Tag Archives: Drama

1960's, 1967, A, Drama, Grade, Review, review-movie, Year

Film Review: Who’s That Knocking at My Door – 1967

February 10, 2023 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	Martin Scorsese
Principal Cast	Harvey Keitel as J.R. Zina Bethune as Girl
Release Date	1967
Language(s)	English
Running Time	90 minutes
Report Card	Click to go to Review TLDR/Summary

An older woman (Catherine Scorsese) cooks while the Virgin Mary “watches”.

The film opens with an energetic drum-beat on an image of the Virgin Mary in the foreground and a mirror showcasing an older woman cooking in the background. These figures – the older woman and the Virgin Mary – will continue to be juxtaposed in aggressive fashion as the sequence continues. First, simple cuts jump between the two of them, but as the drum beat continues, the film utilizes dissolves to cement the duo into a unified entity. The holy aspects of Mary become imbued in the woman, and the scene ends with the latter feeding a large group of kids as Mary looks on – the connection between the image of the “mother” and the divine has been cemented.

Immediately, this divine motherhood is contrasted with the next scene which starts with a weapon held behind a back – a symbol of violence. The drum-beat is replaced by the sounds of a radio. The editing pattern also shifts; this time the camera cuts three separate times, starting from a wide shot before eventually cutting to a single shot of a young man, J.R. (Harvey Keitel) standing in a group. Part of his entourage, Joey (Lennard Kuras), the person holding the weapon, waits for his opponent, a man from another group who stands across from him, to get ready.

The radio begins to play a rock song proper, “Jenny Take a Ride” by Mitch Ryder, as opposed to just an instrumental like the previous scene, and two fights among the groups begin to break out. The camera tracks on one of them and neatly captures the brawl in one smooth movement while the film cuts to the other scuffle happening in a proximate location before cutting back to the earlier tracking shot which now showcases the two fights in the same frame, one in the background and one in the foreground.

Among all this chaos, the title card drops and signifies the arrival of a brazen new cinematic voice (at the time), that of director Martin Scorsese. His opening neatly juxtaposes the ideas of the divine and the profane, a dichotomy that’s been ever-present in his work since. The seeds for the primary conflict have just been sown.

The film cuts to a shot of a market; a woman inside gets food ready – a direct callback to the “divine” connection generated in the first scene in the film between the image of the cooking woman and the Virgin Mary. The camera zooms out from this divine allusion and moves along the street before zooming in on J.R. and Joey, figures who have just been involved with violence. This duo enters a location called the “Pleasure Club”; thus, a distance between the Edenic and the sinful is reinforced spatially.

Joey (Lennard Kuras) beats Gaga (Michael Scala).

Inside the establishment, Joey goes to a table where a card-game is being played and asks the see the respective players’ hands. Upon looking at the second player’s hand, he claims that said player has lost and proceeds to beat him. This player, Sally Gaga (Michael Scala), is this group’s “runt” and has borrowed so much money from Joey that playing cards is out of the question. As Joey aptly puts it: “You steal from your mother, not me.” When Sally attempts to apologize, Sally reminds him: “Your priest you tell you’re sorry to. Me, you don’t tell you’re sorry to!” The dichotomy established in the opening continues to sink its fangs as this group is established as a counter-point to the holy and “good”. They are not the holy priest or the divine mother.

The group departs and the trio of friends – J.R., Joey, and Sally – convene in a bar owned by Joey. Yet, J.R.s mind is unable to focus on the conversation at hand and he seems transfixed by something else. A cut to a girl (Zina Bethune) smiling at him, yet located at a different location, indicates exactly where his thought lies. Scorsese cross-cuts between these temporally and geographically separated moments to highlight J.R.’s transfixion.

He utilizes a “double-cut”, a shot of the girl’s face which then briefly cuts to a close-up of the same, to reinforce the subjective involvement on the part of J.R. Our protagonist is utterly mesmerized by this girl and the conversation from the bar can no longer even be heard. The silence which replaces the chatter of the bar suggests this encounter is a dream and the girl becomes something “more”, a transcendent figure.

J.R. (Harvey Keitel) steals a look at the Girl’s (Zina Bethune) paper.

Then, the oneiric mood dissipates, and we along with J.R. find ourselves back in the past – the encounter between boy and girl plays out in its totality as the past usurps the present. The noise of a crowd creeps into the soundscape, informing of us of this shift, while the camera slowly pulls out of J.R.’s isolated face to reveal him sitting next to the girl. He keeps stealing glances at the paper she’s reading, but she notices as much and invites him to read along with her.

A shot of John Wayne in *The Searchers.*

He tries to play coy and bumbles his words but indicates he’s interested in the picture of John Wayne; another “double-cut” emphasizes his fixation on this mythical western figure. She responds that the magazine is a French magazine, and the two engage in a conversation about foreign cinema, Italian and French, and the respective print media associated with the same; the conversation is fitting, given the film’s obvious influences from both the Italian Neo-Realists and the French New Wave in its stylizations and narrative conventions (or lack thereof). The conversation discusses the need for an English analog to these foreign media, a suggestion (or rather, a revelation) that this film, Scorsese’s debut, is an attempt at bridging a connection (and paying homage) to foreign developments in cinema.

The camera pans from the Girl (Zina Bethune).

The conversation continues and becomes increasingly stylized. The camera neatly moves from each party, framed as singles, as the two discuss the image of Wayne in the context of the film it’s from: John Ford’s The Searchers – notably one of Scorsese’s favorite films and one that will continue to remain in the “text” of his films to follow. ^[1]Schickel, R., & Scorsese , M. (2011). The Ford Connection. In Conversations with Scorsese. essay, Alfred A. Knopf.J.R. ,like Scorsese, is absolutely enthralled by the film and tries to discuss it with the girl who can’t seem to recognize it. He talks about the dichotomy between the cowboy protagonist played by John Wayne and the Native American antagonist and they both seem to agree that the latter is the “bad” guy, even though their discussion seems to suggest that both characters share a similar negativity. Thus, the figure of the hero is elevated and given leeway for participating in problematic behavior that is used to condemn the antagonist. J.R. touches on this seemingly unfair value judgement for a brief moment before continuing on the conversation; this (mis)identification of goodness and its opposite is a key issue that his journey with this girl will force him to confront and is fittingly set-up via this discussion of cinema.

The girl eventually realizes she’s seen the film and comments that she’s not used to liking westerns before J.R. pushes her on the issue and claims that everyone’s problems would be solved if they “liked westerns.” He makes it clear that a clear hero to root for against an antagonist appeals to him. This clear-cut value structure grounds him.

She acquiesces to his declaration, and the conversation moves on to the nature of the ferry ride they’re both on. She admits that she’s going on it to experience it as a “ride”, a view which he can’t conceptualize; the ferry to him just represents a chore – a break with familiarity for him.

All the while, the film cuts to-and-fro between him at the bar with his friends to this conversation with the girl where his mind remains. Tracking shots of both his and the girl’s eyelines reveal the depth of their growing feelings for one another and a dramatic overhead shot accompanied with a dissolve of the girl laughing set the stage for a grand romance. There’s a clear connection here and J.R.’s obsession with it rings clear.

But the idyllic moment breaks; Joey slaps J.R. and interrupts the latter’s recollection in an attempt to get attention back to the conversation at the bar. J.R.’s friends want go out and meet a “new broad” but he shows no interest. Why would he when he’s so focused on this bright, cheery girl who’s completely enamored him? Who would leave “Eden” to sin? This is the Madonna-Whore (the film would utilize the terms “Girl”- “Broad” instead) complex in play, one that seems to fit J.R.’s view of the world, evidenced by the valorization of Wayne’s protagonist and the western genre as neatly separated into discrete notions of “right” and “wrong”. Thus, a clear opposition is established between the worlds the girl and his friends represent, and the film truly begins as J.R. is forced to choose between these two distinctive modes of existence.

By focusing on the subjective exploration of a character, J.R. in this case, and his decision to “sin” or not, Scorsese is able to eschew traditional narrative conventions and focus purely on the mood of the characters. The basic plot – boy falls in love with girl and has to figure out how to deal with his feelings despite lacking a “grammar” by which to do so – feels so much more epic because of the way Scorsese directs the ebb and flow of the emotional battle that underpins it. By cutting between interactions of J.R. and the stand-ins for the worlds he finds himself traversing, the film is able to remain compelling even as “little” happens in a narrative sense; momentum is generated purely through exploring the subjectivity inherent to the decision-making process.

J.R. (Harvey Keitel) is framed by the barstools.

This is why Scorsese consistently frames the characters against stools (especially in the film’s first half). He wants us to compare-and-contrast between the choices; the “world” the girl represents is open to persons and allows a genuine relationship to form, while the other is more insulated and is less open. The former’s communicative possibilities open up the chance of suffering as distance between people is closed while the latter operates as a façade that protects as it conceals the nature of what’s being done.

However, that doesn’t mean Scorsese only uses visuals to do the talking; in lieu of explicit dialogue, he uses songs as a formal mechanism to reflect and reinforce the distinctions between the worlds and the consequences of their intersection. From the opening, the music is established as a “cover” of sorts to the violent behavior that J.R. engages in, a reprieve that transforms his sinful actions into something enjoyable and permissible; this is an act of “insulation”. But as his relationship with the girl continues, music qua reprieve becomes problematized and the soundtrack reflects as much; the score continues to play rock tunes but their function radically changes as J.R.’s traversal reveals the costs associated with remaining in one world versus another.

For a film-maker as important and relevant as Martin Scorsese, it’s baffling that his debut feature-film, Who’s That Knocking at My Door, has been so eagerly dismissed (including by Scorsese himself) ^[2]Schickel, R., & Scorsese , M. (2011). Little Italy. In Conversations with Scorsese. essay, Alfred A. Knopf. when, as evidenced above, it so neatly portends the auteur’s interests and stylistic influences/tools. There’s the focus on a character’s subjectivity, meditation on sin versus divinity, a wonderous use of music to evoke mood – trademarks of the master’s oeuvre. While Scorsese isn’t as restrained or formally motivated in how he employs all his tools- freeze frames, slow-motion, distinctive camera movements, intense cross-cutting between scenes and jarring cuts within scenes at times are employed with abandon- as he would be later in his career, his ambition in “throwing the kitchen sink” at the screen in this debut certainly has an effect on the viewer especially in his utilization of the “double-edit” which succinctly achieves a subjective mood that weaves J.R.’s obsessions as a motif begging to be dissected.

So yes, while the film, as Scorsese suggests, serves as a “rough draft” of his first masterpiece, Mean Streets, it certainly warrants a broader appreciation in its own right ^[3]Ibid. given the way it forces us to focus on character as opposed to plot; the film is such a profound mood-piece, working on feeling over narrative heft in every major decision it makes, that it’s hard to take one’s eye off the screen. While the film sometimes lapses, namely in the amount of time it wastes in the sinful domain, that of J.R.’s friends whose intersections with our protagonist are far less interesting, varied, and developed as his scenes with the girl, there’s more than enough here to chew on and appreciate.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	Martin Scorsese’s debut film neatly foreshadow many of the auteur’s obsessions and operates entirely as an exercise in mood and style; plot gives way to character exploration and we follow a man who’s forced to find a grammar to deal with a world that seems newly foreign and alienating to him. While there are moments where the film throws so much at the wall that it forgets what’s already sticking and undermines its own rhythm, when it works it genuinely enthralls and captivates, making you forget about the small bumps on the way. What a wonderous start to a filmography as legendary and storied as Scorsese’s.
Rating	9.3/10
Grade	A

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion and more in-depth analysis.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3

2000s, 2009, A+, Black & White, Crime, Drama, Grade, History, Review, review-movie, Year

Film Review: Polytechnique – 2009

February 5, 2023 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	Denis Villeneuve
Principal Cast	Karine Vanasse as Valérie Sébastien Huberdeau as Jean-François Maxim Gaudette as The Killer
Release Date	2009
Language(s)	English
Running Time	77 minutes
Report Card	Click to go to Review TLDR/Summary

Note: This review contains spoilers regarding the first 30 minutes of the film as opposed to the site’s usual benchmark of 10-20 minutes. The same effort towards sustaining the intrigue and momentum of the film is maintained in this review, and all plot details revealed are just meant to be a springboard to discuss the scope of the work in better detail. Nothing discussed should undermine the “best” portions of the film or the many mysteries that keep the story engaging.

Women photocopy documents while students chatter around them.

Two women operate a photocopier as a sea of students bustle and jovially engage around them. Within a minute, this peace is interrupted by a set of gunshots. One of the women falls down in pain while the other clutches her ear; violence has created a division and the two women are now framed separately.

The camera tilts from the woman holding her ear to the one wounded on the floor before cutting again to the former. The cut reinforces the disruption that’s occurred – the space has become split. Accordingly, the sound also complete cuts out to a deafening silence as the subject of the shot, both literal and filmic, stumbles to find a grounding. The title card drops in, and a message appears indicating that the story to follow is based off survivor testimony from the Polytechnique shooting of 1989 but chronicles a series of fictional characters.

The Killer (Maxim Gaudette) places the gun to his head

We cut back chronologically and open on the shooter pointing the barrel of his gun to his head; he’s in the throes of suicidal ideation but chooses to not go forward with his decision yet. Instead, he lingers in his dirty, unkept apartment, unable to maintain his gaze on anything in particular. He opens a fridge as if looking for food but his eyes are focused on nothing in particular – there’s something missing.

But his roommate pays no heed to this odd behavior and the two exchange an informal “goodbye” with one another before the camera slowly pushes in on the killer’s face in a close-up shot, reinforcing the isolation of its subject. Even while eating his breakfast, the killer simply goes through the motions and looks somewhere off to the distance.

But when he sees his neighbor’s apartment lights up from his window, he suddenly becomes very focused. He turns off the light in the dining room and stares across; a close-up highlights his focused, intent gaze. The score changes as a result and an ominous droning and somber piano begin to play.

His neighbor begins to move and the killer runs to another room in his place and continues to stare; his neighbor, a young woman, is his obsessive focus. She turns off the lights to her place and departs the location. The killer turns away from his window dejectedly and then begins to act.

The Killer (Maxim Gaudette) cleans his room.

He starts to clean his dirty flat before writing a letter and delivering its contents to us via a voice-over monologue; this is his “declaration” and explanation for the shooting he is to commit, a shooting we have already borne witness to. From its outset, director Denis Villenevue explicitly challenges this justification by placing it after the shooting itself; the shock of the violence makes the killer’s abhorrent reasoning untenable from its inception.

Yet, the deconstruction of the motivation doesn’t stop there. The killer exalts himself as a person of reason who believes in science and explains that this position has led him to want to eliminate all “feminists”, a position he attributes to women by virtue of existence. He claims that they usurp all benefits of men without having to do any of the same labor and that he’s tired of it; yet, he also admits that he, a natural genius who gets great marks without trying, does not wish to do any meaningful study, labor, and be subject to a government. The points are non-sequitur and do not make sense when given more than a moment’s thought; instead, the rant reveals that he’s unable to comprehend himself outside of his hatred.

His alienation must be caused by some other agent(s): women. As the voice-over continues, he stares at a mirror and sees himself alone in the reflection; but if he refuses to understand himself, then his reflection offers no solace. This distance from identity is reinforced when he goes to burn any photographs of himself underneath the mirror in the sink. His sense of self exists only in opposition to the women he has decried as enemy and has nothing to furnish itself on.

The film cuts to another apartment and the non-diegetic track finally stops playing. A young woman, Stéphanie (Evelyne Brochu), holds a cigarette outside the window. She brings it back in and takes a puff before calling out to her roomate, Valérie (Karine Vanasse), to ask a science question related to entropy. Valérie explains the answer and then gets for an interview.

She tries on a series of dresses while looking in the mirror and isn’t satisfied with how she looks. Thankfully, Stéphanie notices her struggling and helps out with getting a better outfit as a diegetic song plays; the two friends smile with each other as they look into the mirror while the music continues and livens up the moment.

Thus, the difference between the men and women’s apartments are formally rendered by Villenevue. One has closed windows while the other apartment’s is open. One has persons who are closed off to one another while the other has persons who eagerly assist and communicate with one another. One is silent and filled with a music that its subjects cannot hear while the other is filled with the sounds of a cheerful song that its subjects can enjoy. While the men are alienated and separate, the women are together and engage in community. This is why Valérie, as opposed to the killer, can find her identity vis-a-vis the mirror; she has a friend to help her out.

While the two young women make their way to university, the film cuts back to the killer who looks at people while driving; his car’s windows and side-view mirrors frame persons in unnatural manners and showcase the killer’s warped perspective. The non-diegetic track comes back into play as he writes and delivers an apology letter to his mother, a woman who he feels a need to explain things to – a sharp contradiction given his complete admonishment of all womenkind.

As the music continues to play, the film cuts to a slanted view of a library, before slowly arcing as it tracks to a new subject, Jean-François (Sébastien Huberdeau). When the young man enters the frame in the up-right position, the non-diegetic track disappears. A passerby calls out to Jean-Francois (JF) and greets him before departing – JF, unlike the killer, is not isolated and has connections.

Valérie (Karine Vanasse) goes to her interview.

Meanwhile, Valérie proceeds to her interview and tries to make a case for herself. But the interviewer immediately disrupts her when he questions her choice to pursue mechanical over civil engineering; the latter, he suggests, is more popular for women because it’s easier and allows them to raise a family. The misogynistic implication of his words is clear: Valérie obviously cannot handle the rigors of the harder discipline if she has “motherly” aspirations. The camera closes in on her face as she struggles to answer the question; the sexism has isolated her in the conversation. Far from finding it easier to get a job as per the killer’s proclamations, she’s immediately forced to jump through additional hoops that her male counterparts would never have to deal with.

She goes to the bathroom to deal with her frustrations and finds herself surrounded by a series of reflections, a sea of Valéries caught up in the fracture opened by the interviewer’s intrusion. But the camera pans through these series of reflections until it comes onto a frame of close-up of a singular reflection of Valérie; she’s found herself once again and proceeds forward. Unlike the killer who refuses to look inwards and seeks external scapegoats for his issues, she looks inwards and finds something to affirm.

The Killer (Maxim Gaudette) can make no connections even in a sea of people.

We cut to a cafeteria where a host of students converse among themselves and engage in everyday behavior. The killer makes his way through the crowd as if looking for something but ends up even more isolated amongst the crowd. He’s unable to find any connection and goes to his car as a non-diegetic score briefly comes into play again.

But it quickly dissipates as Stéphanie comes into the frame; she’s looking for Valérie to get the details on the interview and comforts her friend over the less-than-pleasant encounter. Valérie reveals that she got the job because she played the part expected by the interviewer and claimed she wasn’t interested in having kids; she was forced to repress her desire to get a “fair” chance”

The conversation dissipates and up-beat diegetic music starts to play as the camera goes through the students gathered in the cafeteria to find JF sitting in frustration; he’s incapable of figuring out a problem and spots Valérie and Stéphanie amongst everyone. He immediately goes to greet them and asks for help solving the problem. Valérie lends him his notes and he goes to copy them. Once again, Valérie comes to the aid of a friend, male instead of female this time around. The killer’s speech is once again emphatically disproved as the most knowledgeable person, the one willing to help both women and men, is a woman.

JF (Sébastien Huberdeau) talks to a woman next to the printer.

Furthermore, in sharp contrast to the killer, JF is more than amenable to women and accepts their help and friendship just as willingly as he would any man. While scanning, he exchanges kind words with another woman looking to use the photocopier and quickly takes his notes. But his gaze gets caught up in a painting.

The non-diegetic score creeps back in while the camera slowly pushes in on a copy of Picasso’s “Guernica”; the piece of art uses “lack of color to express the starkness of the aftermath of the bombing”. It serves as an “anti-war symbol” and an “embodiment of peace”. It offers multiple interpretations of its elements. ^[1] Guernica, 1937 by Pablo Picasso. 10 Facts About Guernica by Pablo Picasso. (n.d.). Retrieved February 5, 2023, from https://www.pablopicasso.org/guernica.jsp

The intensified focus on the painting thus serves a dual purpose: it foreshadows of the violence to come, a violence we’ve already been privy to due to the non-linear telling of the narrative, and aligns the films motivations and some of its structural choices with the paintings. We’ve seen the black-and-white aesthetic on display and the violence proper and, thus, we brace ourselves for the “aftermath” and the “peace” to follow.

This image of violence cuts to the killer’s hands clenched in prayer and his deep breaths merge with the score. He’s getting ready to (re)enact the shooting and looks to steady himself. He scribbles more into his letter, as if anything he has left to say can explain what he’s going to do. Then he hears a group of students talking outside and a women’s voice breaks through his trance. He is ready.

The Killer (Maxim Gaudette) enters the school as a haze.

He walks back into the school and the camera captures him in a blurry haze reflecting his ill-defined subjectivity. A close-up on his face captures his absolute inability to come to terms with himself in the world. He looks around the space but only sees men around him; his choice of victim does not seem available. But then, like JF, he catches sight of Valérie and Stéphanie heading to class; his choice is set and his victims, women, have been found.

The film continues to swap between these three primary perspectives – the killer, JF, Valérie – before, during, and after the events of the shooting in an attempt to demonstrate the fracturing effect of violence and the way it (re)forms bonds between both individuals and their surroundings. By showing us the violence at the beginning, the film primes us to focus not on the violence itself but on the manner by which it moves through a system and changes it.

In this way, the violence comes to be a formal marker that disrupts the film as much as it disrupts the characters’ lives. The scene of the shooting repeatedly intervenes, demonstrating its violent, traumatic effects on the psyche. The characters who survive are unable to ever fully forget this disruption as it keeps rearing its ugly head. This effect is felt by the viewer as well who is unable to ever enjoy the time with the characters knowing what’s to come; even a peaceful moment after the shooting becomes interrupted as the film threatens to cut to darker times and force us to relive the trauma again.

This editing approach transforms the shooting from a singular event to a site of traumatic commingling as the perspectives of the characters with their respective chronologies bleed into one another in oneiric fashion. A scene goes from being a flashback to being a dream based on whose subjectivity is being recognized; violence fractures individuals and splinters their experience before reforming them in a new image. The interpretatively ambiguous “Guernica” becomes a fitting double to the film as violence shatters the otherwise normal and forces us to question.

This is why the killer is introduced after the effects of his shooting, leaving him as only a symbolic placeholder as an agent of violence; even the credits list him as merely “The Killer.” Both JF and Valérie are introduced after a scene of the killer going through his plans for the day; the former parties are unaware of his presence but his actions will come to severely impact their lives and after they are made to experience the violence, just as the viewer does at the film’s start, time goes out of joint. The film circles this point of senseless brutality and forces us to engage.

But Villeneuve isn’t as interested in the violence by itself as he is in examining its relation to the sexes and the way those demarcations manifest in identity. This is why he jumps between two men – the killer and JF – and a woman – Valérie. The killer can only see women as the cause of his alienation while JF sees them as companions no different from himself. The film repeatedly highlights how the former’s alienation leaves him fully closed off from men and women despite his stated intentions while the latter’s openness leaves him able to freely interact with everyone. Windows being opened versus closed, diegetic versus non-diegetic music, and camera flips help to signify the difference in these spaces, while mirrors help to make sense of how subjects find themselves in relation these spaces. These attributes help visualize violence’s effects as the changes in spaces render women as fungible objects that can be sacrificed and make distinguishing between “good” and “bad” men much more difficult. The set-up allows Villenevue to suggest that the solution to this heinousness lies in communication, he ultimately leaves the final answer up to interpretation.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	Polytechnique formally breakdowns a school-shooting from a series of gendered perspectives, including that of the male killer’s, in a non-chronological format in order to examine the way violence fractures subjectivity. Its editing takes advantage of being able to shift between these multi-faceted approaches and is able to oscillate in oneiric fashion that captivates as much as it perplexes.
Rating	10/10
Grade	A+

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion and more in-depth analysis.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3

2020, 2020s, A+, Comedy, Drama, Grade, Review, review-movie, Year

Film Review: Shiva Baby – 2020

January 20, 2023 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	Emma Seligman
Principal Cast	Rachel Sennott as Danielle Molly Gordon as Maya Danny Deferrari as Max Polly Draper as Debbie Fred Melamed as Joel
Release Date	2020
Language(s)	English
Running Time	78 minutes
Report Card	Click to go to Review TLDR/Summary

Danielle ( Rachel Sennott) and Max (Danny Deferrari ) have sex.

The film opens on a couple, Danielle (Rachel Sennott) and Max (Danny Deferrari), engaged in sexual activities. The duo is framed in the foreground of the frame, blurred out and out of focus. Yet, we can hear Danielle excitedly plays her part and scream “Daddy” before the encounter ceases. Then, she gets up and enters the frame’s foreground where she answers a call from her mother. As she talks to her parental figure, she covers up her lover, the bearer of the parental sexually-charged signifier – a point of contrast neatly communicated via the layers of the frame.

Max gets up to join Danielle as the latter finishes her conversation and tries to pry information out of her regarding her other activities; he’s most keen to figure out if she’s going to see other men. Thus, the relationship between “sugar baby” and “sugar daddy” is revealed – an extension of the parental comparison. She resists giving information as he valorizes himself for supporting young “women entrepreneurs”, revealing that his payments are going towards Danielle’s law degree. He gifts her a bracelet and pauses on giving her compensation till she reminds him; it’s clear he wants her to admit that feelings for him are her primary motivator instead of just the financial ones but he acquiesces as she engages in a passionate kiss with him.

We cut to Danielle walking along a street, now dressed in professional clothing; composer Ariel Marx’s score composed of discordant strings starts to play punctuating the moment. Danielle’s unenergetic face gives way to a false display of jubilation as she greets someone on the road before collapsing back into a more downtrodden expression. She’s clearly playing more than one part.

The camera pivots from her to a car where her father, Joel (Fred Melamed), calls to her. She calls out to “Daddy” before giving him a quick hug and going to the other side to talk to her mother, Debbie (Polly Draper), who immediately begins a painful, yet relatable interrogation of her daughter, calling attention to the bracelet on Danielle’s wrist; Danielle tries to conceal the origin of the bracelet and insists it’s a graduation present from her parents. Thankfully, her parents quickly move on and proceed to run Danielle through the latter’s “soundbites” for the event: she’s finishing finals and has a few job interviews. Yet another performance for Danielle to perform.

During this conversation, Danielle notices another party entering the scene. This young woman, Maya (Molly Gordon), looks quizzically on Danielle. Debbie fills in the blanks for the audience, informing us that Maya and Danielle were formerly dating, when she warns her daughter not to engage in any “funny” business. Finally, the trio is ready to enter the event. Right before getting in, Danielle reveals that said event is a funerary one, a “shiva”, a Jewish mourning ritual, when she asks “who died”. Immediately, the film cuts and shows Danielle expressing sympathies for the departed- a comedic edit by director Emma Seligman that makes explicit the farcical nature of the performances being enacted.

It’s this setting, the house where the “shiva” is taking place, where Danielle finds herself trapped in for the rest of the film’s run-time. Marx’s terrifying string-based score finds itself free reign here, as Danielle finds herself surrounded on all sides by “Other” parties, parents included, who seek to cast judgement and call attention to the multiple roles she finds herself playing.

The stakes of these potential encounters become fully revealed when Danielle notices Max, of all people, talking to her father in a doorway. She looks at him and he looks back at her in shock. Of all the places, the two find themselves face-to-face at a religious function where their illicit relationship can definitely not rear its head. Thus, the stage is fully set as Danielle finds herself in the presence of not only elderly figures who will naturally find some way to probe or disapprove but also finds herself in the presence of her former lover and current sugar-daddy; this is a recipe for disaster and Seligman commits to taking us there.

Despite being set in primarily one location, Seligman refuses to let things remain uncinematic and constantly utilizes close-ups and mediums with faces and bodies crowding the frame from all sides to create a never-ending feeling of discomfort. Given the films interests, the ability for a subject, in this case Danielle, to find themselves among a sea of persons, norms, and expectations, the focus on “Other” persons constantly invading one’s space is genius aesthetic move. This visual cluttering is accentuated by an auditory crowding; like the Safdie’s brothers Uncut Gems, characters constantly talk over one another and their pieces of dialogue are just as intrusive as the character’s bodies themselves. Seligman accentuates this noise with Marx’s non-diegetic score and allows harsh diegetic noises, like the cries of a baby, to blend in, creating an uncomfortable, harsh experience that genuinely generates a foreboding feeling; something feels like it’s on the verge of breaking at every point.

It’s telling that one feels a visceral fear upon seeing an unknown hand reach in from just outside the frame to tap Danielle; every interaction is a potential minefield to be navigated and the supremely crowded audio-visual landscape means that there are infinitely many of such encounters. Key choices made in the mise-en-scene, namely the use of red objects which accentuate the lighting during pivotal encounters, cast said scenes in a hellish ambiance that adds an expressionistic flair to the film and make the fever pitch Danielle’s decisions have led and are leading to explicitly clear. If she can’t find a “point” to ground herself to, she’ll end up swept in the current of the “Other’s” judgement. The film utilizes horror trappings and conventions to demonstrate the terrors that come with trying to find and carve out a space for one’s identity.

Consequently, the identitarian doublings set up at the film’s start – “Daddy” for a lover versus for a parent- only continue to expand as more terms and points of comparison get added with each additional encounter Danielle finds herself privy to. By bouncing between these points and their established counter-points, Seligman is able to emphasize the difficulty in establishing one’s agency regardless of whether or not they follow the proper edicts or go against them.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	Shiva Baby brilliantly examines the pressures that come with trying to find oneself while juggling personal and social expectations. By utilizing the trappings of a horror film, namely a discordant string-based score, the film is able to transform awkward social encounters into confrontations with “monsters” whose sole purpose seem to be prying and uncovering one’s darkest secrets. The result is a fantastic blend of comedy and gripping tension that keeps you enthralled from start to finish.
Rating	9.7/10
Grade	A+

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion and more in-depth analysis.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3

2020s, 2022, A, Drama, Grade, Horror, Past, psychological, Review, review-movie, supernatural, Thriller, Year

Film Review: The Black Phone – 2022

July 3, 2022 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	Scott Derrickson
Principal Cast	Mason Thames as Finney Madeleine McGraw as Gwen Ethan Hawke as The Grabber
Release Date	2022
Language(s)	English
Running Time	103 minutes
Report Card	Click to go to Review TLDR/Summary

NOTE: This is a new release and the review is based off a theatre viewing. This means the review won’t feature common elements like visual analysis, extended theme analysis, or long-form discussions of the cinematic techniques being used. Once I am able to get a copy of the movie to watch, pause, analyze, and get stills from the review will be updated to match the current site’s standard.

A Little League baseball game is underway. The pitcher, Finney (Mason Thames), winds up and throws the ball. The batter, Bruce (Tristan Pravong), swings and misses. Strike one. The crowd cheers for Finney and he can feel their approval hanging in the balance.

He winds up and throws again. Strike two. The crowd’s encouragement increases. A girl within the crowd stares at Finney with affection. He takes notice; the pressure is on.

The ball leaves his hand on the third throw but this time Bruce is ready for it; the bat connects with the ball and it soars over the gates – a homerun. Suddenly, the momentum flips and Bruce becomes the recipient of the adulation while Finney is relegated to the periphery.

We follow Bruce as he leaves the field, glowing in victory. Edgar Winters’ “Free Ride” plays evoking a feeling of jubilation. But then a black van enters the frame and the color and sound begin to fade leaving an all-consuming void in its wake – the happy façade breaks to reveal the grotesque underbelly.

Mark Korven’s unsettling score complete with a rhythmic pulse and discordant fluctuations starts to play as the title credits start to play – it’s time to enter the dark. This montage is presented in an aesthetic fashion similar to director Scott Derickson’s previous horror film, Sinister, utilizing the grainy texture of film stock proper to accentuate the uncanny series of images. In strong contrast to the opening’s evocation of a cheery 70’s milieu, the decisive switch in aesthetic and tone is a grim reminder of the horrors of the time lurking in wait – kidnappings and missing children on milk cartons, and the like.

It’s from this fractured backdrop that we join Finney once again. He’s revealed to be a prime target of hostile forces all around. From a drunk, violent father at home to bullies at school, Finney is constantly forced into compromising positions where he finds himself wholly at the whims of other parties; even when he’s bailed out of the awful situations he finds himself in, it’s due to the efforts of his friend Robin (Cazarez Mora) and his sister Gwen (Madeleine McGraw) intervening on his behalf. His own sense of agency is sorely lacking.

But when he’s kidnapped by a serial child abductor referred to as the “Grabber” (Ethan Hawke), Finney is forced to abandon his passivity and discover his strengths or die trying. He finds himself trapped in a seemingly isolated and sound-proofed basement structure with no tools in sight sans a broken telephone attached on the wall. Yet, while the phone isn’t plugged into any power source and seems completely busted up, it still rings, serving as an conduit to unseen forces from the beyond who seek to intervene in the seemingly impossible situation.

The supernatural propels the narrative forward, operating on a mostly demonstrative, seldom explained layer that works to supplement the true-crime horror narrative. While the presentation of this material feels like an extension of Sinister in tone and feel, its use is more in line with Derrickson’s earlier supernatural procedural, The Exorcism of Emily Rose. Like that film, otherworldly phenomena – grainy dream-sequences and spectral sightings – are couched within ambiguities which gestures towards multiple different angles of interpretation. This explicative restraint works in the films favor as it lets the characters’ struggles take focus; the supernatural set-pieces are just pieces of connective tissue that characters find themselves working with and through and are not the cause of interest in end of themselves.

The primary source of scares comes from Hawke’s “Grabber”, an masked man teetering on the edge of an emotional meltdown. At one moment he’s coy and wants to play nice. At another he’s downright malicious and one step away from a violent explosion. For every persona, he dons a new mask on, accentuating his instability and giving Hawke ample opportunity to flex his facial muscles in new, menacing configurations. The uncertainty behind what he wants adds to the suffocating feeling as his erratic behavior presents a minefield for Finney to traverse through.

However, while Finney finds himself powerless at the start of the film, he quickly finds himself changing for what the situation calls. His experiences dealing with abuse in more grounded scenarios helps him play the Grabber’s inexplicable games as the latter’s acts just feels like an amplification of the atrocities he’s used to dealing with. Thus, his progression is clearly demarcated; the film uses its opening to demonstrate where Finney struggles and then utilizes the supernatural trappings of his struggle with the Grabber to highlight his growth.

The film does misstep slightly when it comes to wrapping up all the relevant story threads as the manner by which certain narrative parallels made between the domestic and horrific conclude seem incongruous with one another, but the overwhelming momentum of how Finney’s arc culminates more than buoys the issue.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	The Black Phone is Scott Derrickson’s best film as of yet and seems him combining the aesthetic sensibilities and sense of unease from Sinister with the narrative ambiguity and supernatural restraint of The Exorcism of Emily Rose. The result is a tense, supernatural, character-driven story that earns its shocks.
Rating	8.9/10
Grade	A

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion and more in-depth analysis.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3

2020s, 2022, A+, Drama, Grade, Horror, Past, psychological, Review, review-movie, Year

Film Review: Watcher – 2022

June 9, 2022 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	Chloe Okuno
Principal Cast	Maika Monroe as Julia Karl Glusman as Francis
Release Date	2022
Language(s)	English
Running Time	91 minutes
Report Card	Click to go to Review TLDR/Summary

A young woman, Julia (Maika Monroe) and her husband, Francis (Karl Glusman) are in a taxi cab on the way to their new apartment in Bucharest. The driver starts to speak to the couple in Romanian. While Francis is able to respond, Julia stares dumbfounded; she’s not fluent in the slightest. There are no subtitles to help us understand what’s happening so we’re just as alienated as Julia is: this is a completely foreign situation.

Amused by her position, the driver looks at Julia in his rear-view mirror; her reflection takes center focus in the frame. She can see herself being watched, becoming an voyeuristic object, but she herself is unable to get a good look back at the driver. The gaze between the two parties is asymmetrical.

When the couple arrives at the apartment building, this relationship to gazing and being gazed is extended; the buildings in the complex are fitted with large windows which let the tenants look out while persons outside can look back in. Julia notices a person in the window and tries to get a better look but is quickly called inside by Francis.

The apartment manager brings the two to their unit and brings them up to speed with the lay of the land before explaining that their lighting unit doesn’t work at the moment and will be replace. Of course, all of this is communicated in Romanian; Julia is left none the wiser and desperately requires Francis to translate to get in on the conversation. She’s as in the dark as her apartment unit is.

While Francis goes off to work, Julia is left isolated within the complex. Unable to speak to anyone, she finds herself horribly alienated. In her struggle to find a vantage point to orient and hold onto, she starts to gaze out of her window, looking at both the pedestrian traffic and her neighbors standing by their own windows. The act of looking out and observing gives her a sense of control: she can create a narrative about what’s happening around her. These peeping sessions immediately call to heart Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window and like its protagonist Mia becomes obsessed with voyeurism. During her sessions, she notices a man in silhouette seemingly gazing back at her. Her private domain starts to unravel due to the presence of the possible return gazer, an issue which only gets exacerbated once she learns of a serial killer loose in the city, a man known as the “Spider” who seems to have a penchant for decapitating young woman.

Thus, the apartment becomes an identarian pressure cooker with the voyeuristic entanglement serving as the boiling force pushing things to their brink. Julia is forced to wait within its domains while waiting for her tenuous link in the form of her husband to show up. All the while, she doesn’t know if she’s safe in her own apartment as she feels the gaze of her “watcher” staring down upon her. Her attempts to venture out of the apartment navigate the city alone only push her further into the heart of darkness as she finds herself assaulted by a culture and language she struggles to comprehend all while dealing with the paranoid suspicion that her watcher is following her on the streets as well.

Director Chloe Okuno takes great pains to keep the viewer firmly on the side of Julia; we follow her perspective almost fully from start to finish, gaining access to knowledge at the same time as her and dealing with the inability to reconcile the series of unexplainable events. This identification makes even simple traversal sequences in public areas tense as every passerby threatens to become her neighbor or, even worse, the “Spider” himself.

As Mia tries to get to the bottom of the situation, her body, in particular her face, becomes obfuscated by the mise-en-scène: fences, stairs, and shadowy lighting cues provide her cover, hiding her in plain sight. At its best, this architectural paranoia recalls Polanski’s Apartment Trilogy, namely The Tenant, in the way it reveals the uncertainty looming behind every corner: if Mia can hide herself so effectively in the crevices of the city she barely knows, then the “watcher” can just as easily be in all the same dark, unseen spaces, waiting for the perfect moment to pounce.

This unease only continues to grow as the film progresses, forcing both the viewer and Mia to confront the truth hiding behind the terrors. This journey is what makes the film engaging; the narrative is nothing more than a vehicle to let it take place. Consequently, even when the narrative seems to veer towards more conventional story beats, the underlying tension stemming from Mia’s arc and our investment in it is more than capable of keeping the film consistently engaging.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	The Watcher takes a seemingly simply story involving a woman and the serial killer she thinks is stalking her and elevates it into a pure piece of paranoia wherein every dark crevice contains within it the possibility of unruly violence. By stripping the story down to its basest elements and relying on filmmaking instead of narrative to reinforce the alienation and trepidation of the protagonist, newcomer director Chloe Okuno is able to tell tale that’s gripping from start to finish even when it feels like you know where it’s going.
Rating	9.8/10
Grade	A+

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion and more in-depth analysis.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3

2020s, 2022, body horror, Drama, Grade, Horror, Past, Review, review-movie, S, Science Fiction, science fiction horror, Year

Film Review: Crimes of the Future – 2022

June 3, 2022 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	David Cronenberg
Principal Cast	Viggo Mortensen as Saul Tenser Léa Seydoux as Caprice Kristen Stewart as Timlin
Release Date	2022
Language(s)	English
Running Time	107 minutes
Report Card	Click to go to Review TLDR/Summary

The title sequence opens on a canvas made of flesh which evokes the grandeur of the cosmos in the way its “markings” stretch across the screen. Skin is transformed into a metaphysically evocative work of art. This presence of the otherworldly within the human sets up the film’s fundamental question: what delineates humanity from that which it is not?

The answer to the question starts with a young boy, Brecken (Sozos Sotiris), fishing for materials on the banks of the ocean. These bits and pieces of non-organic junk are put in a bucket for storage. As Brecken engages in this task, his mother (Lihi Kornowski) yells at him to not consume any found material – a strange request given the nature of what he’s collecting.

Yet, her warning proves to be fruitful as it’s revealed that Brecken has evolved the capacity to consume plastics as easily as any other type of foodstuff. He sits in the bathroom and excretes an acid from his mouth and slowly chews a bucket sitting next to the toilet as nonchalantly as one would eat a sandwich at the dinner table; the perversion of the traditional eating situation – food being replaced with plastic and a dining area replaced with a bathroom – both confirms Brecken’s behavior while raising questions as to what it suggests: the ability to consume and digest plastics with ease represents such a significant difference from what humans are capable of that it raises the question of Brecken’s relationship to humanity.

His mother takes the transformation as proof of his inhumanity – the evolutionary deviation might as well render him a separate species as far as she’s concerned. Consequently, when he goes to sleep, she takes the opportunity to suffocate and kill him. Now the “creature” has been taken care of. She calls her crime in and coldly mentions that Brecken’s father can deal with the remnants of the monstrosity he bequeathed onto her.

But her disposition to evolution is challenged as the film cuts to Saul (Viggo Mortensen), a pained man, who wakes from a futuristic cocoon-shaped bed complete with tentacular hand-like appendages. He complains to his partner, Caprice (Léa Seydoux), that the bed is not regulating his pain properly and has to get a software update. He goes to eat sitting in a similarly alien chair with appendages that aids him in digestion, but just like with the bed, he struggles and is clearly uncomfortable.

The root of his discomfort stems from a new organ in his body; Saul is someone who’s particular condition causes him to grow new organs periodically which rupture his homeostasis with the machines meant to aid him. However, unlike Brecken’s mother, who takes significant deviation as a sign of an otherness which threatens to obliterate humanity, Saul and Caprice, take these evolutionary shifts as obstacles for humanity to overcome and make their own.

They treat Saul’s condition by removing the organs in live-shows that smash the medical and artistic into a single arena: surgery becomes performance art as Caprice rips into Saul’s flesh in a public arena to remove the effects of his evolutionary changes, thereby rendering both the surgery and the new organ as pieces of art. As she penetrates him, his face contorts in the throws of ecstasy. As the domain of flesh expands, as does the domain of surgery which now positions itself as the new sex. Thus, the evolutionary shift opens the space for new possibilities, allowing humanity to transmute itself through itself.

Both Brecken and Saul’s mutations are a result of Accelerated Evolution Syndrome wherein humanity finds itself quickly mutating in an increasingly ecologically desolate world. The pain thresholds common to persons have disappeared by and large, leaving humanity open to a more explicitly sadomasochistic relationship to their flesh. A desolate environment and the absence of pain render the site of the body the natural next location for investigation: humans turn to themselves as environments to navigate, to find meaning within as the outside world continues to shrink.

Yet, the shifting tectonics of the flesh threatens to rupture the paradigm by which humanity operates – the liminal points of the species are coming apart. As evidenced by Brecken’s mother, the cataclysms generated through evolution threaten to upend humanity all-together. Consequently, the future finds itself in a paradigmatic war to determine the points to suture humanity around. Saul’s unique condition places himself at the center of a network of parties desperately trying to set the syntax by which humanity defines itself. His shows with Caprice bring not only art fans looking to see the literal manifestation of artists reaching from within to create something spectacular but also extremists and government agencies who wish to use the platform to spread their own messages about what human normativity should be.

For director David Cronenberg, none of these questions are new: Crimes of the Future represents a return to the thematic investigations of his earlier body horror works à la eXistenZ. But this latest entry differs not in its manner of presentation, so much as the feelings it evoke in reference to the material. Cronenberg maintains his clinical precision in showing the flesh rendered, but attempts to place the viewer in the same mesmerized, painless state as the inhabitants of the film, showcasing gore and mutilation with such care as to render the grotesque mesmerizing. As organs are removed and examined, one can’t help but continue to stare at the screen as Howard Shore’s hypnotic electric score pulsates in the background inducing a meditative trance. Each cut brings with it not only artfully tempered gore but the opportunity to assess what our flesh and our relationship to it means and opens or closes us up to as a result.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	Crimes of the Future sees body-horror master David Cronenberg back in more familiar waters as the story follows an humanity on the precipice of radical change as accelerated mutations in an ecologically compromised world have opened up the possibilities for what the species means and where it can go. The juxtaposition of the body against the fields of art, surgery, ecology, evolution, and politics makes the film’s gory spectacle all the more interesting and forces the viewer to navigate the fleshy contours that demarcate humanity
Rating	10/10
Grade	S

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion and more in-depth analysis.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3

2020s, 2022, Art House, body horror, Drama, folk, Grade, Horror, Past, Review, review-movie, S, Year

Film Review: Men – 2022

May 21, 2022 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	Alex Garland
Principal Cast	Jessie Buckley as Harper Rory Kinnear as Geoffrey Paapa Essiedu as James Gayle Rankin as Riley
Release Date	2022
Language(s)	English
Running Time	100 minutes
Report Card	Click to go to Review TLDR/Summary

A young woman, Harper (Jessie Buckley) comes to an English countryside where she rents a cottage to deal with trauma stemming from her husband’s (Paapa Essiedu) unexpected passing. To get her mind off the situation, she goes on a stroll through the grounds and ends up in a forest ripe with greens all around. She finds herself at the entrance of a tunnel, a dark passage to an unknown location; the hole captivates her and she enters it.

Her voice echoes in the cave, reverberating against itself in cycles. She sings a variety of different tunes, some with only a few notes, against one another, transforming the collective soundscape into an evocative ouroboros-like melody wherein each discrete set of notes fades into the next before eventually returning. But Harper’s song of echoes comes to an end as a silhouetted man appears at the other side of the tunnel. The man breaks the moment’s serenity and gives chase to Harper all the way back to her cottage.

This scene defines and crystallizes the logic of Men, a work in which narrative, visual, and auditory patterns are interwoven against and within one another, generating a complex schema of meaning contingent on how the viewer orients themselves towards the cinematic experience. This act of interpretation places the viewer squarely on Harper’s side; as she navigates a matrix of men, each obnoxious in their own chauvinistic, irritating way, and has to deal with all manners of gaslighting from them, the viewer is forced to make sense of how different story threads suture around one another and come together to form a cohesive narrative, surreal or not.

From the moment Harper meets the residents near her abode, these interpretative decisions start to sprout up: each of the men she meets sports a similar face – an intentional decision as they’re all played by Rory Kinnear. Yet this similarity in appearance is never noted by Harper or any of the characters, leaving its purpose up to interpretation. The viewer gets to determine whether or not the homogeneity is due to Harper’s subjective view of all men being the same or the film’s themes suggesting that the men are so similar that their physical appearances should reflect one another or something else entirely. Each interpretation is suggested by the film as the echoes generated by its elliptical formal choices tie seemingly innocuous details into larger theses that bracket the film in one discrete direction versus another. These choices in perspective have such a compounding effect on the nature of the narrative that a viewer could leave justifiably thinking that the film only portrays one character death, shown in flashback, or showcases multiple character deaths sprinkled throughout the story. However, regardless of which path the viewer and Harper choose to follow, the center of that journey always terminates in man.

Thus, Harper’s journey, whatever the viewer determines it is, elliptically orders itself around the nature of a subject’s relationship to men and the social order oriented around and indexed towards their positions. Regardless of which man Harper finds herself encountering, the same cycle ensues: her attempts at individual peace are interrupted as she’s forced to give attention to the man in question, the nature of that attention being contingent on the above interpretative schema.

The dream-like quality can easily be dismissed as art-house pretension, especially as the subtext sublimates in a visceral body horror that threatens to confuse more than illuminate. But by leaving the viewer in the same fractured and entranced state as its protagonist, Men manages to provoke an empathetic engagement with the subject matter, even if the nature of that engagement differs wildly from viewer to viewer. Far from gaslighting the viewer with obtuse, opaque threads meant to elicit confusion, Men forces the viewer to take responsibility for the narrative they craft from the film itself.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	Men is an ambitious piece of film-making that investigates the nature of gaslighting and obfuscation by making the viewer responsible for piecing together the narrative and taking charge of what it means. The unnerving, surreal imagery takes on a new life as its purpose takes on a subjective meaning, letting the horrors take firm root in the mind. Even when the thresholds for explanation wear thin, the experience generated by the emphatic connection with a protagonist going through a similar labyrinth of meaning and construction ensures the feelings of the film still wash over.
Rating	10/10
Grade	S

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion and more in-depth analysis.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3

2020s, 2021, A+, Animation, Anime, Comedy, Drama, Grade, Past, Review, review-movie, Year

Film Review: Pompo the Cinephile – 2021

April 28, 2022 The Critic 1 Comment

Director(s)	Takayuki Hirao
Principal Cast	Hiroya Shimizu as Gene Rinka Ôtani as Natalie Konomi Kohara as Pompo Akio Ootsuka as Martin
Release Date	2021
Language(s)	Japanese
Running Time	90 minutes
Report Card	Click to go to Review TLDR/Summary

In Nyallywood (aka Hollywood), the producer who reigns supreme is Pompo, an exuberant young woman with a flair for dramatic entrances and an eye for nabbing the best talent to surround her; her B-movies are a thing of legend and accrue rewards and adulation all around. Her assistant, Gene, in shocking comparison to Pompo, is a tired looking, unenergetic husk whose only saving grace seems to be his intensive love of cinema. Far from just being part of his job, Gene uses cinema as his primary frame for interacting with the world at large around him, spending his free time poring over copious notes he’s taken regarding the production process or watching and absorbing films at breakneck pace.

Consequently, even in his day-to-day outside of the studio, he finds himself framing the world as a director would. While travelling to an routine casting session, he notices a young woman running across the street. As she playfully jumps past a puddle, his pupil transforms into a camera lens, showing us how the seemingly small moment becomes something cinematic; time slows down and his brain starts doing post-production (color grading) to the moment of jubilation, applying colors and filters to the everyday moment thereby rendering it cinematic. A simple jump – a split moment – becomes frozen in time and becomes something greater than it is.

When he finally makes it to the audition area, he runs past the girl once again; this time her face is covered with a miasma of despair – a sharp contrast to before. As the two cross one another’s paths, discordant jump cuts are used to create a stutter effect- time breaks as the two seemingly unrelated persons enter one another’s space. It becomes clear that their paths are meant to cross, even though Pompo informs Gene that the young woman, Natalie, was rejected from the studio’s current film due to an inability to act.

But inability in the moment does not entail incapacity in general, and Pompo decides to spring a surprise on Gene: she offers him the chance to serve as director for her new script, a non-B effort titled Maister. The script – a story of an elderly hardened man learning how to embrace the world via a chance encounter with a young, passionate woman – immediately captivates Gene who finds himself completely enamored with the characters in spite of the generic trappings of the narrative. To his surprise, Pompo reveals that the part of the heroine is to be played by none other than Natalie. Even though the aspiring ingenue’s test performance lacked, a certain aura she possessed captivated Pompo to the point of writing the role in this script explicitly for her; like Gene, Pompo can’t help but take the inspiration from the everyday and transform it into something cinematic.

Thus, Gene is set to direct his first feature film. Suddenly, the never-ending series of notes he’s taken on sets up till now become a template for him to traverse down the path to becoming a full-fledged director. However what opposes him is not a direct antagonist or series of enemies to be defeated but the process of creation itself; getting shots to work in spite of production issues, keeping true to the vision of the script while heeding to cinematic limits, conveying key story beats without relying on excessive exposition, and finding a way to edit down the final product in spite of a wealth of gorgeous footage become the obstacles that Gene and his crew find themselves tackling.

By structuring the film proper around the mechanics of the film-making process, director Takayuki Hirao is able to get the viewer to directly consider each and every choice made. There’s a direct focus on the nature of what makes a good film: decisions related to acting, shot composition (ex: wide shots vs close-ups), and editing are brought up directly by the characters as they discuss how to overcome the various hurdles they encounter. By having the characters walk the audience through the logistics of their decision-making, the film is able to get viewers to subjectively tap into and become involved with the film in a dialogue. Our attention is drawn to the nature of cinematic technique and its intended purpose, so as the film starts to become more “overtly” stylized, it becomes astoundingly clear that even the most seemingly minute decision is being done to engender a certain feeling.

Match cuts (both within Pompo and between Pompo and Maister ), jump cuts, rewinding/fast-forwarding footage within the film proper to explain parallel character decisions, using reflective surfaces in the background to juxtapose characters’ thoughts versus their actions, and moving the camera back from supposed establishing shots to reveal said scenes are nothing more than character perspectives or scenes being projected on the big screen reveal the liminal space between cinema and memory. Not since the works of Satoshi Kon (Millennium Actress, Perfect Blue) has an animated film so effectively tapped into the idea of cinema as a dream-machine; for the characters this dream is both literal – they want to produce and create films for audiences – but is also metaphorical as these same films are expressions of their innermost desires come to life, rendered on a canvas that promises infinite possibilities.

As Gene shoots Meister, he finds that his own life not only serves as a template for how he approaches the content but that the content then, almost as if in response, becomes a guiding force for him to evaluate and progress within his own life; life and art become two mutually reinforcing sides, generating a new creative order. While there are similar works like Keep Your Hands Off Eizouken! or Shirobako that also navigate the process of creatives attempting to take their fanaticism to the level of art, what separates and elevates Pompo and its themes is the level of commitment at making the fictional work its about, Maister, as polished and entertaining as the film proper. Even though we’re only privy to brief snippets, the scenes chosen are all pivotal in how they reveal the underpinnings of the story proper while conveying a completely distinct tale that’s enthralling all on it’s own. It’s one thing to cheer on a character as they set out to pursue their dreams, but by making the painful, brutal costs and transcendent rewards of their efforts so transparent, Pompo is able to hammer its points home.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	Pompo the Cinephile is a love letter to cinema and animation that emphatically demonstrates the ethereal powers of moving images. The film’s unabashed enthusiasm and wit makes it endlessly entertaining and endearing for anyone who’s ever “found” themselves in a work of art.
Rating	10/10
Grade	A+

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion and more in-depth analysis.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3

2010s, 2017, C+, Drama, Fantasy, Grade, Past, Review, review-movie, romance, Year

Film Review: Twilight – 2008

February 6, 2022 The Critic 1 Comment

Director(s)	Catherine Hardwicke
Principal Cast	Kristen Stewart as Bella Swan Robert Pattinson as Edward Cullen Billy Burke as Charlie Swan Taylor Lautner as Jacob Black
Release Date	2008
Language(s)	English
Running Time	121 minutes
Report Card	Click to go to Review TLDR/Summary

The film opens on two stories that intertwine, that of a young woman and that of a doe. While the doe drinks from a stream, the young woman, Bella (Kristen Stewart), notes that while she’s never given death much of a thought, dying in the place of a loved one wouldn’t be a bad way to go. Suddenly, the doe notices that its peaceful drinking area is no longer safe. We cut to a point-of-view shot – a a human-shaped hunter has appeared and death is staring the woodland creature down. Though it tries to run, the incredibly fast hunter catches it. Death has come.

The connection between the two tales is apparent: both feature a creature facing an inevitable end. If the doe is a stand-in for Bella, which loved one is it dying in the place of? If Bella is fated to be like the doe, then what exactly is hunting her? This deadly juxtaposition sets the tone for what’s to come. Bright light fills the screen and we’re transported from the woods to the deserts of Phoenix.

Bella begins to narrate again, describing the journey leading up to her confrontation with death. She explains that her mother is planning on going on the road with a new partner. As a result, Bella’s moving from sunny Phoenix, Arizona to cloudy, rainy Forks, Washington to stay with her father, Charlie (Billy Burke), the police chief of the town.

However, just because her new environment is cold and unappealing doesn’t mean that the people inhabiting it are; Bella finds herself immediately accepted by the townsfolk. Her father’s peers fondly remember her from childhood visits and her fellow classmates at school, especially the young men, are desperate to make acquaintances with a newfound person; Forks is a small town with a sparse population so new faces are rare.

The Cullens from left to right: Jasper (Jackson Rathbone), Alice (Ashley Greene), Emmett (Kellan Lutz), Rosalie (Nikki Reed), Edward( Robert Pattinson).

But the Cullens, a family of five adopted siblings, each with immaculate good looks and pale skin, ignores Bella, giving her a cold shoulder. The lack of attention provokes an interest; Bella is immediately entranced by the one member of the family, Edward (Robert Pattinson), who seems equally interested in her.

The fan blows Bella’s (Kristen Stewart) scent towards Edward.

Yet, it appears that his interest is one rooted in antagonism. As Bella makes her way into biology, the fan at the front of the room blows against her. Edward visibly grabs his face, gagging in response to Bella’s scent. The tension becomes worse after the teacher has Bella sit next to Edward to serve as his lab partner. His disgusted facial reactions prompt Bella to check her own body odor. Far from wanting to be her friend, Edward seems offended by her very presence.

After class he leaves to go to the front office in an attempt to get switched out of Bella’s class but is informed that there are no other vacancies. The severe rejection boggles Bella; she can’t fathom why Edward seems so desperate to avoid her. Her suspicions only grow after Edward skips school for a few days. Would he really skip out just to avoid having to deal with her in any capacity?

Bella (Kristen Stewart) can’t stop thinking about…

In spite of this, Edward comes to occupy Bella’s thoughts. She can’t get him out of his head and his increasingly erratic decisions only causes her to become more obsessed with what’s provoking such a strong response from him. Instead of hanging out with newfound friends who seem genuinely interested in her, Bella becomes determined to figure out the mystery behind Edward, a mystery that only becomes more confusing as Edward decides to randomly warm up to her after the cold introduction.

Her search and the implications behind what she discovers bifurcates the film into two neat halves; the first half follows Bella as she unravels Edward’s secrets and grows to fall in love with him, and the second half follows her as she deals with the consequences of her discoveries, both of Edward and of her feelings.

Bella’s journey is presented primarily from her point-of-view; she’s constantly narrating her inner thoughts and the film often cuts to her dreams and subjective visions. This helps ground the more melodramatic moments of her journey; the rush to die for love is a sentiment that exists as extremity but in the context of a young woman’s first romantic encounter, the melodramatic intensity of every related moment is understandable. The story’s supernatural backdrop only accentuates these moments, giving the emotional intensity Bella’s going through a fitting real-world analog to deal with.

Unfortunately, the film doesn’t meld these layers cohesively against one another during the visceral moments. Inconsistent and comic visual effects undercut the severity of the supernatural forces encroaching Bella’s life. It’s hard to take threats seriously when the effects render what should be a threatening situation into a comedic one. Consequently, the melodramatic nature of the young couple’s feelings for one another feels more absurd than it does heightened.

Furthermore, the acting by the leads often feels discordant with the emotions that their characters are trying to hint at. This is partially a problem that stems from the script which adapts most of the book’s dialogue, dialogue which very few actors could possibly render in cohesive let alone great fashion, but it definitely would have helped if some of the facial expressions matched up with the intention behind the dialogue.

In spite of this, Twilight never feels like its settling or meandering. Even when the film swings and misses in stellar fashion, the attempt can be appreciated. The fantasy the movie provides and takes Bella through can be comprehended even though it’s not nearly as appealing as Bella makes it out to be.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	Twilight’s tale of intense passions and supernatural romance may be overbearing at times, but the enthusiasm by which it approaches its subject matter makes it more than endearing. Though some of the visual and acting choices don’t land, the intent behind the fantasy of the story is comprehensible and fans of it will be more than satisfied with the offering.
Rating	7.2/10
Grade	C+

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion and more in-depth analysis.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3

2020s, 2021, A+, Crime, Drama, Film Noir, Grade, Past, Review, review-movie, Thriller, Year

Film Review: Nightmare Alley – 2021

January 3, 2022 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	Guillermo del Toro
Principal Cast	Bradley Cooper as Stanton “Stan” Carlisle Toni Collette as Zeena Cate Blanchett as Lilith Rooney Mara as as Molly
Release Date	2021
Language(s)	English
Running Time	150 minutes
Report Card	Click to go to Review TLDR/Summary

A man, Stan, drags a body into a decrepit, disheveled looking house. He places the body into a small hole in the ground and sets the house to flames. Who is being burned and why are they being disposed of in this fashion? These are the questions the narrative circles around; as Stan makes decisions, the film cuts to the scene of the fire, highlighting how his choices shape his relationship to the aspects of his past that he wishes to burn and move past.

With only a suitcase, a watch, and a few knick-knacks, Stan makes his way away from the burning household towards a bus. He gets on board and passes out. Suddenly, he’s woken at the last stop, a carnival, and makes his way out. It becomes clear that outside of getting away from his past, Stan has no clear goals; he’s merely a wanderer trying to make the best of his situation.

Though he comes in to the location by random, it’s clear that Stan is more than competent at making do with his situation. He travels through the carnival and comes upon a “geek” show. The carnival’s owner, Clem (Willem DaFoe), exclaims that even though “geek” in question is so feral he’s still been classified as a man. But still, he insists on posing the question: “Is he man, or beast?”

The crowd becomes fully enthralled by the tagline and buys into the show, forking over change to partake in the festivities. A malnourished and broken-in man (Paul Anderson) crawls out of a damp, grimy enclosing and approaches a chicken which has just been placed in the enclosure. The audience watches with baited breath, but Stan seems more disturbed by the ordeal than anything else. When the “geek” bites down on the chicken’s neck and severs its head, Stan turns while the crowd cheers and jeers at the ordeal.

He leaves the area and is approached by members of the carnival looking for physical labor. Without saying a word, Stan agrees to their proposition and quickly begins to work. He gets acquainted with Clem (Willem DaFoe) and agrees to take on additional work for food and pay; all his negotiations are carried out without an utterance on his part, only gestures. He’s more than content to nod along and play his part, whatever it may be.

It’s only when Clem sends him to capture the carnival’s “geek” after the latter escapes his cage that Stan finds a reason to open his mouth. Upon finding the “geek”, Stan attempts to bargain with the escapee. Stan promises not to inform Clem of his location and instead questions the “geek” on the nature of their predicament; how did this fellow end up desperate enough to eat live chickens for an audience?

But instead of an answer, Stan gets a blow to the head from a rock the “geek” throws. Words can do nothing here and Stan resorts to physical action, proceeding to beat to beat the “geek” into submission. Clem manages to find the duo and stops Stan from killing the performer before then offering him a permanent position with the carnival. Sensing Stan’s mysterious past, Clem suggests that the environment is perfect for the wanderer because no one working at the locale would pry into his past; maybe the “geek” responded in such fashion because he, like Stan, wants to keep his past a mystery.

Regardless, like the “geek”, Stan agrees to work for Clem at the carnival and eagerly embraces the change of scenery. He goes from saying nothing to becoming very talkative. He’s a people pleaser and seems to know exactly what to say to people around him. He’s approached by Zeena (Toni Colette), a carny with a clairvoyant performance who takes a liking to him quickly.

Zeena’s husband, Pete (David Strathairn) is a mentalist and an alcoholic who acts as a surrogate father to Stan. He quickly takes the young man under his wing and teaches him cold reading techniques capable of fooling even the best. With the techniques in hand, Stan blossoms, captivating any soul willing to listen to his words. He goes from a silent wanderer to a charismatic charlatan capable of conning anyone who comes his way, saying exactly what he thinks people want to hear. With the world seemingly at his beck and call, Stan proceeds out from the carnival and into the world determined to to use his skillsets to get everything he wants. But as his marks get more dangerous, Stan is forced to confront the depths of his deepest desires.

The film’s focus on how his desire unfurls is motivated by psychoanalysis – references are made directly in the text. In particular, Stan finds that his journey intersects with three women, Zeena being one of them, all of whom act as both a surrogate partner and mother to him. The Oedipal nature of the relation is intentional and informs the way the film operates. As Stan makes critical decisions in relation to these women, his final trajectory becomes apparent. The weight of every choice he makes reverberates and can be measured as the film cuts to flames as a visual refrain, a visual-call back to his original act of immolation showcasing just how far or close he is to the past he’s trying to escape.

His psychic journey is manifested in the production design. Director Guillermo del Toro does great work to ensure that Stan’s psychic encounters and battles take place in backdrops which reinforce the the shifting tides of power between parties. del Toro uses the noir stylings of the genre and narrative to accentuate the sets, leaning into the use shadows, smoke, and slanted angles to emphasize the nightmarish alleys that Stan finds himself traversing. The rooms and locales that people own are part and parcel of each characters’ identity, so as Stan engages in his mental excursions with persons, the nature of what the characters are after and why they’re after can be felt in even the subtle ways the camera moves.

The narrative, based on William Lindsay Gresham’s 1946 novel, is clock full of detail, providing ample narrative strings for the viewer to parse and put together against these larger visual flourishes. Every thread in play is set-up for a particular reason, and del Toro knows just how to litter the call-backs and references to generate a feeling of catharsis. No beat overstays its welcome and by the time the film’s ending comes into view, any viewer who’s become entranced will already know what is going to unfold and why its going to play out as it does because the way the film’s threads congeal is sublime.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	Nightmare Alley’s meticulous machinations makes it a wonder to marvel at; each story and character beat has a purpose and watching the threads come together in explosive fashion makes the slow-burn journey all the more satisfying.
Rating	10/10
Grade	A+

Go to Page 2 for the for the spoiler discussion and more in-depth analysis.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3

The Critic's Sanctum

Tag Archives: Drama

Film Review: Who’s That Knocking at My Door – 1967

REPORT CARD

Film Review: Polytechnique – 2009

REPORT CARD

Film Review: Shiva Baby – 2020

REPORT CARD

Film Review: The Black Phone – 2022

REPORT CARD

Film Review: Watcher – 2022

REPORT CARD

Film Review: Crimes of the Future – 2022

REPORT CARD

Film Review: Men – 2022

REPORT CARD

Film Review: Pompo the Cinephile – 2021

REPORT CARD

Film Review: Twilight – 2008

REPORT CARD

Film Review: Nightmare Alley – 2021

REPORT CARD

A place for fun and rumination