Mary Poppins Returns (2018)

I don't often give hearts to a movie I rate 4 stars, but this movie tugged all the right strings for me, even if it didn't quite hit all the right notes. The movie is packaged in such a whimsically charming way that gives me joy. The visuals are exciting (the animation and live action mix is even more seamless with 2018 visual effects), the pace is leisurely, and the plot is perfectly sentimental. I do believe in the power of nostalgia and the enduring magic of Mary Poppins. Derivative isn't an accurate description when the movie is done well to nostalgic effect. After fifty years, I don't think anyone was really asking for a sequel, but I'm so glad it's here.

The biggest fault of the movie (and it's a big one) is the music. It is...just fine. In most situations, it would be sufficient. But this is Mary Poppins. The music from the original is iconic. The new music simply is not that catchy. Musicals have to have memorable music, moreover Disney musicals have to have singable music.

But I can overlook that because the rest of the movie is so much fun. Emily Blunt is amazing, really making the quintessentially British nanny her own. She is the epitome of elegance. Special call-outs for Lin-Manuel Miranda and Ben Whishaw too. Meryl Streep makes a cameo appearance that does not really advance the plot. And I didn't even see her in the end in the balloon scene. They probably should have cut out that scene.One last note on Rob Marshall. He can't resist the Chicago-esque scene when Lin and Emily dance and sing on stage about book covers. Mary Poppins even wears a Catherine Zeta Jones-esque hairpiece. Don't get me wrong, it's a great scene but the wig looks so out of place for her that you can't help thinking it.

The Post (2017)

If there was one thing I learned in college, it was how to study historical films as primary sources (Thanks Professor Mason!). This is a perfect example. While the movie takes place in the Nixon era, it is a product of its own time, the Trump era. What can this movie about the 1970s tell us about 2017?

It can tell us that our society is still uncomfortable with a woman in charge, even if she's Meryl Streep. She has an excellent monologue towards the end in which she tries to explain why. Katharine Graham discusses her own lack of confidence and distrust in herself. Her own development was influenced by society. It was no one's fault, it was simply the unquestioned norm. It's difficult to wrap your mind around this idea but she articulates it brilliantly. The movie is not about Katharine changing society. Though she's a trailblazer, women in business still face abundant discrimination. Her important decision to publish was surely brave, but ultimately it was the Supreme Court that stood up to the President. Alone, she could only do so much. It will take a joint effort to truly create change.

This is not a movie about journalism, it's about press. Comparisons to All the President's Men and Spotlight are inappropriate because this is not about the investigation. It's not about uncovering the contents of the Pentagon Papers. It is about the act of publishing them. The other message? Our newspapers must remain diligent and hold the President's feet to the fire. The Washington Post in particular has taken a bold stance ("Democracy dies in darkness" is poignant). Thank god Katharine Graham and Ben Bradlee have made the Post the national authority it has become today. And when the President tries to ban the press, an integral part of democracy, the newspapers must come to each others' support in solidarity.

This is an important movie for 2017. It's powerfully acted and orchestrated. Even though we know how it ends, there is plenty of drama. And the production design is very 70s. The inside of a newspaper is pretty cool.

Five Came Back (2017)

This is a movie for cinephiles and for history buffs and especially for those who love film history like me Films have an important role in history. I took a course on history and film. In war, they played a big role as propaganda, but not everything was propaganda. This three-part documentary tells the stories of five famed Hollywood directors during their service in WWII and their work before and after the war. Legendary directors Frank Capra, George Stevens, John Ford, John Huston and William Wyler all answered the call to service during WWII and they made enormous contributions by documenting the war, not always honestly but always powerfully to effect for the war effort. Modern directors heap praise on their idols, demonstrating their love for the art and their admiration for their cinematic accomplishments. Meryl Streep narrates the documentary.There are some really powerful, emotional moments when the reality of war sets in. They discuss how the war influenced their postwar work, and how their war experiences will always live with them. 

Florence Foster Jenkins (2016)

This movie was pleasantly hilarious. Meryl Streep can basically do no wrong, you can always count on her (Hugh Grant and Simon Helberg are pretty funny too). She plays a rich patron of the arts who thinks she can sing and no one has the heart or the guts to tell her that she can't. Her lack of operatic abilities is astounding. She is so bad that the audience in the film can't help but laugh. And that laughter is infectious. 

Sufragette (2015)

The protagonist, played by Carey Mulligan, is a young working class woman who does not like to be classified as a Suffragette, but when her husband predictably throws her out she takes up the cause wholeheartedly.  Both Carey Mulligan and Helena Bonham Carter are excellent. Meryl Streep gets a brief moment in the spotlight as activist Emmeline Pankhurst. Her screen time is very brief, emphasizing to the audience that the groundwork done by average women was of utmost importance to the cause.  Pankhurst served as inspiration, but the people had to act on their own--change is effected from the grassroots.  Their method is militancy, and yet the audience is made to sympathize with the suffragettes who are thwarted by the patriarchal society of Great Britain.

The camerawork is very unsettling throughout the movie.  Much like any effective activism, it is in-your-face.  The camera is so close to Carey Mulligan's face, that the viewers are quite uncomfortable. But you should feel uncomfortable, because in order to upend the status quo, we cannot be satisfied with comfort.  The cinematography understands this and does not let the audience forget it.  The end of the film has a fade to white, followed by real, powerful archival footage from 1913, which is pretty incredible in and of itself.

I got to see an advanced screening of this movie at The Charles Theater by the Gender Studies Department at JHU!

Into the Woods (2014)

I thoroughly enjoyed Disney's adaptation of this Sondheim classic. The music and lyrics are so complex, and hauntingly beautiful.  My favorite is when the characters sing different lyrics and melodies simultaneously, the counterpoint that Sondheim is so good at.  His characters think out loud in natural rhythmic speech.  The opening sequence (Prologue) introducing all of the characters is masterful with each character passing on the infectious theme to the next.  An extravagant production design realistically recreates a dark and creepy wood.  Along with Colleen Atwood's Oscar-nominated costume design, the audience is transported to a fantasy world.

Meryl Streep finally broke her own rule of never playing a witch to join Into the Woods.  She has a much better platform to show off her singing chops than with ABBA's Mamma Mia.  Streep actually has a very good voice; case in point "Children Will Listen." Emily Blunt also has an excellent singing voice as the Baker's Wife.  They are emotional, comedic, and most of all musical.

The story has depth, an existentialist message that might go over the head of a Disney-aged audience, but the original musical is not intended for children.  There are themes of morality and parental relationships.  The story is cleverly told through a clever combination of classic fairy tales reimagined.  This is what makes a good musical: a clever idea, good music, good acting and a thought-provoking story.

Manhattan (1979)

This Woody Allen classic is a love letter to the great city of New York that so many of his films take place in.  But Manhattan is not just the setting, it is a character in and of itself.  It is a character that Isaac (Allen) "adores" in his quotable opening monologue.    Allen's musings on life and art are narrated over awe-inspiring black-and-white shots of New York and Gershwin's incomparable Rhapsody in Blue.  The shots are timed perfectly with the music, culminating in fireworks exploding on the beat.

The black-and-white photography gives a vintage look to some of the dark scenes, such as the iconic scene by the Queensboro bridge in which the audience sees only in shadows against the night.  The scene in the planetarium is so dark that the viewer can just barely make out the outlines of the characters in a beautifully romantic scene.

Allen delightfully depicts intellectual, upper-class life, epitomized by Diane Keaton's character (a different kind of character than Annie Hall).  But the best performance comes from young Mariel Hemingway, who has the most complex role.  She plays a character more mature beyond her years and it is her performance that keeps the plot grounded    

Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)

Meryl Streep and Dustin Hoffman both give Oscar-winning performances in this movie that relies on good actors bringing a strong screenplay to life.  On its face, the movie is about a divorce and its effect on the family, culminating in a custody battle.  At its core, the story is about the evolution of the boy's relationship with his father.  Phenomenal acting from both father and son (Justin Henry is the youngest Oscar nominee ever at age 8) show the changing dynamics of their love.  The story is very touching and raises a lot of thought provoking questions about gender roles in the 1970s.  

The Giver (2014)

The movie is never quite as good as the book.  This movie never really captures the essence of the Newbery Medal winning book for which it is based. Lois Lowry creates a world of her own imagination, rich with detail.  This "perfect" world eliminates choice through a strict set of rules, creating a society of equality, sameness.  To start off, Jonas narrates the rules of the society.  But he does not explain to the audience what this society is about, only scratching the surface of the Lowry's creation. For those who have not read the book, they are thrown into this utopia/dystopia without the proper background.  Hollywood created a love story where there is none, not understanding that the people in the society are not capable of love.  Even the ending is slightly different (read: worse), not leaving room for audience interpretation.

The dialogue moves very quickly, with characters almost speaking over each other with little pause in between responses.  It comes off as almost robotic.  Maybe the director was going for flat to depict the lack of emotions, because even the incomparable Meryl Streep (whose role does not appear prominently in the book) and Jeff Bridges gives uninspired performances.

It is a very short film and the plot moves very quickly, so the audience is not given much time to digest anything.  But in that short time, there is some really beautiful cinematography.  The contrast of the black-and-white and the vibrant colors is stunning, and the flow of memories produce some incredible images.  In conclusion, read the book.