Joy (2015)

There are a lot of good things going on in this movie. David O. Russell has partnered again with his muse Jennifer Lawrence for another stellar performance. Joy is the strongest woman Lawrence has played thus far in her career. She is a divorcee who is constantly putting out fires at home (the opening scene is a showcase for Lawrence), but she wants to do more with her life. She is an inventor by nature and she takes control of her own destiny and pursues her passion. It kind of reminded me of The Good Wife-- a strong female lead who takes hold of her own life. And she is authentic as herself; that is Lawrence's biggest selling point. The characterization of Joy's mother is also well developed. And in the first half of the movie, there is this surreal back and forth between reality and the soap opera world that she lives in.

There is a great scene in which Bradley Cooper is showing Joy around the QVC studio. The studio is a magical place that elicits awe (and joy) from Joy and lets Cooper show off a little too. The scene moves forward at an anticipatory pace. There is a fantastic use of music in this scene that actually reminded me of The Good Wife, which commonly uses instrumentals to build excitement in the lead-in to the titles.  The entire film actually uses music very effectively, including the guitar solo from Alabama Shakes's "Gimme All Your Love" and the piano introduction from Bruce Springsteen's "Racing in the Street." Some of the orchestral bits give it a fairy tale feeling, and the snowfall helps feed that aura.  It is a really good soundtrack ranging from rock to Latin jazz, and when it comes to music I expect nothing less from Russell.

The moral of the story is that business is hard. It's not a glamorous movie. Business (and much less mops) rarely is. I get that. But there is one terrible scene that I felt really detracted from the movie. Robert De Niro and Isabella Rosselini are deriding Joy for not having what it takes to be in business. And she just takes it. Maybe this is how the actual events went, but she accepts that they are right. And they're not. The way I understand it, from a legal standpoint, Joy was in the right. It was the very people chastising her (for simply being herself) that messed up. And Russell makes very clear that Joy's father is not a nice or supportive-type person; but I think this scene was overkill and really contrary to the entrepreneurial spirit that the film seems to endorse.

What Happened, Miss Simone? (2015)

A clever combination of archival footage, journal entries, old photographs and talking head interviews, this documentary presents a complete portrait of Nina Simone.  A classically trained pianist, Simone became known for jazz and blues and for her activism during the Civil Rights movement. The premise of the documentary comes from a quote by Maya Angelou, and the film slowly answers the question "What happened, Miss Simone?" In a very honest way, the film details exactly what happened in her rise to fame and in her suffering from bipolar disorder. My favorite quote from the film is "I'm in Carnegie Hall finally, but I'm not playing Bach." Simone played a famous concert at Carnegie Hall, fulfilling a lifelong dream but not as a classical pianist. Though she did not become a professional classical musician, her technique and discipline showed in all the styles she played. She used her music for good, making music with a purpose to advance the civil rights agenda. This got her into a lot of trouble but it was fulfilling. It was her way of embracing freedom, or her definition of freedom: no fear. Her distinctive voice is found in songs and in archival interviews. This candid documentary unpacks a very complex figure in a rather nice way.

45 Years (2015)

Needless to say, I think I'm a little too young to appreciate this portrait of an elderly couple celebrating their 45th anniversary. I don't know if celebrating is quite the right word. Most of the movie is actually in the run-up to the big party when a bit of new information about an old girlfriend from 50 years ago disrupts their preparations. This movie explores how a relationship that has lasted for so long evolves. What was once a picture of stability is now turned upside down and the actors convey this with subtle movements and small inflections in their voices. But in these smallest of actions and displays of emotion they say so much.

Charlotte Rampling is devastating as the wife who has to find out about her husband's ex-girlfriend 50 years later, whose spirit has returned to lurk in the corner of every room in the house--quite figuratively the elephant in the room. One scene in particular stood out for me. She is going through old slides and for the first time we see the ex-girlfriend's face from the reverse side of the projector screen. We see just enough of the screen on the right side of the shot to make out a face, and Rampling sits in the background. We catch glimpses of her face as the light from the slide projector goes off and on. And her face just says it all. 

Winter on Fire: Ukraine's Fight for Freedom (2015)

This is another excellent documentary from Netflix depicting the Maidan revolution in Kiev as it happened from behind the lines. It is certainly a movie of our times to be able to capture revolution in the moment up close like we usually only see in news reels, but now everyone has cameras and they shoot high quality. That is the only thing they shoot, for the protesters are largely peaceful. And the viewer is one of these protesters right in the thick of it. We feel the power of the people, strongly aided by a sweeping soundtrack. Fittingly, it includes Chopin's Revolutionary Etude.

The film opens with a rapid fire history lesson that is strangely told in present tense English. There are some pretty cool animations to map out where the protests were occurring. I did have a problem with the subtitles. The white subtitles were difficult to read in day scenes.

Though the material is similar to Netflix's The Square about the Egyptian protests, this movie is not as nuanced. This is very much a one-sided argument, and that is ok. We see the citizens of Kiev protesting for freedom. But the issue is much more complex than that. This is perhaps oversimplified a bit. But this does not detract from the viscerally powerful imagery.

I do wonder if the filmmakers filmed these scenes with the intention of making a documentary or simply to capture archival footage of history. And further if the filmmakers were even behind the cameras or if they obtained the footage from other people after the fact. 

Out of the Past (1947)

This is a very confusing movie and I had a hard time following. There was a flashback that lasted so long I forgot that it was a flashback. But I was at least able to follow the first flashback, what happened in the present though...I'm simply not sure. After reading the Wikipedia synopsis, they definitely left out a bunch of parts from the movie. I was unsure about Jeff's motivations in the movie. He obviously fell for Kathie the first time in Mexico, but once it is revealed how dangerous she is, does he fall for it the second time? And when he knows that he is being set up, why does he just let himself be set up? He literally just goes with it and verbalizes that he knows he is being set up, but he does exactly what they want him to do. Is this the fatalism that has resigned him to his destiny?

Despite the convoluted story, the cinematography is quite something. They play a lot with shadows and spotlights. The movie has a bit of a horror feel because it is so dark. We watch carefully constructed silhouettes for much of the movie, though unlike the other noir films we watched, the film opens on day out in nature without rain. When do things start to take a turn for the dark? When he goes back to her cabin in the jungle at night in the rain. It is not the concrete jungle, but an actual wild, uncouth jungle in Mexico. There's not turning back now because she has him.

And then I definitely missed something at the end. The Wikipedia synopsis is pretty clear about the ending. And maybe I was just being oblivious, but I think the cues were too subtle for me to able to read all of that from the movie.

The Killers (1946)

The seductive Ava Gardner plays the very dangerous femme fatale, Kitty Collins (her name might be a reference to Kitty March in Scarlet Street?). Though she plays such a large part in the film, she is not even introduced until well into the movie. The first female character that we are introduced to is Lily, whom I mistook for the femme fatale at first since she was the original love interest of the Swede, a macho Burt Lancaster. But the boxing scene in which she is introduced as the Swede's girlfriend is told in a flashback. Having seen the present, we know that she ends up with Sam Lubinsky. I immediately assumed that something happened between Sam and the Swede over Lily--but I was wrong. In retrospect, Lily is portrayed as an obedient housewife in her scene with Reardon and Sam. In this submissive position, she would not have had enough power, agency or influence to be the femme fatale.

Then we are introduced to Kitty at a party. She is shrouded in mystery seated at the piano turned away from the camera. She briefly turns to the viewer (and the Swede) and smiles. From behind, we see just her suggestive shoulders coming out of her single-strap gown. Immediately, the Swede and the viewer is stricken. When he approaches, she remains seated in a position of vulnerability while he stands leaning on the piano, and yet she controls the conversation. She subliminally informs him that she is out of reach. She is above his class and looks down on boxing, feigning an aversion to violence as a cover up for her condescension. But she leads him on, and holds his gaze without acknowledging him. That is the extent of her grip on him that she can look away and sing and pretend not to notice the man who can't take his eyes off of her.

Kitty has a couple of other major scenes, but her screen time is actually quite limited. But she does not even have to appear on screen to influence the events occurring in the movie. She looms over every scene. And in the final sequence in the Green Cat, the reflection of the cat statue, surely a symbol of Kitty, looms over Reardon in the mirror. She is in control of the action, or so she believes. And only after she has gotten everybody killed does she helplessly cry, displaying a sign of weakness. For the first time, she does not hold the power and the femme fatale is transformed into a damsel in distress. Except now that we know all of the background, we are not seduced.

The Walk (2015)

This movie is very cleverly narrated by a charming Joseph Gordon Levitt as Philippe Petit in part French, part French-accented English. He sounds really good and he apparently learned to speak fluently for the role. I really liked the narration. It is direct and intimate with the viewer and it allows the viewer special insight into what anyone else would deem suicidal. In fact, the film opens with him staring directly down the lens of the camera. And from the beginning, you are welcomed into a surreal world as the camera zooms out to show Petit in the torch of the Statue of Liberty overlooking the Twin Towers. And then we are transported to France through a bit of globe magic for a sequence in black-and-white. And all of these little intricacies make the first hour interesting in what is an otherwise uninteresting setup before we get to the titular walk. But anticipation and excitement grows.

The walk itself is really well done. The visual effects and dizzying camerawork make you really feel like you're up there with him a hundred stories up. Throughout the film, the visual effects, though sometimes small, are really cool. And we delight in seeing the crazy joy sweep across his face when he is out on his wire despite our fear of falling that is not present in the man that is actually at risk. 

The Revenant (2015)

This is a monstrosity of a movie. Grueling, uncompromising, and incredibly painful--to film and to watch. We feel their pain too. It is a visionary achievement in film making with breathtaking nature shots and violence galore. The characters are crazy and the filmmakers are a little crazy too for being so ambitious. This movie is two and a half hours of agony and torture but you can't look away because it is beautiful and visually stunning. Though the run time is way too long. I could have done without the Powaqa subplot. I think the subplot tries to give motivation for all the killing but at the same time I got the sense that the film uses the wild west as an excuse for the violence.

Let's start with the opening battle. Inarritu and Lubezki have already proved that they are masters at the tracking shot (see Birdman) and this super complex battle scene looks like one long bloody take. The shot moves fluidly between the forest and the river, even dipping in and out of the water. I happened to notice some really intricate sound mixing as well. The ambient score sort of just waits in the background, and all of sudden maybe a few minutes before the end of the scene, the music overcomes the dialogue and the sound effects and this music is the epitome of the sound of bloodshed. And then the music fades back. Throughout the film, the music enhances the atmosphere of doom and the untame wildnerness. And there is an excellent balance between the music and the dialogue and the sounds of nature, each alternating their turn in the limelight. The strict use of natural light and colors enhances the outdoors-y wildnerness aura. You see Leo's warm breath in the cold air fog up the camera lens

Then there is the bear scene we have all heard so much about. It is excruciatingly painful to watch. And Leonardo DiCaprio wails and screams like there was a real bear mauling him (it is so lifelike and he is tossed around so violently that you really think twice about this bear). This scene is devoid of music. You hear just the natural surroundings. You feel like you are in the scene, being attacked by a grizzly bear. And if there is any mistaking the audience being entrenched in the action, in the final shot Leo stares right into the camera, and we hear his familiar labored breathing.

Leo is a man unmistakably dedicated to his craft. For much of the movie he acts without words, just enduring pain in his eyes. He went through hell and back, rising from the dead to portray this character. He ate the raw livers and slept in the dead carcasses. He suffered for his role visibly. And the whole cast and crew suffered great pains to make this vision a reality, to fulfill Inarritu's insane and indeed monstrous vision. 

Gun Crazy (1950)

This is a uniquely American film with its gun-obsessed protagonists and wild cowboy-outfit wearing female lead. But the setting is the dead giveaway. Gun Crazy differs from the other noir films we've seen because the setting is not in the city. The genre typically favors urban settings for the grittiness of the streets. In contrast, Gun Crazy takes place on the road between small towns between the Great Plains and the west coast. The one similarity in the setting is the climactic scene at the meat processing plant, which represents industry more associated with the city. The neat rows of endless carcasses represents the order that they seek to disrupt. But the unclean carcasses are symbolic of the untame nature of the west.

There is a significant scene at the carnival where Laurie and Bart (the original Bonnie and Clyde!) meet.  The carnival is the most exciting thing that happens to a small town in America. And carnivals are stereotypically seedy, which is sort of a noir-ish quality. Notably only the opening scene has the giveaway night and rain combo. But the closing scene attempts to replicate that atmosphere. In the California wilderness, Laurie and Bart stumble through a swamp. They get soaked, recreating the wet and dark feeling. And the fog is very doom-and-gloom.

The road represents a journey and the car takes the protagonists to the end of the proverbial road. Once Laurie and Bart meet, Bart is doomed to a certain fate. Laurie lacks the conscience that it was made clear that Bart possessed. But she slowly chips away at his conscience until he finally ultimately shoots to kill for the first time. And though they meet a tragic end, I think it is actually an ironically triumphant ending for Bart. His single kill allows him to reclaim his masculinity by overpowering the dangerous woman that made him change. He gains a handle on his own fate. There was no chance they would escape alive, and I think they both knew that, but he at least went out on his own terms.  

Trumbo (2015)

Bryan Cranston proves that he is a master of acting in all mediums. After his unforgettable turn as Walter White in Breaking Bad and a run on Broadway in 2014, he takes on a leading role in a film. I love the scenes when Cranston is in full screenwriting mode at his typewriter, or in the tub literally cutting and taping together lines. In a way, Trumbo is similar to Walter White. Like Walter, Trumbo has to innovate, adapt to survive in a world that is working against him.  Helen Mirren is also fabulous as Hedda Hopper, who is intimidating to even the most powerful men in Hollywood. Louis CK was pleasantly surprising in a role that I wouldn't have pegged him for.

The story is well done, if a bit cliched at times. Sometimes the speeches are a bit too soapbox-y about American ideals and what not. But I do like movies about movies, especially in the classic Hollywood era. And it is a smart movie. The Hollywood Ten were undoubtedly smart, trying to pull one over the House Un-American Activities Committee and subsequently defeating the blacklist. 

Scarlet Street (1945)

What makes a woman a femme fatale--or more specifically what makes Kitty March a femme fatale? The word fatal implies that death is involved. But the evil female does not directly kill the man. Her evil is more sinister than that. She leaves Chris Cross tormented and haunted by the climactic murder. Why is he so tortured by this event? Because it is so out of the ordinary for his character.  Femme fatales are so dangerous because they drive you to do things you otherwise would not do. It is not simply a matter of seducing you to get what they want but about fundamentally changing the man. I think this is what makes Kitty a crueler femme fatale than Phyllis Dietrichson from Double Indemnity and it is what makes the ending all the more devastating. Chris is the loyal, simple and rather plain company man. He is vulnerable, in a loveless marriage and has lost his youth (and perhaps missed out on his youth). He is perfectly ordinary with a safe and respectable job and a normal hobby. But Kitty takes this man and changes him. You get the sense that it is not all her doing at first, because Johnny really pushes her to go through with the plan. After all, the plot is set off by a meeting in a bar in which both sides wildly (and almost implausibly) misunderstand each other. But in the murder scene in which she maniacally laughs, you see her true colors.

Compare to Neff in Double Indemnity. He is reluctant to take part in murder at first, but he soon devises his own intricate plan and he gets really into it early on in the movie. It does not seem like Phyllis created evil in him, rather she awakened a dormant evil. But good old reliable Chris would never kill--moreover, he would never steal from his employer who has trusted him for decades.  And I think this is reinforced when he almost takes money from the safe the first time, but then he decides against it. At this point, he still had a grasp on his true self.

The Johnny-Kitty dynamic is interesting too. Dan Duryea plans a devilis bad guy. And Kitty acts more naturally when she is with Johnny. But when she is with Chris, she is acting. She over exaggerates her speech and her motions. Joan Bennett is acting as a woman who is acting. And though that is obvious to the viewer, Chris is blinded by her appeal. And though Johnny is the source of the evil, Kitty is the face of the evil and she is the most sinister because it is she who manipulates Chris into losing his former good-natured self.

Predicting the 2016 Oscar Nominations

The Oscar nominations will be revealed tomorrow. And here's the thing that makes this year interesting: there is no clear front runner. It is a wide open game. Looking forward to some surprises. These are my predictions in the major categories (Things I've already seen in bold). I filled out my full predictions on Gold Derby, and the result would be a pack-leading 10 nominations for Mad Max: Fury Road, and 9 each for The Martian and Carol.

Best Picture- up to 10 nominees
1. Spotlight
2. The Revenant
3. The Martian
4. The Big Short
5. Carol
6. Room
7. Brooklyn
8. Mad Max: Fury Road
9. Bridge of Spies
10. Straight Outta Compton

Best Director
1. Ridley Scott - The Martian
2. Tom McCarthy - Spotlight
3. Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu- The Revenant
4. Todd Haynes - Carol
5. George Miller - Mad Max: Fury Road

Best Actor
1. Leonardo DiCaprio - The Revenant
2. Eddie Redmayne - The Danish Girl
3. Michael Fassbender - Steve Jobs
4. Matt Damon - The Martian
5. Bryan Cranston - Trumbo

Best Actress
1. Brie Larson - Room
2. Saoirse Ronan - Brooklyn
3. Cate Blanchett - Carol
4. Jennifer Lawrence - Joy
5. Alicia Vikander - The Danish Girl

Best Supporting Actor
1. Mark Rylance - Bridge of Spies
2. Mark Ruffalo - Spotlight
3. Sylvester Stallone - Creed
4. Idris Elba - Beasts of No Nation
5. Jacob Tremblay - Room

Best Supporting Actress
1. Kate Winslet - Steve Jobs
2. Rooney Mara - Carol
3. Rachel McAdams - Spotlight
4. Helen Mirren - Trumbo
5. Jane Fonda - Youth

Best Original Screenplay
1. Inside Out
2. The Hateful Eight
3. Spotlight
4. Ex Machina
5. Bridge of Spies

Best Adapted Screenplay
1. Steve Jobs
2. Carol
3. The Martian
4. Brooklyn
5. The Big Short

Update: I scored 8/8 in Best Picture, though I technically had Carol over Bridge of Spies. 3/5 in Best Director (cause Lenny Abrahamson for Room over Ridley Scott for The Martian was a big surprise).  5/5 in Best Actor, 4/5 in Best Actress (though Alicia Vikander did get a nomination for The Danish Girl, just in the supporting category), 3/5 in Best Supporting Actor, 3/5 in Supporting Actress, 4/5 in Original Screenplay (surprised they didn't go for Tarantino cause they usually do), and 4/5 in Adapted Screenplay (I am devastated that Aaron Sorkin didn't get nominated for his brilliant screenplay). Just 67% overall in all categories.

Double Indemnity (1944)

A prime example of film noir, Double Indemnity does a lot of interesting things with light. Film noir is often characterized by a dimly lit visual style. This fosters a claustrophobic atmosphere. And this claustrophobia is represented by Phyllis Dietrichson, who talks about being trapped in her marriage by her husband. She is visually trapped by the shadows cast by the venetian blinds. The shadows are reminiscent of prison bars, appropriate for a pair of criminals like Phyllis and Neff. The venetian blind shadows cleverly allow the viewer to see half of the frame in light, while mysteriously obscuring the other half.

The scenes are sometimes so dark that it is sometimes hard to make out the figures. At the same time, it is so dark that when there is a small ray of light, the contrast is highly accentuated. When Neff enters Phyllis’s dark house (she just turned off all the lamps), you see his shadow come through the door before you see him. You see an ominous cutout of a man in a hat. It is a classic conservative look for a respectable company man. Compare Neff to the femme fatale. In Phyllis’s first scene, there is a bright aura about her—from her platinum blonde hair to her white towel and her fair skin, she glows beneath the dark archway. Perhaps the lighting is deceptive. Neff is struck by her beauty and her light, permitting her to seduce Neff into a compromising situation.

            

The film has a feel of doom-and-gloom, thanks to the dark lighting and the unbalanced composition. This tone of the film contributes to the fatalistic attitude of the characters, whose fates are predetermined. The metaphorical trolley is headed towards the cemetery and Phyllis and Neff cannot escape this fate. In a brilliant directorial decision, Neff narrates the story in a series of confessional flashbacks. These events already happened and there is no changing the past. The story begins at the edge of the cemetery and it is already too late to turn back because the damage is done.

Room (2015)

I came into this film with a bit of a misconception. I heard a lot about Brie Larson and Jacob Tremblay giving tremendous performances (and they do), but I thought those performances were restricted to the confines of the titular room. I thought it was going to be two hours of Larson musing to her son about the outside world and keeping him entertained in the face of misery. But I was so wrong. Sure, there is some of that and it is really good, but the movie is really about adjusting to the outside world after having lived in Room for so long. And it's not like Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt happy-go-lucky optimistic kind of adjusting; this is raw and powerful. This is not too much of a spoiler, but they escape from Room well before the end of the movie, to allow ample time for thoughtful introspection.

The two main characters have vastly different experiences despite living together in Room. Larson plays Joy, who was kidnapped at the age of 17. So she knows what is beyond Room and years to be free. But her son Jack complicates things. Her motives change when she has to think about her child. And the viewer soon realizes that her own agony is bottled up inside her because she is so worried about Jack that she can't worry about herself. Larson plays Joy beautifully. On the flip-side, you have Jack who was born and raised in captivity and knows nothing else. I think that the decision to give Jack narrative monologues to get inside his unimaginable child mindset was brilliant. Tremblay is a phenomenal 9-year old actor who just gives it his all. The escape scene is so powerful because of him. You feel the shock and awe and that raw emotion lingers with you for a solid 15 minutes. Full-grown actors can't even do that. 

Creed (2015)

I've seen the original Rocky, but I haven't seen any of the sequels. So I basically got the gist of it, but I might have missed some of the backstory though it is well implied by the screenplay. I did not miss the reference to the American flag boxing shorts that Rocky bestows on Creed before the big fight. I think overall it is a solid movie, but I guess I just didn't really have the connection to the franchise that those who have been following this character for four decades. It is actually pretty incredible that it has lasted for so long and so many movies. It is not just Star Wars that made it all the way to seven. And what we see in this movie is an aging Rocky, and it is his story line that interested me the most. As a boxer past his prime, he must decide what impact he will have on the next generation. And I think this movie is quite good enough to create a new generation of Rocky fans who will now go back to see the movie that started it all.

Similar to Star Wars Episode VII, this movie borrows a lot from its original source material. It sticks to a tried and true formula. Michael B. Jordan as Adonis Creed packs Rocky-type heart that makes the character likable. Sylvester Stallone lets Jordan shine as the protagonist, playing second fiddle in his own movie. It is the second half of the movie that Stallone gives Rocky some substantive material (which I think brilliantly advances the character in a very natural way) and then he still finds a way to make this movie about the titular Creed. It could have become the Rocky show at that point, but he exercised a poignant restraint. And finally, the last scene on the legendary steps is the perfect way to bring the franchise full circle.

My Golden Globes Picks 2016

This year, Ricky Gervais returns to host and offend. Here are my predictions for the always erratic Golden Globes. (Things I've seen already in bold)

Film

Best Picture (Drama): Mad Max: Fury Road
Best Actor (Drama): Leonardo DiCaprio from The Revenant
Best Actress (Drama): Saoirse Ronan from Brooklyn
Best Picture (Comedy/Musical): The Big Short
Best Actor (Comedy/Musical): Matt Damon from The Martian
Best Actress (Comedy/Musical): Amy Schumer from Trainwreck
Best Supporting Actor: Sylvester Stallone from Creed
Best Supporting Actress: Alicia Vikander from Ex Machina
Best Director: Ridley Scott for The Martian
Best Screenplay: Steve Jobs
Best Animated Feature: Inside Out
Best Foreign Language Film: Son of Saul from Hungary
Best Score: Carol
Best Song: One Kind of Love from Love & Mercy

Result: A dismal 6/14...who knew The Revenant would sweep like it did? I am very happy for Kate Winslet from Steve Jobs getting a well-deserved win.

TV

Drama Series: Mr. Robot
Best Actor (Drama): Rami Malek from Mr. Robot
Best Actress (Drama): Taraji P. Henson from Empire
Comedy Series: Transparent
Best Actor (Comedy): Aziz Ansari from Master of None
Best Actress (Comedy): Lily Tomlin from Grace and Frankie
TV Movie/Limited Series: Wolf Hall
Best Actor (TV Movie): Oscar Isaac from Show Me a Hero
Best Actress (TV Movie): Kirsten Dunst from Fargo
Best Supporting Actor: Ben Mendelsohn from Bloodline
Best Supporting Actress: Regina King from American Crime

Result: An even worse 4/11 for a total of 10/25...The TV categories were really quite out there. I am proud that I called Wolf Hall and Oscar Isaac, but I really should have seen Lady Gaga from American Horror Story coming. And look at the CW with two Best Actress in a Comedy wins in a row for different shows. Who would have ever guessed that?

The Look of Silence (2015)

This is a brutal follow-up to Joshua Oppenheimer's ground-breaking The Act of Killing. Coming off a well-deserved MacArthur Genius Grant, Oppenheimer tells a horrifying story that needs to be told. It differs from its predecessor in a few ways. This movie's capstone moment is "silent" in comparison to The Act of Killing featuring a remorseful perpetrator heaving loudly. Perhaps for this reason, this film seems slightly less profound. But it is Adi's mother's defeated acceptance of her brother's atrocities that is so powerful.

Whereas I watched The Act of Killing with wide-eyed shock, I sort of knew what to expect going into this movie. The movie features many scenes of Adi sitting alone watching Oppenheimer's footage of perpetrators boasting about their atrocities committed and the terrible things they did to his brother, Ramli. He watches intently, forcing the viewer, too, to not look away. The eyes are a recurring symbol. We hear repeatedly about the common eye gouging. Adi is an optometrist, and his patients are the those who murdered his brother. He claims that everyone knows who killed their relatives, and they live as neighbors in silent acknowledgement. Though he improves their vision, his patients fail to see their own faults from the past.

I'm not positive, but it seemed that this movie was not originally intended by Oppenheimer. It appeared that after many years of research, he discovered that he had a full story from both sides and so he revisited the perpetrators with Adi. Adi confronts the perpetrators by interrogating them forthright. He is brutally honest and very brave. Oppenheimer was less confrontational (it was less personal for him) but rather he allowed the perpetrators to confront their own sins in The Act of Killing. These two approaches are very different, but both are effective in conveying the atmosphere of modern-day Indonesia where the perpetrators remain in power.

Everyone wishes to let the past be past. The victims' families and victim Kemat would rather not reopen old wounds. The children of the perpetrators do not wish to speak about how they came to their positions. And the result is that everyone is silent. They allow history to flow by forgotten. Adi's son learns the lies and propaganda taught in schools. And as a final reminder of the murderers in power, much of the production staff must remain anonymous for their own safety as the credits roll in silence.

Brooklyn (2015)

Brooklyn is a beautiful film about the immigrant experience in 1950s Brooklyn. It is tough at first but life gets better for Ellis Lacey, no doubt a reference to Ellis Island. The movie feels authentic. It paints a picture of Brooklyn that is diverse, with the Irish (played by Irish actors) and Italians interacting daily (and I love the accents). Despite the big city feel, she finds an immigrant community that is supportive. The costumes and the sets look like they come straight from the the middle of the century. It is a very believable story--Ellis has problems that an immigrant girl would have being homesick and missing her family and feeling alone. Saoirse Ronan plays Ellis brilliantly. She comes into her own as a strong young woman, growing up with her character in the span of the film.

What is perhaps most extraordinary about this movie is that it is simultaneously heartbreaking and heartwarming. Nick Hornby wrote a very emotional screenplay that is deeply moving and sometimes quite funny. It is a story about home (it's where the heart is) and community and love. Overall, it is a gorgeous story that is really well done.

Unbroken (2014)

Louis Zamperini had quite an incredible life. There are three phases in the movie that represent very different parts of his life. And it doesn't even get into his PTSD after returning home. The first phase plays out like a typical sports movie. It follows a young boy who goes into sport as a means to keep himself out of trouble and he runs all the way to the Olympics. The second phase is a lot like All Is Lost with talking. And the third phase is pure war from inside a POW camp. I think the movie tried to squeeze in a little too much. I feel like I would've gotten the same story without the track story line.

Miyavi plays the Japanese corporal in charge of the POW camp. He is devilishly cruel and has a look that inspires fear. There is a scene in which he implores Zamperini  to "Look at me!" and I couldn't help but think of Captain Phillips. The aerial fighting scene in the beginning is well done and it provides a good introduction to the war half of the story. 

Jurassic World (2015)

The newest installment in the Jurassic Park series is a lot like the original. It is a solid movie, but lacks originality. It understandably introduces Jurassic Park to a younger generation unfamiliar with the original. But having seen Jurassic Park, this seemed a little too safe. Even the dinosaurs were not very imaginative. The whole premise of the movie is that the dinosaurs are genetically engineered. But they still look like dinosaurs the way we know them. Where's the creativity? I guess the Mosasaurus is kind of cool. The new, terrifying Indominus Rex looked almost indistinguishable from the T Rex to me. Spielberg's dinosaurs were so lifelike to begin with that the advancements in computer technology and special effects did not produce anything that really impressed me. The original animatronics were perhaps even scarier.

That being said, it is still a fun movie, if a little predictable. There is lots of action. I particularly liked the gyrosphere ride, that lets the park attendees roam among the dinosaurs in the safety of a hamster ball. It would make for an enjoyable real ride, and it is really cool. Chris Pratt is a very likable hero  even if just two years ago I would've never picked him for a hero-type. Michael Giacchino does a good job with the score, integrating John Williams's memorable themes into his own original music.

Anomalisa (2015)

This is a highly unusual stop-motion animation. The content is funny and then a little strange. The figures were 3D printed. The range of emotions is vast. I think it is hilarious that there is no effort to hide the lines where the face detaches from the head. Especially around the eyes, it sometimes looks like glasses. The figures walk pretty naturally, if a little bit slow. We aren't used to such realistic animation. They actually look like humans, not cartoons. It is actually a little disturbing, in my opinion.

I love the title: in reference to Lisa, who is an anomaly. She is an anomaly because she has a unique voice. Tom Noonan voices all of the non-main characters, male and female. At first, it is slightly confusing. This is an adaptation from a play, in which there are only three actors and this effect was able to be recreated in animation. That would not have been believable in a live-action movie.

Concussion (2015)

This is a pretty solid and predictable movie. No frills or surprises, just exactly what you'd expect from a sports movie--or a football game.  The movie is about Dr. Omalu, a Nigerian medical examiner living in Pittsburgh where the Steelers are king. He is good at what he does, and does his job with care and respect. When his job only asks him to find the "how" he also searches for the "why" to understand the patient as he was in life. At its heart, it is a movie about a skilled immigrant (who does the job better) trying to become an American. He does what he thinks Americans do, by "faking" it. Soon he comes to realize that Americans care about one thing only: football. And corporations care only about money.

The movie is very Will Smith-centric. He plays the man with many degrees very convincingly. He sounds smart, nailing the scientific terms. He keeps the accent on the whole movie. Apparently, he doesn't sound quite Nigerian, but he certainly sounds African. It's a singing kind of accent; his voice goes up and down a lot. There is a scene in which Omalu tries to convince the man from the NFL to "tell the truth" and he his passion for his work shows honestly. It is his best performance in a while. 

Youth (2015)

I didn't really get this comedy-drama from director Paolo Sorrentino. Maybe I am not old enough to appreciate youth or Youth. There are lots of metaphors and I just couldn't follow all of them. I'm not sure what to make of the ending when Fred conducts his "Simple Song #3." The music and lyrics are both quite simple, but it is a delightfully beautiful song. Soprano Sumi Jo gives a dazzling performance. All of the main actors give strong performances. They get to speak their minds in monologues that allow them to shine. Jane Fonda gets just one scene towards the end but she plays up her inner diva.

The film has some dazzling images. Filmed on location at Waldhaus Films hotel in Switzerland, the scenery is breathtaking. The garden has a circular turntable that hosts nightly performances. The movie opens with a song (reminiscent of Florence and the Machine) filmed while rotating. One of the more memorable images is of a performer creating a large bubble. And there's a great scene in which Caine imagines conducting a herd of cows as he sits on a rock atop a hill. 

The Big Short (2015)

The Big Short succeeds in explaining economic concepts to the average viewer in an accessible way. A Jenga demonstration by Ryan Gosling makes perfect sense. There are hilariously placed cameos by Margot Robbie, Selena Gomez, Anthony Bourdain and economist Richard Thaler. They use analogies to explain economics and break the fourth wall, as do many of the characters. It is like a well-made documentary at some points. The style of the movie is so unconventional that it makes you laugh. The picture freezes to allow the narration come in, and there are rapid cuts of historic/cultural images to show passage of time. The movie nicely balances comedy with drama. Steve Carrell and Brad Pitt bring some conscience to heartless Wall Street.

The movie simultaneously follows three groups who separately short the housing market, depicting the greatest economic collapse of our time from the point of view of the only people who benefited from it.  We watch them as they separately come to the revelation that would cripple the world economy. The ensemble cast is excellent, and I think Steve Carrell does exceptionally well in a role that I would not have picked him for. It falls somewhere in between the ridiculousness of The Office, and the dark drama Foxcatcher. There is nuance in his role as he comes to the realization that we are all doomed.

The film is a searing indictment of the whole system at every level from the banks to the rating agencies to the regulators. It really brings meaning to the phrase "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention" (Portlandia). You root for the protagonists who awaken and bet on the seemingly impossible. But then you realize that their bet is against the American economy, actually the world economy. They could be seen as villains, but they're really not at fault for reading the fine print. But nor are they heroes. There are no heroes in the economic crisis, just varying degrees of villainy. At the end, it all comes together when Carrell comes to the greatest, move devastating and tragic and cynical realization: it's not stupidity, it's not a matter of paying attention, it's a lack of care knowing that that'll get away with it and the less fortunate will suffer for it.

The Martian (2015)

This movie is perhaps the best advertisement for NASA and STEM. If this doesn't inspire you to pursue a STEM field, nothing will. It makes science cool. The characters are true experts in their fields, quickly solving complex problems with innovative out-of-the-box solutions. I think this movie will inspire a generation to pursue careers in astronomy, physics, and....botany. The script is well-written, fast paced, and sounds mostly scientifically accurate to someone like me who doesn't know (But to my credit I did follow some of it!).

The ensemble cast is excellent. Matt Damon carries the film with his likable personality, quick thinking, and one-liners. In the face of certain death, he finds a way. There is a moment at the end that reminded me of the end of Captain Phillips, when Tom Hanks gives a masterclass in acting--in a state of shock having just been rescued. In The Martian, this moment comes before the rescue attempt, when Matt Damon breaks into tears of hope. The scene could have been elongated to let Damon play it up a bit more, but it evoked a similar feeling. The casting of Kristen Wiig in a largely non-comedic role was a little strange. And as much as I like Chiwetel Ejiofor, he is decidedly not Indian, nor is Mackenzie Davis Korean. The characters were written as Asian, and so those roles should be played by Asian actors. There are not that many roles for Asian actors, so we should give the few that do exist to Asian actors.

Ridley Scott creates a convincingly barren picture of Mars on location in Jordan. He made a crowd pleasing, visually thrilling, and thought provoking story.

Love & Mercy (2015)

Paul Giamatti is so creepy as the hack of a doctor Landy. He just does evil so well. Coincidentally, this is the second evil music producer he has played this year after Straight Outta Compton. The music is very different. It is less about lyrical genius and more about musical genius. Brian Wilson created complex layers of instrumentation. Paul Dano brilliantly and effectively plays a young Wilson who is just beginning to hear voices in his head. The studio scenes are incredible. They are shot on Super 16 handheld cameras documentary style. These are candid, intimate shots in the studio zooming in and out of Wilson instructing the musicians on the exact sounds he is trying to produce. He experiments with literal pet sounds, puts hairpins in the piano, and keeps his voice in the track. He has complete control over the studio, making sure that he achieves perfection. There is a shot of Wilson working with the cellist and the camera rotates to film the rest of the studio while the action takes place off camera. You hear it but you don't see it. This recurs in the film. The music naturally has a lot of sound mixing, and the sounds tell the story as much as the pictures do--such is the power of music.

The texture given to the young Wilson scenes contrast John Cusack's scenes of an older Wilson. The story jumps back and forth in an innovative approach to the biopic. And I like that different actors were cast to play the same man, like in the Bob Dylan biopic I'm Not There (also written by Oren Moverman). We primarily see the man under the care of Dr. Landry who has been suffering from his mental illness for many years. And in between there are glimpses of the younger Wilson, to remind the viewer of the genius that is being hidden by his illness. But here is the nuance, the illness inspires Wilson to write some of his most revolutionary and iconic music. The title Love & Mercy is a fitting one that is also one of his songs, without giving away too much. And the original song "One Kind of Love" written by Wilson for the film is very good. It was inexplicably left off the list of Oscar-eligible songs this year, though it might win the Golden Globe.

An American in Paris (Broadway) (2015)

This is a gorgeous stage adaptation of the classic Gene Kelly film. Much like the movie, the focus of this production is dance.  I have a great appreciation for dance. It is mostly ballet, but there are brilliant infusions of jazz and contemporary dance (and maybe a bit of Fosse). The choreography is so beautifully elegant and intricate. Director-choreographer Christopher Wheeldon makes an extraordinary Broadway debut. The opening number is a gorgeous dance to Gershwin's Piano Concerto in F.  It is these lyric-less moments in which the production shines brightest.  George Gershwin's jazz inspired score is great but personally I prefer the pieces without words to the songs with (no offense to Ira). The beautiful jazzy theme from the second movement of the Concerto in F recurs throughout the production. The film is well known for its 17 minute ballet sequence to the piece of the same name.  The climax of the play is a similar ballet that is simply mesmerizing.

Robert Fairchild, brother of Megan Fairchild from On the Town, plays the male lead. He is a fine singer, but a fantastic ballet dancer. We did not see the Tony-nominated Leanne Cope because we have terrible luck but her understudy was a gorgeous dancer, too. And from a distance, they actually look very similar.

The design of the musical, that is the sets and costumes, are brilliant. Fittingly, the protagonist designs a ballet. Bob Crowley designs a rather minimalist set, leaving the floor mostly open for the dancers. As you enter the theater, you see a lone piano at the center of the stage (this image comes back at the end). A projection of the Arc di Triomphe on a sheet on the back wall transforms into the French flag from which the principal dancer emerges.  The background is made of cutouts drawn at an angle for perspective, and the projections fill in the details slowly in digital pencil. One of the best scenes features a sophisticated, animated hand-drawn ballerina on the moving set pieces that have angled tops, and ballet bars for manual movement. The masquerade costumes in the Cuban Overture are delightful, and the chromatic geometric design of the ballet sets and costumes are highly original.