A Different Man
It's best to go into this dark, unsettling comedy knowing as little as possible, but you might need to know something about the movie to be enticed to see it. Written and directed by Aaron Schimberg, A Different Man tells the story of Edward (Sebastian Stan), a man with severe facial deformities (neurofibromatosis, to be specific) who ekes out a living acting in educational videos about how to treat coworkers with deformities. He lives in a small, crappy apartment and endures people taunting him or, weirdly, "recognizing" him and being overly friendly.
Edward partakes in a medical treatment that cures him, giving him a "normal" face. He reinvents his life, going by "Guy" now and working as a real estate agent. But when he discovers that his previous neighbor, a playwright, is working on a production about the deformed man she once lived next door to...he has to get involved.
A Different Man takes some VERY unexpected turns. I won't go into plot detail, but I will say that about halfway through, Oswald, played by an actor with actual facial deformities, Adam Pearson, shows up. Oswald is funny, charismatic, personable, intelligent...all the things that Edward/Guy never was and still isn't, despite his medical treatment. On the one hand, this film seems to suggest that if you have a shitty, boring personality your looks don't matter--you could be ugly or beautiful, but people won't want to be around you because you inherently suck. On the other hand, I don't think the writer/director *actually* believes this (anyone not living under a rock knows that a handsome face can get you nearly anything you want). While not fantasy or science-fiction, A Different Man takes a few liberties with reality, making the film feel like a satirical fairytale. A reverse "Beauty and the Beast" if you will.
Anyway, that's enough information to go on. I highly recommend this uncomfortable, strange film that explores identity in a really unique way. It's a great (although much more low key) companion piece to The Substance.
Grade: A-
***
The Shawshank Redemption
It's unbelievable that it took nearly 39 years for me to watch one of the most beloved films of all time. However, I did read the novella, penned by Stephen King, that the movie is based on so I pretty much knew the entire plot going in. Still, it was well worth the watch. The Shawshank Redemption, directed by Frank Darabont and starring Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman, lives up to its reputation as a wonderful, heart-wrenching film about an innocent man serving a life sentence in prison who finds not just one reason, but many reasons to keep living and not give up.
I probably don't have to go into the plot since I'm literally the last person on planet Earth to watch this movie. I really appreciate the role that books and libraries play in the film. I truly believe in the power of reading and information, so much so that I dedicated by career to it. It's awesome that Andy Dufresne finds his salvation in a prison library.
The Shawshank Redemption, similarly to another favorite of mine, It's a Wonderful Life, is a movie that feels old fashioned and nostalgic--conservative, even--but is actually pretty radical at its core. Just as It's a Wonderful Life can be read as a screed against capitalism, The Shawshank Redemption can be read as prison-abolition film. Given Stephen King's politics, I'm not surprised the tale really sticks it to the man (specifically, the greedy and cruel prison warden) in the end. But politics aside, it's just a damn good movie and I'm glad I watched it.
Grade: A+
***
Dead Poets Society
Dead Poets Society is a very, very nostalgic film for me and one of my all-time favorites. In recent years, the movie has been the subject of some critical opinion pieces that argue that it does not do justice to the humanities and that any English major worth their salt should see it as a sappy and reductionist film.
Good thing I wasn't an English major!
Look, DPL absolutely feels dated, and for many reasons. The argument that John Keating (Robin Williams in one of his most affecting roles) is a reckless and self-important teacher is a legitimate one. He is, of course, the person who encourages Neil Perry (Robert Sean Leonard) to simply tell his hard ass father (played by the excellent Kurtwood Smith) about his passion for acting and OF COURSE dad will magically understand. This leads to Neil playing the role of Puck in a production of A Midsummer Night's Dream, deliberately disobeying his father and getting pulled out of Welton Academy by the domineering old man. Which leads to Neil taking his own life. John Keating is indirectly responsible for Neil's death.
But, with age and experience, I appreciate how Dead Poets Society sits in moral ambiguity, with John Keating as both a hero *and* a villain. Or, not exactly a villain, but in many ways just as hard-headed as the stuffy old men who run Welton Academy. Keating has his agenda which works on many of the young men in the movie, namely Todd Anderson (Ethan Hawke), a shy boy trying to get out from under the shadow of his older brother, a well-known alum of Welton. But Keating's agenda fails Neil Perry. The whole system fails Neil Perry. Keating, his father, his mother, and Welton itself.
Art and poetry do not save Neil Perry. But art and poetry absolutely do save lives and make life worth living. These two facts sit at the center of a film that is both a tragedy and a triumph. And while the boys of Welton focus on the many well-known Dead (White, Male) Poets--Whitman, Thoreau, Frost, and Herrick among others--if you substitute an artist who changed YOUR life when you were 16 or 17 years old, the scenes of mirth, joy, secrecy, and danger we see when the young men gather in the cave to hold their meetings can feel very familiar and very personal.
Dead Poets Society, like Welton Academy, can feel stodgy through a modern lens. But if you let it, it can also allow you to access those feelings of wonder and excitement you found in discovering Radiohead or Godard or Anais Nin or whatever the fuck turned your mental and emotional crank as a teenager. I love this movie and I will sound my barbaric yawp to defend it to the death.
Grade: A+
***
Schindler's List
Good lord, this is a tough one. The last (and only) time I watched Schindler's List was when it aired unedited on TV in 1997. I think. I mean, I definitely watched it was when I was young-ish and have not watched it since because it seems masochistic and sick to revisit such a heartrending film.
But I did revisit it, and what is there to say? It's a masterpiece. To say that Steven Spielberg's Oscar-winning film is about "the Holocaust" is accurate...but it's really a movie that focuses on the moral arc of, well, a member of the Nazi Party, Oskar Schindler. Played by Liam Neeson, Schindler is more into money and women than anything else. At least as he is portrayed in the movie, he doesn't really care about Jewish people or their plight in Nazi-dominated Poland. But he doesn't really hate them either. If he can use them for cheap labor in his factory, he's cool with that. There's a darkly funny scene where Schindler's Jewish accountant, Itzhak Stern (played beautifully by Ben Kingsley), nearly gets put on a train going god knows where because he forgot his papers before heading to work one day. Schindler figures it out in the nick of time and gets him off this train. Schindler says to him, "What if I had been 5 minutes later? Then where would I be!?" to Stern.
As the war goes on, and particularly after witnessing a massacre at the Krakow Ghetto, Schindler realizes that his own Nazi Party might be a little...fucked up. Using his connections and his power of persuasion, he is able to build a factory at Plaszow concentration camp, hiring many of the people who previously worked for him who were sent to the camp. By the end of the war, Schindler was basically subverting the Nazis as much as he could and he spent all his money doing so. The film has that famous scene where Schindler agonizes that he "could have saved more" if he had been even more savvy or brave. Don't judge me, because this is the most stereotypical movie scene of all time to get teary-eyed over, BUT I GOT FUCKING TEARY-EYED. That haunting score by John Williams just kicks in and the waterworks start.
Schindler's List is a movie about genocide through the eyes and experience of a member of the genocidal party. This cannot be denied. And there are many other films and documentaries that capture the experience of survivors themselves and those are so important. But for what Schindler's List is, it does it so well. It's a movie about a man who moves from a privileged position of not caring to a position of caring to a position of active political sabotage that could cost him his life. I think that's a worthy story to tell. Movies about historical atrocities are so fucking difficult because how can you possibly capture the enormity of human evil in a two hour film? But I think Spielberg does an excellent job here and it's a film worth revisiting.
Grade: A+
***
Conclave
I saw this film, about Catholic Cardinals being messy, dramatic bitches, the day after the election and it held my attention long enough to briefly forget the shitshow that our country has become.
Starring all your absolute favorite old white men--Ralph Fiennes, John Lithgow, and Stanley Tucci--Conclave is about the process of electing the next Pope when the previous Pope has died. And all the wheelings and dealing that go into this supposedly divine process.
I'm not Catholic...or religious...so it all seems like a bunch of hooey and hokum to me. But damn, it makes for compelling watching. "Real Housewives of the Vatican". Fiennes plays Cardinal Thomas Lawrence, the convener of the conclave, in which a bunch of Cardinals lock themselves in a building until they have a majority vote on the next Pope. Lawrence is friends with Cardinal Bellini (Tucci), a very liberal potential Pope who would in theory guide the Church towards a more open mind towards women and gays. He is up against a more traditionalist Italian Cardinal, Tedesco (Sergio Castellitto) and a very socially conservative Nigerian Cardinal, Adeyemi (Lucian Msamati). There is a lot of bitching and backstabbing, uncovering of secrets and indiscretions, scheming and strategizing.
There is a "twist" at the end which I found pretty unnecessary and I think probably took away from the movie more than it added to it, but overall Conclave is a fun, gossipy thriller of a movie. It's also a reminder of how many people in the world allow a small group of egotistical, vain men decide how to live their lives under the guise of "God's will", which is really sad.
Grade: B+
***
Face/Off
I don't know what I expected from this John Woo joint starring Nicholas Cage and John Travolta, but wow. Just wow. I was flabbergasted by what I witnessed. I knew the premise of the film and assumed it would be a little more scientific...but no. There are so many plot holes and improbabilities in the film that it may as well be a fantasy movie. And once you accept what it is, you're in for a good time.
Face/Off is an objectively terrible movie...but it's SO fun. Seeing John Travolta "do" Nic Cage and Cage "do" John Travolta is really enjoyable (and proves that Cage is the superior actor, in my opinion). It's also so sleazy, with Cage's bad-guy character, Castor Troy, sleeping with the wife of his nemesis, Sean Archer (John Travolta), as well as ogling Archer's teenager daughter. It's all the weirder since it's John Travolta acting as Castor acting as Sean (after Castor steals Sean's face). This movie is a fucking M.C. Escher painting.
This is a difficult movie to grade because it's a "so bad it's good" viewing experience. The movie itself is like a D+, but the viewing experience is an A-....so we'll go with a nice, middle-of-the-road B-. But trust, Face/Off is well worth seeing if you want to watch a ridiculous mindfuck of a film.
Grade: B-
***
Moonstruck
Directed by Norman Jewison, this classic romance starring Cher as a widow and Nicolas Cage as her lover (and the younger brother of her fiance), fell really flat for me. I mean, it's fine. I don't think it's particularly romantic or particularly funny. Most of the humor rests on Italian stereotypes of loud families and hot-blooded romance...but, frankly, My Big Fat Greek Wedding did is better with a couple you actually want to root for. Loretta (Cher) and Ronny (Cage) don't have that much chemistry and their relationship is kind of icky. Not offensively so (even though Loretta is cheating on her boring-ass fiance), just in a "I'm not that into it" kind of way. They fuck like 10 minutes after meeting, and I 100% didn't buy it.
I'm gonna say it: Moonstruck is hugely overrated!
Grade: C+
***
My Old Ass
Directed by Megan Park and starring Maisey Stella in a wonderful film debut, My Old Ass is a comforting, yet bittersweet film that begs the question: if your older self and younger self met, what advice would they give each other?
Elliott (Stella) has just turned 18 and is spending her last summer working on her family's cranberry farm before she leaves for bigger and better things. To celebrate her bday, she and her friends take a camping trip and do mushrooms. While under the influence of the shrooms, Elliott meets her 39 year old self (played by Aubrey Plaza). Older Elliott puts her phone number in younger Elliott's phone and even after the shrooms wear off, young Elliott finds she can call and text old Elliott!
She asks old Elliott for life advice, but all that old Elliott can do is warn her to avoid a guy named Chad. Well, it just so happens that Chad (Percy Hynes White) is working at the cranberry farm that summer...and he's a lovely guy. Young Elliott doesn't understand why old Elliott is warning her off of this guy, and the audience spends most of the movie waiting for the other shoe to drop.
But My Old Ass is about much more than the Chad plot line. It's about how your older self only knows the "right" and "wrong" way to live your life because your younger self made mistakes. It's about the bittersweet truth that life can only be lived in one direction, which is exactly what makes life meaningful: you CAN'T go back and correct so-called "mistakes". You can learn from them, but you can't relive the past.
Old Elliott is 39 years old. I will be 39 in a few weeks. This movie is aimed at people my age because the point of being young is that you never think you'll get old. And before you know it, you are your own old ass. But that's not a bad thing because you need both your young ass and your old ass in order to be your full self. And young Elliott has words of wisdom for old Elliott too, because young asses can be very wise.
Grade: B+
***
Heretic
This much anticipated psychological horror film starring Hugh Grant in a villain role started strong, but got progressively less interesting as the film went on. Still, it was a very entertaining watch. Sophie Thatcher and Chloe East play Sister Barnes and Sister Paxton, Mormon missionaries who arrive at the home of Mr. Reed (Grant), a harmless looking man who invites them in and tells them that his wife is in the kitchen baking a pie.
Reed initially seems interested and knowledgeable about the Church of Latter Day Saints, but eventually begins to ask the young women challenging questions about their faith. The turning point in their conversation is when he asks them about polygamy. Sister Barnes explains that the belief in polygamy served the early church when there was a need for population growth but that now the LDS knows better. Reed counters that Joseph Smith wanted to have consequence free sex with a lot of women and used his power to take advantage.
Barnes, the more worldly of the two women, starts to realize that something is wrong when she sees a scented candle and deduces that there is no pie...and probably no Mrs. Reed, either. But when she and Paxton attempt to leave, they find that they are locked in and that their phones don't work. Reed pulls out the big (intellectual) guns and forces the women to listen to his lengthy explanation that religions are just iterations of one another--copying and stealing from previous beliefs, much like Radiohead copied The Hollies and Lana Del Ray copied Radiohead. He then forces the women to choose between a door labeled "Belief" and a door labeled "Disbelief".
I think many people will go into Heretic thinking that it's a different kind of movie and will therefore be disappointed and annoyed that the first half of the film is essentially a older man lecturing two younger women about why their religious beliefs are bullshit. I actually enjoyed this half of the movie more, mostly due to Grant's performance as a genteel, mansplaining villain. It was interesting to both agree (mostly) with Reed's intellectual argument while also disavowing how he makes his argument. I do believe that religions are iterations of one another, which begs the question: how do you know that your religious beliefs are the "right" ones? But I also think trapping women in a house to force them to reckon with this is, uh, shitty.
Heretic loses me in the final act when the film morphs into something we've seen in a million movies before. I won't give it away here, but let me just say that I think the final revelations blew it for me. However, the experience of watching the movie was very entertaining. I can't see myself watching it again, but I am hype to watch a YouTube video essay about it from the POV of a former Mormon missionary!
Grade: B
***
Say Nothing (TV series)
Based on the critically acclaimed book by Patrick Radden Keefe, this show (streaming on Hulu) is about the Troubles in Northern Ireland and specifically about two sisters, Dolours and Marian Price, who worked for the Irish Republican Army in the 1970s and 1980s.
There is a LOT to cover in 9 episodes and I feel that the show didn't spend enough time helping the audience understand why the IRA engaged in so much violence for decades. I know a little about the Troubles, but not a lot, and I know there is a lot of nuance to the situation in Northern Ireland, but for someone who knows nothing, I think it's going to be difficult for them to empathize with the sisters who are willing to harm and even kill anyone and everyone in service to "the cause".
One aspect of the Troubles Say Nothing explores is how easily a just cause can turn into a cult of personality with the head honchos directing people to kill without ever pulling the trigger themselves. The man who orders the execution never drops the blade, does he? The show explores the role Gerry Adams played in the IRA and his eventual disavowal and denial that he had any involvement as he goes into politics. You know, in many ways Say Nothing is less about the Troubles and more about human psychology and what drives people to completely rearrange their moral and ethical values if they believe (or are convinced by others) that the end justifies the means.
I'm not a pacifist, but I also think that violence should be the nuclear option on the path to civil rights mostly because I believe that humans tend to develop a taste for it once they cross that line. If we look at examples of violent revolutions throughout history, we can see that the violence doesn't just end when the agreed upon "bad guys" are dead...people tend to move the goal posts to find new victims once they experience the power that a gun in their hand gives them. Call me a misanthrope, but I do believe that power and violence rot the soul, even (maybe especially) when the cause is just.
Just some food for thought!
Grade: B
