Shadow Self

Movies: Us

Jordan Peele's sophomore film after 2017's groundbreaking Get Out is one of those movies you're either never going to see (because you're scurred...or racist) or you saw on opening weekend.

SO, with that said, I will not hold back on revealing plot points and spoilers in this review. If you are planning to see the film and don't want to be spoiled, please do so and then read the review afterward.

***

The basic plot of Us is revealed in the movie trailer: a family of four, Adelaide and Gabe Wilson (Lupita Nyong'o and Winston Duke), and their children, Zora and Jason (Shahadi Wright Joseph and Evan Alex) travel to a beach vacation where they encounter a family outside their home. When the family breaks in, they realize that the family looks exactly like them. "It's us" Jason says, in awe. The rest of the trailer doesn't reveal any details other than to suggest bloody carnage, but it's clear that doubles/doppelgangers are a huge part of the plot.

The film actually opens in 1986. Young Adelaide wanders away from her parents at the Santa Cruz boardwalk and enters a fun house with mirrors where she sees a girl who looks exactly like her, yet...isn't. The camera cuts away as young Adelaide's eyes widen in terror, leaving the audience to guess what happened during the encounter.

In present day, adult Adelaide is extremely anxious when Gabe suggests meeting up their friends, the Tylers (Elisabeth Moss and Tim Heidecker in plum roles as a hard-drinking, bitchy white couple with mean twin daughters), at the beach in Santa Cruz. Adelaide has noticed weird coincidences adding up since the vacation started that remind her of her haunting experience in 1986 and also make her feel that the other girl is somehow getting closer. Turns out, she's completely right.

That evening, when the other family breaks in, Adelaide's double, also played by Nyong'o and going by the name "Red", tells the family a sad fairy tale about a girl who lives in comfort with plenty to eat and soft toys to play with while another little girl is hungry all the time and only has cold, sharp toys to play with. The story explains that Red and Adelaide are "tethered", but where Adelaide has a wonderful life of love and comfort, Red's life is marked with sorrow and want. Red introduces her husband and children who don't speak and seem to be controlled on some level by Red. After handcuffing Adelaide, Red bids her nonverbal husband, Abraham, to kill Gabe; her sinister daughter, Umbrae, to chase after Zora; and her crawling and masked son, Pluto, to go play with Jason.

Each Wilson family member gets a showdown with their doppelganger and all of them manage to escape relatively unscathed (Gabe's showdown with Abraham on a boat is both terrifying and funny in turn). Meanwhile, the Tylers are being massacred by their own doubles across town. This is the part where I as a viewer was like "oooh, there's a whole other level to this shit". The trailer held back on revealing that it wasn't just the Wilson family that have doubles and when the Tethered Tylers show up, you start to wonder what's *really* going on.



After the Wilsons show up at the Tylers and have to kill their doubles (something something people of color being burdened with white people's troubles in addition to their own? Yep.) they turn on the TV to find out that this is happening all over the United States: people in red jumpsuits with golden scissors are coming out of sewers and stabbing people and then joining hands to form a human chain.

Adelaide seems to be the most in tune with what is happening--she points out that they can't hide from their Tethered because the whole point of being, um, tethered is that their doubles know how to find them. Her idea is to drive down the coast to Mexico, which makes sense given that this invasion seems to be an American phenomenon (more on this later).

The film climaxes with Red kidnapping Jason and going back to the old fun house, leading Adelaide to follow her and discover an underground network of tunnels and bunkers where all these Tethereds have been living. Red, during her final showdown with Adelaide explains that the Tethered are clones, but in body only. Scientists were able to clone a body, but not a soul, meaning that everyone above ground was inadvertently puppeting a Tethered below ground. The scientists abandoned the project, leaving the clones to bumble around below the surface of the United States, until one of them--Red, naturally--became the leader of the others and planned her spectacular revenge. She is the only Tethered who can talk and who seems able to think for herself. Gathering inspiration from the failed Hands Across America campaign from 1986, she leads the Tethered to stage an uprising--the "Untethering"--against the humans living above ground. She explains all this before Adelaide jabs a fire poker into her chest and kills her. Adelaide then finds Jason and assures him the nightmare is finally over...

...ok, but wait a second. How would Red know about Hands Across America? And why is she the *only* Tethered who can talk? In the final moments of the movie, we see Adelaide's entire flashback to the 1986 incident in the fun house--turns out the woman we thought was the "real" Adelaide throughout the whole movie was, in fact, a Tethered and Red is the "real" Adelaide. Of course, this makes us go back and replay every moment of the movie looking for clues and makes us rethink Red as the villain.

But the bigger question beyond Red/Adelaide is who the real "monsters" are--the Tethered or their above ground counterparts? Or neither? Or both? Peele has said multiple times that, unlike Get Out, Us is not about race. While some articles have argued that Us is about the "double consciousness" that people of color in the United States experience, as described by W.E.B. Dubois, I also think the film is about privilege--specifically how privilege plays out in the United States.

For one thing, the sad fairy tale Red tells about the two little girls is a tale of privilege: in order for one girl to have delicious food, soft toys, and a loving family, another little girl has to go without. Every time above ground Adelaide experienced something wonderful, underground Red experienced pain and suffering. And while privilege and access to resources and love is not a zero-sum game, the message that in order for there to be "haves" there have to be "have nots" is clear.

Also, take into account the lives of the Tethered: they live underground and don't get to see the sun; they can't talk or read and have no one to teach them; they live off of raw rabbit meat since it is the most convenient food source. They shuffle around like mental patients in a Victorian asylum, literal shadows of their above ground counterparts who are having fun and enjoying life.

Finally, consider that when the Wilson family asks the Tethered family who they are, Red answers "We're Americans." Her obsession with Hands Across America, one of the last ties to her life before she was forcibly swapped and her real Tethered took over her life above ground, is interesting because it was a patriotic campaign to raise money for homelessness and hunger in the United States that memorably didn't do very well--the goal was to raise $50 million and only $15 million was raised. It's an example of a token, feel-good effort to help vulnerable people that ultimately didn't pan out since our systemic institutions of inequality are too deeply entrenched to be fixed with people joining hands.

Even the title of the film, Us, is an abbreviation for "United States".

So, clearly Peele is sending a message about the hypocrisy of Americans and our willingness to live our lives on the backs of less fortunate people. He says the film is not about race specifically, but of course race and privilege are intimately entwined. We are a country, after all, built on the back-breaking labor of slaves and, once slavery was abolished, on the back-breaking labor of the less privileged so that a precious few many secure their place at the top of the totem poll. And if you want to blow the picture up to a larger scale, we as a country--even the poorest among us--enjoy pleasures and conveniences in life only made possible through the near-slave labor of many people in other countries where the wealth gap is ever more extreme. 

Us is about separation and division, as symbolized by those golden scissors: we are separated unto ourselves; we are separated unto our fellow countrymen; we are separated as a country unto our fellow humans. In any given situation, we might be our "real" selves--above ground, privileged, the "haves", or we might be the Tethered, suffering so that others may have a little more.

Grade: A-

Woman of a Certain Age

Movies: Gloria Bell

It's telling that Sebastian Leilo's Gloria Bell has a 94% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, according the to critics, but only a 47% rating according to audience members. Why the discrepancy? I believe it's because the previews for Gloria Bell advertise a slightly different type of story than what you experience during the actual movie. The previews tell a story of a radiant, middle-aged woman (Julianne Moore, a revelation of humanity in this film), Gloria, who falls for a kind, lonely man, Arnold (John Turturro, wonderful as always). The actual movie depicts a story slightly more complicated, but nonetheless absolutely beautiful and deeply empathetic.

Leilo, who has quickly become one of my favorite directors, based this film on his own 2013 film, Gloria, which basically is the same plot but set in Chile (Leilo's country of origin). In this Americanized update, Gloria Bell is a stunning woman in her 50s who is divorced with two grown kids (Michael Cera and Caren Pistorius) and a pretty fulfilling life without a partner. She does well at her job at an insurance company, takes "laughing yoga" classes where groups of women engage in laughter exercises, and goes out to a disco that caters to middle-aged men and women. Gloria is the woman I aspire to be at that age: grounded, kind, strong, and quirky enough to engage in activities that keep life fun and interesting.

When she meets Arnold at the disco, they hit it off immediately, making love the first night they meet. Arnold is more recently divorced and seems glued to his constantly-ringing phone. But he also owns a paintball park and teaches Gloria to shoot a paintball gun and then reads Spanish poetry to her. He's fun and cute (he's John Turturro giving serious DILF vibes) even if he is a bit quiet and depressed.

*** Spoilers***

But the red flags start flying when Gloria brings Arnold to her son's birthday party and he reveals the level of dependency his ex-wife and adult daughters have on him. They don't work, they emotionally abuse him, and he's still very tied to them in an unhealthy way. Additionally, Arnold can't deal with meeting Gloria's ex-husband (Brad Garrett in an excellent small role), who is a bit of a sad sack himself, but very vocal about how much he and Gloria were in love back in the old days. Without telling anyone, Arnold leaves the party. Gloria is worried, then humiliated, then angry. But Arnold desperately tries to get a second chance, only to blow it a second time in a hugely spectacular way.

Despite these blows, Gloria never loses her sense of dignity and humor. Even when she's falling down drunk after a massive disappointment, you know that this is an adventure for her, not a defeat. And you know that the only one who deserves to feel embarrassed is Arnold who throws away an amazing woman to be at the beck and call of his emotionally destructive ex and wretched daughters.

***end spoilers***

What makes Gloria Bell so different from all those other "women of a certain age" films like It's Complicated and Something's Gotta Give is that this film is so much more true to life, and yet not a downer even when things get rough for the characters. It hits the sweet spot between "real" and "hopeful". Gloria LOVES dancing, and even when she's down on her luck, music is something she can always turn to. The film may be a bit "Hollywood" in the sense that Moore honestly has the body of a 30 year old (you see a lot of her hot bod in this movie), but otherwise is one of the least Hollywood depictions of middle-aged love and life I've seen. It revels the beauty to be found in the small things, like taking a yoga class or drinking a cold martini or hearing "Gloria" by Laura Branigan on the radio.

I've heard people lament aging not only because of the physical and health aspects of getting older, but also because once you've had X number of experiences, life stops being fresh and interesting. I personally feel that life is as exciting as we choose to make it--there's no rule that says we can't try new things or seek pleasure as we age. There's no rule that says we can't find joy in the mundane. There's no rule that says we can't have sex and create new friendships and romances as we age. Realistically, many people are single in middle-age, especially these days. Divorce numbers are down, but they're still high. So my question to you, reader is this: if you end up "alone" in your 40s, 50s, or older, what are you going to do? Personally, I hope I "go down dancing" like Gloria Bell says she wants to. Because I know that age really is just a mindset and that life has the potential to be fun, joyous, and meaningful until the end.

Grade: A

Danse Macabre

Movies: Climax

Director Gaspar Noe is infamous among movie buffs for his violent, decadent films. He is probably most well-known for directing the film Irreversible which features a 9-minute, extremely realistic rape scene. I have not seen Irreversible and though I am curious, I gotta say that I'll probably never be in the mood to watch graphic depictions of assault.

Climax is the first Noe film I've seen and it has been called his most "accessible" film by movie critics. Even so, it is a doozy. I saw the film alone in a theatre with maybe 10 other audience members, four of whom walked out (one guy said "fuck that!" as he left, as if anyone cared about his opinion).

The film follows a troupe of French dancers who have a rehearsal in what appears to be a church or school basement. After the rehearsal, which is filmed in real time and is visually stunning to watch (the entire cast, with the exception of actress Sophia Boutella, are professional dancers), the dancers cut loose, drink, eat, and chat with one another. But all of a sudden, everyone simultaneously begins to feel weird...they quickly realize that someone has spiked their sangria with LSD or some other hallucinogenic drug.

From that moment, the party descends into a nightmare of paranoia, violence, questionably coercive sexual hookups, and absolute mayhem. Noe uses the camera to disorient the viewer, turning it upside down so it looks like the floor is on the ceiling, and following the dancers and they movie throughout the building, which is dimly lit in gaudy, fluorescent red and green lights.

If you want to avoid spoilers, stop reading now!

I will give Climax this: it is visually stunning. The dance sequences, the camera work, and the lighting all add up to an intoxicating, immersive experience. Some might find it nausea-inducing, but I really dug it. The use of dancers instead of actors was a good choice as well, since actual dance sequences take up at least 20-30 minutes of the entire film (and they are truly amazing to watch). It also gives the film a lot of diversity in terms of race, sexual orientation, and gender expression which is really cool.

That said, I understand why some people walked out. Climax quickly becomes unnecessarily cruel. When the discovery of the spiked sangria first happens, one character who refused alcohol earlier because he doesn't drink is confronted and locked outside of the building in the snowy winter weather. Another character who wasn't drinking is confronted and when she reveals she's not drinking because she is pregnant, another female dancer calls her a liar and proceeds to knee her in the stomach and then kick her stomach when she falls down. As she begs for help, the other dancers gather around and scream at her to kill herself.

If you think that's bad, just wait until one of the young son of another dancer, probably 7 years old, who was watching the rehearsal sneaks out of his bed and is caught drinking the sangria. Mom, high as balls, locks him in the electrical closet, telling him not to touch the electric wires. Mom promptly loses the key to the closet and, of course, the power goes out and the dancers yell "Hahaha! Tito's fried" Tito's mom then commits suicide. Funnnnnnnn.

Still with me? There's also a scene where a male dancer makes out with his biological sister even though she tells him to stop and runs away crying while he chases her. There's another lesbian make-out that is, if not coercive, definitely not enthusiastically consensual.

There's also screaming (so, so much screaming), a dancer pissing themselves on the dance floor, a fistfight, and more! All of this debauchery and ruthlessness adds up to one big "why?" I'm fine with movie violence and cruelty if it serves even the smallest purpose, but Noe's thesis here appears to be "drugs are bad, mmmmkay?" And I have to wonder, does LSD actually cause this much of a freak-out? I mean, I guess if it's ingested in large doses and everyone else is taking it too it could lead to some crazy hallucinations, but you would think that people who have enough sense to either 1) call the police/an ambulance or 2) just go to their rooms and lock the door until they're sober again.

And the cherry on top of the bizarre sundae? You find out who spiked the sangria at the end when the person uses LSD eyedrops from a box that says "LSD" on it in big, black letters. Now, I'm not much of a drug user myself, so maybe I'm naive, but I don't think LSD comes in a box labeled "LSD". Maybe in France?

Overall, I'd give Climax an "A" for visuals, a "C-" for plot and a "B-" overall.

Grade: B-

Sheer Cliff

Movies: Free Solo

Free Solo is an undeniably excellent documentary in part because of how polarizing it can be to the audience.

The film follows Alex Honnold, a rock climber know for his incredibly difficult (and mind-blowingly dangerous) feats of free solo climbing, which is basically rock climbing but without ropes. Directors Elizabeth Chai Vasarhelyi and Jimmy Chin--the latter of whom has spent ten years filming Honnold climb--follow Honnold as he prepares a free solo climb never accomplished before: climbing El Capitan in Yosemite National Park. Though other climbers have scaled El Cap, no one has attempted to free solo it. Probably because it is a nearly impossible feat and, of course, one wrong move will have the climber plunging to their death.

This narrative crux is what makes Free Solo both exhilarating and upsetting. Free solo climbers die doing what they love often and the filmmakers don't know whether they'll capture a gambit so daring, so bananas, that it will go down in the annals of history...or just a really classy snuff film. They also don't know if by agreeing to film Honnold's climb they will inadvertently push him to take risks he would not normally take, thus taking on some responsibility if he were to die.

Honnold himself is an incredibly polarizing figure. He mentions that previous girlfriends have suggested that he has a personality disorder and, well, yeah, it kind of feels that way at times. The camera cuts away during a scene where he fills out a medical form that asks if he is depressed, but according to this article, Honnold answers that question in the affirmative during a podcast. Likewise, an MRI reveals that Honnold's amygdala, the fear center of the brain, has very low activity--meaning that it takes a lot to get his fear response to work.

Viewers are treated to cringe-inducing scenes of Honnold and his girlfriend, Sanni McCandless, who seem poorly matched by my (limited) view. Honnold tells her multiple times that he would never put her worries before his own desire to climb. When a fellow free solo climber Ueli Steck falls to his death during the period when Free Solo was being filmed, McCandless recounts bringing up Steck's wife to Honnold and Honnold saying "well, what did she expect?" And fair enough, it's McCandless's choice to remain in a relationship with Honnold, but putting aside the fact that he could basically die at any time--in fact, is likely to die given what his career is--Honnold comes off a a low-level sociopath. Or maybe that's too strong. He comes off as flat, single-minded, uncaring of other people generally, and unaffectionate. What a prize.

But the awkward scenes between Honnold and McCandless only add to the depth and nuance of Free Solo. It's interesting to see a man who basically doesn't care if he dies be held up as an athletic hero and it's hard to decide what you personally feel as a viewer of this film--should dare devils like Honnold be held up as heroes, exemplars, and examples of the power of (indescribably) hard work? Or should the be allowed to do what they do but not celebrated, considering how dangerous their passion is?

The film itself is absolutely thrilling--watching Honnold explain the intricacies of a particularly challenging section of El Cap that involves holding yourself to the rock using half your thumb and a toe while you karate kick to a slightly better foothold is dizzying. And then he fucking does it. Without rope. It goes from dizzying to vaguely nauseating.

The article I linked to above, which is from a climbing magazine, does a better job at explaining the mixed emotions one might feel about Free Solo--especially if one is a rock climber (I am not) and truly understands how insanely dangerous free soloing is. The author wonders if others will be inspired to take up free soloing after seeing the film--the implication being that the movie could directly lead people to, well, die. On the one hand, adults should feel free to pursue dangerous hobbies as long as no one else gets hurt. On the other hand, if Honnold were expounding the joys of auto-erotic asphyxiation, would we see him as a hero, or as someone in need of help and mental health services? How close to tempting death can a person get before they move from daring to suicidal?

Grade: A-

Fatal Mom-traction

Movies: Greta

From Whatever Happened to Baby Jane to Single White Female to Fatal Attraction, audiences seem to be unable to get enough of women losing their shit. While I find depictions of bunny boiling and hysterical screaming to be distasteful at best and downright offensive at worst, I found myself in the theatre watching Greta and moderately enjoying acclaimed veteran actress Isabella Huppert lure ingenue Chloe Grace Moretz into a game of cat-and-mouse by using the younger woman's own helpful nature against her.

Moretz plays Frances, a recent college graduate who moves into a lovely Tribeca loft with her wealthy friend from college, Erica (Maika Monroe, too talented for this role). When Frances sees a handbag left on the subway, she uses the owner's ID to find where she lives and return the bag in person. The bag's owner, Greta Hideg (Huppert) is an elegant, lonely woman in her 50s who lives in a cozy little apartment by herself. Frances and Greta bond over their losses--Greta's husband has passed and Frances lost her mother only a year ago. Frances convinces Greta to adopt a dog and the two women develop a friendship despite their age gap.

But...

Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers

...


One evening Frances is making dinner with Greta and stumbles across a cabinet containing nearly a dozen handbags identical to the one she found on the subway, each with the name of the person who returned it along with their phone number. Confused and upset, Frances abruptly leaves...only to turn her phone on the next day and see dozens and dozens of missed calls, texts, and voicemails from Greta. The woman is officially off her rocker. Oh, also? The dog dies. Don't see this movie if you don't wanna see a dog die.



***

End spoilers (kinda)


While Greta is fun in a campy way, especially in its final third which is reminiscent of Takashi Miike's Audition in some very specific ways, it's still upsetting to see depictions of what is clearly mental illness be used to goose audiences into a fear response. Much is made of Greta's loneliness and she has legitimate reasons to be lonely. Her husband is dead, her daughter is mysteriously not in the picture, and she's an older woman living by herself who longs for company. But the film is not interested in exploring the nuances of loneliness and fucked up family dynamics--it just wants to show Chloe Grace Moretz tied to a bed with a gag in her mouth.

On the other hand, Greta shows the consequences of authority figures not taking stalking seriously, even when the stalker becomes more aggressive by the day. The film is realistic in showing how the burden is placed on the stalkee to keep themselves safe while the stalker can get away with any number of behaviors that cause mental distress to their victim.

But ultimately Greta, directed by Neil Jordon who has made his career in directing high art trash pics such as Interview with the Vampire and the notoriously transphobic film The Crying Game, isn't a film that cares about much more than getting the audience to scream in fear and glee. It's moderately entertaining, but otherwise an empty and jaded movie that reminds us that no good deed goes unpunished.

Grade: B-