 In terms of world building, it's tough to beat Craven Director: Wes Craven Writer: Wes Craven Cinematography: Jacques Haitkin Producer: Robert Shaye by Jon Cvack Every Scary Movie Month there’s at least one classic horror film I’m excited to go back to. This year was A Nightmare on Elm Street where I bought the BluRay boxset in the hopes of revisiting all of the films. I hadn’t checked out the series since college and can remember little beyond the first one being my second favorite first film of the four classic slasher series and that A New Nightmare (1994) was not just a great sequel but a great piece of cinema overall; serving as the harbinger to Scream (1996) and its horror film within a horror film self-awareness. As for the other sequels, I couldn’t remember much of anything, which could be a sign enough of what’s to come. I was surprised to find how little I remembered about A Nightmare Elm Street beyond the initial plot of four friends who began dying in their nightmares. It’s one of the films that scared the living shit out of me when growing up, where prior to seeing it’d I repeatedly watch the clip of Nancy running up the stairs where he feet fall into the steps, covered in sticky hot goo as she tries to escape Freddie. When I finally watched the film around 10 or 11 at my older sister’s sleepover, I remember how horrifying his long arms in the alley were - an image that played in head on repeat before I finally had to wake up my parents in the middle of the night. To think that this film is almost thirty five years old is a jarring demonstration in time and how cinematic violence evolved. The film somehow still feels modern; more so than Halloween (1978), The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), or Friday the 13th (1980). More similar to Saw (2004), what makes A Nightmare on Elm Street work is its nightmare sequences - allowing the imagination to run wild. As I’ve said before, I’m far from the biggest fan of surrealistic cinema or dream sequences, but similar to Sopranos, it’s the very style of Freddie’s world that makes it work. I’m not watching this round to be scared so much as see how imaginative they get. The story opens on images of his famous claw being made in the basement, then shifting to Tina Gray (Amanda Wyss) stuck in a nightmare, chased by a man with claws. She wakes up to find her dress cut as though by a claw; her haggard mom and deadbeat dad entering the room, making sure she’s not dead, and telling her to cut it out. The next day at school, she tells her best friend Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) and her boyfriend Glen Lantz (Johnny Depp) about the episode who both admit that they too had dreams about the figure, remembering only abstract images. Nancy and Glen decide to stay at Tina’s house that night to keep her company, later joined by Tina’s bad boy boyfriend Rod (Nick Corri) who immediately takes her upstairs and the pair have sex. Glen attempts to make a move on Nancy who turns him down and the two sleep in separate beds. Before Tina and Rod head to sleep, Rod admits to having the a similar Freddie dream. Tina then falls asleep and the nightmare continues and Freddie makes his official appearance, chasing her around the house and soon extending his arms in a terrifying sequence before tackling her to the ground. The scene then cuts as Rod watches Tiny being spun around the bed, dragging her up the wall and across the ceiling where blood is pouring out of wounds before she finally falls like a rag doll. Nancy and Glen break into the room, finding Rod gone. The police arrive and we discover that one of the officers Lieutenant Donald Thompson (John Saxon) is Nancy’s father and suspects Rod as the murderer. The next day on her way to school, Rod grabs her from the bushes and tries to explain what happened before the police close in; her dad suspecting that Rod would try and get in contact with the daughter. Running on little sleep, Nancy falls asleep in school, with Craven providing yet another horrifying sequence as she looks out into the hallway and finds Tina bloodied up in a body bag, then dragged across the floor as though by an invisible ghost. Nancy is led to a boiler room where she burns her arm on a pipe, waking her up to discover she still has the wound. At the midpoint, the film is a close to perfect horror film, containing only fragments of that cheesy 80s style where jokes, actions, and blocking don’t entirely make sense. But for the most part the film works, pulling us along as we anticipate where and how Freddie will strike next. The world is logical - there is a monster killing teenagers in their dreams, but they remain free in the real world; creating a challenge for them to remain awake or face death. However, it’s also where the film takes its first initial misstep, attempting some sort of Exorcist moment by having Marge take Nancy to a sleep clinic where they hook her up and watch her dreams. Things look normal at first until she enters REM and we watch from Marge and the doctor’s perspective as she’s attacked once again. They wake her up, discovering she’s been cut by Freddie’s claws and that she also grabbed his hat. My suspicion is that given that Nancy needed to bring Freddie into the real world to destroy him, Craven provided this moment to set the logic. The issue isn’t even necessarily that he merged the two disparate worlds, but that even with cameras recording and Nancy bringing a hat into a room with Freddie Krueger’s name on it - which she didn’t have before - neither the doctors nor Marge find any reason to keep her there for safety, rendering the whole scenes purpose seemed superfluous beyond providing the logic of pulling the imaginary into the real. The film then continues to dip as Nancy heads home and further avoids sleep by taking caffeine pills and drinking endless pots of coffee. The set up is amazing - how long could a teenager possibly go without sleep and becoming completely mad. Craven touches on the subject, showing Nancy transform into a disheveled mess; strands of her hair soon turning gray. Her mom soon explains that years ago, there was a child murderer in town, who after being caught, was released on a technicality. The parents then formed a mob, hunted him down and killed Freddie by burning him alive in the boiler room. It’s another set up that I don’t think is fully explored - in which it seems like there could have been a better motive for Freddie going after Nancy if she was one of the children whose life was threatened, perhaps she was too young to remember. Nancy decides to meet Glen at midnight in order to fall asleep and grab Freddie and bring him into the real world. However, after Marge puts bars all over the home’s windows, Glen’s parents find Nancy a nutcase and prevent Glen from seeing her. Glen then falls asleep and in the film’s most famous sequence, swallows into his bed where a geyser of blood shoots up into the ceiling; serving as one of the longest standing cinematic images that’s been burned into my mind. Nancy sees the police arrive and tries to escape but her drunk mother has locked her inside the house. Here was another plot-serving device in that it seemed like the filmmakers required a way to trap Nancy inside, resorting to the mother locking her inside and getting wasted rather than protecting her daughter as she slept. Instead, Nancy proceeds to set up a series of boobie traps; including a sledgehammer that’ll fall from the door and light bulbs somehow packed with gun powder, then setting her watch for ten minutes and falling asleep in order to bring Freddie back and destroy him. This somehow all gets done within minutes, at least compared to the timeline of having Glen dead across the street where Nancy’s father resides. After a creepy boiler room sequence, Nancy succeeds in bringing Freddie back, but realizing the house is locked, she calls out to the police in the movie’s most absurd sequence. Even though three of her friends have died and she’s screaming for her life, the street cop figures that Nancy is overreacting and refuses to tell anyone. It’s the type of scene that pulls you out of a movie; made all the more infuriating for how well the story avoided cheap logic breaks for the majority. Nancy then explodes the gunpowder light bulb, igniting him on fire who then chases her into the basement; the smoke finally being enough to grab the police’s attention. Donald and the officers break in, heading down where they see flamed footprints leading upstairs where they find Freddie atop of Marge’s body; the two then disappear into the mattress. Nancy’s dad leaves her once again, but this time Nancy turns her back on him; a throwback to earlier scenes when Glen offers the advice of turning your back on nightmare monsters. Freddie dives at her and the screen washes to a beautiful morning where Nancy heads outside into a sunny, though smoggy day. Glen, Tina, and Rod pick her up in a red convertible. Nancy gets in, but the roof then collapses, revealing the red and green colors of Freddie’s sweater. Nancy screams to get out, but her mom just waves her on. For some reason I always forget about how much the second half tanks, but after watching the sequel, I now know why. Bad logic in horror films pulls you out of the moment. Beyond A New Nightmare and Dream Warriors (1987), I remember none of the sequels; and I’m anticipating it’s because they’re all terrible (SPOILER: I was wrong; big time). A Nightmare on Elm Street saving grace is that the characters and craft are operating at full gear, and while the logic bends, it only breaks a few times. Prior to revisiting it, I was convinced that it was the second best horror film from the four horsemen. I’m now wanting to go back to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. BELOW: The scariest image of my childhood Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page
0 Comments
 Tough to find a photo so here's a boring shot of an airport Director: Ken Loach Writer: Jim Allen Cinematographer: Clive Tickner Producer: Eric Fellner by Jon Cvack I write this as impeachment remains at the forefront of congressional politics; with Democrats divided between the political consequences and other members concerned with the principles of the matter. Many on the left are frustrated by Mueller’s equivocation, believing that his refusal to specifically state a crime had been committed has allowed Trump and his Republican acolytes to claim complete exoneration. Given that this entry probably won’t go up for another year (it was written in August, 2019), I remain on the fence about what I think will happen. Ultimately it seems that avoiding impeachment will empower future presidents to bend, or even break the law, knowing that the only consequence they’ll face is a future election. On the other, should the public be drawn into a long legal battle, it could favor Republicans, and with zero chance of conviction in the senate, it could have reverse effects. Hidden Agenda explores a strikingly similar topic. The apocryphal story takes place amidst the feud between the Irish Republican Army and Britain, as the right-wing British government led by Margaret Thatcher denies Ireland’s independence, labeling its dissidents as terrorists, and utilizing torture and extrajudicial assassinations in order to combat the problem. Loosely based on true events, the characters and their actions are inspired by actual British intelligence and government figures who authorized shoot-to-kill policies against IRA members. Ingrid Jessner (Frances McDormand) and Paul Sullivan (Brad Dourif) are two American lawyers who have been investigating the torture of IRA prisoners, opening up at a press conference after they’ve released the report. It’s clear that while the media will report the incident, the government will deny the allegations and little will happen. Later, on the eve before they’re set to leave, Paul receives a tape from a provisional IRA supporter which contains British police forces admitting their methods. Driving in the country, security forces shoot them down, steal the tape, and fabricate a story. The event captures national headlines and the UK police investigator Peter Kerrigan (Brian Cox) is hired to investigate the murder. He quickly learns how little police are going to cooperate. In one scene, Captain Harris (Maurice Roëves) flexes his bureaucratic chops, going so far as to say he can’t provide details due to confidentiality, regardless of the fact that Kerrigan is supposed to have full access to any and all documentation. Again, in an age where Trump and Attorney General Barr prevented the Mueller report’s immediate release due to Executive Privilege, refusing to turn over any and all documents, and putting a gag on present and former Trump administration officials - we see the common thread between authoritarian-leaning governments. They will justify their actions by sculpting the narrative which propagates a lie, then refuse to provide details through bureaucratic skullduggery (the irony being that it’s this exact secrecy and overreach that they typically criticize before their election). The film follows the traditional hybrid witness-protector political thriller we typically see in films in films such as Mercury Rising (1998), Enemy of the State (1998), and No Way Out (1987); with the cynical tone found in David Mamet’s best crime films. The one difference being the grim conclusion. Ingrid works with Paul to find the tape, leading him into the IRA’s underworld, where instead of the begrimed training camp headquarters, they find a tavern where guitarists sing folk songs about their desire for independence. After meeting a local IRA leader who explains the terrors they’re dealing with, they get closer to retrieving the tape and learn the dark truth about the government. With Peter’s partner knowing he could lose his job and dropping out, and higher officials attempting to blackmail Peter with suggestive, though inaccurate photographs of him and Ingrid, we soon learn how determined the government is to ensure the information never gets out. Counter to the typical endings of the genre, Peter succumbs to the pressure. When Ingrid nearly loses her life securing the tape, catching Peter just before he boards his flight, Brian Cox provides a phenomenal moment of humane guilt. Peter refuses to go any further with it and his final report won’t include any information featured on the tape. Completely dejected, Ingrid is left on her own, whether to give up, get caught, or continue on. The movie ends with a quote: “It is like layers of an onion, and the more you peel away, the more you feel like crying. There are two laws running this country: one for the security services and one for the rest of us.” James Miller, ex-MI5 agent Ignorant in British politics and history I believe more liberal British governments have come to power since Thatcher, and I’m left wondering what happened to her methods. Though whether they continue or have diminished or vanished altogether, the story serves as a reminder that authoritarianism isn’t always to the extreme of Hitler. Government’s breaking the law must always be held accountable. Peter is far more a coward than Mueller, and if anything could further defend Mueller against his harshest critics. However, if we learn that this is just one branch of a far wider and more expansive tree; that if, in fact, the migrant camps are flirting with inhumane methods that’d better be categorized as concentration camps, then we might look back on Mueller as failing to have the courage to speak up. I was confident that Peter went on to file a report that specified the extrajudicial killings of Paul and the informant, though perhaps like Mueller, he would only say that those specific offers committed the crime, not wanting to implicate his government so harshly; hoping change would come soon enough. Brian Cox at least allows us to entertain the possibility. In an age of extreme partisanship on either side of the aisle, my fear is that it allows both the left and right to put blinders up when injustices in their own party are committed. By possessing so strong a conviction that the other side is evil and corrupt, it emboldens to ignore or disregard their own side’s immorality. It’s how those in the upper echelons of power stay in power, by having the masses fight against each other rather than strive for a virtuous government that serves all. BELOW: Film 90 on the Film from 1990 Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  From Katrina victim to David Simon collaborator Director: Spike Lee Cinematographer: Cliff Charles Producer: Spike Lee by Jon Cvack I had watched Spike Lee’s When the Levees Broke (2006) back when it first came out just a year after Hurricane Katrina. I regard it as one of the top ten documentaries ever made. As Anderson Cooper Wendell Pierce, and others mentioned in this film, the coverage of Katrina faded far faster than it should have; as after the water began to recede, tens of thousands were left without shelter, medical, food, or water. Some were separated from their families and shipped out with no idea where they were going, and others were packed into the New Orlean Saints Superdome. A few resorted to doing whatever it took to survive, whether for noble or dishonorable purposes while facing an overactive and racist police department. In the end nearly 1,833 Americans died. The destruction, disruption, and violence most of these - dominantly black - individuals was staggering to the mind. Not being into politics at the time, it was one of the most impactful films I’d seen. It’s by sheer chance that this was the next film I watched from Spike Lee, after I began watching David Simon’s Treme just a few months prior. In the series, taking place a few years after Katrina, the town struggles to rebuild, Phyllis Montana LeBlanc plays the wife Desiree of a borderline deadbeat struggling trombonist Wendell Pierce. The two share a child which is essentially Desiree’s entire responsibility. There was something about LeBanc that stood out; the way Harvey Keitel or Harry Dean Stanton seem completely independent of the Hollywood machine; the type of actor that makes you realize how polished performers actually are. It was a performer who felt completely authentic to the area. Sure enough, Phyllis opens up If God is Willing and Da Creek Don’t Rise with one of Spike Lee’s signature styles in having her recite the lyrics to what inspired the title. Expecting to find a song, the closest I can come to is Johnny Cash’s version “If the Good Lord’s Willing”, originally written by Johnny Reed with Lee changing Zeppelin’s When the Levees Break to When the Levees Broke, it seems Cash’s track has some influence. From there, we get what I think is my favorite signature music collaboration between a director and composer, utilizing one of Terence Blanchard and his haunting and brooding jazz score. I don’t enjoy putting music into the words and yet as harrowing as Blanchard’s music is, there’s a type of perseverance existing between the notes. The film then opens the day of the 2010 NFL Superbowl, where the New Orleans Saints played the Indianapolis Colts. With Katrina residents still recovering, the game is more than just a game. It’s something that gives people hope and unites the city. The Saints go on to win, but rather than going on to riot and burn cars like other teams, they simply get wasted, dress up, and dance in the streets. Of course, in the grand scheme of things, this game means completely nothing beyond a symbolic gesture. The film then cuts into the many issues the resident’s still face, from severe PTSD, to revamping their public school system, to rebuilding their homes and businesses, and we see that for a story that might have been covered for about a month (according to Anderson Cooper), has actually gone on for five years and will likely continue for years to come. I was left wondering and thankful that such an event didn’t happen while Trump was in office and how much worse things might have been (then again, nearly 3,000 died in Puerto Rico for similar reasons; providing comparable racist coverage; that is, far too little). Although each topic could warrant an in depth discussion there were some that were simply shocking to watch. One involved something I had first seen in Treme, where Clarke Peters played Albert "Big Chief" Lambreaux, who’s bar had been destroyed by the flood, and who returns back to his apartment in the projects; squatting in his home and refusing to come out against police orders. This was a contentious issue in New Orlean local politics as thousands of residents returned to find the projects still standing. The city refused to let them in, believing that the cost of repairing the plumbing and wiring wasn’t worth it; opting instead to tear them down and replace them with mixed income housing. As with other areas, the city appeared motivated to get rid of its poorest neighborhoods in order to attract wealthier families and investors. Many of the residents at the time talked of culture, and the need to preserve it. Put differently, they didn’t want to be gentrified like all the neighborhoods in Chicago, San Francisco, and Seattle. I was on the fence about this one, as while I’m sure they could have borne the cost of renovation, the projects were simply ugly buildings that were over seventy years old; built during Roosevelt’s New Deal. The mixed income housing that went up was far more pleasing to the eye and attractive. Then again, if this meant that most of these people who suffered in the storm were simply forced out of the area with no opportunity to return, then their grievance trumps any progression. The poor should never lose their home in order to accommodate wealthy developers. Another story we often forget is the Deep Water Horizon accident occur, and how the same year the Saints won the super bowl, just eight months later the BP oil rig would pump nearly five million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, killing countless amounts of wildlife, crippling the fishing and tourist industries, and permanently damaging the bayou and its complex ecosystem. We hear the incredulity and disbelief from throughout the community; as though they’re living on cursed land, especially when Obama fails to call out BP beyond anything other than a slap on the wrist. If they couldn’t trust the first black president to help, who could they trust? It’s this dejection and subsequent persistence that Terence Blanchard’s score best captures. While writing this, Ta-Haisi Coates and Danny Glover testified before congress over the issue of slavery reparations. For those in doubt of reparations, whether conservatives who beg the entire question, or liberals who wonder where to position them alongside other big government programs, I urge you to check out Trevor Noah’s perfect response during an audience Q&A. It’s when you grasp the multi-generational injustices that long occurred after slavery, and how many racial injustices still exist because of it, that the abject failure of Hurrican Katrina is yet another symptom of slavery’s legacy. No matter how you want to reason out how or why it happened, the government completely failed its black citizens and contributes yet another reason in favor of the policy. There were other stories and images that burn into your mind - of dead bodies rotting in the flooded city streets and the Danziger Bridge Shooting where two people were killed and four wounded by police, including a mentally handicapped man. With no justification for violence, two officers ended up going to jail for murder; the type of event I wonder how I never heard about. What Spike Lee best accomplishes is showing us the seemingly endless list of injustices, where even if you disagree with one, you’d struggle to ignore the majority. Alongside When the Levees Broke, it’s the type of documentary that could forever change your mind; the type of experience that rips the blinders from your eyes and shows you a moment in history you’d never think possible. Like Lee’s other greatest work, it's a film that makes you feel both guilty and appreciative to now know the truth. And again, with the help of Terence Blanchard’s score, it gives you a bit of hope that such knowledge will help make things better. BELOW: A talk with Spike Lee Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Nazi Noir Director: Fritz Lang Writer: Story by Fritz Lang and Bertolt Brecht; screenplay by John Wexley Cinematographer: Producer: Fritz Lang and Arnold Pressburger by Jon Cvack As I’ve said before on my thoughts on Woman in the Moon (1929) and Cloak and Dagger (1946), Fritz lang is the greatest director to graduate from the silent era. While Yasujirō Ozu also made a successful leap, the content and style of his films didn’t necessarily change (case in point in having made Floating Weeds both in 1934 and then again in 1959). Lang went from creating epic action-adventure/sci-fi/spy thriller stories, to then shifting into film noir and creating some of the genre’s greatest contributions - Clash by Night (1952), Scarlet Street (1945), and Woman in the Window (1944). He’d preserve the spy genre for films such as Cloak and Dagger and his last film The Thousand Eyes of Doctor Mabuse (1960; which I haven’t yet seen). Hangmen Also Die! was his first partnership with German playwright Bertolt Brecht, who I’m not familiar with his works, I recognize the name all the same. The film is long for the era, clocking in at around 2 hours and 15 minutes, and while often feeling longer than required, utilized some of Lang’s finest chops. It’s important to note that this film was made near the height of Nazi power, following the assassination of Nazi Reinhard Heydrich who after living penniless during the German depression, became involved with the SS, later appointed by Heinrich Himmler to orchestrate the Holocaust. Resistance fighters soon killed him, though counter to the relatively more positive ending of Lang’s film, they and their families were systematically rounded up and killed or sent off to concentration camps. Hangmen Also Die! takes place moments after this assassination, following the man responsible, doctor and Czech resistance fighter Frantisek Svoboda (Brian Donlevy) who successfully murders the “Hangman of Europe” Reinhard Heydrich (Hans Heinrich von Twardowski). However, after a botched getaway, Franticek meets a woman, Mascha (Anna Lee), who helps him escape by inviting him back to her parent’s house. He meets Mascha’s father, Professor Stephen Novotny (Walter Brennan) who the Nazi’s prevented from teaching due to his activism, along with his wife Hellie (Nana Bryant) and Mascha’s younger and precocious brother Beda (William Roy). On par with Hitchcock, we watch as the family acts as though Mascha has brought over a simple visitor rather than the man who’s assassinated one of the top Nazi leaders. Tension soars as the radio then announces the manhunt, while Stephen admits to his own resistant roots and how he would have likely been a friendly ally just a few years back. The search calms and Franticek then leaves, attempting to keep his actions quiet while the manhunt continues, led by Emil Czaka (Gene Lockhart). Soon they round up over 400 men, including Professor Novotny, demanding the assassin come forward or they’ll execute them all one by one. For such an engaging plot, the film’s length left me lost with many of the details. Mascha ultimately discovers Franticek’s role in Heydrich’s murder, attempts to go to the police, but soon realizes how extensive the resistance network actually is, as they rise up one by one to prevent Mascha from revealing Franticek’s identity. So begins a cat and mouse game as Emil uses all of his SS resources to accost people, round them up, and ransack their apartments all in the search for who killed their colleagues. He enjoys his beer and cigars and the opportunity to run a bureaucratic machine where he’s given close to unlimited resources. While each scene presents some version or other of Chekov’s “gun under the table”, one in particular involves one of the shot resistant fighters entering into Franticek’s apartment where Mascha joins him, and they hide the man behind a curtain. Emil enters minutes later and Franticek and Mascha strip down, making it appear they were just hooking up; only for Mascha’s fiance to then enter and believe his future wife was cheating on him. Mascha plays the angle, knowing it’s the only thing to save the injured man’s life. Franticek then sees blood dripping on an old book below the curtain, then offering Emil some wine. He returns, faking a trip over the carpet where he throws the wine on the book and obscures the evidence. The film ends on a somber note as while Franticek gets away by implicating a resistance double agent of the crime, they’re too late in saving the other men who were taken to a mass grave and shot to the death; the elegy they sing on the way nominated for a Best Song Oscar. I recently finished Richard J. Evan’s first volume of his history Nazi trilogy; following their rise to power and up to the invasion of Poland. While I’m one to refrain on Nazi comparisons, I think it’s always better to look at history as a guide. I do not think we’re headed for mass human extermination, but many of the same plays were carried out back then - ginning up fear and crisis by blaming the Jews, labeling them as animals and subhuman, attacking the free press in order to discredit their work, distorting truth from lie, and using the courts in order to achieve and preserve power. In Trump’s current detention centers, we’ve heard of children facing sexual abuse, forced hysterectomies, denied medical attention, forced to take drugs, and be ripped away from their families. Trump constantly uses buzzwords to divide the country between the “patriots” who support him and the “traitors” who disagree. I see members of family repeat demonstrable falsehoods with no defense other than I should be the one who looks into their side, rather than that they should look to at least some other information source beyond Fox News and right wing media. But as they’re constantly told that the rest of the press is the enemy and Democrats hate their freedom, it’s easy to see why they wouldn’t look anywhere else. It all relies on creating a grand conspiracy; to make people question our institutions such as the courts, intelligence communities, or politicians just enough so that they depend entirely on a singular point of view. A few weeks ago I finished Hannah Arendt’s book “Eichmann in Jerusalem” which attempted to examine the morality behind a state commanding its people to commit a supreme evil - should Eichmann be at fault if it was state law to carry out the Holocaust? The answer is yes, but Arendt does extend the conversation further along. After all, the majority of German citizens often looked the other way while its citizens were slowly rounded up; either they supported it, didn’t care, or were too scared to do anything about it. Should they too be at fault for allowing their leaders to commit the heinous crimes? Given the lies it was based upon, the answer to that is no. But it does go to show the power of creating religious-level devotion to one person and their cause; where people are willing to turn a blind eye toward what’s wrong in order to support a larger mission. I have problems on the left and the ideological purity so many demand, which given the broad spectrum of change and the myriad ways it can occur, inevitably creates divisions. It’s why so often liberal revolutions lead to violent regimes, as those most willing to kill for what they want consolidate the power. The problem I see today is supreme partisanship; where so many demand that everyone else follows their own rigid system. A failure to welcome compromise at the cost of absolute gridlock, perpetuating the problem and causing further animosity, seems to be yet another dangerous issue we face. So long as people only consume information that reinforces their beliefs, there seems no end in sight. And as problems of climate change and inequality grow worse by the day, it seems like a ticking time bomb. Like any animal trapped in a corner, it’s only a matter of time before they lash out. Given that I wrote this about eighteen months ago, crazy to think we’re now seeing that in live time. BELOW: A little taste of Twardowki's Heydrich Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  One of Dafoe's best Director: Julian Schnabel Writer: Jean-Claude Carrière, Louise Kugelberg, and Julian Schnabel Cinematographer: Benoît Delhomme Producer: Jon Kilik by Jon Cvack I had recently watched Vincente Minelli’s Lust for Life (1956) about six months ago, not knowing about this film. For those who want a better experience, I’d suggest checking it out in order to better appreciate and fill in the blanks of At Eternity’s Gate. It stars Kirk Douglas as Vincent Van Gogh, following him from early in his career and up to his suicide (or murder in Schnabel’s case murder). There are three stories that I’m glad I knew of before - his close friendship to the firebrand painter Paul Gauguin who, alongside Van Gogh, were the vanguard of an artistic revolution; that Van Gogh’s creative pursuit was funded by Theo van Gogh; that Van Gogh slowly started to go insane, ending up in various institutions (especially after he cut off his ear) where he produced some of his best work; and that Van Gogh was considered a failure up to his death, his paintings considered gaudy and unrealistic (from my limited understanding, impressionism was at its zenith of popularity). At Eternity’s Gate takes place in the last few years of Van Gogh’s life. He’s played by Willem Dafoe (who received an overlooked Oscar nomination for the role), who's aware that he is slowly going insane. The film opens up in Paris where he befriends the ruthlessly self-centered and self-righteous painter Paul Gauguin (Oscar Isaac). Unable to sell a painting or handle living in the city, Van Gogh journeys to the Southern France countryside where his mind continues to deteriorate, landing him either voluntarily or compulsively into various institutions; all while he continues to paint some of his most famous pieces of work. The reason I’d suggest watching Lust for Life (or at least reading up on Van Gogh’s) is because the biography is operating far in the background. The story is about the mind of Van Gogh, told entirely through his perspective. What we get is a handheld camera (a style I’m starting to love with period pieces; such as Soderberg’s "The Knick" (2014-2015) or The Favorite (2018)), where with frenetic speed and wide lenses it wanders around and explores the scene; looking for character to person to landscape. The frame is often half distorted and out of focus when in Van Gogh’s point of view (inspired when Schnabel tried on bifocal glasses), and what seems like such an easy trick, creates a wildly disorienting experience; feeling as though Van Gogh is trying with all his might to bring the world and his mind into focus. All the while, Van Gogh paints with rapid speed; vowing to finish paintings all in one sitting as it’s when the muse is freshest. With great trickery and talent from both Dafoe and Schnabel we see the act of painting and the way in which Van Gogh would pile on globs of paint, creating what Gauguin described as sculpture rather than painting. Taking inspiration from Malick (though being one of the few filmmakers to pull it off) we follow Van Gogh as he wanders the natural world around him, falling into the fields and staring into sunsets, most often shot during some of the most beautiful golden hour photography I’ve ever seen, and allowing us to fully grasp the beauty that the artist was so overwhelmed by. It’s this immersion within Van Gogh’s mind that allows painter turned filmmaker Schnabel to pile in aphorisms about the creative process; something I imagine most artists can relate to in their pursuits; which only seem pretentious for those who fail to make a serious leap. And yet given Van Gogh’s story - dying before ever realizing even a modicum of success - they should serve to inspire anyone who struggles. “I paint, as a matter of fact, to stop thinking. I stop thinking, and I feel that I'm a part of everything outside and inside of me.” “I'll show what I see to my human brothers who can't see it. It's a privilege. I can give them hope and consolation.” “Because my vision is closer to the reality of the world. I can make people feel what it's like to be alive.” “Of all the miseries that afflict humanity, nothing maddens me more than the lack of money.” “Sometimes they say I'm mad, but a grain of madness is the best of art.” “I wanted so much to share what I see. Now I just think about my relationship to eternity.” Everyone I know who’s pursuing the arts has experienced one, if not all of these emotions. They’re thoughts we often don’t share publicly, as it seems as though if it was truly how you felt, then you should be successful, and if you’re not, you either must not be serious or good enough. As life further creeps in, and a new job, more money, a wife, child, or your aging relatives slowly creep into the pursuit, most are confronted with the question - do you have to do it, or can you stop and make it a hobby? It’s what makes the closing quote about his relationship to eternity so powerful; will we stop thinking about the adulation and fame and simply create for the very act of creating, hoping that honesty will allow the work to one day live beyond us, or remain forever yearning for that acceptance? In the age of cloud drives and streaming services, all art could theoretically live on for the next 7.5 billion years. We are all creating content that could and will exist forever, even if no one sees it now. It’s hopelessly naive, but it makes the alternative cynicism sting just a bit less. BELOW: Why do you _____? Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  The boys are back. Not sure why, but they are Director: Doug Ellin Writer: Doug Ellin Cinematographer: Steven Fierberg Producer: Mark Wahlberg, Stephen Levinson, and Doug Ellin by Jon Cvack NOTE: I wrote this a few months before diving into the series, which I actually loved, both as a combination of living in LA and having interesting characters/stories. So I’d probably have to revisit the film, but given how quickly the series hooked me in, I’m guessing the following would stand. I'm still not why sure why this was made. I’m not sure what prompted my friend to send me the first forty-seconds of this film with Johnny "Drama" Chase (Kevin Dillon), Eric Murphy (Kevin Connolly), and "TurtleAssante (Jerry Ferrara) who’re cruising in a speed boat toward a massive yacht in the distance, where the vast majority of the people aboard are half-naked women in bikinis. In close up, we see Johnny lower some binoculars and say in his thick Brooklyn accent - “I should have jerked off first.” I haven’t seen much of Entourage, though I believe I randomly went through a decent chunk of the third or fourth season, back when the nascent Netflix streaming service would have select seasons of a show. It played as though a continuation of Swingers (1996) should one of them have gotten big, complete with all of the ball busting, women chasing, and camaraderie that someone in their early twenties might have found so enticing. It presents an (male) individual’s wildest dream of what Hollywood stardom could be; where even if you’re not all that ambitious, talented, or good looking, or some combination, a person could make it big by being close enough to someone is. This film might be closest to the line between pre and post #MeToo, as to think that this movie was made in 2015 just goes to show how quickly a movement has had an impact. This film is one of the most misogynistic films I’ve seen in recent times and I’m pretty sure I’d have to go back to the 80s to find anything comparable. The plot is almost comically absurd - Chase has directed his first film, went over budget, and the Texas investors want to significantly recut before providing additional mmoney (that is, something that could easily be the plot of a thirty minute episode). And it’s because of that plot that most of the film is about a bunch of now rich dudes are trying to fuck as many women with the least amount of resistance as possible (Turtle has launched a successful Tequila company and Johnny has worked his way into C+-level acting, including a part in Chase’s movie). In one scene, during a major-rager party for Chase’s test screening, we see the vast majority of women in bikinis, while beyond the attractive half naked guys, most of the men are fully clothed; including the celebrity cameos that the show was known for, including: Mark Cuban, Tom Brady, Gary Busey, Jon Favreau, and others I can’t much remember. Going through the list of cameos further proves the point, as over 90% of them are from dudes, often featured in the debaucherous parties, drugged up, soused, and playing the worst - or Busey’s case actual - sides of themselves. During the party, Turtle and Johnny find Eric in one of the room’s fucking a girl on the chair; who does nothing more than smile and laugh it off. They then confront their friend, asking how many girls he’s banged in the last week. He believes it’s at least three. This is in addition to his pregnant ex-girlfriend. Eric couldn’t be any less interested in the fact that he’s soon to be a father, and due to his daliences soon finds himself as father to yet another girl he hooked up.* This turns out to be fake and, come the end of the movie, he heads to the hospital after the water breaks and they have the baby, to which Johnny, Turtle, and Chase all show up to congratulate him, to which just minutes later, he leaves the woman who just gave birth to his child, to head off to another restaurant/bar/party. My other friend mentioned how the characters are always going somewhere in the series. It often involves one of the characters showing up with the other three, to which they talk or argue, then hop in a car and drive around. It all serves to provide an image of a life that 99.9999% could and will only dream about. Who wouldn’t want to wake up each day to a beautiful and perfect breakfast, either at home or at a pristine restaurant? Who wouldn’t want to constantly be surrounded by beautiful people, in which you could have your choice of any of them with minimal effort? Who wouldn’t want to have a job where the work is simply going to these drinking and hanging out with celebrities? The show is purest escape, and while it’s definitely a show for men, I don’t think it’s probably all that different than what Sex in the City did for women; inviting viewers into a life that most will never live, but in a way that makes them feel as though they’re there. Beyond the most glaring offense in having the women play little beyond sex appeal or as cumbersome attachments to the males, it’s not worth pinpointing each offense. The show is too self-aware to care. It knows what it’s doing and given all the fans out there, I’m sure it does it fine. But in 2019, not being familiar with the rest of the series, I saw something that, while providing such escape, also felt from a different era. In some ways, it almost felt like the most extravagant close possible to the Bro Period of popular storytelling. To think that four years later, this would likely have had a fraction of the success it did should make anyone optimistic for how quickly culture can change. And yet somehow, even with how little I like the characters, I find myself interested in checking out the first season and how far they’d take things. *It must be mentioned that this confrontation provides the film’s most bizarre scene, in which Eric goes to get breakfast with Johnny and Turtle, finds another girl he recently slept with who confronts him over the herpes he gave her, for the other girl (not his ex-girlfriend) to then exit with a coffee and pretend to wonder what he’s doing with yet another woman; only for the two girl’s to then reveal it was all a prank. This all happens in about forty five seconds, in which I had to actually rewind the movie to comprehend what just occurred. BELOW: Never would thought having this 90 second clip shared would lead me vacuuming down eight seasons of television Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  A very cute couple Director: Boots Riley Writer: Boots Riley Cinematographer: Doug Emmett Producer: Nina Yang Bongiovi, Kelly Williams, Jonathan Duffy, Charles D. King, George Rush, and Forest Whitaker by Jon Cvack It’s April and I’m still working my way through the remaining 2018 films. I had first heard of this flick after seeing Blind Spotting and seeing that Sorry to Bother You was another Oakland-based film helmed by another black filmmaker and hiphop icon Boots Riley, a self-described democratic socialist who blended those ideas into a story of magical realism. It involves a job-seeking Cassius “Cash” Green (Lakeith Stanfield; who I’m excited to see a lot more from [I saw this before Uncut Gems (2019)]) who lives in his uncle’s garage and dates an artist Detroit (Tessa Thompson). He soon gets a position at a soul sucking telemarketing company, taking advice from his neighbor (Danny Glover) that if he uses a white man’s voice he could make better sales and make it up to the mysterious and enticing top “Power Caller” floor. The strategy proves a success, yet while Cash is gaining the attention of middle management, his co-workers are starting to assemble and push for a union. Cash agrees to help until he’s finally provided the Power Caller promotion, making it up to the top floor where he enters into huge sales and begins raking in more money than he’d ever dreamed of; quickly ditching his friends and their attempt to unionize Meanwhile, there’s another company called Worryfree which exchanges free labor for room and board in order to sell arms, led by CEO Steve Lift (Armie Hammer). Combined with the telemarketers, the two companies fight for workers rights as Cash moves further up the corporate and social ladder, soon invited to a infamous “Steve Lift Party” where Cash is pressured to freestyle in front of hundreds of people before they enter in an endless coke-filled orgy. Steve offers what looks like some coke to Cash who rips a line and then goes to pee where he takes a wrong turn and discovers a minotaur Jim Henson-level practical creature chained to the walls. By chance his phone records the creatures, leading him to tell the world, but between the vapid entertainment most people want and the labor riots, no one seems to care. By now he’s ditched the few friends he made at the telemarketing company; one of which sleeps with Detroit after her and Cash break up, Detroit is pissed that Cash has abandoned his friends (though, in fairness, he’s known them for about a week before his promotion occurs). Things come to a boil and the workers fight the police and while I appreciated the Marxist film, it felt as though it didn’t have the resources to fully pull off the world it wanted to create. The issue being that should the film seems to take place in an alternative universe, it presents a world that’s very much similar to our own; far too dependent on animating certain elements while leaving others the same. This is no fault of Boot Riley’s, as given the limitations, he’s able to create a vibrant film that pops off the screen. I would have liked to see how the culture and people of Oakland were struggling with gross unemployment and the choice whether to sell themselves into indentured servitude versus trying to find a low paying job such as a telemarketer. Everything else, from the company to Worryfree to Steve Lift’s universe and the monsters all felt like it took a real concept and amped it up. Perhaps that was the point, but it felt as though two realities were competing with each other rather than blending together. However, for a first feature, this might be one of the most exciting debuts to come out in years. BELOW: Interesting explainer on the film Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Could have been great Director: Jordan Peele Writer: Jordan Peele Cinematographer: Mike Gioulakis Producer: Jason Blum, Ian Cooper, Sean McKittrick, and Jordan Peele by Jon Cvack Continued from Part 1... The family separates, taking off in different directions as the male figure walks toward Gabriel who runs back inside, attempting to block the door as the two doppelgänger children find other ways into the house. Quickly we realize this this is the Wilson family’s doppelgänger; with a Red, her alleged husband Abraham, and their alleged children Umbrae and Pluto (all played by the same characters, which is actually surprising, as I would have sworn they weren’t; demonstrating the great skill of Peele and his cast). In an intense moment, as the eight characters sit around a fire, we hear Red speak as though being choked to death, revealing in cryptic fashion something about their origin, but all I remember is the cringey line about being Americans; which just felt so heavy and on the nose, that I was surprised “Still Processing”” didn’t at least poke fun at it, instead electing to praise it, and for reasons that, by necessity, also fell right on the nose and therefore cheapened a significant moment; one interpretation being that while the Wilson’s might have found success in life, the doppelgängers remain nearly invisible; the hosts recalling a beautiful W.B. Dubois quote about African Americans having to live in with two identities - that of Black America’s attempt to integrate itself within a White Culture while preserving and living the realities of what it means to be black in America. I don’t think “American” was the wrong word choice, so much as that a more cryptic idea about duality or identity could have worked to enforce this idea. The Wilson’s escape by boat, heading to their friends Kitty and Josh who are introduced inside a very expensive and ugly modern smart home. They have two daughters who’re also glued to their phones, and when Kitty thinks she hears a noise outside, demanding and soon shouting at Josh check it out, he gets up from his chair and we learn that they’re in fact only renting the monstrosity of the place; providing a subtle nod toward our expectations of ethnic stereotypes in cinema. For whatever reason I just assumed they were owners and I think it was this assumption that speaks volumes for even the most benign biases. Outside Josh discovers a family of four white people; all played by the same characters, who proceed to butcher the family in one of the most creative deaths I’ve seen in awhile; taking inspiration from one of my favorite recent home invasion films, The Strangers (2008) and specifically its use of "Mama Tried", with Peele instead making creative use of Amazon Alexa to initiate NWA’s Fuck the Police and provide a murder sequence score that we’ve rarely see in - again - the predominantly white sub-genre of home invasion films. The Wilson’s later arrive, finding their neighbor’s dead and turning on the television to provide that classic scene that every film replicates from Night of the Living Dead (1968), in which the characters gather around the television to see exactly what had been happening. They learn that throughout the world, there has been an uprising of people who are killing their above-Earth doppelgängers, then joining hands in some great link that’s meant to span across most of the globe. This of course doesn’t make sense, but the film has been so expertly executed and so finely crafted that while suspicious of how they could make sense of it all, I was confident that it’d make enough sense to pull if off. My confidence was all the more reinforced when the family attempts to take the Tyler’s car, with Zora demanding to drive and the dad cracking jokes, and while I wanted to think no character could possibly joke given what’s happening, they mostly bent just far enough to blend with the situation. Again, in “Still Processing”, the hosts mentioned the idea of having Gabriel be self-awarely playing the traditional role of the black character in predominantly white films - the person always cracking jokes and making light of the situation, serving to both comment on the situation and perhaps try and assist his kids in dealing with the situation; something the Scary Movie franchise satirized. They drive through the night and arrive back at the Santa Cruz boardwalk, finding Pluto standing in front of their old car which is engulfed in flames; with a small trail of gas heading in their direction. Pluto flicks a match, ready to light them up. Here was the first hiccup, as I couldn’t help but wonder 1) how a thin trail of gas would possibly endanger the Wilsons, as just because there’s something burning beneath my car doesn’t mean it's going to explode, or 2) how Jason then mimics the Pluto’s moves which somehow leads him to walk back into the flames and burn himself alive. At no point did I get the impression that these individuals are so easily controlled, let alone completely stupid, and I feared it was more in an effort to create a cinematic experience than abide by the story’s own logic. Thinking they’re officially out of the clear, Adelaide takes a walk back to the funhouse, entering, walking through to the back and down an escalator and suddenly discovering what looks to be an abandoned underground train station, where hundreds of bunny rabbits run in all directions. Knowing the answer was coming to a close, if not yet arrived, the alarms starting sounding off - there was no way this was getting tied up nicely. Adelaide then finds Red in a classroom, drawing on a board as dozens of open rabbit cages stand at the rear and we learn that the government had created the colony called the “Tethered” in order to control the public, but abandoned the experiment due to the dangers, and then trapped the people underground. As a result, they were left mimicking those they saw above them; namely, pretending they were on the Santa Cruz boardwalk and playing at the carnival. Logic exceeded high alert at this point, as again, having spent the whole film wondering what the hell was going on, with anticipation building all the more so with how expertly crafted the film was, I was left with an utter sense of disappointment. And for a film that was looking to be as good as Shyamalan's Signs (2002) or Unbreakable (2000); fell to dustbin of The Village (2004) and even flirted with The Happening (2008). We are expected to believe that a colony of people across the country were living in a bunch of underground tunnels; never escaping, yet somehow able to mimic the people at a theme park. Additionally, they were able to assemble themselves into perfect mirror images of families they had theoretically never met. And for at least thirty years (from the time young Adelaide encountered them), no one had ever seen them before; as in the case of the Santa Cruz boardwalk, no worker at the funhouse ever thought to go in the backroom and down an escalator where they would discover thousands of individuals. While the film carried out a strange dance sequence, the damage had been done. For as much as I could accept that some U.S. Government humanoid creation could have natural hunting and killing abilities, I could not accept that they’d never escape, or that they somehow communicated with each other across the country and world, or that no one would have ever discovered them. A friend asked what I would liked to see, to which I responded that such a question shook the film’s entire foundation. Again, most scary movies operate under a simple suspension of disbelief - there is something weird going on and we don’t know what, or there is a supernatural killer on the loose and we’re following the characters who battle against it. In Rosemary’s Baby (1968) we learn that it’s witchcraft, in Halloween (1978) and The Thing (1982) we root for for the main character to destroy the monster, in Scream (1996) we want to know who the killer is, in The Exorcist (1973) we want to know how to triumph over an actual product of Satan, in The Shining (1980), we want to see if the family can escape the haunted hotel. Similar to my thoughts on What Lies Beneath (2000), Zemeckis’ Hitchcock/horror film hybrid, next to Identity (2003), is one of the most disappointing third acts of a movie compared to what precedes it. The problem is that what starts out in reality, then drifts into the supernatural, failing to ever reconcile the two worlds. There is the fun of not knowing what’s going on, expertly crafted and gluing you to the screen, and then reconciling that with some horror/psycho-thriller answer that just doesn’t provide the answer you’re looking for. Us is more a Hitchcockian thriller in structure than a horror film, and therefore it’s about answers; what Shyamalan and Hitchcock had accomplished with their best work. In the conversations I’ve had, I’m left with people telling me that it’s just something I have to accept. Yet for a film who’s entire purpose is geared toward both a cinematic experience and the satisfaction of an answer, I’m not sure how people can accept the latter. Us is a good film, and I’m sure I’ll turn back to it a few times in the future; hoping I missed something. Maybe I’ll even be able to accept the premise, but like most films that fail to provide a sufficient answer, I think it’s going to remain a film for those who simply want the journey, no matter where it leads. There’s enough in this film to unpack for years, and if anything, it makes me excited for what Peele comes up with next, hoping that with the same level of craft, he can tie it all up to make everyone happy. BELOW: Great scene Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  Great opening Director: Jordan Peele Writer: Jordan Peele Cinematographer: Mike Gioulakis Producer: Jason Blum, Ian Cooper, Sean McKittrick, and Jordan Peele by Jon Cvack Upon walking out of the theater, the three people I went with all agreed that what started out as a truly fantastic horror film crashed and burned by the final act; failing to deliver the twist or answer that we’ve been waiting for. Barr’s summary of the Mueller Report was released the next day and I made a joke on Facebook over being unsure what was more disappointing - the Report’s conclusion or the end of Us; causing me to get messages both from Trump sympathizers wondering why I was disappointed and fans of Peele’s ending wondering what issue I had. One friend in particular said that the film was about trauma, and that story’s central character Adelaine had actually been sexually assaulted and was dealing with the psychological consequences of that event. It was a perspective I didn’t pick up, and per the beauty of art, is an interpretation I could get. My problems with the “It was a dream/fantasy/delusion/hallucination” aside, even if such a thing was Peele’s intention, it doesn’t change the fact that I’m being expected to believe that for at least the last 30 years, there’s been an entire colony of revolutionaries living beneath the earth, specifically one of California’s most famous cities, who are preparing to rise up and kill the humans up top by finding what’s close enough to their doppelgängers. The same friend mentioned that as I didn’t expect to know where Freddy Krueger or Jason Voorhees came from, I shouldn’t need to know why or how these people rose up from the underworld. Slasher films are not operating by the same structure as a film such as Us, or any psychological suspense/horror/thriller. Their premise is simple - teenage victims, often led by a virginal female character, are attacked by a crazed, seemingly indestructible killer. The entire plot is following the heroine’s friends get killed one by one until her final battle with the killer; it’s not some grand philosophical exercise. I have seen reviews comparing Jordan Peele to Hitchcock, which is accurate, if combined with Rod Sterling; especially as, unrelated to this film’s release, I had been revisiting many of Hitchcock’s film. Most notably, The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) and Saboteur (1942). Both of these films operate within Hitchcock's Wrongfully Accused plot, in which the central character is unwillingly drawn into a sinister act. In Saboteur, an aircraft factory worker is blamed for an act of terrorism; forced to escape from the authorities in order to prove his innocence. In The Man Who Knew Too Much, while visiting Morocco with his family, Dr. Benjamin Mckenna finds himself involved in the assassination of a foreign statesmen. In both films, the primary question is what’s going on and why. We then slowly piece together the elements, until they finally assemble in act three, often leading to the hero entering into a grand battle to save either himself or his family. To this day I remember watching the preview for James Mangold’s Identity (2003) in my friend’s parent’s basement. We went to the theater on the day of its release. I recall the moment when Jake Busey’s ex-con character escapes the motel to then run through the fields into a ravine and up the other side to find himself staring at the motel he just escaped. It had all been a masterful film up until that point, though it was the first moment I wondered how they could possibly explain this illogic. For those unfamiliar, by the standards of how great the rest of the movie is, Identity is arguably the most disappointing conclusion in modern film history; in which the entire story is the psychotic fantasy of a schizophrenic man on death row. This is my problem with movies that allow for psychological fantasy and why I don’t like most surrealistic cinema (i.e., Jodorowsky or Bunuel). As mentioned in my thoughts on these films, the problem is that both genres allow you to get away with anything; either it’s accommodating some plausible symbolism, or if not, it’s just a dream/expression and doesn’t need to make sense. It allows for storytellers to both have their cake and eat it too; abide by logic when convenient, abandon the logic when it’s unhelpful. On the New York Time’s culture podcast “Still Processing”, the two hosts mention how once the family is attacked by the four other individuals, we’re immediately wondering what’s going on and how it all connects. That’s exactly right, and yet even after praising the film and providing an interesting comparison to Toni Morrison’s Beloved (1987), they never bothered to answer how millions of people were living beneath the Earth; only an escalator ride away from discovery, who finally decided to revolt and find perfect mirror images of themselves. I raised the same point to my friend who tried to explain that this in no way mattered. Another friend I debated said the same thing; ultimately not even caring about how these individuals got to where they were, asking me to abide by comic book movie logic - a whole other topic of conversation, but let’s just say I more aligned with Bill Maher’s "New Rule" on the matter. It’s not that comic’s are empty of morals or truth, it’s just that by the very nature of admitting comics are more than just about superheroes, then there should be a natural curiosity to study and look to additional and more challenging films or books which abandon the spectacle in favor of deeper assessments. Sure enough, while writing this, upon my first review search, I found the NYT’s opinion piece titled “Jordan Peele’s ‘Us’ is a New Kind of Superhero Movie”. I find some vindication; at the end of the day, what I find to be a frustrating lack of reason is something comic book fans just wouldn't care about. It’s easy to buy broad premises. They’re willing to accept the fantasy because the film for them is not about reason, it’s about the experience and meaning of what’s going on. And again, when it comes to art, I can’t argue with that. Us begins with one of the best horror intros I can recall seeing in the last decade. A young Adelaide Thomas (Madison Curry) and her mom and dad soon head down to the Santa Cruz boardwalk; the dad more interested in the games than his child or wife; soon completely distracted by Whac a Mole while his wife goes to the bathroom and the daughter walks away alone, as though called for. She heads down onto the beach and finds a funhouse, heading deeper and deeper within, until she finally comes across her doppelgänger who then reaches out to grab her. To note, it was during this sequence that it sounded like hundreds of footsteps were racing all over the place in the theater and I’m still not sure if this was part of the sound design, or the ten young punk teens who jumped into the front row thirty minutes after the movie started, having snuck into the theater. If I was mistaken, I can say that during a horrific scene, a dozen footsteps seeming to run in all directions behind me was one of the most disorienting theater experiences of my life. The film then cuts forward and we meet an older Adelaine Wilson (Lupita Nyong'o), her husband and Howard graduate Gabriel (Winston Duke), their iPhone-addicted daughter Zora (Shahadi Wright Joseph) and their mask-wearing and weird son Jason (Evan Alex). They’re an upper middle class black family with a lakehouse on the outskirts of Santa Cruz (ethnicity being important here). The dad is your average father - goofy, a bit aloof, and determined that the whole family has as much fun - by his definition - as possible. Hours after arriving, he heads off to buy a rundown boat, cruising it up to the docks and showing it off to his family who couldn’t care less. Recently I’ve both been talking to friends and admiring how a perfect story leaves nothing superfluous. In the ideal film, every single moment, nearly every single shot and line, is relevant to the story and drives it forward; allowing the viewer to connect the details. I’d argue any popular cinematic masterpiece works under this principle - people enjoy an engaging and fairly challenging puzzle. Too many tangents and people have no reason to pay attention. Too abstract and people can’t follow the story. The best Hitchcock and Spielberg films are the paragons of this ability. Although a simpler example, such a fact is demonstrated when Gabriel is in the boat and the motor goes out, requiring him to have to slap it back into operation. Later, when he’s attacked, a thrilling sequence will carry out as the motor’s shorted out while he’s fighting for his life. The family later heads to the beach and we meet the Wilson’s neighbors Kitty and Josh Tyler (Elisabeth Moss; Tim Heidecker). Having not been back since her funhouse trauma, Adelaine is anxious about the visit. Kitty attempts to make small talk and offers Adelaine a drink, which she rejects in favor of water so she could keep a better eye on the kids. Jason wanders off and soon finds a creepy man dressed in a red jumpsuit with blood dripping from his hand. When Zora returns without her brother, Adelaine loses it, shouting his name and running around frantically to find him. He soon returns but doesn’t tell his mother about the man with the bloody hand. They return home and get ready for bed when the power shuts off and a family of four is outside their house. Gabriel exits to try and get them to leave, returns to grab a baseball bat, and begins what “Still Processing” referred to as the Black Man Act. This is difficult to describe and I think demonstrates a larger issue we’re facing; as in in order to describe exactly what this means would require what sound like stereotypes but are points that the two black hosts omake, which is that this prescription contributes to the commentary on being black in America; which in order to fully express intimidation, Gabriel attempted to like an “angry black man” hoping it’d scare off the most likely white family who were harassing them. Continue to Part 2... BELOW: Can always win me over with a scary fun house Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page  The 00s will forever be remembered for these weird lecture-style docs Director: Alex Gibney Story b: Lawrence Wright Producer: Alison Ellwood, Alex Gibney, Alexandra Johnes, and Kendall McCarthy by Jon Cvack It’s been sixteen years since the invasion of Iraq and it seems like an increasingly bipartisan consensus that the war was an absolute disaster, both in intelligence and justification and execution and resolve. The war arguably led to the rise of ISIS, who in a vacuum created when we left, allowed Islamist Extremists to push in an even more radical direction. A consequence that has continued to this day, as Trump celebrates defeating the last ISIS stronghold in Syria; though months prior, the New York Times says their membership has now reached over 75,000, and they’re positioned throughout the middle east. A question I enjoy asking people is when they felt like they were a part of history. Most say September 11 and yet I feel like I was too young to fully grasp the ramifications of that day, and the way in which history would forever change from then on out. It was when the war in Iraq was becoming increasingly disastrous that I read Richard Clarke’s Against All Enemies (2004). Clarke was a security and terrorism advisor to presidents George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush; in which for the latter, he explains how although he expressed his concern with the rise of radical Islamist factions to senior members of Bush’s cabinet, they often ignored the warnings. The far left would perceive this as conspiracy; culminating in the infamous video of Condoleezza Rice explaining how she was warned about Al Qaeda flying planes into American skyscrapers just months before the attack. I recommend the read for anyone interested in the complete failure of American intelligence in the years leading up to 9/11. Lawrence Wright’s book The Looming Tower (2006) was recently adapted for Amazon, and while that series falls way short of the book, both explore the rise of Islamist Extremists; the ways in which radical members of religion targeted impressionable young men with adventure, martyrdom, and an infinite afterlife filled filled with rivers of milk, cream, and 72 virgins. As the middle east further divided between the Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish factions, the fractured politics reached a breaking point. Specifically, as America aligned itself with Saudi Arabia and it’s Sunni monarchy, Bin Laden and other radicals saw a western perversion of their culture and society. I had no idea that Lawrence Wright wrote The Siege (1998), which is arguably the most prescient ever made; produced about four years prior to 9/11. I had seen the movie with my cousins, though being only thirteen years old, failed to grasp the ideas it explored. Thinking back on the film, it makes perfect sense that Lawrence Wright would be the one to come up with such a plausible idea. My Trip to Al Qaeda is essentially a produced version of Lawrence Wright’s one man play by the same name. The first image is a bit off putting - the best selling author being made up backstage before his big show, discussing all of the death and destruction he had seen; that is, while most of the people he talked to are worried for their lives back in the middle east, he’s safe and sound in America, ostensibly profiting from their openness. The bad taste lasted for about the first third of the film, until he gets deeper into the show and shows us how complex and seemingly irreversible the problem is; involving conflicts going back thousands of years with the myopic American Republicans failing to have any evacuation plan once they dethroned Saddam Hussein, or how it could create a power vacuum leaving to even further radicalization and destabilization. What we find is a man that’s deeply frustrated over how right he was, knowing that the problem will continue on for what’s looking to be an entire generation. After 9/11 most people knew that the course of history was forever changed. Nearly twenty years later, and it seems as though everything wrong with America’s role in the middle east goes back to that day and the events leading up to it. Trump’s conservatism is at least a partial rebuke to Bush’s neoconservatism; as if there’s one thing I’ll give the man it’s castigating his predecessor for getting involved with the war in Iraq. However, there are faint war drums beating against Iran, and I can only hope Trump doesn’t take another play from Tyrant 101 and get us involved in another endless war, forcing us to once again topple their government as tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia intensify. I’m not entirely sure what the point of Wright’s play was - whether to inform audiences that might be less familiar with his books and writings, or to act as a catharsis for what I can only imagine is a deeply frustrating endeavor that’s getting worse and worse. What I was left with was less about the details of what he discussed and more the eeriness in hoping - though not at all confident - that we might have learned our lesson about oversimplifying complex problems. Writing this just weeks after the New Zealand attacks, I can’t help but see the parallels between radical Islam and radical White Nationalists; both functioning as deeply religious and conservative factions that hope to return to the world to an earlier time; often when women, minorities, and members of the LGBT community were either oppressed or assaulted. In the same way Al-Qeada recruited impressionable young men through social media, we’re learning that White Supremacists are digging through web forums and gaming networks; hoping to find marginalized youth desperate for a sense of community; exploiting this need toward their own mission of destruction. I’d like to think that we might have learned a bit about how to deal with this problem, and yet I’m already seeing the hypocrisy run strong on both sides. While Conservatives are willing to ban Muslims they don’t want intelligence organizations snooping around questionable white nationalist groups due to civil rights violations. While Liberals are willing to expand these investigations, they want to avoid snooping into questionable Islamist organizations also due to a violation of civil rights. And so it goes, with both sides thinking that they’re on the righteous path while the other abuses its power, and it seems as though nothing gets done to solve the problem of radicalization, or why people would be attracted to it in the first place. As Wright suggests, there seems to be no end in sight. BELOW: Wright discusses his play Like what you read? Support the site on Patreon Please report any spelling, grammar, or factual errors or corrections on the contact page |
Categories
All
© Jonathan Cvack and Yellow Barrel, 2015 - 2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Jon Cvack and Yellow Barrel with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
|
RSS Feed