclectic use of animation almost seems capricious at times, but the joyful madness on the screen is ambitious and stunning to take in.
And itโs no wonder, considering Momose, the legendary animator, cut his teeth working with the iconic Studio Ghibli on Hayao Miyazaki films such as Princess Mononoke, Porco Rosso, Whisper of the Heart, and Spirited Away. Here, he has crafted a movie as good as those. There is a sense of magic, wonder, and even hair raising dread with Momoseโs vision, which comes to astonishing light.
The script is a pitch-perfect adaptation, bringing such ambitious source material to life. In particular, the ingenious way the story shifts subjects between the first and second acts while opening up a world of possibilities genuinely captures the audience’s fascination. The third act, which tests preconceptions of social constructs, is bold and teaches valuable lessons. You know, besides staying away from a creepy guy chasing kids, but themes of love, loss, and grief are deeply felt here.
The Imaginary is worth watching because it evokes wonderment, explores modern cultural themes, and employs innovative storytelling techniques. Not to mention its use of what has been described as “groundbreaking hand-drawn animation with first-of-their-kind techniques” using light and shadows.
The result is visible on the screen. Even the most minor scenes are intensely vibrant and engaging. Momose utilizes this technique to evoke emotions, employing precise lighting to immerse the viewer in a holistic experience. There is even a poignant scene near the end of the film with motion that’s almost lyrical, bringing some gravitas and real stakes to the story.
Sure, almost all the characters resemble Precious Moments figurines, but aside from that, everything about The Imaginary works harmoniously. It features unexpected moments that many studios wouldnโt dare attempt in crucial plot points. This is bold, ambitious, and exciting filmmaking that will awaken the child in you while occasionally delivering a punch of emotional resonance.
Synopsis: Follows Blanche Renard, who meets Greg Lamoureux and believes he is the one. However, she soon finds herself caught up in a toxic relationship with a possessive and dangerous man.
โIf you loved me, you wouldnโt let me be a monster.โ โ Grรฉgoire to Blanche
Valรฉrie Donzelli directs and, with Audrey Diwan, adapts the novel โL’amour et les forรชts.โ Starring Virginie Efira in twin roles, Just the Two of Us flirts with heightened genre flourishes but pulls back to reveal a simple chilling reality: domestic abuse.ย
Blanche Renard is the white to her twin sister Roseโs red. Or at least that is how it appears on the surface. Blanche is the more cautious sister, the intellectual who teaches French literature. Rose is the for the moment party girl who has to cajole and convince Blanche to come to parties in the breezy summer of their hometown in Normandy.
At one of the parties Blanche is recognised by an old acquaintance, Grรฉgoire Lamoureaux (Melvil Poupard) who hones in on her with a brash charm that disarms her. A well-dressed banker who once wanted to be a pilot, Grรฉgoire sweeps Blanche off her feet. He insists he is her โperfect matchโ and Blanche doesnโt doubt it as they dance together encircled by mutual desire. The halcyon blush of true romance colors Blancheโs cheeks and makes her bed a sanctuary where she and Grรฉgoire discuss literature and make love.
Rose isnโt entirely convinced by Grรฉgoire nor the speed the relationship develops. She genuinely wants Blanche to be happy but to be so completely consumed by another is accompanied in her mind by eventual loss such as their widowed mother faced with their beloved father. Unable to articulate her discomfort to Blanche, Rose finds herself being pushed to the side as Grรฉgoire starts to undermine Blancheโs familial ties.
Soon, Blanche is pregnant and although she is unsure she wants to keep the fetus, Grรฉgoire finds the idea of them as a family unit perfect. Small signs that he might be a little too possessive pass Blanche by as she readies herself for motherhood and an unexpected relocation from Normandy to Metz. Despite the literature she taught warning her that in Racineโs words which Grรฉgoire repeats, โAnd I even loved the teardrops I made her shed,โ Blanche acquiesces to him repeatedly.ย
Grรฉgoire is relentless with his manipulation leaving Blanche psychologically unanchored. In a small and cold town surrounded by woods, the mother of a small daughter and soon pregnant again Blanche isnโt precisely sure when she surrendered her autonomy or whether it was taken from her. Either way, even the smallest resistance to Grรฉgoireโs routine and rules means an escalating barrage of recriminations. In a house with no doors on the bedrooms Blancheโs world is claustrophobic.
Even her teaching job in a nearby town is a threat to Grรฉgoire. If she is celebrated for her intellectual skills, he feels emasculated. If she is seen by others, she is declaring herself apart from him. His possession of her and the children runs deep. A song sung in the van on the way to Metz, โI will love you until the day I dieโ is a more immediate promise than Blanche first realised.
The twist in Just the Two of Us is there is no twist. Told in segmented flashbacks to a lawyer, Blanche speaks of shame keeping her tethered to a situation that becomes increasingly deadly. Valรฉrie Donzelli employs techniques to make the viewer feel inside Blancheโs reality. Laurent Tangyโs cinematography shifts hues โ red for passion becomes in retrospect red for danger, but the greatest danger isnโt even given a color. It is the light in the kitchen in the morning. It is the flattened affect of slow suffocation. It is a bedroom, a bathroom, a phone screen, a view from a windscreen or a window.
The use of Racine, Moliere, and Flaubert is a touch on the overly symbolic side just as the target practice with Blancheโs one time lover is. What keeps these parabolic elements from becoming too affected is Virginie Efira’s performance. Efira wears the weight of over seven years with a man who has caused continual fight or flight exhaustion where neither action appears feasible. If she leaves, is she dooming her children and herself to a lifetime of looking over their shoulders? If she stays, will she have a lifetime at all? Efira is an actor for whom emotional and physical interpretations are intellectual and corporeal. Her attraction to Grรฉgoire is carnal but not reckless. Blanche isnโt a fool, but she is fooled.
โI just want you to myselfโ are words used painted as romantic or committed. Rarely do people think of them as a warning that they are a possession, yet domestic violence, coercive control, and spousal abuse are epidemic. On average, in France, a woman is killed by her partner or ex-partner every three to four days.ย
Just the Two of Us is horrifying because it doesnโt stretch credibility or imagination. There is no ultimate revenge and no firm end. An everyday fight for survival which happens across class and cultural milieus. Virginie Efira and Valรฉrie Donzelli force the audience to hold their breath and even as the credits roll it may be difficult to exhale.
Directors: Kelly O’Sullivan, Alex Thompson Writer: Kelly O’Sullivan Stars: Keith Kupferer, Katherine Mallen Kupferer, Tara Mallen
Synopsis: When a construction worker unexpectedly joins a local theater’s production of Romeo and Juliet, the drama onstage starts to mirror his own life.
The ghost light is a theater practice of placing a light center stage for safety reasons so that in the completely dark theater, one can see their way around obstacles or danger. Though, like many things in the theater, it’s also a superstition. A ghost light is away to ward off or encourage the spirits that haunt theaters. It is a connection between our world and the spirit realm. It’s like the connection between an actor and their role.ย
There’s an alchemy to channeling someone else’s existence through our body. Performance is a form of possession, taking over the person in front of us, stripping them away. Ghostlight is a film about many things, but it’s very much a film about developing empathy through acting. From the perspective of Dan (Keith Kupferer) we’re transported into a community of actors. Actors who see and feel in a completely different way than Dan is used to. Being with those people, giving himself to the process brings out what Dan hasn’t been willing to say, or think, or feel as he deals with his grief.
Writer Kelly O’Sullivan has built a deeply layered film. She slowly, beautifully creates the narrative in stages, calling our attention to details, feeding our brains pieces of a puzzle that our heart begins to work out through context. This isn’t a film of grand exposition, preamble, or aside. Ghostlight is a film that gives us everything we need when we need it and not a second sooner. You can see the ghosts, the small ideas written into the script, on the screen in a way that’s magical. It’s a story that will unfold in your head for hours after watching it as your brain stitches together the brilliance of the nuance in every scene and every word spoken. Ghostlight’s characters drive us forward, build the tension, and break our hearts. The script attains that rare balance of true human drama with very funny comedy, often within the same scene.
There is a scene of the production of ‘Romeo and Juliet’ when the players are rehearsing the play’s final moments. Directors O’Sullivan and Alex Thompson stage the scene perfectly with Dan in the wings like an audience member and two of his fellow castmates, the veteran Rita (Dolly De Leon) as Juliet and the enthusiastically hammy Lucien (Tommy Rivera-Vega) as Romeo. As the scene progresses and Lucien keeps us enthralled by his antics with the poison bottle, editor Mike S. Smith cuts over to a visibly upset Dan. There is a back and forth that continues until Dan finds his voice, his anger and his relief about finally telling his castmates about his real life tragedy. We go from chuckling at the ludicrous acting choices of Lucien to weeping with Dan as the rest of the cast does. It’s a masterful balance for the scene and the film.
These types of scenes wouldn’t work if it weren’t for the incredible cast of Ghostlight. They have a brilliant authenticity to their characters and know them intimately. Dolly De Leon steals every scene she’s in because her character feels so lived in, like she’s known Rita, has been Rita. It’s the kind of intimacy brought by the actors playing our nuclear family because they are a nuclear family. Tara Mallen imbues Sharon with that staunch determination of a woman doing everything to hold her family together so much so that she feels she can’t exist in her own grief. Katherine Mallen Kupferer as Daisy has that incredible fiery tempered teenager mixed with theater kid drive and energy down pat. Keith Kupferer as Dan is an utter revelation.
Kupferer is so incredibly naturalistic in his role. He has these looks, these expressions, that play across his face. As a taciturn character Dan is rarely speaking his mind aloud. He’s a roiling mass of pent up emotions ready to explode. Kupferer finds that within his performance. His movements, presence, and at times, grace build into a towering life on screen.
Ghostlight is the kind of film that you didn’t know you needed until you’ve seen it. It captures the feelings of grief and empathy in a way that is simply astonishing. In true cinema fashion, we are stripped of the seat we’re in, the building around us, the screen we watch, and we become ghosts. We haunt the lives of these fully fleshed out characters experiencing their grief and their triumph. We laugh, we cry, and we remember what it is like when we let others into our lives, when we stop just existing and learn how to live again.
Not enough can be written or said about Ghostlight. It’s a film that goes beyond what you think a film like it can be. It’s perfectly paced, superbly acted, and it is one of the best written films of the decade. There is nothing else like it on screens now and it must be seen.
