written and directed by Taika Waititi
based (loosely) on the book Caging Skies by Christine Leunens
There's been a lot of discussion as to whether or not the movie Jojo Rabbit was made in good taste, and even though we live in a day and age in which "I'm offended" is a catch-phrase that's so overused it's become the object of ridicule, it's not an altogether invalid question. Although comedies have been made about World War II in general and even Hitler in particular, it's still worth asking if the film in question has been well-made, and in this case, the answer would most definitely have to be "yes."
Johannes Betzler (Roman Griffin Davis) is a 10-year-old German boy who, in the last few months of World War II, joins the Hitler Youth, which represented one of the Third Reich's last desperate attempts to gather up warm bodies for their failing war effort. Like many of his fellow recruits, Johannes or Jojo is fanatically devoted to Der Fuhrer Adolf Hitler and his teachings, like his all-abiding hatred of Jews, and even has him as a somewhat goofy imaginary friend (played by director Taika Waititi himself). Being smaller than the other recruits, Jojo is regularly bullied and, when he refuses to kill a rabbit, is derisively nicknamed "Jojo Rabbit." It's not all bad, though; while at boot camp Jojo hangs out with his best friend Yorki (Archie Yates) and is later looked after by the kindly if often scatterbrained Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell) and his aide and possible boyfriend Finkel (Alfie Allen) and, most importantly is loved by his mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson), who detests the war and wants nothing more than for it to end. Then, one day, to his shock, Jojo discovers that, hidden in his very own house, lives a Jewish girl named Elsa (Thomasin MacKenzie). Jojo realizes he cannot sound the alarm, lest his mother get in trouble for harboring the enemy, and he is at a loss as to what to do to serve his Fuhrer, especially when his feelings start getting in the way of his deeply-held beliefs.
It's hard to shake the feeling that one thing the filmmakers are stating, in the most thinly-veiled way imaginable, is that fanatics are basically children, but to the film's credit it's got so much more going for it than that. While a love story at heart, the movie still tells the story of a budding fanatic, never missing an opportunity to point out just how ridiculous his beliefs are. What is perhaps even more amazing is that a lot of the propaganda discussed in the film which depicts Jews as being less than human is not even a contrivance of the script but rather derived from actual Nazi propaganda back in the day. It's basically like the jokes wrote themselves.
Still, the film has its fair share of unsettling moments as it shifts in tone between comedic and dramatic, quite often stepping ever-so-slightly into inappropriate territory but overall it does an admirable job of maintaining the balance. This isn't a Mel Brooks or Abrahams-Zucker movie that basically chucks any pretense of seriousness out the window from the word "go;" it dares to mix both the levity and the grimness of war. Keeping that balance is what makes this film as effective as it is, as exemplified when it delivers one of its more stunning moments with the requisite impact. Also, Waititi's choice to keep the film grounded in the horror of war, even amidst all the farce, makes it that much easier to connect with his characters.
Another thing that keeps the narrative from becoming too unwieldy is the fact that every single actor in this film is in tip-top form, from Scarlett Johansson to Sam Rockwell to Stephen Merchant, who plays a slimy Gestapo officer, to newcomer Roman Griffin Davis. In particular, there is this distinct sweetness in the relationship between Johansson's Rosie and her fanatical son Jojo, which is easily the most important relationship in the entire film and which I'm sure, in this day and age of families divided along lines of political loyalty, resonated with quite a lot of viewers living in countries grappling with authoritarian leaders. It's also this loving dynamic that gives the film its real power, as Waititi surely recognized that the movie could not simply coast on the chutzpah that enabled him to make this film in the first place. Rockwell also deserves special mention for his portrayal of the bumbling Klenzendorf, a character who could easily have descended into caricature but whom Rockwell imbues with a surprising amount of humanity. Also, in a day an age in which queerbaiting is an unfortunate reality in Hollywood movies (I'm looking at you, Captain Marvel and Star Wars: Episode IX: Rise of Skywalker), it was surprisingly pleasant to see a genuinely-developed LGBT character whose sexuality was an integral part of some very important decisions he made in the context of the story. Even the zanier characters like Rebel Wilson's overzealous Fraulein Rah and Stephen Merchant's goofy gestapo agent come off well.
If there's anything that weighs the movie down it's not the humor but the occasional heavy-handedness of the sentimentality, though fortunately that doesn't happen too often throughout the film.
Waititi truly is a gifted storyteller; it would have been very easy to get this film terribly wrong, but amazingly, he manages the balancing act all the way to the finish line. For that, this movie really is quite a unique achievement.
8/10
Sunday, January 26, 2020
Friday, January 17, 2020
Moving on From Weinstein: Why "Parasite" Needs to Win the Best Picture Oscar of 2020
Of the nine films nominated for Best Motion Picture of the year by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, a whopping six were produced by studios (with Fox Searchlight, which released nominee Jojo Rabbit being a specialty arm of the 20th Century Fox studio, which in turn is owned by Disney), two were produced by Netflix, one, namely The Irishman, at massive cost, and only one really fits the bill of an independent movie, the Bong Joon-Ho gem Parasite.
In reaction to the accusation that only movies that nobody ever actually watches get nominated for Academy Awards, the Academy has clearly gone too far in the other direction this year, loading their slate with studio films, including one that was somewhat divisive among critics, and one which was picked from the carcass of Harvey Weinstein's empire in what feels distinctly like an effort at appeasement. And then there's the #oscarssowhite campaign, which was dusted off again this year in response to an apparent snub of actors of color in the nominations.
Parasite is one of only three films that I have seen that were nominated for Best Picture this year, the other two being Ford v. Ferrari (which I loved) and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (which I hated), and while as a fan of motorsport I enjoyed Ford v. Ferrari more than Parasite, I will readily concede that it is the latter film that deserves to walk away with the top prize from this year's Academy Awards, not just for its quality and awards pedigree, which are already reasons in and of themselves, but for an altogether different reason, namely what's at stake.
As dramatic as this may sound, the future of independent film may well depend on how the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences chooses to recognize Parasite.
Since Harvey Weinstein's empire built on independent films fell apart, there's been a fairly big question mark hovering over the future of independent cinema. As unpalatable as it may be to contemplate in view of his behavior, there really has never been anyone who has championed independent movies quite as successfully as Weinstein has, and his fall from grace has definitely left a vacuum which a number of "pretenders" like A24 are still struggling to fill. Unfortunately, with plummeting viewership ratings and a persistent complaint that nobody actually sees any of the movies that are nominated for Oscars, the AMPAS looks set to ditch independent movies as well, especially with the emergence of Netflix as a force in championing movies that would otherwise not get a full-fledged theatrical release.
The emergence of Netflix as the heir-apparent to Harvey Weinstein as the champion of independent film is something that should worry anyone who still loves going to the movies as opposed to watching them on their phones, and if the Academy hands the Best Picture Oscar out to either of Netflix's two nominees, it will virtually be crowning them as the new Miramax. Of course, if the award goes to a studio flick, then it's somewhat self-explanatory as to why this is going to be a bad thing for the theatrical future of independent movies. The argument for Netflix, which started sometime ago but only really started gaining traction last year when Alfonso Cuaron's Roma scored the studio's first brace of Oscar nominations, was that they made movies that no one else had the cojones to make, including stories by maverick filmmakers which studios found too risky to spend too much money on, and they knew how to market them too. It wasn't exactly wrong, even though it was a bit of a cheat; Roma only had a token theatrical release in order to qualify for the Oscars, which is the same strategy Netflix has employed for its two nominees this year The Irishman and Marriage Story. Both of them have spent such negligible time in actual movie theaters that their grosses aren't even being reported.
Parasite, in contrast, is a big, fat fucking middle finger to this model. It's in theaters right now, all around the world, and has grossed an awesome $136,720,990 (and counting) against a paltry $11 million budget. Fledgling studio Neon has taken up the cudgels for distributing this film in the United States and Canada and has dared to be different with a theatrical release. Its courage has been rewarded; the movie has already doubled its budget in terms of earnings in the U.S., with plenty of fuel left in the tank. Long story short: the movie is a financial success, despite being the kind of movie that many pundits claim can no longer be made. If it's rewarded for its audacity, as it was in Cannes at the expense of Tarantino's overrated Hollywood, then promising filmmakers won't need to peddle their wares to Netflix or hope to God that Bob Iger or Tom Rothman returns their phone calls. It's been said that Iger, who on behalf of Walt Disney purchased 20th Century Fox and its sub-brand Fox Searchlight, did so because they knew how to make and market awards contenders, something Ford v Ferrari and Jojo Rabbit have borne out. In short, there is a market for the little movie that could, and if the Academy awards Neon, then there are fair odds that the independent film will live to see big screens another day.
I hope they make the right choice.
In reaction to the accusation that only movies that nobody ever actually watches get nominated for Academy Awards, the Academy has clearly gone too far in the other direction this year, loading their slate with studio films, including one that was somewhat divisive among critics, and one which was picked from the carcass of Harvey Weinstein's empire in what feels distinctly like an effort at appeasement. And then there's the #oscarssowhite campaign, which was dusted off again this year in response to an apparent snub of actors of color in the nominations.
Parasite is one of only three films that I have seen that were nominated for Best Picture this year, the other two being Ford v. Ferrari (which I loved) and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (which I hated), and while as a fan of motorsport I enjoyed Ford v. Ferrari more than Parasite, I will readily concede that it is the latter film that deserves to walk away with the top prize from this year's Academy Awards, not just for its quality and awards pedigree, which are already reasons in and of themselves, but for an altogether different reason, namely what's at stake.
As dramatic as this may sound, the future of independent film may well depend on how the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences chooses to recognize Parasite.
Since Harvey Weinstein's empire built on independent films fell apart, there's been a fairly big question mark hovering over the future of independent cinema. As unpalatable as it may be to contemplate in view of his behavior, there really has never been anyone who has championed independent movies quite as successfully as Weinstein has, and his fall from grace has definitely left a vacuum which a number of "pretenders" like A24 are still struggling to fill. Unfortunately, with plummeting viewership ratings and a persistent complaint that nobody actually sees any of the movies that are nominated for Oscars, the AMPAS looks set to ditch independent movies as well, especially with the emergence of Netflix as a force in championing movies that would otherwise not get a full-fledged theatrical release.
The emergence of Netflix as the heir-apparent to Harvey Weinstein as the champion of independent film is something that should worry anyone who still loves going to the movies as opposed to watching them on their phones, and if the Academy hands the Best Picture Oscar out to either of Netflix's two nominees, it will virtually be crowning them as the new Miramax. Of course, if the award goes to a studio flick, then it's somewhat self-explanatory as to why this is going to be a bad thing for the theatrical future of independent movies. The argument for Netflix, which started sometime ago but only really started gaining traction last year when Alfonso Cuaron's Roma scored the studio's first brace of Oscar nominations, was that they made movies that no one else had the cojones to make, including stories by maverick filmmakers which studios found too risky to spend too much money on, and they knew how to market them too. It wasn't exactly wrong, even though it was a bit of a cheat; Roma only had a token theatrical release in order to qualify for the Oscars, which is the same strategy Netflix has employed for its two nominees this year The Irishman and Marriage Story. Both of them have spent such negligible time in actual movie theaters that their grosses aren't even being reported.
Parasite, in contrast, is a big, fat fucking middle finger to this model. It's in theaters right now, all around the world, and has grossed an awesome $136,720,990 (and counting) against a paltry $11 million budget. Fledgling studio Neon has taken up the cudgels for distributing this film in the United States and Canada and has dared to be different with a theatrical release. Its courage has been rewarded; the movie has already doubled its budget in terms of earnings in the U.S., with plenty of fuel left in the tank. Long story short: the movie is a financial success, despite being the kind of movie that many pundits claim can no longer be made. If it's rewarded for its audacity, as it was in Cannes at the expense of Tarantino's overrated Hollywood, then promising filmmakers won't need to peddle their wares to Netflix or hope to God that Bob Iger or Tom Rothman returns their phone calls. It's been said that Iger, who on behalf of Walt Disney purchased 20th Century Fox and its sub-brand Fox Searchlight, did so because they knew how to make and market awards contenders, something Ford v Ferrari and Jojo Rabbit have borne out. In short, there is a market for the little movie that could, and if the Academy awards Neon, then there are fair odds that the independent film will live to see big screens another day.
I hope they make the right choice.
Wednesday, January 8, 2020
Marvel's (Cautious) Vote of Confidence: Contemplating the Troubled History and Potential Future of "The New Mutants"
Following one of my most active years this blog in some time, 2020 will mark a year in which I'm almost certain to scale back from my output. With Phase 3 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the Skywalker Saga having ended, there are not quite as many franchise movies slated for release this year pulling me to theaters, and there are simply more pressing things on which to spend my money.
That said, there is at least one movie I am now particularly interested in seeing, and as fate may have it, it may well be the first franchise movie I see this year (or not).
A few days ago, for the first time in literally more than two years, we got a new trailer for the long-gestating Marvel Comics adaptation The New Mutants. This was the first "proof of life" that 20th Century Fox, now owned by the Walt Disney Company, had given of this film since it first dropped a trailer back in October of 2017.
To provide a recap for anyone unfamiliar with the sordid history of this film, here are the undisputed facts: An adaptation of the Marvel Comics title "The New Mutants" was greenlit by 20th Century Fox back in 2015, way before they were bought by Disney and back when they had full film rights over the X-Men corner of the Marvel Universe. Filming took place from July to September 2017, and a trailer dropped a month later with an announced release date of April 2018. Then, Disney bought out Fox, and the film's release date was reshuffled three more times, once to February 2019, then to August 2019, and finally, to April 2020.
As we go from firm facts to scuttlebutt and reports from unverified sources, we then consider reports of Disney being "unimpressed" with the cut that 20th Century Fox had prepared for release and unconvinced of its box-office potential, and read about about re-shoots designed to restore director Josh Boone's original vision, as well as the removal of any and all footage connecting the movie to any and all previous X-Men movies. We also take heart at the report of a better reception for the new iteration of the film at test screenings.
From there, we jump into the realm of speculation, where many of us latch onto the one truly interesting prospect: that Kevin Feige, depending on how well The New Mutants does in theaters, may well integrate the characters into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Feige has openly expressed his intent to integrate mutants into the Marvel Cinematic Universe in several years' time; a warm reception for The New Mutants may expedite that process.
Given that the latest trailer was released bearing the 20th Century Fox trade dress as well as the simple "Marvel" as opposed to the "Marvel Studios" logo, it's clear that as of now The New Mutants is still its own thing, albeit apparently severed from the now-dead Fox X-Men universe. Disney is playing it safe in that regard, but given that they've retained the fairly competitive April release date and have cut a slick new trailer, it seems fairly clear that they're making a serious push for this movie, which, unlike the unloved Dark Phoenix has the distinction of being the first Marvel-based movie of the year, and the first to be released in over nine months. In short, unlike Dark Phoenix it could benefit from pent-up demand.
It's worth remembering that the first trailer that came out over two years ago for this film wasn't half-bad, and if anything this new one has reinforced the movie's potential to deliver something special.
For my part, having gorged myself on these MCU movies for the last decade, I have had my fill, especially with Avengers: Endgame providing as satisfying a conclusion as there could possibly be to this sprawling 22-movie saga, and I would not mind seeing something new, like the comic-book/horror hybrid this film promises to be. More than Black Widow which looks likely be thoroughly entertaining but which, if I'm honest, kind of has a same-old, same-old vibe to it, The New Mutants looks like it could herald something genuinely new and exciting for the MCU, assuming the "potential integration" rumor to be true. Also, with three strong, female characters, including Native American Blu Hunt, it's certainly no slouch in the "representation" department.
More important than scoring PC points, though, I find it refreshing to read about a director's original vision for a film being restored in a day and age in which so studios tend to micromanage films to death, especially franchise films. Many Spider-Man fans have heard or read about how Avi Arad and Matt Tolmach micromanaged Sony's Amazing Spider-Man franchise right into the ground, and I'm sure a ton of X-Men movie fans know how former Fox boss Tom Rothman repeatedly screwed that franchise right up until the time he was fired. Even Marvel hasn't been above micro-managing some of their films, always hovering over their directors even in the best of circumstances, so to read about them basically telling the director "we'll do it your way" is really encouraging.
Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that the film will be any good, but given how often Feige has been able to spot the good Marvel adaptations, I remain cautiously optimistic.
The fact that Marvel's putting its marketing muscle behind this movie shows that the confidence is there, with the only question remaining is if the movie itself can deliver the goods.
That said, there is at least one movie I am now particularly interested in seeing, and as fate may have it, it may well be the first franchise movie I see this year (or not).
A few days ago, for the first time in literally more than two years, we got a new trailer for the long-gestating Marvel Comics adaptation The New Mutants. This was the first "proof of life" that 20th Century Fox, now owned by the Walt Disney Company, had given of this film since it first dropped a trailer back in October of 2017.
To provide a recap for anyone unfamiliar with the sordid history of this film, here are the undisputed facts: An adaptation of the Marvel Comics title "The New Mutants" was greenlit by 20th Century Fox back in 2015, way before they were bought by Disney and back when they had full film rights over the X-Men corner of the Marvel Universe. Filming took place from July to September 2017, and a trailer dropped a month later with an announced release date of April 2018. Then, Disney bought out Fox, and the film's release date was reshuffled three more times, once to February 2019, then to August 2019, and finally, to April 2020.
As we go from firm facts to scuttlebutt and reports from unverified sources, we then consider reports of Disney being "unimpressed" with the cut that 20th Century Fox had prepared for release and unconvinced of its box-office potential, and read about about re-shoots designed to restore director Josh Boone's original vision, as well as the removal of any and all footage connecting the movie to any and all previous X-Men movies. We also take heart at the report of a better reception for the new iteration of the film at test screenings.
From there, we jump into the realm of speculation, where many of us latch onto the one truly interesting prospect: that Kevin Feige, depending on how well The New Mutants does in theaters, may well integrate the characters into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Feige has openly expressed his intent to integrate mutants into the Marvel Cinematic Universe in several years' time; a warm reception for The New Mutants may expedite that process.
Given that the latest trailer was released bearing the 20th Century Fox trade dress as well as the simple "Marvel" as opposed to the "Marvel Studios" logo, it's clear that as of now The New Mutants is still its own thing, albeit apparently severed from the now-dead Fox X-Men universe. Disney is playing it safe in that regard, but given that they've retained the fairly competitive April release date and have cut a slick new trailer, it seems fairly clear that they're making a serious push for this movie, which, unlike the unloved Dark Phoenix has the distinction of being the first Marvel-based movie of the year, and the first to be released in over nine months. In short, unlike Dark Phoenix it could benefit from pent-up demand.
It's worth remembering that the first trailer that came out over two years ago for this film wasn't half-bad, and if anything this new one has reinforced the movie's potential to deliver something special.
For my part, having gorged myself on these MCU movies for the last decade, I have had my fill, especially with Avengers: Endgame providing as satisfying a conclusion as there could possibly be to this sprawling 22-movie saga, and I would not mind seeing something new, like the comic-book/horror hybrid this film promises to be. More than Black Widow which looks likely be thoroughly entertaining but which, if I'm honest, kind of has a same-old, same-old vibe to it, The New Mutants looks like it could herald something genuinely new and exciting for the MCU, assuming the "potential integration" rumor to be true. Also, with three strong, female characters, including Native American Blu Hunt, it's certainly no slouch in the "representation" department.
More important than scoring PC points, though, I find it refreshing to read about a director's original vision for a film being restored in a day and age in which so studios tend to micromanage films to death, especially franchise films. Many Spider-Man fans have heard or read about how Avi Arad and Matt Tolmach micromanaged Sony's Amazing Spider-Man franchise right into the ground, and I'm sure a ton of X-Men movie fans know how former Fox boss Tom Rothman repeatedly screwed that franchise right up until the time he was fired. Even Marvel hasn't been above micro-managing some of their films, always hovering over their directors even in the best of circumstances, so to read about them basically telling the director "we'll do it your way" is really encouraging.
Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that the film will be any good, but given how often Feige has been able to spot the good Marvel adaptations, I remain cautiously optimistic.
The fact that Marvel's putting its marketing muscle behind this movie shows that the confidence is there, with the only question remaining is if the movie itself can deliver the goods.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)