Simple Simon

Movies: Love, Simon

I took a Queer Theory class senior year of college where we got to do a final paper on a queer-related topic of our choice. I did mine on the E.M. Forster novel Maurice. Pronounced "Morris", this novel, which was written in 1913 and published posthumously in 1971, is the story of Maurice Hall, a thoroughly average--even boring--gay man who must negotiate his desires in pre-WWI England.

My argument was that this book is so radical because its hero is not. Maurice Hall is an average bloke in all ways except for one: his sexuality is literally illegal at the time this novel was written. What's more radical than taking "deviance" and turning it mundane?

And so, Love, Simon. Based on the novel Simon Vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda by Becky Albertalli, Love, Simon follows the thoroughly average Simon Spier. Maybe "average" isn't really the right word to describe Simon, who is actually incredibly lucky--he has awesome friends and his parents are understanding and liberal in a way most IRL parents are not. So, as Simon holds onto his dark secret--he's gay--there's a background knowledge that if and when he comes out, the consequences will not be remotely severe. He will not be kicked out of his family's house. He will not be sent to conversion therapy. He will not be beat up at school. The only real consequence is that people will see the real him.

Some reviews have treated this as a failing of the story, as if severe consequences for being out of the closet make for more compelling entertainment. But, as black folks often grow tired of seeing movies about blackness tied to pain, bondage, and oppression, so I assume gay folks tire of films where coming out leads to banishment, violence, and death.

Sometimes it's nice to simply focus on the banality of teenager hood.

Love, Simon was good, but I didn't LOVE it. It was funny, but not gut-busting, touching, but not obliterating. The acting was solid, not great. It was average, much like Maurice. And in that way, it was forward-thinking. It imagines a world where the consequences for being gay are minimal and that no matter what happens, one will land on the soft pillow of a loving family and supportive friends. Some people live in that world, but not everyone--not by far. I wish everyone lived in this world, but alas we live in a world where a blatant homophobe is Vice President and gay rights--and especially trans rights--are not a given in many states.

I'm a proponent of women's rights and LGBTQ rights above all. But the LGBTQ rights fires me up more--most likely because it's not MY rights I'm fighting for, but someone else's. I'm not trying to act like I'm a saint here, but I truly feel a blinding rage when I encounter homophobia that I, weirdly, do not feel when faced with sexism. I liken it to the way I feel about my sister: challenge me, and I'll get mad. Challenge my sister, and I will fucking kill you.

So even though Love, Simon is far from my favorite movie this year, or any year, I can't help but love a vision of the world that makes it easy, average, and even boring for gay people. Where the biggest challenge is who to ask to prom and what to write your college essay about. Everyone deserves a boring, safe, average life. And so I admire those people who do not live a boring life--who struggled and suffered so that their children had it easier than them. Men and women and other people with a non-binary gender identity who put their lives and psychological well-being on the line so that someday a world of Simons will exist. Every human deserves to be a Simon, who is loved beyond measure and, in being loved, spreads that love outward. It's such a simple solution, and yet we still struggle to achieve it.

Grade: B

Fine Bloodlines

Movies: Thoroughbreds

Advertised as "American Psycho meets Heathers", Cory Finley's Thoroughbreds defies all expectations. More feminist than Heathers are far less violent than American Psycho, this film can't be boxed.

The first full-length film by Finley, Thoroughbreds focuses on the relationship between Lily (Anya Taylor-Joy, she of the large eyes) and Amanda (Olivia Cooke, an amazingly-talented up-and-comer). Childhood pals, the young ladies have grown apart in high school, mostly due to Amanda's reputation as a disturbed individual (which I'll elaborate on below). Amanda's mom pays Lily to tutor Amanda for the SATs, but really she's paying Lily to stay friends with Amanda.

In fact, it's established early on (so I don't consider it a spoiler) that Amanda is a sociopath. Not necessarily a Patrick Bateman-esque psycho, but she discusses her complete lack of emotions with Lily: Amanda neither feels joy, nor hurt. She calls herself a "skilled imitator" of human emotion. While this initially freaks Lily out, she quickly realizes that it's nice to have a friend she can be completely honest with without the fear of hurting said friend's feelings or shocking them.

 Meanwhile, Lily doesn't exactly have a perfect life. She and her mom live with her insanely wealthy stepfather. Like...I'm talking marble statues in the foyer type wealthy. But Lily's stepfather, Mark (Paul Sparks, understated and menacing) is not a nice man. The movie hints at but never shows violence--sexual or otherwise--yet there is an implicit suggestion that Mark is, at best, a run-of-the-mill rich asshole and, at worst, a wife-beater and a stepdaughter-creeper. To Finley's credit, he allows the menace to float in the atmosphere rather than showing anything explicit.

So, after hearing Lily complain about Mark, Amanda casually suggests that they kill him. At first, Lily balks--mainly due to fear of getting caught. Eventually, her curiosity gets the best of her and she inquires about how they could actually pull off murder.

Amanda is already in hot water for doing something really bad...

***SPOILER ALERT***

...

...

Although we don't see it on screen, Amanda describes killing her horse. To be fair, the horse is crippled and her mom refuses to put it down, which makes Amanda's action arguably one of mercy. Still, if you don't like animal cruelty, be careful with this movie.

...

...

***END SPOILERS***

Since Amanda is under strict watch, she refuses to be the one to actually kill Mark, so the young ladies hire Tim (Anton Yelchin, in his final role before his untimely death in 2016), a drug-pusher and ne'er-do-well, to break in and shoot Mark during a weekend when both Lily and Amanda will be out of town.

Do things go according to plan? I bet you can guess that they do not.

I'll stop there with plot revelations and instead talk about something I REALLY appreciated about Thoroughbreds. Not only does it pass the Bechdel test, I couldn't help but observe that even though the film stars two beautiful, young actresses there are no stereotypical exploitative shots in the entire movie. The actresses are fully clothed throughout the entire movie. There's no sex. There's almost no sex talk. Why is this so cool and important? Well--how many movies and TV shows about teen girls (usually played by actresses older than their characters) linger on youthful, sexy bodies? How many movies and TV shows fetishize teen girlhood and teen sexuality? Look, I'm not against the portrayal of teen sexuality and all that, but it's refreshing to have a movie that focuses on teen girls and completely removes sex and sexiness from the story. It 100% focuses on friendship (albeit a pretty fucked up relationship).

And that's the other thing I liked about the movie: so many portrayals of teen girls are about how bitchy girls can be to one another. But Thoroughbreds has none of that. After some initial awkwardness, Lily and Amanda fall into a unique friendship. I say "unique" because, after all, Amanda is a sociopath and that creates some emotional barriers to say the least. But Lily isn't exactly an angel either. The two girls forge a connection that leads to a pretty surprising conclusion.

I want to be clear that Thoroughbreds is not a "feel-good" movie. It's not a film where everyone hugs and cries and says "I love you" in the end. But it's also not your typical teen movie and it defies genre expectations at nearly every turn. It's a dark, satirical look at what female friendship can be when women come together to bring down a *literal* patriarch.

Grade: A-

Due di Luca

Movies: I Am Love, A Bigger Splash

We're all obscene. Everyone's obscene. That's the whole fucking point. We see it and we love each other anyway. 

--"A Bigger Splash"


After watching the rapturous, sumptuous Call Me By Your Name about four times, I figured it was time to watch director Luca Guadagnino's earlier films: 2009's I Am Love and 2015's A Bigger Splash. While CMBYN is, in my opinion, the best of these three films (which Guadagnino considers to be a loose trilogy based around the concept of desire), I was not at all disappointed by the other two. They are both gorgeous, albeit very different in tone.

I Am Love has been described by Guadagnino as a "tragedy" and the critical consensus on Rotten Tomatoes says that the film "stumbles into melodrama". Indeed, it's a very "showy" film. The cinematography is saturated with color and the score is loud and dramatic, to the point where as if it's trying to crush you with music.

I Am Love follows the Recchi family--an incredibly wealthy clan living in Milan. Having made his fortune through creating a textile business, Edoardo Recchi Sr. passes the company to his son, Tancredi and grandson, Edoardo Jr. Edo Jr., meanwhile, wants to open a restaurant with his friend, Antonio, a chef. Antonio keeps popping up around the Recchi family, gaining the attention of Emma Recchi (Tilda Swinton), Tancredi's wife and Edo's mother. The two begin a passionate affair that leads to unforeseen consequences which affect the entire family. Roger Ebert wrote that I Am Love is less about class/wealth and more about the battle between "old and new...tradition and feeling". The audience sees that Emma's incredible wealth comes at a price: a lack of love in her marriage. It's a tale as old as time, the ol' golden handcuffs dilemma.

Like Call Me By Your Name, the plot of I Am Love isn't particularly complicated and the film spends time lingering on the small gestures that make up our daily lives, as well as food motifs (if peaches were to sex in CMBYN, then the Russian, fish-based soup ukha is to family in IAL). In fact, given Antonio's profession, food and sexual ecstasy are one in the same in I Am Love.

Though a few scenes feel a bit "film school 101" (in particular, a scene where Antonio and Emma make love outdoors and their grappling and thrusting is intercut with images of insects pollinating flowers--eye roll), I Am Love is excellent. It's beautiful, it's intense, and Tilda Swinton gives a great performance as a Lady Chatterley-esque woman who suddenly wants more out of life, no matter the cost.

Grade: B+

In contrast, Guadagnino has described A Bigger Splash as a "farce", and indeed the film is funnier and looser than both I Am Love and Call Me By Your Name and filled with surprises and human foibles.

Tilda Swinton plays Marianne Lane, a world famous rockstar who is on vacation in Italy, recovering from throat surgery and on strict orders not to talk. Her boyfriend, Paul (Matthias Schoenaerts), is with her. After a suicide attempt, he is in recovery for alcoholism. Let's just say the two desperately need a break from the demands of the real world.

But things fall apart when Marianne's ex, Harry Hawkes (Ralph Fiennes in an unforgettable and hilarious role), shows up with his estranged daughter, Penelope (Dakota Johnson). Fiennes plays Harry with a sort of crazed joie de vivre. It's as if he has cocaine instead of blood pumping through his veins. He's also oblivious to the opinions and needs of others: he fills up the empty fridge at Marianne and Paul's villa with about 30 bottles of wine, despite knowing Paul is in recovery. He sings a romantic duet with Penelope at a karaoke bar, not getting that it looks to outsiders like he's schtupping his daughter.

Ralph Fiennes is, hands down, the best part of A Bigger Splash. He's outrageous, but insightful. The quote at the top of this review is from his character.

Drama builds as Harry flirts with Marianne and Penelope makes a pass at Paul, and without revealing too much I'll say that the film takes a pretty surprising turn about 2/3 of the way through. I have to admit that I enjoyed the first half of A Bigger Splash immensely, but got a little restless in the second half and by the end the film, it didn't really hold my attention. But that could have been my state of mind more than the film itself.

Unique, funny, sexy, and surprising, A Bigger Splash is solid, if not reaching the heights of Call Me By Your Name.

Grade: B+

The three films actually balance each other well: I Am Love is sad, not funny in the least, beautiful, and distant. A Bigger Splash is funny, warm, goofy, and--though not without tragedy--not as much of a downer. Call Me By Your Name takes the best of both films: it's warm, intimate and emotionally accessible; sad, but not melodramatic; funny in parts but not a comedy; and beautiful but in a sensual, naturalistic way (as opposed to a performative **artistic** way). It seems to me after watching these three films that Guadagnino is a naturally gifted artist who has been honing his craft and getting better and better. His next movie, slated to be released this year, is a remake of Dario Argento's horror film Suspiria, and I couldn't be more excited to see it--as well as whatever he does next.

Eye of the Panther

Movies: Black Panther

Well, what can I say about Black Panther that hasn't already been said in the thousands of think pieces written about the boundary-breaking film? What can I say that hasn't been said by the fact that the film surpassed a billion dollars at the box office worldwide? What can I say as a white person who is so used to seeing white people on screen that I will never understand what it means to be "underrepresented"?

All I can say is that Black Panther met and surpassed my expectations.

Even though I'm not a diehard Marvel fanatic, I knew I would enjoy Black Panther. I usually go out of my way to see *certain* superhero movies: Wonder Woman, Deadpool, Logan. You know, the good ones! And I knew Black Panther would be one of the good ones because it was directed by Ryan Coogler who managed to get me invested in a movie about boxing (Creed) and because it stars a lineup of great actors, who to a one give excellent performances.

And I'm so, so glad that Black Panther was great because its place in cinema is so seminal: the first mainstream superhero movie to have a nearly entirely black cast. Representation matters, especially now. And anyone who claims they don't "see" race or think that such representative films are "pandering" are, at best, fools, and at worst racists.

I think what I liked most about the film was its villain, Erik "Killmonger" Stevens, played with understandable rage and deep wells of sadness by the great Michael B. Jordan. Killmonger is the latest in a tradition of misunderstood villains--the best type of villain, in my opinion. Like Heath Ledger's Joker or Michael Fassbender/Ian McKellan's Magneto, Killmonger works as an antagonist because he's like, 85% right. Villains that are evil and sadistic for no reason tend to fall flat because the audience can't relate or empathize with them at all. One dimensional characters, no matter the genre of film, are just plain boring.

If you've seen the movie, you know that Killmonger is driven by righteous anger. Abandoned as a child, he grew up seeing white people dominate black people...all while knowing that his country of origin--Wakanda--had the tools the end black people's suffering around the world. While Killmonger takes his desire to help oppressed black people to a violent, if understandable, extreme--use Wakanda's vibranium to conquer white people--the root of his so-called "evil" is a desire for justice and a need to right wrongs.

And so, as I said, Killmonger is mostly right and I was very happy to see that the film treated his story--including his death--with a measure of respect and grace. I enjoy movies that blur the lines between good an evil: the troubled hero, a misunderstood antihero, etc. Why? Because that's what reality is: even our most respected and beloved heroes--Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, Gandhi--had darkness and weakness inside them. And even though we go to the movies to be entertained and escape into fantasy, we also go to see ourselves reflected on the silver screen. There is no greater beauty than the truth, and Erik Killmonger is a truthful villain.

In addition to this great villain,  Black Panther has so much more: a casino shoot-out, a thrilling car chase, Andy Serkis as a baddie with a weaponized arm, Martin Freeman as the token nice/hapless white guy...and a cadre of kick-ass warrior women who help the film pass the Bechdel test with flying colors. In particular, Letitia Wright, playing Shuri, King T'Challa's tech whiz kid sister, is a standout. I was so happy to see that roles for women weren't pushed to the side to make room for roles for men (of color)--meaning, one type of diversity doesn't need to outshine another type of diversity.

Black Panther succeeds on multiple levels--it is a great superhero movie, hands down, but it is also a Film that Matters. Following in the footsteps of Get Out, which was also a genre film (horror) that succeeded both politically and artistically, Black Panther finally gives black audiences a superhero that looks like them and puts black people in the center of the narrative. It also gives white audiences the chance to experience a movie where *we* are the minority. And that's a good thing.

Grade: A

Science Fiction Double Feature

Movies: Annihilation, Moon

Two science-fiction film: one filled with all the bells and whistles of special effects, but too confusing to enjoy; the other pleasantly lo-fi and surprisingly emotional.

Annihilation

Alex Garland's film Annihilation is based on the first book of Jeff VanderMeer's "Southern Reach" trilogy. I have not read VanderMeer's books but I intend to because I've heard nothing but praise for them. That said, the film Annihilation left me cold. Much like Garland's last film, Ex Machina, and Denis Villeneuve's Arrival, I *wanted* to like Annihilation more than I actually did.

A strength of Annihilation is it's nearly all-female cast. A team of female scientists and a paramedic head into "the shimmer"--a mysterious bubble that has emerged in Florida and has been growing larger and larger over a period of months and years. Lena (Natalie Portman), a biologist and soldier, has a strong motive for going headfirst into what might be a suicide mission: her husband, Kane (Oscar Isaac), was part of an expedition into the shimmer and he was the only one in his group to return. But Kane is not the same at all. Something happened inside that bubble, and Lena intends to find out what.

The group is led by Dr. Ventress (Jennifer Jason Leigh), an emotionally opaque psychologist. The rest of the team includes Cass (Tuva Novotny), a geologist and surveyor, Josie (Tessa Thompson), a physicist, and Anya (Gina Rodriguez), a paramedic.

The fact that this film has an all-female team of scientists is what, for me, tips this film from C to C+ territory. That, and a few incredibly good/scary scenes.

But I found the film to be, overall, very confusing and just...*meh*. I didn't *care* about these characters enough to feel anything when most of them met an untimely fate. The final chunk of the film, which is supposed to explain what the fuck is going on in the shimmer was too weird and abstruse for me to understand. I came home and read the plot synopsis of the book to see if it might explain something I missed, but the plot of the book and the plot of the movie appear to be significantly different.

I felt unfulfilled by Annihilation. On the plus side, seeing it bumped VanderMeer's book to the top of my reading list. But I left the theatre with the feeling that I paid nearly 12 bucks (plus popcorn) to watch a movie that confused and annoyed me.

Grade: C+

***

Moon

Actor Sam Rockwell is having a year. He's up for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his performance as a racist and pretty dumb cop in Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. But he has been acting for decades now and the real gold is his performance, playing opposite...himself!!?? in Duncan Jones modest and heartfelt film Moon.

Moon takes place in the not-too-distant future where earthlings have learned that they can harvest helium-3 from lunar soil to provide clean energy on earth. Rockwell plays Sam Bell, a man employed by Lunar Industries to maintain operations of the facility at Sarang Station, a lunar base. He has a three year contract which is almost up and he's excited because he'll get to see his wife and their 3 year old daughter very soon. He's also going a bit stir-crazy living by himself for three years with only Gerty (voiced by Kevin Spacey--gross, but also, Spacey has a good voice for this role), a robot that pretty much does everything from heal burn wounds to cut hair, for company.

But things go haywire when Sam gets into an accident while driving a harvester (a moon-tank, if you will) and then wakes up in the infirmary with no memory of the accident. Gerty tells him that central base is barring him from leaving the station until he is fully healed, but he convinces Gerty to let him outside to check on the outer shell of the station. Once out, he goes back to the accident site and finds a body. A body of a man that looks exactly like him.

He brings the man back and Gerty nurses the man back to health. Once the man is up, he confronts Sam. They're both Sam Bell--they look identical and have the same memories.

You don't want spoilers? Stop reading now...

***

***


...yup, Sam and Sam are clones of the ORIGINAL Sam Bell (safely back on earth years ago). In order to save moolah, Lunar Industries only hired and paid one Sam and then made identical copies of the man and uploaded his memories to each one. So each Sam awakens thinking he's Sam Bell, with only three years to spend up on the moon until he can see his wife and child again. And when that time is up, the clone goes into a deep freeze and a new clone is awakened.

The problem, of course, is that the clones are not mindless robots. They're humans who need to eat and can get hurt and--importantly--feel emotions. When the two clones meet and figure out what is going on, they're kind of fucked because now they know that they will never leave the station and never see their loved ones again.

The film Moon was made at a relatively modest budget of $5 million and it shows--but it doesn't show *too much* if you know what I mean. Moon doesn't look cheap, it looks modest. And the special effects aren't the point. According to Wikipedia, Duncan Jones and his writing partner wrote this film specifically for Sam Rockwell, which is pretty cool, and Rockwell is fucking perfecto. He really sells the emotions of realizing he's just a cog in a machine, albeit a cog who feels love for a wife and child he remembers, but will never see.

Moon ends on a hopeful note, which I appreciated given the emotional investment that I put into the character of Sam. I really enjoyed Moon a lot and was surprised at how intensely it made me feel.

Grade: A-