Racist Roleplay

 Movies: Antebellum

Sadly, I knew going into Antebellum that I wasn't likely to be impressed with it, given the very lukewarm reviews that I read ahead of time. Now having watched it, I can say that I think the movie blew the opportunity to be a better movie. I was left thinking "that's it?". It's not the worst movie, but it's just...meh.

There's really no way to explain what this movie is about and why it's lacking without revealing major plot spoilers, so if you want to go in with fresh eyes please stop reading now. Otherwise, onto the plot revelations! 

Directed by Gerard Bush and Christopher Renz, Antebellum opens on a confederate plantation. The very first scene involves an enslaved woman being shot by the head overseer, Jasper (Jack Huston, best known for his role as Richard Harrow in Boardwalk Empire. This movie is definitely a step down for him). This plantation is especially strict with its enslaved people, who are prohibited from speaking unless spoken to, even amongst themselves. Janelle Monae plays Eden, the favorite slave of the man who appears to be the head of the plantation. He doesn't have a name and is referred to only as "him". Eden dreams of escaping but know that unless she waits for the right moment she will surely die.

And then BOOM, we're suddenly in the present day! Monae plays Veronica Henley, a successful sociologist and public intellectual who has written a book about coping mechanisms Black women engage in to survive in the white patriarchy. She is also a wife and mother, though she feels guilt that her work takes her away from her daughter, Kennedi, for long periods of time. 

Veronica is at a summit in Louisiana, leaving dinner with her friends Dawn (Gabourey Sidibe, easily the highlight of the movie) and Sarah (Lily Cowles) when she is kidnapped by Jasper and Elizabeth (Jena Malone, absolutely gnawing on each scene she's in with a ridiculous southern accent). If one has not already inferred, these people are all involved in some kind of super secret Civil War Reenactment camp which includes a plantation filled with Black people snatched out of their daily lives and forced into slavery. This was not a shocking twist to me, since I already knew about it going in, but if you pay attention to context clues even from the very beginning (one enslaved man calls the confederates "crazy fuckers", which I don't think was the typical parlance of the antebellum south) you can figure it out.

The movie then goes back to "Eden's" current life on the plantation. After a woman who is newly arrived at the plantation and looks up to Eden/Veronica kills herself, she decides that now is the time to escape. Conveniently, the man who rapes her every night has a cell phone (turns out, he's Senator Denton, up for reelection in Louisiana. Do I believe a senator from Louisiana would kidnap Black women and force them into slavery? Ab-so-lutely). Veronica and another man on the plantation, Eli, try to use his phone to escape, but Denton wakes up and kills Eli. Veronica manages to wound him, and drags him into the "burning shed" (where they cremate enslaved people who try to escape). She manages to get Jasper in there too and burns those white fuckheads alive. Hell yeah!

Of course, the final confrontation is between Veronica, now on horseback, and Elizabeth, whom it turns out is Senator Denton's daughter and is the most racist bitch alive. She dies too, and good riddance. Then, Veronica rides out of the reenactment camp to freedom. Cut to credits.

Ok, so here are my issues with the movie:

1) There's no explanation about how this secret plantation came to be and how so many people (one scene involves an entire battalion of "confederate soldiers" having dinner there) can keep it a secret, especially when you pair it with the fact that all these Black people who have been kidnapped have, you know, families and what not who would be looking for them. In 2020 racism hides in plain sight. That's why it's so insidious. We don't need secret plantations in order to keep racism alive. All we need are white people who do jack shit. 

2) The end of the movie is anti-climatic and, honestly, not revenge-y enough. Say what you will about Quentin Tarantino, but the guy knows how to do a revenge movie. Antebellum is no Django Unchained. I wanted all these white assholes to SUFFER. They all died too quickly, in my book. I wanted Janelle Monae to cut some dicks off and pluck some eyeballs out. The whole escape scene is just too quick and too tidy. This is a horror movie, and I wanted horror.

3) The main problem is that the movie lingers over scenes of enslavement, including beatings and rapes. It's not the *most* violent movie (see Django, above) but it's just kind of like...why? I guess the real question is: how does this movie contribute to the discourse on race in horror films and/or cinema that looks at slavery? You might say, well, it doesn't. It's just entertainment! Hmm, some entertainment. If you're going to make a movie about enslavement and white violence on Black bodies, it better either 1) have something to say or 2) be a damn good movie. Antebellum is neither.

About the only thing Antebellum *does* say is: don't trust historical reenactors, especially white ones, especially ones that want to play confederate soldiers. Trust me, I live in Virginia and I already know not to trust them. It's fuckin' weird. There are also historical reenactors who like to play Nazis. We have a word for those people: Nazis. 

Antebellum argues that racism is alive and well in 2020, which is kind of like a movie being made about how water is wet. White people don't need to create a double-super-secret plantation in order to violate and torment Black people. All they need to do is call the police. Or vote for Trump (or, hell, Biden). I fear that this movie will make some white people say "well, gosh, at least I'm not THAT racist. I'm a *good* white person." 

Overall: Antebellum is...fine? It's not good, it's not horrendously bad. It's just...*shrug emoji*. Definitely not worth paying $20 to rent, but more fool me I guess!

Grade: C+

The COVID Diaries--Part 10

 Movies: various

Here is what I am watching (so far) during the quarantine for COVID-19.

***

The Devil All the Time

This recently released on Netflix film directed by Antonio Campos is bleak as hell. Starring a superlative cast, including Bill Skarsgard, Tom Holland, Robert Pattinson, Riley Keough, Mia Wasikowska, and many more excellent actors, The Devil All the Time follows two generations of men who live in shitty little towns in West Virginia and Ohio during the 1950s and 60s. 

Skarsgard plays Willard Russell, a WWII vet who only dreams of marrying the nice girl who works a local restaurant in Knockemstiff, OH and owning a home of his own. He gets his wish, and he and his wife Charlotte (the cute as a button Haley Bennett) have a son, Arvin (played as a teen/adult by Tom Holland). But life is not easy in Knockemstiff and tragedy hits the Russells and hits them hard. Because this is the 1950s, Willard turns to hardcore-bordering-on-insane religious fundamentalism in the face of difficult times rather than therapy and ends up traumatizing his young son in the process. The Devil All the Time uses religious fundamentalism to show how violent men can cause absolute havoc on the women and children around them. This is definitely not a pro-religion film.

Arvin grows up affected by the hail of tragedies that befall his family and moves in with his grandmother in Coal Creek, WV, where he becomes the protector of his stepsister, Lenora (played as a teen by Eliza Scanlen). But he can't protect the pious Lenora from a predatory fire-and-brimstone preacher, Preston Teagardin (played by Robert Pattinson, absolutely chewing the scenery here). Eventually, she faces the same fate as her mother, Helen (Mia Wasikowska), whose only crime was loving another insane preacher (Harry Melling). 

I found The Devil All the Time to be extremely well-acted, entertaining (though depressing), but not without its problems. Namely, the film focuses on men and women are simply there to foolishly love them, be protected by them, or become their victims. The film is also quite violent and disturbing, with scenes I won't soon forget such as a preacher dumping a jar of live spiders on his head to prove his faith, or WWII soldiers coming across a crucified and flayed soldier who is unfortunately still alive and gasping in agony. Trust: this is not a feel-good film. Still, I found it to be a very good film. 

Grade: B+

***

I'm Thinking of Ending Things

I wanted to like Charlie Kaufman's latest film, based on the polarizing novel by Iain Reed, but I just couldn't get into it. It was too slow, weird, and esoteric for me. Jessie Buckley is the narrator and protagonist of the film. Her name is unknown to us, but she is referred to as Lucy, Lucia, and Louisa throughout the movie. She is on a wintry road trip with her boyfriend of just a couple months, Jake (Jesse Plemmons), and they are traveling to have dinner with his parents (Toni Collette and David Thewlis). Lucy is haunted by an intrusive thought that she is "thinking of ending things" with Jake. 

When they reach Jake's parents' home, things go from weird to weirder. Lucy sees a picture of herself as a child hanging on the wall, and Jake insists that it's a picture of *himself* as a child. Dinner with the parents is awkward as hell, and Jake's mom and dad seem to keep getting older and older as the night wears on. Lucy keeps insisting they need to leave because she has work the next day, but everyone ignores her. Finally, they leave, but the ride home is weird too and leads Jake and Lucy to a high school where they confront a janitor who may or may not be Jake as an old man.

Obviously, I'm Thinking of Ending Things is meant to be symbolic and dreamlike (or nightmare-like, to be more accurate). The plot is meandering and never really goes anywhere. The film changed some aspects of the book--aspects that actually explain the events better. Meaning, the movie went out of its way to be more confusing and open-ended than the book. For better or for worse. For worse, in my opinion. 

But I'll give the film a C+ for its balls and creativity, as well as for the hilarious and excellent performances of David Thewlis and Toni Collette, whose characters bring a sense of levity into an otherwise bleak and boring film. But I'm thinking of never watching this movie again, to be honest.

Grade: C+

***

A Serious Man

Considered to be the Coen brothers' most personal film, A Serious Man is yet another bleak film, though not without a healthy dose of the patented Coen absurdity and humor. Michael Stuhlbarg plays Larry Gopnik, a professor of physics in 1967 whose wife is leaving him for widower Sy Ableman (Fred Melamed). His brother, Arthur (Richard Kind), is mentally ill and has moved in with the Gopniks permanently, much the the consternation of Larry's wife and daughter. Meanwhile, Larry's son, Danny (Aaron Wolff), has a plot line of his own, involving preparing for his Bar Mitzvah and experimenting with marijuana (which inevitably leads to an epic scene where Danny attempts to read the Torah while high as a kite). 

A Serious Man is a pitch-black comedy steeped in Jewish references and themes, so much so that this gentile probably didn't quite "get" all of it. Over the course of the film, Larry visits multiple rabbis for advice, only to be given weak advice or riddles and parables that go nowhere. The opening of the film, which takes place in a 19th century shtetl, suggests that Larry's ancestors might be cursed, which means that Larry himself is cursed. It certainly seems that way, given that throughout the film Larry is blackmailed, cuckolded, stolen from, and generally treated poorly. What could frustrate viewers is that there is no resolution or explanation. Larry Gopnik isn't a bad man. He's a "serious man", in fact, who has always done right by his community and family. Yet he is bedeviled by bad luck. A lot of movie watchers don't like films to reflect real life, which is often filled with bad luck that has no obvious reason or cause for it. So, if you're a fan of dark humor and ambiguity, A Serious Man might be the film for you. If not, you can always just rewatch The Big Lebowski.

Grade: B

***

Horns

Horns is one of the weirder movies I've seen in a while. It has a really fascinating premise (and is based on the book by Joe Hill) but the execution is middling. Daniel Radcliffe plays Ignatius (Ig) Perrish, a young man whose girlfriend, Merrin (Juno Temple), was raped and murdered. Ig is the main suspect although he is clearly devastated by the loss of the love of his life. After one drunken night, Ig wakes up with literal horns protruding from his skull. The horns have an effect on others: they provoke people into telling Ig their sins and their most dark desires, from hitting a screaming child to having sex with a coworker to eating an entire dozen donuts. Ig is also able to encourage bad behavior and make people give in to temptation. Everyone is affected except for his friend Lee (Max Minghella) who is unable to see the horns. 

Throughout the film, more information about what really happened on the night of Merrin's death comes to light. I don't think it's much of a spoiler to say that Ig did not kill Merrin. There is a final confrontation between Ig and Merrin's murderer that feels over the top (in addition to the horns, Ig is able to control snakes and can command them to attack) and has some pretty awful CGI. Overall, the film feels overstuffed, ridiculous, and pretty misogynistic. Which is a shame, since I've heard the book is actually pretty good and actually have some feminist themes.

The best part of Horns is Daniel Radcliffe's performance as the grieving, angry, and occasionally devilish Ig. He brings emotional honesty, dark sensuality, and a sense of humor to a role that could have been cringe-worthy. But I'd go ahead and skip the film and just read the book instead.

Grade: C+

***

What Keeps You Alive

I was so disappointed in the Canadian thriller What Keeps You Alive. The movie is a queer take on intimate partner violence, which is not a super common thing to see in movies. Alas, the choices made by both of the main characters verge into "too stupid to live" territory making this movie feel absurd and irritating more than thrilling and nail-biting. 

It starts off promising: on their one year wedding anniversary, Jackie (Hannah Emily Anderson) takes her wife Jules (Brittany Allen) to her family's remote cabin in the Canadian wilderness. Everything seems to be going swimmingly for a romantic weekend away, until Jackie's childhood friend Sarah (Marth MacIsaac) shows up and calls Jackie "Megan". Jules, understandably, is confused and hurt to find out that Jackie never told her she changed her name.

The next day, Jules rows a canoe across the lake to Sarah's house and Sarah mentions offhand about a traumatic childhood incident in which her and Jackie's mutual friend, Jenny, drowned in that very lake. Sarah is surprised that Jackie never told Jules about the incident since it was a huge event growing up. Well, at this point you might be able to guess where the plot is going. (stop reading to avoid spoilers)...

...during a hike the next morning, Jackie pushes Jules off the edge of a cliff. However, Jules survives and is able to get away and hide, foiling Jackie's plan to simply call the cops and say that a horrible accident has occurred. This is where the too stupid to live parts start piling up. Jules actually returns to the house in order to tend to her wounds and call the police. But she is apprehended by Jackie, who instead of just finished the job right there is insistent that Jules needs to specifically die an credibly-looking accidental death (insurance fraud is involved). And we're not even halfway into the movie yet. More and more unbelievable actions, foolish choices, and questionable motivations stack up to the point where I was done with the movie. I genuinely did not care if Jules, the protagonist, lived or died. I just wanted this ridiculous movie to be over. 

So, I can only recommend the film to die-hard horror/thriller junkies and/or fans of queer cinema. Personally, I think the movie was a wasted opportunity to explore a horror trope (one's spouse is out to get them) through a queer lens. 

Grade: C