directed by Sam Mendes
written by Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns
Unlike the Second World War, which has been the subject of many, many films since it wrought its havoc on four different continents three quarters of a century ago, the First World War, while it's also been the subject of films (including Academy Award winner for Best Picture All Quiet on the Western Front) it's never been depicted in a film quite like "1917," though, for that matter, neither has any other war.
"1917," written by director Sam Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns based loosely on stories told to Mendes by his grandfather, follows two young soldiers, Lance Corporal Blake (Dean Charles Chapman) and Lance Corporal Schofield (George MacKay) on a mission given by General Erinmore (Colin Firth), to stop a regiment of Allies, 1,600 soldiers, from walking straight into a trap. The story, which I have just described, is simplicity itself, but what sets this movie apart from most (if not all) other war movies is how it has been crafted to look like one continuous shot, meaning that the viewer follows Blake and Schofield as they embark on their mission in real time.
Director Mendes sort of cut his teeth on this kind of shot in the first several minutes of the last James Bond film he directed, "Spectre" but here he takes the technique to the next level, really dropping viewers right into the action with the protagonists and conveying the urgency of their mission. There is, as a result, never a dull moment.
The camera work is nothing short of astonishing; considering that the two corporals are in near-constant motion, cinematographer Roger Deakins (who won a well-deserved second Oscar for this film) and his crew have to keep pace with them, and the tricks of the trade employed to help the camera move around huge craters and barbed wire fences are really the stuff that great films are made of. This isn't some simple drone hovering around and filming everyone; the camera gets up close and personal with the two soldiers, who take up most of the screentime, and keeps the audience very much in the moment.
Also, frequent Mendes collaborator Thomas Newman (who, like Deakins once was, is always unfortunately an Oscar bridesmaid but never the bride) turns in one of his more powerful and urgent scores, a bit of a contrast from what he's done before.
Because of the way Mendes has chosen to tell the story, though, there are inevitable tradeoffs. The story focuses so much on the mission that potentially strong thematic elements, like the fact that World War I was by and large a case of wealthy people sending working class people off to die rather than some just crusade against evil, inevitably fall by the wayside. Mendes does drop hints of it, like Schofield's disdain for the medal he received for valor at the Battle of Somme, and a bit of dialogue in which a General shouts at his subordinates to remove a fallen tree while he sits in his car, and makes me wonder what a more thought-provoking narrative about World War I would have been like. As it is, though, these questions take a back seat to the spectacle.
But oh, what spectacle it is.
8.5/10
Sunday, February 23, 2020
Sunday, January 26, 2020
Dancing on a Knife's Edge For An Hour and Forty-Nine Minutes: A Review of Jojo Rabbit
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
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
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.
Tuesday, December 31, 2019
Disney's Perfect Storm (And Why It Will Probably Never Happen Again)
With the close of 2019, a total of six movies released by Walt Disney Studios and their various sub-brands have grossed over a billion dollars at the worldwide box office: Marvel Comics adaptations Avengers: Endgame and Captain Marvel, remakes of animated films like The Lion King and Aladdin as well as sequels to highly successful animated films like Toy Story 4 and Frozen II. By January of next year, Star Wars: Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker, will join the billion dollar club, bringing Disney's already record-shattering total to seven movies. Disney CEO's Bob Iger's sizable investment in the acquisition of studios Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm has paid off quite handsomely this year.
Since Iger took over Disney back in 2005 and started aggressively implementing his plan of acquiring "high quality, branded content" and building up Disney's IP inventory, this has been the film division's single biggest year, and probably the biggest box-office haul of any studio ever. Given that Disney basically has no plans of slowing down, and that things like inflation mean that billion dollar movies will eventually be easier to come by, and given further that James Cameron's sequel to Avatar is due to come out from Disney in 2021, the same year Disney will be releasing three new Marvel Cinematic Universe movies, it's reasonable to argue that they could conceivably scale such box office heights again in the future.
I will argue, however, that this is not quite as likely as it may seem, and I'll go over the reasons one by one. There are five key elements to Disney's record-breaking year that may or may not ever come together again.
1. Avengers: Endgame, for example, the linchpin of the Disney's phenomenal 2019 success story, wasn't just a movie, but a once-in-a-22-film event. It was the kind of payoff that had never been seen before on film and will most likely never be seen again, not even from Marvel itself. Sure, they could conceivably create pent-up demand for another Avengers megastory, but it won't feel new anymore, and when something has been done, diminishing returns is almost an inevitability. While I'm sure Marvel will continue to chug along like the well-oiled machine that it is, I'm almost certain that Endgame is a high point in history it won't be able to repeat. Marvel will most likely continue to churn out billion-dollar grossers at the rate of at least one a year, but I really, really doubt it'll be able to capture the zeitgeist in quite the same way again.
2. With The Lion King, Disney has adapted the last of the films that, from 1989 to 1994, marked the renaissance of its animation division under its then-boss Jeffrey Katzenberg. Almost every movie that came out after the original Lion King in 1994 followed a distinctly downward trend in terms of grosses, which culminated in Pixar knocking Disney off its perch at the top of the animation heap, and with Pixar bosses John Lasseter and Ed Catmull taking over Disney animation. Next up is Mulan, which has already proven to be a lightning rod for controversy thanks to comments of its lead star expressing support for the Hong Kong police, who have gained infamy for their rampant human rights violations in handling the protests that have shaken the city for the last several months. Not only that, but even before that became a talking point, it had the dubious distinction of being the very first adaptation of a Disney musical without any of the songs, and it carries an eyebrow-raising pricetag of $300 million, all on top of the fact that the original film was not quite the most loved of all Disney musicals. Assuming Mulan manages to do well, though, I doubt it'll scale Lion King heights, and I doubt they'll have two billion dollar adaptations in a single year.
3. Pixar is a reliable force at the box office, but the best thing about them is also the thing which casts into doubt Disney's ability to generate another 7 billion dollar grosser year. The fact that they're willing to take risks with original content rather than constantly regurgitating sequels for fans means billion-dollar hits like Toy Story 4 or The Inredibles will often take a back seat to original films like Onward and Soul, which may or may not hit the magic billion-dollar mark.
4. Disney animation, like Pixar, is quite capable, under its current management, of generating four-quadrant blockbusters that please critics and awards bodies (e.g. Zootopia), but as with Pixar, not all of its films are billion-dollar year sure things. Even sequels to successful films like Wreck-It-Ralph can still fall short of the ten-figure mark.
5. Finally, the future success of Star Wars after the conclusion of the Skywalker saga with this year's Star wars: Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker is basically a huge question mark. The abject failure of last year's anthology prequel Solo exposed a huge chink in Lucasfilm's armor, and the tumult surrounding the new trilogy has further cemented a view shared by many fans that the single biggest problem of the Disney/Star Wars empire is that there isn't any real battle plan moving forward. The good news, though, is that film production has been brought to a halt while Lucasfilm takes a moment to rethink its approach to telling stories in this universe. Until they come out on the other side, though, their ability to make hits on the scale of Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens, which benefited hugely from pent-up anticipation, is still in question.
In short, for all the fanboys and girls who sat through these seven films, I think it's quite possible we've all witnessed history this year.
Since Iger took over Disney back in 2005 and started aggressively implementing his plan of acquiring "high quality, branded content" and building up Disney's IP inventory, this has been the film division's single biggest year, and probably the biggest box-office haul of any studio ever. Given that Disney basically has no plans of slowing down, and that things like inflation mean that billion dollar movies will eventually be easier to come by, and given further that James Cameron's sequel to Avatar is due to come out from Disney in 2021, the same year Disney will be releasing three new Marvel Cinematic Universe movies, it's reasonable to argue that they could conceivably scale such box office heights again in the future.
I will argue, however, that this is not quite as likely as it may seem, and I'll go over the reasons one by one. There are five key elements to Disney's record-breaking year that may or may not ever come together again.
1. Avengers: Endgame, for example, the linchpin of the Disney's phenomenal 2019 success story, wasn't just a movie, but a once-in-a-22-film event. It was the kind of payoff that had never been seen before on film and will most likely never be seen again, not even from Marvel itself. Sure, they could conceivably create pent-up demand for another Avengers megastory, but it won't feel new anymore, and when something has been done, diminishing returns is almost an inevitability. While I'm sure Marvel will continue to chug along like the well-oiled machine that it is, I'm almost certain that Endgame is a high point in history it won't be able to repeat. Marvel will most likely continue to churn out billion-dollar grossers at the rate of at least one a year, but I really, really doubt it'll be able to capture the zeitgeist in quite the same way again.
2. With The Lion King, Disney has adapted the last of the films that, from 1989 to 1994, marked the renaissance of its animation division under its then-boss Jeffrey Katzenberg. Almost every movie that came out after the original Lion King in 1994 followed a distinctly downward trend in terms of grosses, which culminated in Pixar knocking Disney off its perch at the top of the animation heap, and with Pixar bosses John Lasseter and Ed Catmull taking over Disney animation. Next up is Mulan, which has already proven to be a lightning rod for controversy thanks to comments of its lead star expressing support for the Hong Kong police, who have gained infamy for their rampant human rights violations in handling the protests that have shaken the city for the last several months. Not only that, but even before that became a talking point, it had the dubious distinction of being the very first adaptation of a Disney musical without any of the songs, and it carries an eyebrow-raising pricetag of $300 million, all on top of the fact that the original film was not quite the most loved of all Disney musicals. Assuming Mulan manages to do well, though, I doubt it'll scale Lion King heights, and I doubt they'll have two billion dollar adaptations in a single year.
3. Pixar is a reliable force at the box office, but the best thing about them is also the thing which casts into doubt Disney's ability to generate another 7 billion dollar grosser year. The fact that they're willing to take risks with original content rather than constantly regurgitating sequels for fans means billion-dollar hits like Toy Story 4 or The Inredibles will often take a back seat to original films like Onward and Soul, which may or may not hit the magic billion-dollar mark.
4. Disney animation, like Pixar, is quite capable, under its current management, of generating four-quadrant blockbusters that please critics and awards bodies (e.g. Zootopia), but as with Pixar, not all of its films are billion-dollar year sure things. Even sequels to successful films like Wreck-It-Ralph can still fall short of the ten-figure mark.
5. Finally, the future success of Star Wars after the conclusion of the Skywalker saga with this year's Star wars: Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker is basically a huge question mark. The abject failure of last year's anthology prequel Solo exposed a huge chink in Lucasfilm's armor, and the tumult surrounding the new trilogy has further cemented a view shared by many fans that the single biggest problem of the Disney/Star Wars empire is that there isn't any real battle plan moving forward. The good news, though, is that film production has been brought to a halt while Lucasfilm takes a moment to rethink its approach to telling stories in this universe. Until they come out on the other side, though, their ability to make hits on the scale of Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens, which benefited hugely from pent-up anticipation, is still in question.
In short, for all the fanboys and girls who sat through these seven films, I think it's quite possible we've all witnessed history this year.
Friday, December 20, 2019
It's Not Quite the Epic Sendoff Many Were Hoping for...But That's OK: A Review of Star Wars: Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker
directed by J.J. Abrams
written by Chris Terrio, Abrams, Derek Connolly and Colin Trevorrow
I've noticed it's become quite fashionable among critics to thrash the so-called "final chapter of the Skywalker Saga" or Star Wars: Episode IX: Rise of Skywalker. While the film hasn't exactly achieved Batman v. Superman levels of infamy its score over on rottentomatoes.com is currently the worst of any Star Wars movie that has been released in the Disney era. Many writers have called it a regression, repudiating Rian Johnson's "bold choices" made in Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi, while its defenders are happy to see a lot of the creative decisions of the last film chucked out the window, with at least one of the defenders promising that viewers who liked The Last Jedi will hate this movie.
Well, never one to be stuck in boxes, I have to respectfully disagree. I genuinely enjoyed The Last Jedi, both for its story and how it flipped the bird at some overused story tropes, and I also genuinely enjoyed The Rise of Skywalker, even as I acknowledge that it is a deeply-flawed film. Ironically enough I'll concede that it's possible that the rash of bad reviews actually helped temper my expectations and enabled me to enjoy the movie more than I otherwise would have.
J.J. Abrams dives right into the story from the opening title crawl: Emperor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid), believed dead since the end of Return of the Jedi 36 years ago, turns up alive and in command of a massive fleet of Star Destroyers. As a result, General Leia Organa (the late Carrie Fisher...more on her later) must dispatch Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac), Finn (John Boyega) and Chewbacca (Joonas Suotamo) to investigate reports of this return, and of a spy in the First Order willing to help the Resistance. Meanwhile, Rey (Daisy Ridley) continues her Jedi training under Leia's tutelage, while over at the First Order, newly-crowned Supreme Leader Kylo Ren aka Ben Solo (Adam Driver) seeks to kill Palpatine, who poses a threat to his power. The one-time galactic emperor, however, offers Ren greater power than he has ever known before, all if he can kill Rey, the last Jedi. Ren, however, has other plans, and continues his plan to turn Rey over to the dark side, even as Rey, Poe and Finn learn that the only way to find the Emperor and his fleet is through a Sith wayfinder. Thus, the three of them must find the wayfinder before Palpatine unleashes the power of the Sith fleet on what remains of the Resistance.
This film had quite a bit to do: it had to cap off Disney's new sequel trilogy of Star Wars films and tack on a satisfactory ending to a saga that many people had already considered finished over three decades ago. Given the lack of a coherent overall story plan, the disparity of creative vision between creators, and the untimely death of one of the actors playing a pivotal role in this new saga, this was always going to be a tall order. In short, this film was never going to be on the level of Avengers: Endgame but to my mind, it was nowhere near the dumpster fire that a lot of mainstream critics are making it out to be. In fact, it managed to be quite enjoyable.
I suppose I'll never know if it was always Abrams' intent to bring back Emperor Palpatine or if his hand was forced by the events of The Last Jedi, in which Rian Johnson quite abruptly killed off Supreme Leader Snoke, the big bad guy Abrams had introduced. To be fair, though Abrams puts Palpatine to good use in one sense, even if he feels distinctly underused in others. By setting up the movie as a race against time and pitting the heroes against a definitive big bad guy other than Ben Solo, furthermore, Abrams also offers Kylo Ren, one of the richer characters of this new story, a path to redemption, and it was interesting to see where that went.
Unfortunately, in the name of wrapping everything up Abrams makes some creative choices that I dare not spoil, that don't completely undo the film, but which compromise it quite a bit. It's the kind of plot that won't hold up to scrutiny, even without something as convoluted as time travel gumming up the mix. Most likely aware of this, Abrams keeps things moving quite briskly and imbues the film with quite a bit of atmosphere to distract audiences from some of the film's fundamental shortcomings. I particularly liked a sequence in which the lead characters visited a planet with a haunting relic from the original trilogy.
I also liked the way Abrams revisited some of his "mystery box" threads from The Force Awakens, and paid them off in a way that, while arguably contradicting some of Rian Johnson's declarations in his film, were pretty skillfully written around them in such a way that the picture Johnson painted wasn't false, just incomplete. Suffice it to say that the issue of Rey's parentage is revisited, and quite satisfyingly resolved, to the extent that even my biggest problem with The Force Awakens has been laid to rest.
One thing Abrams could not write or shoot around, though, was Carrie Fisher's tragic death, which left him with eight minutes of cut footage from The Force Awakens with which to fulfill General Leia's preordained role as Rey's teacher in the Jedi arts. He tries mightily to make it work, but the execution comes across as goofy as hell, with ridiculous dialogue like "never underestimate a droid" and "try to be positive" being awkwardly shoehorned into conversations about the fate of the entire Resistance. I'll credit Abrams at least for not cursing his movie with a CGI simulacrum of Carrie Fisher, at least not for any substantial period of time, but the fact that he (and presumably producer Kathleen Kennedy) were adamant on this arc for Leia even after Fisher's death really works against this movie.
The living actors, however, do an incredible job of selling this movie, especially Driver (the breakout star of the entire franchise, in my opinion) and Ridley, whose Rey doesn't quite get the hero's journey she deserves, but faces more conflict in this film than in any other in the trilogy. Even when the script is basically struggling to maintain coherence and even logic, these thespians just solider on and ultimately elevate the material. If I'm honest, it's really hard to hate a movie with actors working this well. The climactic light saber fight we glimpsed in the trailer was appropriately intense and, to my mind, arguably one of the best of the entire 42-year-old franchise. The other two of the "big three" characters of the new trilogy are inevitably sidelined, though they do get some love from Abrams. Boyega's Finn gets a nice little mini story with another stormtrooper-turned-rebel (Naomi Ackie) who feels like a much better storytelling match for him than Kelly Marie Tran's Rose Tico given their shared history, while Isaac's Poe gets an awkward but entertaining side story with someone from his past as a smuggler, the helmeted Zorri Bliss (Abrams' frequent collaborator Keri Russell). There's even a little suggestion that Finn may be a bit of a Force wielder himself, but it's never a real payoff.
I'm sure I'll do a more comprehensive postmortem of the new trilogy someday (as will many, MANY other people) and I feel that this new series would have greatly benefited from a more coherent master plan, similar to what tied together the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I'm not of the persuasion that George Lucas would have done any better than the current crew as I am still of the opinion that the prequels were by and large terrible, but at least some kind of grand outline would have done the storytelling a power of good.
Ultimately, I submit that while this film is not the disaster many are making it out to be, even the diehard fans have to acknowledge that this is not the best sendoff such a beloved franchise as this could have gotten. Given that the Skywalker saga has gotten a bit long in the tooth, though, it's just as well that, one way or another, it has ended.
6.5/10
written by Chris Terrio, Abrams, Derek Connolly and Colin Trevorrow
I've noticed it's become quite fashionable among critics to thrash the so-called "final chapter of the Skywalker Saga" or Star Wars: Episode IX: Rise of Skywalker. While the film hasn't exactly achieved Batman v. Superman levels of infamy its score over on rottentomatoes.com is currently the worst of any Star Wars movie that has been released in the Disney era. Many writers have called it a regression, repudiating Rian Johnson's "bold choices" made in Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi, while its defenders are happy to see a lot of the creative decisions of the last film chucked out the window, with at least one of the defenders promising that viewers who liked The Last Jedi will hate this movie.
Well, never one to be stuck in boxes, I have to respectfully disagree. I genuinely enjoyed The Last Jedi, both for its story and how it flipped the bird at some overused story tropes, and I also genuinely enjoyed The Rise of Skywalker, even as I acknowledge that it is a deeply-flawed film. Ironically enough I'll concede that it's possible that the rash of bad reviews actually helped temper my expectations and enabled me to enjoy the movie more than I otherwise would have.
J.J. Abrams dives right into the story from the opening title crawl: Emperor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid), believed dead since the end of Return of the Jedi 36 years ago, turns up alive and in command of a massive fleet of Star Destroyers. As a result, General Leia Organa (the late Carrie Fisher...more on her later) must dispatch Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac), Finn (John Boyega) and Chewbacca (Joonas Suotamo) to investigate reports of this return, and of a spy in the First Order willing to help the Resistance. Meanwhile, Rey (Daisy Ridley) continues her Jedi training under Leia's tutelage, while over at the First Order, newly-crowned Supreme Leader Kylo Ren aka Ben Solo (Adam Driver) seeks to kill Palpatine, who poses a threat to his power. The one-time galactic emperor, however, offers Ren greater power than he has ever known before, all if he can kill Rey, the last Jedi. Ren, however, has other plans, and continues his plan to turn Rey over to the dark side, even as Rey, Poe and Finn learn that the only way to find the Emperor and his fleet is through a Sith wayfinder. Thus, the three of them must find the wayfinder before Palpatine unleashes the power of the Sith fleet on what remains of the Resistance.
This film had quite a bit to do: it had to cap off Disney's new sequel trilogy of Star Wars films and tack on a satisfactory ending to a saga that many people had already considered finished over three decades ago. Given the lack of a coherent overall story plan, the disparity of creative vision between creators, and the untimely death of one of the actors playing a pivotal role in this new saga, this was always going to be a tall order. In short, this film was never going to be on the level of Avengers: Endgame but to my mind, it was nowhere near the dumpster fire that a lot of mainstream critics are making it out to be. In fact, it managed to be quite enjoyable.
I suppose I'll never know if it was always Abrams' intent to bring back Emperor Palpatine or if his hand was forced by the events of The Last Jedi, in which Rian Johnson quite abruptly killed off Supreme Leader Snoke, the big bad guy Abrams had introduced. To be fair, though Abrams puts Palpatine to good use in one sense, even if he feels distinctly underused in others. By setting up the movie as a race against time and pitting the heroes against a definitive big bad guy other than Ben Solo, furthermore, Abrams also offers Kylo Ren, one of the richer characters of this new story, a path to redemption, and it was interesting to see where that went.
Unfortunately, in the name of wrapping everything up Abrams makes some creative choices that I dare not spoil, that don't completely undo the film, but which compromise it quite a bit. It's the kind of plot that won't hold up to scrutiny, even without something as convoluted as time travel gumming up the mix. Most likely aware of this, Abrams keeps things moving quite briskly and imbues the film with quite a bit of atmosphere to distract audiences from some of the film's fundamental shortcomings. I particularly liked a sequence in which the lead characters visited a planet with a haunting relic from the original trilogy.
I also liked the way Abrams revisited some of his "mystery box" threads from The Force Awakens, and paid them off in a way that, while arguably contradicting some of Rian Johnson's declarations in his film, were pretty skillfully written around them in such a way that the picture Johnson painted wasn't false, just incomplete. Suffice it to say that the issue of Rey's parentage is revisited, and quite satisfyingly resolved, to the extent that even my biggest problem with The Force Awakens has been laid to rest.
One thing Abrams could not write or shoot around, though, was Carrie Fisher's tragic death, which left him with eight minutes of cut footage from The Force Awakens with which to fulfill General Leia's preordained role as Rey's teacher in the Jedi arts. He tries mightily to make it work, but the execution comes across as goofy as hell, with ridiculous dialogue like "never underestimate a droid" and "try to be positive" being awkwardly shoehorned into conversations about the fate of the entire Resistance. I'll credit Abrams at least for not cursing his movie with a CGI simulacrum of Carrie Fisher, at least not for any substantial period of time, but the fact that he (and presumably producer Kathleen Kennedy) were adamant on this arc for Leia even after Fisher's death really works against this movie.
The living actors, however, do an incredible job of selling this movie, especially Driver (the breakout star of the entire franchise, in my opinion) and Ridley, whose Rey doesn't quite get the hero's journey she deserves, but faces more conflict in this film than in any other in the trilogy. Even when the script is basically struggling to maintain coherence and even logic, these thespians just solider on and ultimately elevate the material. If I'm honest, it's really hard to hate a movie with actors working this well. The climactic light saber fight we glimpsed in the trailer was appropriately intense and, to my mind, arguably one of the best of the entire 42-year-old franchise. The other two of the "big three" characters of the new trilogy are inevitably sidelined, though they do get some love from Abrams. Boyega's Finn gets a nice little mini story with another stormtrooper-turned-rebel (Naomi Ackie) who feels like a much better storytelling match for him than Kelly Marie Tran's Rose Tico given their shared history, while Isaac's Poe gets an awkward but entertaining side story with someone from his past as a smuggler, the helmeted Zorri Bliss (Abrams' frequent collaborator Keri Russell). There's even a little suggestion that Finn may be a bit of a Force wielder himself, but it's never a real payoff.
I'm sure I'll do a more comprehensive postmortem of the new trilogy someday (as will many, MANY other people) and I feel that this new series would have greatly benefited from a more coherent master plan, similar to what tied together the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I'm not of the persuasion that George Lucas would have done any better than the current crew as I am still of the opinion that the prequels were by and large terrible, but at least some kind of grand outline would have done the storytelling a power of good.
Ultimately, I submit that while this film is not the disaster many are making it out to be, even the diehard fans have to acknowledge that this is not the best sendoff such a beloved franchise as this could have gotten. Given that the Skywalker saga has gotten a bit long in the tooth, though, it's just as well that, one way or another, it has ended.
6.5/10
Triumphing Over Tarantino: A Review of "Parasite"
directed by Bong Joon Ho
written by Bong Joon Ho and Jin Won Han
Five years ago, I was introduced to the work of Bong Joon Ho through his English-language dystopian thriller Snowpiercer, which starred Avengers' Chris Evans in a decidedly different role from his turn as Captain America. I loved it, and even though I didn't get to watch his Netflix-produced follow-up, Okja, I considered myself a fan of Bong Joon Ho's work.
It would have been a shame, therefore, to miss his almost universally-acclaimed new film, Parasite, but I almost did, were it not for the fact that our local distributor saw fit to re-release it in view of all of the awards buzz it's been getting since crushing all opposition at the Cannes Film Festival earlier this year, including Quentin Tarantino's grossly overrated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
Parasite tells the story of the Kim family, composed of the father Kim Ki-Taek (frequent Bong Joon Ho collaborator Song Kang Ho), mother Kim Chung Sook (Hye-Jin Jang), son Kim Ki-Woo (Choi Woo Shik) and daughter Kim Ki-Jung (So-Dam Park), all of whom live on the edge of poverty in what is known as a "semi basement" taking odd jobs and barely having enough money to make ends meet. When Ki-Woo's friend drops in, though, with an opportunity to tutor Park Da Hye (Ji-so Jung), the daughter of telecommunications magnate Park Dong-ik (Sun Kyun-Lee), things start looking up. As Ki-Woo starts his new job, he meets Dong-ik's wife Park Yeon-kyo (Yeo-jeong Jo) and is introduced to the family and world of opulence they inhabit, where he finds himself facing a world of possibility.
It's honestly hard to go into great detail about what makes this film so compelling without spoiling plot points; as Bong himself has said on talk shows, it's a movie best enjoyed "cold" or without any clue as to what takes place in it. That said, in broad strokes, I can definitely say that Bong's storytelling is even sharper here than it was in the tour de force that was Snowpiercer. The scripting is deliberate; almost every choice the characters make defines what happens next, and even though I felt there was one distinctly false note in the script, a moment in which the film felt plot-driven rather than character-driven as it had been up until that point, it was utterly entrancing to watch Bong weave his web.
Even in Snowpiercer I was struck by Bong's ability to extract the very best from his actors, and it is again the case here, especially with his muse Song Kang Ho as the family patriarch. His pathos as a middle-aged man who has spent pretty much his entire life in the same place informs the storytelling, juxtaposed clearly against the one-percenter smugness that Sun Kyun-Lee puts on display as Park Dong-ik. A recurring theme here is smell, and it's fascinating to see how the chasm between socio-economic classes is most effectively emphasized through something as basic as human senses. The other actors obviously play significant parts in how this story turns out but it's these two performances that give the film its center of gravity, and the movie is certainly all the better for it.
With Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker now in theaters, Parasite is probably gone again from all but the most esoteric screens, but I sincerely hope that when Oscar buzz starts in a few weeks, this film is remembered, as one that should not only stand alongside blatant Oscar-bait like Tarantino's pointless, fetishistic love letter to 1960s Hollywood, but head and shoulders above it.
9/10
written by Bong Joon Ho and Jin Won Han
Five years ago, I was introduced to the work of Bong Joon Ho through his English-language dystopian thriller Snowpiercer, which starred Avengers' Chris Evans in a decidedly different role from his turn as Captain America. I loved it, and even though I didn't get to watch his Netflix-produced follow-up, Okja, I considered myself a fan of Bong Joon Ho's work.
It would have been a shame, therefore, to miss his almost universally-acclaimed new film, Parasite, but I almost did, were it not for the fact that our local distributor saw fit to re-release it in view of all of the awards buzz it's been getting since crushing all opposition at the Cannes Film Festival earlier this year, including Quentin Tarantino's grossly overrated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
Parasite tells the story of the Kim family, composed of the father Kim Ki-Taek (frequent Bong Joon Ho collaborator Song Kang Ho), mother Kim Chung Sook (Hye-Jin Jang), son Kim Ki-Woo (Choi Woo Shik) and daughter Kim Ki-Jung (So-Dam Park), all of whom live on the edge of poverty in what is known as a "semi basement" taking odd jobs and barely having enough money to make ends meet. When Ki-Woo's friend drops in, though, with an opportunity to tutor Park Da Hye (Ji-so Jung), the daughter of telecommunications magnate Park Dong-ik (Sun Kyun-Lee), things start looking up. As Ki-Woo starts his new job, he meets Dong-ik's wife Park Yeon-kyo (Yeo-jeong Jo) and is introduced to the family and world of opulence they inhabit, where he finds himself facing a world of possibility.
It's honestly hard to go into great detail about what makes this film so compelling without spoiling plot points; as Bong himself has said on talk shows, it's a movie best enjoyed "cold" or without any clue as to what takes place in it. That said, in broad strokes, I can definitely say that Bong's storytelling is even sharper here than it was in the tour de force that was Snowpiercer. The scripting is deliberate; almost every choice the characters make defines what happens next, and even though I felt there was one distinctly false note in the script, a moment in which the film felt plot-driven rather than character-driven as it had been up until that point, it was utterly entrancing to watch Bong weave his web.
Even in Snowpiercer I was struck by Bong's ability to extract the very best from his actors, and it is again the case here, especially with his muse Song Kang Ho as the family patriarch. His pathos as a middle-aged man who has spent pretty much his entire life in the same place informs the storytelling, juxtaposed clearly against the one-percenter smugness that Sun Kyun-Lee puts on display as Park Dong-ik. A recurring theme here is smell, and it's fascinating to see how the chasm between socio-economic classes is most effectively emphasized through something as basic as human senses. The other actors obviously play significant parts in how this story turns out but it's these two performances that give the film its center of gravity, and the movie is certainly all the better for it.
With Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker now in theaters, Parasite is probably gone again from all but the most esoteric screens, but I sincerely hope that when Oscar buzz starts in a few weeks, this film is remembered, as one that should not only stand alongside blatant Oscar-bait like Tarantino's pointless, fetishistic love letter to 1960s Hollywood, but head and shoulders above it.
9/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)