Blood Diamond (2006)

This movie is a little strange. It defies categorization to its detriment. It is sort of an action thriller--Leonardo DiCaprio on a quest with a gun. But it deals with very serious, depressing themes that are not well-served in an action thriller: civil war, conflict diamonds, refugees, child soldiers, mercenaries and smuggling. There is a strange sequence featuring the child soldiers blasting 90s hip hop and shooting heroine and it is edited in a way that makes it looks like they're having fun, which is wildly inappropriate for the subject matter. The tone is very strange. Every nice moment is capped off with action--you're not given any opportunity to enjoy it. The movie severely undermines the important role of the press in conflict zones as Jennifer Connelly is a pawn in Leonardo DiCaprio's game, really just serving as a love interest and a distraction. The white savior narrative is also unwelcome. Everyone with real agency in the movie is white in this movie that takes place in Africa. Leonardo DiCaprio plays a man from Zimbabwe; he introduces himself as Rhodesian. He puts on a white South African accent; I can't really tell if it's good or bad. The dialogue is either brilliantly in dialect or very offensive. DiCaprio is certainly very committed. Djimon Hounsou is actually the star of the movie, in my opinion.

Strong Island (2017)

Strong Island is a deeply personal movie, crafted with an abundance of care with family photos complete with fingers adjusting them. More than anything else, it is a personal journey. This is not for us. We, in the audience, are on the outside looking in, observing and feeling the pain that the Ford family experienced. It is an introspective movie. Yance Ford tries to understand the circumstances surrounding the death of her brother. The movie walks toward something bigger, trying to contextualize the Fords' story as a story that could have happened to any African American family. While I understand that sentiment, I think Ford very rightly stops just short of that. This is too personal of a story. And it is owned by the Ford family. It haunts them but they confront 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.

Columbus (2017)

Slow isn't the right word to describe it. It's deliberate. First-time director Kogonada has such a firm control. His style resembles Yasujiro Ozu. His very still camera and low angles is almost unsettling. Every single shot is beautiful. There are frames within frames, a brilliant use of doorways and mirrors. The acting is impassioned yet quiet. The dialogue is intelligent yet natural, subtle yet brilliant. It is important that the director is Asian, as the subtlety is handled carefully in a way that an American probably could not fathom. The themes are very thoughtful and poignant--what is the role of architecture, how do we process grief, and what do we owe ourselves? The chemistry between John Cho and Haley Lu Richardson is gorgeous. 

John Cho is finally given an role worthy of his ability. He's actually a great actor. He gives Asians a good look.  Kogonada defies stereotypes, and in fact reverses them. The Korean Jin encourages Casey to follow her dreams, a uniquely American value. While American Casey fulfills her familial duty to look after her mother, a more Confucian value that Jin struggles with. Now, I'm not entirely sure what happens in the movie. Even with all the dialogue, there is lots left unsaid. It leaves some ambiguity in which we're left to interpret the silences. At the end of the film, Casey goes off to school. But Jin stays put. Jin's story line doesn't really advance over the course of the movie, and yet his character has developed immensely. I don't quite know what to make of that but I don't think that's written so easily.   

An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power (2017)

Who is the intended audience of Al Gore's latest outing? In this day and age, it feels like he's preaching to the choir. The idiots that don't believe in climate change aren't going to listen to Al Gore of all people. And the rest of us don't need convincing. What he can offer us is the method--how should we talk about climate change to most effectively convince the non believers? I think that is the topic of his seminars, of which we catch glimpses in the style of his previous Oscar-winning movie.  We also see him out in the field, talking to real people about the effects of climate change. The best part of the movie is the major progress we've made since his previous film: really the only need for a sequel is the Paris Agreement. This part of the movie unfolds like a drama. I think the movie could have been very effective if it focused just on Paris, maybe more exciting too.

The other function this movie is introspective. Al Gore feels guilty. He's trying to repent, to rectify his mistake. He was so close to the presidency and what he sees as his failure has resulted in the US turning its back on the environment. This, too, could have made for a more interesting movie. But it's a very small part. What we do see is Gore hustling. He doesn't have to represent America's goodwill in the world, but he does. He is a grand negotiator, trying to strike a compromise to save our planet. Perhaps he has been even more effective now, able to focus on the climate unrestrained by politics, than he would have been as president.

Loving Vincent (2017)

Loving Vincent is lovingly painted by over 100 artists in the style of Vincent Van Gogh in painstaking detail. You know how difficult that must've been? It is a mesmerizing movie. The rain and smoke are so beautifully rendered on the paintings with discernibly caked on brush strokes. The plot is a Rashomon-style piecing together of Van Gogh's final days before his suicide. But is it everyone's different version of the truth we're getting? Or is it actually just village gossip designed to throw us off? It's all speculative of course, but it's inspired by a the life and death of a troubled genius. In loving admiration.

Molly's Game (2017)

Aaron Sorkin's directorial debut is very Aaron Sorkin. It runs 140 minutes, and that's with Sorkin-speed speech. Acting in a Sorkin film requires skill. You must memorize your lines by heart so you can spit them back at rapid speed without thinking. That's acting. And it's never easy dialogue. It's brainy. There are unfamiliar words. You gotta become familiar with poker terms and American law. Even for a generally educated person, it can be a little difficult to follow at that pace. But that's what's so great about Aaron Sorkin. He doesn't talk down to you. He pulls you up. He's a smart guy that makes the audience keep up with him. The narrative structure in this movie is a little weird, with Chastain narrating her story in her book being read by her lawyer preparing for court. But it works. Jessica Chastain and Idris Elba are both great Sorkin-actors. Everything comes around full circle. Nothing is forgotten, everything is deliberate. I appreciate that Elba is cast as her lawyer, an smart and articulate and influential black man--the only black man in a story almost exclusively populated by powerful white men. It's tight writing about a strong female lead that doesn't require sex to tell an interesting and intense story. I have a feeling Sorkin will be doing more directing in the future.