The director's cut vibes so hard

The late works of Sir Ridley Scott mock the mass going movie public. Ridicule their lack of sophistication. Their incapability of possessing discerning taste. The result is a joy to behold. Taking my cue off the 205 minute director’s cut as an excuse to write a new piece about Napoleon (2023, Ridley Scott) it might be something like the most perfect film I’ve ever seen. It’s everything wrong with Hollywood. And it works so well.

     First of all historical subjects who took over the world are way more accessible to root for than comic book characters. Napoleon especially. And when I speak of men who took over the world I’m talkin big 3. We already got Oliver Stone’s polyamorous boy rockstar with long blond hair Alexander (2004, Stone). I’m a fan of the film. Mostly because of its scale. And its military scenes. Battle scenes. Testosterone hubris feuds. Napoleon’s in the middle. And the romantic epic nobody asked for about the life of Hitler ain’t gonna happen.
     Napoleon in terms of Goldilocks selection has a darker side than Alexander and not quite as evil as Hitler. He’s a nasty little tyrant. Hell they even named the Napoleon complex after him. Is that in the DSM? I’m not actually curious enough to research it. Anyway as far as antiheroes go I love this guy as played by Phoenix. If you’ll allow me to spoiler skip to the ending my refined reading of Napoleon ultimately rests on some of the scenes from the very end of the film. When he’s talking to children. First when the little boys are granting him audience and he says those lines of dialogue that he’s the first to admit when he makes a mistake but he never does; it’s simple geometry where he puts the [camera] is Ridley Scott breaking through. And finally when Napoleon’s teaching those two little girls to fence and he asks the one who burned Moscow and she doesn’t know he points to himself to say he did but the other says “I believe the Russians burned it sir. To get rid of the French,” Bonaparte cooly inquires “Who told you that?” “It’s common knowledge sir.” Napoleon having little regard for the facts of history is Ridley Scott not caring either. Screw accuracy. This isn’t a documentary. I whole heartedly applaud and support Scott’s reasoning. His reckoning with the material. If you want a detached from the action and drama of Hollywood spectacle documentary with a neutral robot faux British cultured educational narrator over instructive images get lost. 
 
Everybody knows the cinema feeds off of our salacious voracious appetites for sex and death (alt. violence). And that’s what Napoleon gives us instead of history. The violence is Scott’s talent. Large scaled battle. And he lives for it as does Bonaparte. When Napoleon returns from exile and asks his Fifth Army to join him they do because they love to fight. And miss it. Side note why does Gen. Wellington tell that conscript who asks if he can shoot Napoleon no and if he does it will be punishable by death later take his shot anyway? It doesn’t really make sense. But we get to see him miss and blow that hole through Napoleon’s hat. That’s what I get excited about. Emotion over logic. In this case specifically in the context of a war movie escapist entertaining cartoon genre film okay. There’s a time and a place for everything. 
     But the love story is its own beast. Josephine is one of the worst characters written for women ever made. Yet despite this I love her so. The forbidden fruit of archetypes. As in we're not supposed to write this kind of character as in we're not supposed to like this kind of character as in it's wrong to. She’s a slut whore who only exists to serve Napoleon’s objectification of her. The letters we hear through her voiceover are product of Napoleon’s obsessive delusion. She haunts him like she haunts me which effectively depicts the pain of memory. The peril of looking back. The allure of regret. Amorphous infatuation.
     Josephine is introduced as a prostitute Barras is involved with whom he procures for Napoleon. Politics. Josephine’s life is bleak. You know. She’s lost her husband her kids she’s in prison awaiting the guillotine having sex with men just because pregnant women aren’t executed until they have their child. So she’s only into Napoleon out of convenience. Necessity. Desperation. Vanessa Kirby in the sex scenes plays them so bored it’s sad tragic hilarious matter of fact definitive. But she finds her satisfaction with other men. The anachronistic language of the tabloid papers make headlines of her doing so. Okay I can’t prove that the papers weren’t in fact as depicted in the film. Either way I think they’re great. 
     But yeah I’m a man who would rather be known as a cuckold than a fool too. Not Napoleon. The vindictive spite she induces in him fuels his ambition. He’s such an infant. He only lives to take over the world and have sex with Josephine. The man knows his passions. Can I blame him? Josephine’s line “If you look down you’ll see a surprise and once you see it you’ll always want it” made the trailers. This goes to my heart. It’s the meaning of life. But what makes it so particularly compelling in Napoleon and for me is of the utmost romantic sentiment. She never wants him to leave her. My mind knows the fatal codependent relationship is toxic but my heart yearns for its survival. In movies anyway. Its passion lies in its resilience. 
 
This film takes the unashamedly pop repurposing of period French culture pioneered by Marie Antoinette (2006, Sofia Coppola) and gives it the Scott veneer of luxury goods. I prefer the baroque piano passages that sound like some inventions by Bach. I haven’t bothered to research which composers are attributed to which pieces and which are original yet but it’s one of the biggest factors contributing to my enjoyment of the large canvas of it all. 
    And like Coppola’s pop dessert Napoleon above all hones its anachronistic setting through its dialogue. Its attitude. Like right before the coup Lucien is talking mad shit and when Napoleon mentions those ladies in waiting lines about Sieyes and Ducos Lucien says something like “those fucking idiots can tend my balls. Tongue bath? Only for me to let them wipe my ass.” But I’ve probably got it wrong. Whatever he says it's funny baffles me. 
     The director’s cut indulges in Ridley Scott’s madcap riffing in the way House of Gucci (2021, Scott) allowed with Jared Leto. It’s shockingly questionable regarding taste. Like most of all Napoleon's bashful whimper mumble signal to Josephine another mounting invasion is imminent and her keen sense of deciphering it. What were they thinking? Finally. Ridley Scott has gone completely nuts and I think it’s the best thing to happen to his style. From House of Gucci through as of this writing Gladiator II (2024, Scott) gimme more. Rewatchability activated.

2023 Year End List of Favorite Movies Seen in Theater

 

1.   Napoleon (2023, Ridley Scott)

2.   The Zone of Interest (2023, Jonathan Glazer)

3.   The Killer (2023, David Fincher)

4.   Barbie (2023, Greta Gerwig)

5.   Saltburn (2023, Emerald Fennell)

6.   Coup de Chance (2023, Woody Allen)

7.   Beau Is Afraid (2023, Ari Aster)

8.   Priscilla (2023, Sofia Coppola)

9.   Asteroid City (2023, Wes Anderson)

10. May December (2023, Todd Haynes)

Stranger fucking danger

I didn’t know anything about Emerald Fennell before Promising Young Woman (2020), and I still don’t really. But I went to see Promising Young Woman in the theater and I’m glad I did, because I’m still like fascinated by it. I’m impossible though. Like even though I’ve vehemently sworn off David O. Russell I’m now drawn back to Joy (2015) because I can’t help but be—it shouldn’t work but that makes me like it even more.

Saltburn (2023, Emerald Fennell, 1.33:1) is a toxic comedy of manners class conscious morality satire chamber piece that takes a familiar premise, then subsequently takes our notions of whom we might empathize with, what feelings we associate with doing so, what judgements we might form about them, and then mischievously plays a trick on us.

     Most of the time I don’t think movies have messages. But Saltburn is excused. Whether I could articulate this message or not (I’m not gonna try because I don’t wanna spoiler), it stayed with me long after leaving the theater. My two favorite things about Saltburn are the decadence fantasy-wish fulfillment and the cast, but especially Rosamund Pike and Richard E. Grant.

     The decadence exists both at Oxford and Saltburn manor. And it’s dark in both instances. At school we care about the kids. But at Saltburn it’s how eccentric the entire family and staff are that makes it so enjoyable. The progression of the narrative always had me uneasy wondering where exactly this whole thing was going, and that intrigue is crucial to its thriller aspect. And as far as its style, I could think of many comparisons that I could make, but why bother?

 

11/21/2023 AMC Phipps Plaza 14

Atlanta, GA

DCP

Sorcerer of death's construction

Ridley Scott is at his best with Gladiator (2000) and Kingdom of Heaven (2005). It’s like when some say how by the 60s the collapse of the studio system was due to the bloated, big budget historical spectacle period piece costume dramas that Scott found a way to revive them in something like the sexy ultraviolent almost like where Verhoeven seemed to be headed throughout the 80s-90s way, but Scott adds his own boyish sense of adventure and morality to them. Heaven is one of my favorite movies. It’s proof for me that a Hollywood historical war and romance epic can clock a nimble 3 hours and never drag. Unlike, say, Killers of the Flower Moon (2023, Martin Scorsese), which feels oppressively slow and neither the romance nor the violence are we meant to enjoy; it’s as if that movie is like a master forcing us to be held next to our own shit and suffer its stink because we made a mess on the rug. 
     Other than Heaven the only other Hollywood movie I can think of that’s so much fun is the Napoleonic wars set 3hr 28min War and Peace (1956, King Vidor). I can watch that movie, or even just jump in anywhere, and find that perfect blend of entertainment I'm always in the mood for. Vidor’s epic revels in its untethered freedom from adhering too closely to either Tolstoy or history. And like Gladiator and Heaven it’s fun, not to be taken too seriously, and has that boyish sense of heroism.

Napoleon (2023, Ridley Scott) has got a boyish sense of villainy. As a biopic, we get less of a sense of frivolity than either Gladiator or Heaven. But what we do get is an oil on canvas where light can be a thing of beauty. 
     And the battle scenes, especially the Battle of Austerlitz, command a formidable victory of epic spectacle. There’s something surgical about the staging of the battles, immaculate, precise, and horrifying. Napoleon reminds us that movies were supposed to have been made to be shown in a theater. Napoleon as a film is also less fodder for popcorn, plot and characters than it is one man’s bloody, unwieldy sense of ambition. We’re certainly in the era for those. This movie is cold, so cold—and I love it.

 

11/21/2023 AMC Madison Yards 8

Atlanta, GA

DCP

Insecure people are very dangerous

You would think May December (2023, Todd Haynes) is Sirkian melodrama, right? It has persecution from society, traditional feminine domestic roles/space, and the self-reflexive construct of artifice throughout. But it’s not entirely so, because it doesn’t seek to tear your heart out in that overly effusive attack on your emotions kind of way. And that’s why Todd Haynes is so good at doing his own thing—beautiful perfect make believe little dioramas where the character is just a little deranged enough to be fun but still hold up a mirror to show us ourselves. 
     And because I love Todd Haynes so much, I love Julianne Moore as GRACIE. It’s through Gracie the film is able to achieve its fundamental moral ambiguity. And if you’re open to trying hard enough to not merely discount her as crazy, you could begin to appreciate the strengths that contrast her weaknesses, and how the dreams of being happy contrast her nightmare reprehensible behaviors. Yeah sure, this is in fact a triangle protagonist thing and I should care about Natalie Portman as ELIZABETH and Charles Melton as JOE, but really I only care about Gracie. 
     Okay I know maybe I have a problem with decoding symbolism. But I can’t resist here the temptation to just sketch out: think about Joe gently nurturing butterflies from chrysalis to monarch; Elizabeth choosing a snake, a “kind that doesn’t bite,” to play her Gracie; against Gracie prowling the forest flanked by her 2 hunting dogs, with a shotgun, stalking an array of cute furry little woodland innocents. 
     The genre of May December should be called something like elevated melodrama. Or, I’d like even better something like arthouse melodrama, specifically because of the way it uses a Michel Legrand cue from The Go-Between (1971, Joseph Losey) much in the way Paranoid Park (2007, Gus Van Sant) uses the Nino Rota excerpt from Juliet of the Spirits (1965, Federico Fellini). The way that Legrand theme is used constantly shifts the tone of or our interpretation of shots. The biggest one maybe is right when the movie starts and there’s a slow zoom on Gracie lamenting they might not have enough hot dogs and the devastating music cue tells us maybe this is more tragic to her than we know? Or maybe this movie is disconnecting us from the melodrama code to get us to think about the art? Or maybe this movie is hilarious? Whatever it is, it’s fun too.
     The setting is one of the factors contributing to another great strength in May December, which is how original this material feels and allows us to forget that real life story it vaguely resembles. (I know this is irrelevant but I love Savannah and when Elizabeth interviews Gracie’s ex at that coffee shop I freaked out because in real life it’s Gallery coffee shop and I always go there as much as I can I love it.) When they mention living on an island (more symbolism in the vein of Sirk) it’s gotta be Tybee, and, uh, how can I put this, mostly people with money live there and it’s kind of uh, quaint—perfect. Also yes, the downtown Savannah stuff is gorgeous. But that night exterior where there happens to be a tour conducted in the background where we overhear snippets of anecdotal history gruesome details of a hanging told almost like it’s a fun fact is bonkers.
     May December is about each of its 3 main characters, and too nuanced and balanced for it to be worth me trying to outline. I see their flaws as much as I empathize with them. They’re all too human. And it’s as much a trashy tabloid premise as it is an elegantly executed prestige woman’s picture. 

10/17/2023 Landmark Midtown Art Cinema

Atlanta, GA

DCP

Mise en scene me tender

The Virgin Suicides (1999) 1.66:1, Lost in Translation (2003) 1.85:1, Marie Antoinette (2006) 1.85:1, Somewhere (2010) 1.85:1, The Bling Ring (2013) 1.85:1, The Beguiled (2017) 1.66:1

In Priscilla (2023, Sofia Coppola) 1.85:1, the inserts are better than the movie. But it totally works to its strength. In this film setting is everything. And Graceland is Versailles. But the inserts; period authentic jars of Noxzema, Chanel no. 5, mascara in one assorted on a bathroom counter; in another, an airplane ticket on Pan-Am; porcelain miniature figurines in another; this is the film. We even get a montage where it all culminates in this connecting notably Sofia Coppola's longtime passion for Polaroids and it clicking this is probably the time they were first introduced into the market. Coppola curates the details of the setting as would be featured in a magazine, or adorning a bedroom wall, or a scrapbook. It’s who she is. It’s her artistic identity. 
     And as in most of her movies, her perspective is that of a young woman embarking on something like a fairytale exploration of a world of decadence, fame, and idealized romance that upon proving illusory allow her to become empowered and glimpse the kind of wisdom wrought through hard-earned life experience. In Priscilla it’s all so gorgeously quaint. Priscilla is an object. She’s Elvis’ idealization of a teenbride who only exists to be there for him to cuddle when he’s lonely, dress up, make-up, and do her hairstyles how he wants, and keep her in a dollhouse—she’s his Barbie. And here’s where it begins to become apparent that in this dream of make-believe the princess is just any ordinary girl, which is to say she could be any ordinary girl. And in her own way, Coppola tells the story she wants and has the immensely talented aptitude to understand that it’s not her burden to tell this as a documentary. 
     Sofia Coppola cinematically builds Priscilla through ephemeral, poignant moments of contemplative melancholy. There’s never anything melodramatic about the way she treats the material. The hues are soft and diffuse, as is the atmos—mist instead of shadows. 
     Priscilla is also a film where the 60s pop songs become this kind of alchemy collage. But the original score is also this percussion-based lullaby xylophones, celesta, or something like I don’t know: bells, glass, chimes, music box pretty, delicate, and soft like everything else in the movie. 
     This film isn’t detached from the heart of its protagonist. Yet there does seem to be something indicative of a distance between the life she wanted (and we want for her) and the one she gets (and the version of it Coppola has made into a movie). Coppola is so confident in her perspective that the artifice of it knowingly depicts the world used to ultimately define the characters she’s created. And through this it is then a matter of familiarizing ourselves with the cold inescapable maze of what’s left out as key to these truthful renditions. And it does help that Priscilla throws in just enough details you probably aren’t familiar with or don’t see coming to make it that much more fun.

11/03/2023 AMC Madison Yards 8

Atlanta, GA

DCP

The only path in life is the one behind you

Fincher recap: Early includes Se7en (1995), The Game (1997), Fight Club (1999) and Panic Room (2002). Zodiac (2007) is pivotal. The Social Network (2010), The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) and Gone Girl (2014) is mid. The Killer (2023) is late. The films I’ve left out are irrelevant. 

 

Oh my god yes. The Killer is a return to greatness. It’s a revenge-o-matic pretty much standard assassin genre entry with an existential loner. Or think of it as an arthouse John Wick. 

     Its narrative takes a slightly askew take in that the conflicts its protagonist encounters are mostly, how can I say this, minor (or what I'm really trying to say is not conventional Hollywood familiar). But just when you think it starts to become predictable, it ducks you. Its tone is very quiet and takes its time. But it never drags. And its center is its protagonist's vo.

     There’s more handheld camera in the first half of this than every other Fincher film combined. Its customary Fincher palette often is an array of murky yellow, cyan, and green hues. And have you ever wondered what the difference is between a subjective camera shot and an objective one? I have struggled to understand this. Like is a pov the only example of subjective and everything else is objective? Anyway. In the Paris portion of the movie, when THE KILLER listens to The Smiths the music is clearly mixed upfront when we see what he’s seeing (subjective) and intercuts with shots where we’re with him and then the music is muffled and distant (objective), a great learning tool.

     The Killer sees Fincher having matured. As if it’s an entirely unrecognizable departure from the person who made Fight Club. Fassbender as The Killer dressing like a typical nondescript mannequin from an upscale mall, at various times seen eating McDonald’s, clutching a paper Starbucks cup, and ordering an Amazon order from his wireless device is the epitome of what Jack’s inner voice loathes. But he’s cool. Even him only listening to The Smiths says a lot. Who doesn’t love Morrissey, but they wouldn't exactly indicate anything other than mainstream at this point. Yet most enjoyably The Killer’s that Fincher brand of smug, efficient, and knows how to deliver black comedy one-liners. He’s what you want if you want Fincher.

     I love The Killer. It’s simple although immensely rewarding. And it’s the first time I’ve seen a Fincher film that didn’t seem to be striving for the grandiose operatic heights he’s heretofore constantly aimed for. 

 

10/27/2023 Midtown Arts Cinema

Atlanta, GA

DCP

The squaw man

You ask me chronologically the greatest American director goes: John Ford, Stanley Kubrick, then Martin Scorsese. With each of them you can take any decade of their 50 years or more careers and find major works (that hold up) spanning each decade. Who’ll be the next one to follow?

Killers of the Flower Moon (2023, Martin Scorsese) is perfect. It’s not so much long as it’s the length it has to be for the significance of its historical impact to be felt. Its thematic undercurrent might be the love of money corrupts. And what an American theme it is. 

     It doesn’t take long to establish its core conflict: white man is gonna take everything from the Osage. Yet it could also be said that it’s not only the white man who is corrupted by the love of money. I can’t seem to be able to overlook the main Osage characters, the sisters MOLLIE, ANNA, and RETA, all marry white men; something that they know wouldn’t be possible if they didn’t have money. It’s hard for us to accept the logic behind the actions of most of the main characters, as I’m sure it was hard for them to make any sense of why they themselves all did what they did. And isn’t that what it means to be human?

     There’s something inevitable about the fates of the characters. Like there’s some sense of there’s nothing they could have done any different even if they wanted to. The pace of the story in Killers of the Flower Moon is measured: a steady dose of unendurable traumatic misery. In many ways it’s a film with a very narrow dramatic focus.

     But Jack Fisk’s production design is what’s big. The booming town is most impressive when viewed from within. The new money extravagance is depicted down to the most smallest detail—the designs of Mollie’s China for example. 

     And finally, yes DiCaprio as ERNEST BURKHART carries the picture as a himbo (he adequately portrays with a slouch) who breezes into a life of leisure and privilege that gets him in way over his head so gradually it’s kind of poetic. But the final jab Killers of the Flower Moon hit me with is its moral condemnation of both white man and Osage who don’t work for a living. That’s what makes it relevant beyond only serving as merely a historic artifact. It’s a corrosive critique of the American way of life. 

 

10/19/2023 AMC Madison Yards 8

Atlanta, GA

DCP

The difference between Catholics and Baptists

Know what the difference is between the religions Catholic and Baptist are? I don’t. I just know they both believe in Jesus. A ton of religions believe in Jesus though. Cinematically, Catholicism has always been my favorite religion. From Buñuel and Hitchcock to Coppola and Scorsese there’s really no question of any rival Christian based religion holding a candle to it.
     But that was a long time ago. The first thing that struck me about The Exorcist: Believer (2023, David Gordon Green) is how in keeping with the expanding inclusivity of contemporary society in addition to a Catholic priest, adds Baptist, Pentecostal, and Hoodoo to the mix. I guess like the cool thing about it is it leads to a view of spirituality with a focus more on people and their faith instead of overwrought adherence to any specific religious institution. Although now that I think about it something else cool about the earlier Exorcist films is that Catholicism is kind of scary—great fit.

The Exorcist: Believer can be broken down into two parts: about 70 minutes of set-up and the payoff 30 minute exorcism sequence. The set-up includes a Haitian prologue rich in exotic imagery and backstory full of significance for the lead character VICTOR. (The Haiti work was filmed in the Dominican Republic, and there are amazing crowd shots that were filmed without permits or releases.)
     But when the set-up moves into the point after the girls have been found is where the film achieves its force. The home life of Victor and ANGELA is carried off with a subtle calm that’s so conducive to the quiet spooky chills as fundamental to the demonic terror that creeps in. And we care for these characters all the more so because of it. 
     As for the exorcism itself, it’s one gnarly extravaganza. Taking the film as a whole, while encompassing supernatural horror, the demon throughout is mischievously prone to psychological attacks to break down its ops—and does so by breaking down their faith. And here is where The Exorcist: Believer proves it knows its stakes, while maybe even raising those of its forbears.

For fans of David Gordon Green, on display here find his expertise in casting (with the help of longtime “specialty casting” agents John Williams and Karmen Leech) authentic talent for both the homeless camp and the mental hospital. In particular, the actor playing the HOMELESS GEEZER (Eddie Craddock) is great. When he first pops up as the cops are investigating the school after the girls go missing, his dialogue goes something like “We ain’t seen nothing. We ain’t done nothing. We ain’t know nothing,” is way fun. It’s the care taken with characters in general that Green knows goes a long way in creating his cinematic worlds for the stories to exist in.

 

10/05/2023 AMC Phipps Plaza 14

Atlanta, GA

DCP

 

Do terrorism

High school is where you learn everything that really matters about how our society functions. And no one ever really changes. Sex, money, popularity, clique. And when we see these characters depicted on screen, their age always seems to betray a worldview designed by minds much older. So for audiences, if you’re young it’s a social diagram, and if you’re old it’s nostalgia.

     If The Breakfast Club (1985, John Hughes) is the first modern high school comedy, then Heathers (1988, Michael Lehmann) is postmodern. High school comedies aren’t about themes, nor do they carry a message. They’re all built upon class systems. And desire. Fitting in and fucking—and both of these amount to acceptance or rejection. And it’s not so much that you look at high school comedies to be new, because the characterization of a contemporary adolescent is already inherently new. You look for them to be funny. And in the end, like the characters, accept or reject who you see yourself as in life.

 

Bottoms (2023, Emma Seligman) is an R rated teen comedy with this perfect mix of peculiar-cute transgressive, subversive yet ultimately saccharine indie little darling of one of those movies that become an extension of a really witty comedy duo. Whatever stupid pseudo literary labels you can throw around like postmodern, surreal, magic realism, go ahead and start there, because it’s headed in the right direction to describe the way Bottoms has fun playing around with a bunch of stuff that’s usually not stuff you’d play around with.

     First, Rachel Sennott being tough has to be the funniest outbursts of how effective Bottoms proves to be as a comedy. The premise is she wants to start a fight club. And once that narrative motor starts up, her character taking on this alter-ego where she’s some criminally aggressive violent alpha bent on forming her own militia of girl fighters becomes essentially why this movie is so comedically effective. I can’t get over her first speech she gives with her broken nose and black eyes. Something key here is that her character is pretending to be this badass, in much the same way the movie kind of becomes a watered down generic Marvel style fight choreography version way of pretend depicting violence; which is fine. Here, cute cartoon ultraviolence is fun in a way that Fincher explicitly stylized gnarly graphic would otherwise be just ugly disturbing. 

     And continuing to describe the dark comedy aspects, there are a few supporting characters who play with a variety of deranged, homicidal, criminally insane, psychopath types, yet wholly remain sweet, fun kids for us to laugh with. In Bottoms, bringing bombs to school is funny. And I’m not being sarcastic about any of this. Why can’t this stuff be funny? Bringing a bomb to school = funny. Bringing guns to school = not funny.

     If Rachel Sennott kind of represents the character who does what’s wrong, who’s like way funny and everything, then morally Ayo Edebiri represents the character who does what’s right. Ayo Edebiri’s character is funny in a different way. She’s some idealized adorkable loser who does what’s right and gets rewarded for it.

     What can I close with? Ever since I saw Charli XCX at South By touring for her Vroom Vroom EP, I’ve been obsessed favorite singer with her, so her music, especially the “Party 4 U” third act stuff endears me to this whole thing. And what is it about the football players and their mindless naïve solidarity with one another makes them so Heathers funny and easy to forgive? When’s the last time the character who’s supposed to be the hot girl was actually as distractingly hot as Kaia Gerber? What’s the body count in this movie? When can I see it again?

 

8/22/2023 Alamo Drafthouse Cinema

Corpus Christi, TX

DCP

 

Barbenheimer

Barbie (2023, Greta Gerwig) is the best film of the year. It’s an astounding work of genius. I didn’t know what to expect going in. The only thing that drew me to it initially was its plastic pink pastel dreamy commitment to an entirely artifice based aesthetic, which I’d only previously encountered in The Cat in the Hat (2003, Bo Welch). (But that time it was a lavender and green palette, and didn’t offer much else beyond that.)

     But it’s foremost a sympathetic and modern approach to gender politics, feminism, and finding one’s self, sense of purpose, and place in life. It’s also fun. And hilarious. Gorgeous. And works as a dazzlingly choreographed musical. Sure, its audience is little girls. Yet it speaks to youth culture in general, in fact ultimately with a Generation X sensibility.

     The midpoint, where BARBIE hopelessly wallows in the defeat of her existential crisis, 7 hours of looking at the pics of all of her friends engagements on Instagram, eating a whole family sized bag of Starburst, and watching the BBC Pride and Prejudice evokes a relatable truth. And America Ferrara’s monologue in the second act is an indelible feminist tract that rallies us to see the truth about the hypocrisies, perceptions, roles, expectations, and hardships placed on women in a way that’s not preachy or accusatory but insightful and progressively empathetic.

     And the ending is powerful. The whole act structure of Barbie is really well done actually. But the conclusion had me, entirely won over by its existential philosophical dialogues. When Barbie says she wants to be the thing that imagines, and not the thing that is imagined, isn’t that straight out of Schopenhauer? His refinement of the Cartesian? The subject that cognizes the object?  And its resolution: she’s the idea not a person—the idea, isn’t that what Plato means by the imperishable forms that, multiplied by way of space and time, are made partially visible in countless individual perishable things? Barbie as Cinema as the thing in itself.

 

Oppenheimer (2023, Christopher Nolan) succeeds in telling a narratively complex story about a complex historical figure. It took me a little while, but my conclusion is that the black and white scenes are from the perspective of STRAUSS (who wants to bet Robert Downey Jr. wins an Oscar for best supporting actor?) and the color stuff is from OPPENHEIMER’S.

     Seeing Barbie with its perfect trad three act structure, then going to Oppenheimer is jarring. Oppenheimer right away reminds you oh yeah no credits, no set up, no inciting incident—this movie doesn’t wait for you to catch up. Oppenheimer jumps around all over its timeline. It's a mosaic of vignettes. And it’s got a relentless energy that’s punctuated with loud explosive sound cues and wall to wall epic score accompaniment. Nolan’s movies sound like if you went to see godheadSilo live. He’s the loudest rock band of cinema. Another funny thing is if you see Barbie first, there’s an attack on the patriarchy and this running joke about how the manliest thing is to ride horses; and Oppenheimer is excessively patriarchal and yeah Oppy rides a horse in many a scene. 

     While the bulk of Oppenheimer feels like litigation, science, politics, and espionage, all told through a bunch of white guys talking, it’s a question of how cinematic are all of these facts? How does it all come together as a movie and does it work? I think so. It’s grand, and it’s grand because it’s about the biggest thing ever to happen in the history of mankind, and happened such a relatively short time ago. And maybe I’m too selfish self-centered for even asking this but all the talk about how the nuclear bomb is the end of the world, am I the only one thinking uhh I’m still here watching this right now so…? 

     I know no one wants spoilers, but worth mentioning the subjective cinematic interludes are truly inspired effective. And yeah the nuclear stuff, but also the sex stuff with Florence Pugh, especially. You know, from the point of view of Oppenheimer’s wife, I won’t say anymore.

Goin' down underground

In real life conspiracy theories have never interested me. I could just never trust the sources. Nor could I ever feel like I could trust any evidence enough to buy it as truthful. I do believe the CIA tested LCD on some people in the 60s and I do believe the US government gave some black dudes syphilis—that’s enough to disturb me enough to not want to know anymore. 

     But in movies it’s different. Still, why am I more likely to engage in a fictional story about white people perpetrating some heinous conspiracy against black people? Well, there’s history for one reason.

 

They Cloned Tyrone (2023, Juel Taylor) is a black conspiracy comedy that feels like when Hollywood makes a genre film that reminds you how fun they're supposed to be. When people talk about a good story, that’s stupid—story could mean so many different things. But I really enjoyed the way the first and second acts of They Cloned Tyrone take on a Nancy Drew format. YO-YO’s even got that full collection of Nancy Drew books and SLICK CHARLES says something like damn how many adventures does this bitch go on? Okay a minor possible gripe though is maybe there’s a little too many pop culture references. The number of them is staggering. But they’re mostly all funny.

     And so the best thing about how They Cloned Tyrone does the conspiracy genre is that it doesn’t have a message; instead, it utilizes its subject matter through its plot. The movie is about the white man doing mind control and experiments only on black people in the hood. And through its tone we get this midpoint where we feel how helpless and defeated FONTAINE is. That lottery ticket he scratches says it all: you lose. Also I don’t think this is giving anything away (the movie is about clones) but early on in that drive-by I couldn’t get over how cinematic the set piece became when they gun him down. The way the camera uses an open frame and we don’t see the other car or the gunman, how suspensefully and scary it is to see the glass shatter and the body stagger, struggling in its final throes of death.

 

The three main cast also do so much for why They Cloned Tyrone works. Because despite what they do for a living and the dirt they do, they’re friends. And they do right by one another. So we got a great Nancy Drew premise, protagonists we love, some sci-fi, but more than all—comedy. When I see new releases in the theater, I’m always asking myself why don’t I ever get to see more comedies?

     I found myself letting myself laugh at some stupid shit. Like when ISSAC pulls that gun on Slick Charles in the hair salon, and he shows the piece but gets tripped up because Slick Charles doesn’t react—then he realizes it’s because he’s still got his smock on from getting a haircut. And as messed up as the mystery gets, it only proves to be that much more conducive to all of the race humor. How many ways does Slick Charles have for describing white skin? And way funny when the trio discover the conspiracy and Slick Charles mentions other cover-ups by the white man like the Berenstein Bears.

     They Cloned Tyrone handles its story elements simple but well. And something that I left the theater with was the disturbing memory of those black dudes down in the lab that were subjects of some experiment that turned them white (but they still had a fro). That’s what sci-fi means to me. Relevant. But not overt. And again of course imaginative.

7/14/2023 Midtown Art Cinema

Atlanta, GA

DCP

Luxury Horror

Luxury is scary. What better object displays vulgar wealth than an infinity pool?

Infinity Pool (2023, Brandon Cronenberg) is a tedious, shallow, barrage of redundant horror cliches that looks stylish—although is it? Like the macro photography dialogue scenes. Are extreme close-ups of an eye or a mouth back and forth while 2 people talk really that innovative, or is there even a reason?
     Does this movie sound awful? It’s rubbish. And that’s when it gets good. Infinity Pool is a psychological horror film that satirizes dilettantes. The whole thing amounts to some cynical irony like an upscale art gallery full of rich people attending an exhibition with no art to be found. 
     The story really begins when the character Alexander Skarsgård plays and the one played by Mia Goth meet. He, a writer and she, an actress, both identify themselves as working in creative professions, despite both being devoid of any discernable talent. And that’s why most of the time this movie feels obnoxious and like it lacks any sense of artistry that would give it merit. Unless you realize that’s the point.
     Because the Skarsgård character deliberately sought after being a part of this group (and that disavows him of being entirely coerced into it), this moral structure whereby the story elements having to do with the doubling device as a means to confronting his true self (his worst traits) subsequently leads finally to allowing us to have sympathy for him. And the veracity of this is what makes it haunting.
 

1/26/2023 AMC Phipps Plaza 14

Atlanta, GA

DCP