Oscars 2019

Warning: This post will contain spoilers for most of the Oscar nominated films of this year.

Well hello there.  It's been a while.  Apologies for the radio silence - poor life planning on my part.  But the return of the 2019 Academy Awards seemed like a good place to jump back into blogging.  So here we go...

It's been an odd year thus far.  There's been a lot to see, and lots of strong performances, but no one film that's particularly jumping out at me.  Nothing that I'm particularly raving about.  Where last year I was recommending Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri to anyone who would stand still long enough, this year doesn't seem to have the same abundance of riches that previous years have offered.  That said, it doesn't mean that the films up for nomination are without merit.  Also of note is that I don't think there's any categories that are definitely nailed down.  Where last year, Best Actor and Best Actress were pretty much nailed down from the outset, this year the competition could go in pretty much any direction.

So shiny...

So let's take a look at some of the main categories.

Best Actor
Christian Bale (Vice), Bradley Cooper (A Star Is Born), Willem Dafoe (At Eternity's Gate), Rami Malek (Bohemian Rhapsody) and Viggo Mortensen (Green Book) are battling it out in this category.  At the start of awards season, it seemed that A Star is Born was due to dominate everywhere, but it's star seems to have waned somewhat as the weeks have gone by.  I don't know why.  It's certainly not my favourite film, but the acting and directing are strong.  And yet, I don't think it will get recognised for it's acting or directing (Bradley Cooper inexplicably missing out on an Oscars nod).  Mortensen gives a good performance, but is utterly eclipsed by Mahershala Ali in Green Book.  I haven't seen or heard of At Eternity's Gate, and it's distinct lack of buzz suggests Dafoe is out of the running.  The competition here will be between Bale and Malek, and my money is on Malek.  Christian Bale has given a solid performance as Dick Chaney, and has already scooped a number of awards for his performance.  But Malek's combination of mercurial strut and swagger, vulnerability, and giant prosthetic teeth will more than likely be the winner.  That's the performance that have really had people talking, which in itself is astonishing given the difficulty there has been in getting Bohemian Rhapsody to the screen at all.
Who do I want to win?  Rami Malek
Who will win?  Rami Malek

I challenge the mighty titan and his troubadours...

Best Actress
Another strong category which essentially comes down to two.  Yalitza Aparicio (Roma), Glenn Close (The Wife), Olivia Colman (The Favourite), Lady Gaga (A Star Is Born) and Melissa McCarthy (Can You Ever Forgive Me?).  Colman and Close seem to have carved up the awards between them.  Colman's nomination is an odd one to me.  Not that she shouldn't be nominated - she is tremendous as the damaged and tempestuous Queen Anne - but to my mind, she is not the lead actress in The Favourite.  It's a three hander between Rachel Weisz, Emma Stone and Colman, and if anything, Weisz and Stone are more central performances than Colman's.  That said, I do want Olivia Colman to win, because I think she's great and I think she'd give a wonderfully accidentally sweary acceptance speech.  Glenn Close is on her seventh nomination for an Oscar, and now holds the dubious record for actress with most nominations without a win.  For that reason, I think she'll walk away with the statue tonight.
Who do I want to win?  Olivia Colman
Who will win?  Glenn Close

Best Supporting Actor
I think this is the closest thing to "nailed on".  Mahershala Ali will win for Green Book and deservedly so.  If/when he wins, it will also be the quickest an actor has won the same Oscar twice since Tom Hanks' wins for Philadelphia (1993) and Forrest Gump (1994).
Personally, I am a little sad for Richard E Grant who has seemed so delighted to be part of the Oscars bandwagon this year on his first nomination for Can You Ever Forgive Me?  A really enjoyable performance, which I choose to read as a continuation of Withnail and I where Withnail moves to America, continues to drink copiously and cause mischief with whomever he meets.
Who do I want to win?  Richard E Grant
Who will win?  Mahershala Ali

Bring me the finest wines available to humanity

Best Supporting Actress
Again, a tough call between the two actresses from The Favourite.  Neither performance stands without the other, but I think Rachel Weisz just - just - tips it, and should be adding her second Oscar to her mantlepiece.  Honourable mention to Regina King for If Beale Street Could Talk.
Who do I want to win?  Rachel Weisz
Who will win?  Rachel Weisz.  But all eyes should be on Olivia Colman who will be freaking delighted about it.

Who was your favourite?

Best Director
This is where personal choice and critics choice diverges significantly.  The critics are very excited about Roma and it's tipped for a lot of the main awards.  I'll be honest, I didn't care for it.  I thought it was perfectly fine, but when I recently read a review where the reviewer hadn't yet been able to watch the films climactic scene without weeping, I struggled to even identify what the climactic scene actually was.  I know it's a pet personal project of Alfonso Cuaron, a director that I have enjoyed a lot.  But for me, the award should go to Spike Lee for BlackkKlansmen.  The direction in it is arresting and innovative, constantly changing the story up from dreamy fantasy sequences to stark, punchy reality.  Cuaron is the master of long, tracking panoramic shots, but they leave me wanting to look away.  Lee holds my attention throughout.
Who do I want to win?  Spike Lee
Who will win:  Alfonso Cuaron

The Favourite should clean up on some of the technical awards (Cinematography, Costume, Production Design) - and rightly so.  It's visually stunning, full of sumptuous grandiosity.  But the more computer based technical awards - Visual Effects, etc. should go to Black Panther.  The spectacle of Wakanda and the world created around it is deserving of at least a few shiny gold trophies.

Best Original Score
Black Panther's score stands above the other soundtracks in the MCU, for being something bombastic and superhero-y, but also entirely of it's own.  Which seems to be descriptive of the film itself.  Ludwig Goransson has done a tremendous job.  But my personal preference would be Nicholas Brittell's score for If Beale Street Could Talk.  Sadly, a film that I believe will come away with very little, so I want it to get what it can.
Who do I want to win:  If Beale Street Could Talk
Who will win:  Black Panther

Best Picture
Which brings us to The Big One.  I'm between two - BlackkKlansman and Black Panther.

The Favourite, much as I enjoyed it, looks great, sounds great, has outstanding central performances, but it's storytelling falls away somewhat towards the end.  Likewise with A Star Is Born - I would speak about it a lot more favourably if it was half an hour shorter and didn't seem to be (unfortunately) to be a film about a woman being told what to do entirely by men.

I have very mixed feelings about Bohemian Rhapsody - it has led to a resurgence of Queen songs on the radio, which I have no issues with.  But for a band that was groundbreaking, controversial and innovative, the story told by Bohemian Rhapsody is too...easy (Queen: "we've decided to write a 6 minute epic song with an operatic middle section and we've invented the music video and our lead singer was gay at a time when it really wasn't considered ok to be so"  World according to the film: "No problem to us.  We immediately accept this unquestioningly.").  Plus, as has been documented extensively elsewhere, the timeline is all over the place and the story is, at times, wildly inaccurate.  If so, why is it a biopic?

Roma - as I have mentioned, I just don't get what the hype is about.  Although I did like the option of seeing it on Netflix rather than having to go to the cinema.  But that isn't enough to get Best Picture.

Green Book would be a "safe" win rather than, say, something more politically contentious like Vice or BlackkKlansman.

Black Panther is arguably the film that caused the discussion about introducing the Favourite Picture category.  It's the 9th highest grossing film of all time, the highest grossing film by a black director, highest grossing film for a predominantly black cast, and the first superhero film to be nominated for a Best Picture Oscar.  Plus, it's fun.  It's a good story, told well.  Roma is worthy, but Black Panther  is enjoyable.  It looks great, it sounds great, and it winning would do a lot to redress some of the damage of #Oscarssowhite.

Superhero film up for Best Picture - strange new worlds...

But the film that has most excited me this year has been BlackkKlansman.  It feels important, it feels timely, and it pulls no punches in pointing out how an undercurrent of racism in society that has allowed the Ku Klux Klan to grow and thrive has also led to the current incumbent of the White House and the Charlottesville riots.  It is funny and it is frightening.  It is a film based on a true story in which a black police officer infiltrates the KKK.  See - now you want to see it.

Also a win for best hairstyles

Who do I want to win:  BlackkKlansman or Black Panther
Who will win:  Roma

But: Best Picture for the past few years has always been a surprise.  So who knows what this year holds...

Lady Bird

(Warning: contains spoilers for Lady Bird)

One of the last Oscar-films of 2018 that I saw at the cinema.  I'd been keen to see it for a while - the trailer looked interesting and the reviews sounded positive.  I like Saoirse Ronan and having watched both Hanna and Brooklyn I know that she's well able to carry a film as a lead actress.  Lady Bird garnered a lot of Oscars buzz, nominated in four of the "Big 5" categories (namely Best Actress, Best Supporting Actress - Laurie Metcalf, Best Original Screenplay, Best Picture and Best Director - Greta Gerwig).  Having seen the film, I came away with one big question.

Why?

Lady Bird: patron saint of angsty teenagers

The eponymous Lady Bird is Christine McPherson (Ronan), who is keen to leave her home town of Sacramento and go to university anywhere that isn't there.  Her eye-rolling teenage self continuously butts heads with her mother Marion (Laurie Metcalf), while being desperate to fit in with the cool kids at the expense of her long suffering friend (Beanie Feldstein).  Angst ensues.

I've checked out a few reviews in a vague attempt to try to understand the hype.  On Rotten Tomatoes, it's rated at 99% positive from 311 reviews.  The general consensus seems to be that it is an excellent film for teenage girls to see with their mothers (I guess in an attempt to reflect what they're seeing on the big screen with what's going on in their own relationship).  So to that end, it's possible that I am not the ideal target audience - I am not a teenage girl, I am not a parent, and I have a perfectly good relationship with my mum (hi mum).  Of the three people I saw the film with, it was most enjoyed by my 19 year old friend, who was most able to identify with Lady Bird.  I have no criticism of some of the films accolades - Ronan and Metcalf are both interesting actors.  Gerwig's direction is very much a love letter to her home town - a place that is by equal measures massive and tiny depending on who is looking at it, and when.  The story had lots of interesting bits to it, though, rather than one good overarching narrative.  I found myself wanting to reverse most of the way through the film, and go back to specific comments from specific characters about specific stories.  I wanted to know why Shelley had come to live with the McPherson's and why Shelley found Marion to be such a good pseudo-mother.  I wanted to know more about Danny and why he was struggling to come out.  I wanted to know more about Father Leviatch and what his story was.  I wanted to spend more time with all the different facets of Marion I saw.  I wanted to know more about the relationship between Lady Bird's parents.  The person I wasn't bothered about spending more time with was Lady Bird, which was unfortunate for me, really, because it was mainly about her.  I was frustrated by her, she who wanted her unemployed father to remortgage their house so she could go to university.  Not to do anything specific, because she had no real loves, passions, or academic skills.  Just to go.  She who was constantly rude to her best friend because she wasn't cool enough.  She who kept rolling her eyes so hard I was concerned that she might crack her skull.  I get that some of this is "teenager stuff", but I found it so difficult to take an interest in her.  Is it that I can't empathise with teenagers?  No - interesting teenagers can be found in both Mean Girls and Juno to quickly name two.

All annoying teenagers, but still perfectly good film.

That's not to say I didn't enjoy it.  I liked all the other characters, and I didn't actively hate the film.  I just don't get why it was raved about so much, and I don't understand why it was nominated for Best Picture (in a world in which Blade Runner 2049 was not).  The cynical part of me thinks that in a post #Metoo #Timesup world, the Academy suddenly realised that all their leading films were written and directed by men and they'd forgotten about the women (again) and scrambled to find one.  And Lady Bird ticks a lot of boxes in that regard - female director, female writer, mainly female cast dealing with mainly female relationships.

Having watched the film less than a month ago, I'm already struggling to recall any particular scene from it.  That can't be good.  Fly away home, Lady Bird.

Additional thoughts, questions, comments:

• After also being Sheldon's mum in the Big Bang Theory, is Laurie Metcalf now typecast as "mum with difficult children". 
• Is it just me?  Am I now old and grumpy?

I, Tonya

(Warning: contains spoilers for I, Tonya)

It's taken a while to write this review, because I'm still not sure what I've watched and what I make of it.  Like The Usual Suspects it's not until you get to the ending that you realise that you're no further forward in fully understanding what exactly has gone on.

In real life, Tony Harding is an Olympic figure skater who (amongst other figure skating firsts) became the first American woman to successfully complete a triple axel jump in competition.  She was also, in some way, involved in an attack on Nancy Kerrigan - her team mate and rival.  This much is true.

Film is called I, Tonya.  That's definitely
true as well.

The film, I Tonya, is a fourth wall breaking, documentary style drama, with interviews from Tonya (Margot Robbie), her mother LaVona (Allison Janney), Tonya's ex-husband Jeff Gillooly (Sebastian Stan) and his friend Shawn Eckhardt (Paul Walter Hauser).  The story is about Tonya's figure skating career up until the immediate aftermath of the attack on Kerrigan, intercut with each character's recollections, contradictions and commentary on that footage.  Ice based drama ensues.

It's a difficult watch.  Where the trailer suggested a light and breezy account of a tough young woman overcoming the odds and winning over her critics, the truth is that there's little light and breezy about it.  It's a difficult watch as Tonya is repeatedly abused both verbally and physically, first by her mother and then by her husband.  By the end of the film we have watched her being struck repeatedly, stabbed and shot.  The hurdles are numerous - from the figure skating judges who are dismissive of her rock routines and rhinestones for not being "feminine" enough, to the authorities who seem uninterested in the crying, bleeding woman in the car as her husband is pulled over for speeding and don't seem to follow up on the repeated breaches of restraining orders.  Even her skating coach seems to ignore the fingerprint welts on Tonya's arms and yet another black eye.  Margot Robbie's prickly performance makes one thing clear - Tonya Harding can't win.  Everything is too stacked against her.  So she becomes difficult, and unlikeable, and abrasive.  And the hurdles get higher. After the Kerrigan attack, she is given 3 years probation, 500 hours community service, a $100,000 fine, stripped of her figure skating titles and banned for life from participation in figure skating in any form.  Comparatively, Eckhardt served 14 months in prison.  Gillooly served 2 years.  An incredulous Tonya notes, "Nancy gets hit once and the whole world shits.  For me, that's an everyday occurrence."

So what makes the difference?  Is it because she's a woman?  Partially - note the disparity in punishments between the men (who were there and carried out the attack) and Tonya (who wasn't there but may have been involved in some form of conspiracy).  Is it because she's not considered conventionally feminine?  Partially - "we also grade on presentation" notes a judge, evaluating Tonya's handmade costumes, meaning that although Tonya is technically the better skater, Kerrigan's artistic interpretation counts for more.  It's not enough to be good enough - you have to be pretty while you're doing it.  "She looks as though she chops wood every morning" notes one detractor.  "That's because she does chop wood every morning" snaps her mother.  Is it because nobody wants to be on her side because her mother makes it impossible to be friends with Tonya?  Partially - "Don't talk to her" yells LaVona at 4 year old Tonya.  "She's not your friend, she's your competitor".  Which seems to be how LaVona sees everyone in the world.  Is it because she's poor?  Partially - as Tonya is widely mocked for her fitness routine largely based on the montage from Rocky IV.  All of these things and more make Tonya Harding unlikeable to the outside world.  The world does not root for an unlikeable person.  The world generally tries not to engage with an unlikeable person.

No Tonya, you look fine...

And what of Tonya's abusers - what do they have to say for themselves?  That's an interesting series of interviews.  Gillooley carefully notes that Tonya didn't always tell the truth.  LaVona ignores all charges put against her and instead notes that her treatment of Tonya is what made her a winner.  "Tonya does best when she's angry" she claims, paying a stranger to hurl abuse at her daughter as she enters the ice rink for her latest competition (which Tonya goes on to win).
"And you", spits Tonya as she directly addresses the audience - "you're all my attackers too" - a charge that should have cut deep, after a lot of tonal flipflopping, and a shaky script is a bit of a jump that doesn't quite land.
I can't quite place why it doesn't quite work for me.  The constant fourth-wall breaking gets distracting, and breaks the tension rather than building it.  We don't see enough of Tonya in relation to the figure skating world, so it never really seems like she's out of place until someone deliberately says that she is.  And although we see the struggle of her relationships, we don't see the value of anything - we can't fully grasp that figure skating is her absolute everything until it is taken from her and Robbie has to painstakingly explain the consequence and unfairness of that to the audience.  And although we're invited to laugh along, we're mainly laughing at the horror of Tonya's situation, which is part of the issue to begin with.

The acting, particularly by Robbie and Janney needs to be commended.  Robbie plays a fine line of making Tonya as brash and sharp as possible, while making it possible to still root for her.  When Tonya is happy the audience is happy.  Janney is entirely deserving of her Best Supporting Actress Oscar, and the closing shots of the real LaVona in her fur coat wearing, chain smoking, bird-toting glory are a sudden shocking realisation that Janney has turned in a note-perfect performance.  A sharper script would have helped this score higher for technical merit, but the artistic interpretation by the female leads are the real crowd pleasers.

Scary birds

Additional thoughts, questions, comments:

• Are we laughing with Tonya?  Or at her?  Or both?

• LaVona's bird - that really deserves to win some sort of acting Oscar (which actually exist - they're called the Pawscars)

• I wonder what Nancy Kerrigan's take on this is - hers is a voice oddly missing from the film.

Oscar predictions 2018

Evening all

Well, no one could really have predicted the Envelopegate of 2017's Academy Awards, but I imagine this year's awards will have their own upsets.  I've seen as many of these as I can, and as such, here are my predictions.

Best Actor in a Leading Role
Gary Oldman - Darkest Hour

This one is pretty much nailed on.  Oldman has won every Best Actor gong going for his portrayal of Winston Churchill, and rightly so.  Sorry everyone else.  Not your year.

Best Actress in a Leading Role
Frances McDormand - Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

This seems pretty certain too.  Great portrayal of Mildred Hayes, left grieving and seeking justice after the murder of her daughter.  Multi faceted character piece with no definitive rights or wrongs, and no easy solutions.  Some competition from Sally Hawkins in The Shape of Water as the mute Elisa Esposito, but I think this performance secures McDormand's second Oscar.

Best Actor in a Supporting Role
Sam Rockwell - Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

Tough call between him and Woody Harrelson, but Rockwell edges it for exactly the same reasons as Frances McDormand.  Honourable mention for Christopher Plummer as a short notice replacement for Kevin Spacey in All the Money in the World.

Best Actress in a Supporting Role
Allison Janney - I, Tonya

Still getting my head around this film, but an absolutely vile performance from Allison Janney as the needling, abusive, bitch of a mother in I, Tonya.  Sorry Octavia Spencer - just edged out of this one.

Best Director
Guillermo Del Toro - The Shape of Water

For a film that goes into the Oscars with the most nominations this year, I don't think it will go home with many, but I do think it will get one of the Big Five.  Specifically, Best Director.  Every scene of that film is like a work of art.

Best Film Editing
Baby Driver

Typically Edgar Wright, the film is so precise.  Milliseconds faster or slower and this film would have been awful, but the editing in Baby Driver is both a science and an art.

Best Music (Original Score)
Alexandre Desplat - The Shape of Water

Best Music (Original Song)
I want it to be Remember Me from Coco, but I think it might go to This is Me from The Greatest Showman.

Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay)
Call Me By Your Name

Best Writing (Original Screenplay)
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri 

Best Animated Feature Film
Coco

I'd like to think that Blade Runner 2049 will pick up pretty much all the technical awards, as some sort of apology for the fact that the film itself isn't recognised for Best Film.

Leaving...Best Picture
Oh this is a tough one.  The two main contenders seem to be Three Billboards and The Shape of Water.  Between those two, Three Billboards edges it.  But...but...the Best Picture winners of the 2010s have more often than not been a surprise.  Moonlight won over La La Land, Spotlight won over The Revenant, Argo won over Lincoln, Birdman won over Boyhood.
I don't think it's Phantom Thread, Call Me By Your Name, Lady Bird, Dunkirk or Darkest Hour.
Horror films and fantasy don't win - the only exception to this has been The Return of the King.  So that should rule out The Shape of Water and Get Out.  But Get Out is having a resurgence in popularity, despite coming out well before awards season started.  And it did win the Film Independent Spirit Award - which has correctly predicted the Best Picture for the past four years.

I want The Post to win, and it should if the Academy want to make a political point.  But Best Picture is the only category which is decided by a First Past The Post voting system, which makes a winner by consensus trickier.  That said, it is a film about how the media are ace, and the Academy is a bit of a sucker for that.

Right.  Conclusions.  And these are surprising me even as I type...
Should win: The Post
Will win: I think it might be Get Out.

Gosh.  I'd have voted three times if I could...

The Shape of Water

(Warning: contains spoilers for The Shape of Water)

It's getting closer to the Oscars and one of the big contenders is The Shape of Water, leading with 13 nominations.  Four of those are for "The Big Five" (Best Actor, Actress, Picture, Director and Screenplay - The Shape of Water does not have a nomination for Best Actor).  As a result of this, and as a result of its frankly beautiful trailer, I have been keen to see this for some time.

The Life Aquatic...?

Admittedly, the premise - woman falls in love with sea creature - is not typical movie fare, and certainly not typical Oscar movie fare.  So what makes this different?

Good question.  This is a Guillermo del Toro film, so from the outset it can be assumed that this is a fairy tale featuring monsters (as per Pan's Labyrinth).  As per all fairy tales about monsters, it can also safely be assumed that the monster is probably not the thing that looks like a monster.  It's probably closer to the thing that looks like us.  Or, if it's a film with Michael Shannon in it, it's probably Michael Shannon.  Del Toro has credited some of the inspiration for this film from Creature from the Black Lagoon, but there's also touches of Splash, Amelie, and Buster Keaton/Charlie Chaplin throughout.

The film is told by Giles (Richard Jenkins), a struggling, gay, alcoholic illustrator.  It is about his next door neighbour, Elisa Esposito (Sally Hawkins) - a mute janitor who cleans at a government facility in Baltimore.  One day, a creature (played by Doug Jones) is brought to the facility.  Over time, Elisa develops a relationship with the creature who is being mistreated by the programme director (Michael Shannon).  She begins to plan to help the creature escape.  Aquatic adventures ensue.

The film itself is beautiful.  Set at some point in the early 1960s, it opens with a completely underwater sequence which positions Elisa as a fairytale princess living above a theatre, before draining all the water completely and setting about efficiently sketching Elisa's life - masturbation, eggs, sandwiches, musicals with Giles and working with Zelda (Octavia Spencer).  The colour palette morphs from greens and blues (and teal) to splashes of red when Elisa begins her relationship with the Amphibian Man (that's what's he's called in the credits, so I'll go with that), a fact that was completely lost on my colour-blind husband, who unfortunately perceived the film in mainly sepia tones.  The Amphibian Man himself is quick to light up like a Christmas tree (literally) as soon as he is shown affection.  They literally bring more colour into each others lives.
In direct contrast, it's also worth mentioning the large dollop of body horror in the film too - from Strickland's rotting fingers, to Hoffstetler (Michael Stuhlbarg) having a hole shot in his face, there's a lot to be grossed out by.  There are bits that are definitely not for the squeamish.

Not Abe Sapien.  Definitely not Abe Sapien.

I have read a couple of reviews which have described the relationship between Elisa and the Amphibian Man as that of two outsiders who find love.  I have mixed feelings about this.  In some ways, Elisa can be seen as an outsider because of her muteness.  Similarly, Zelda is an outsider because of her colour, Giles is an outsider because of his sexuality, Hoffstetler is an outsider because he is not American (and the Amphibian Man is an outsider because of not being human).  But Elisa doesn't seem to be lacking anything - she seems content with her life, her job and her friends, and there doesn't seem to be something else that she aspires to or desires.  Nor is there anyone who suggests she is anything less than fine - the closest we come to that is the sinisterly sexual overtones of Strickland (Shannon) who is odious to everyone, not just Elisa.  A different reading of the film is that Elisa and the Amphibian Man are two similar creatures who find each other and find love (the suggestion is made that Elisa is an Amphibian Woman - she was found near water with scars on her neck which may have always been gills).  Conversely, Zelda, Giles and Hoffstetler all think they have found equal partners, but they are all disappointed (and not just because the pie guys pies looked vile).

Mmm...pie.

If I were to make a small criticism, it would be that I didn't understand what the bad guys actually wanted.  If Strickland (or the various other governmental agencies) were experimenting on the Amphibian Man to better understand what he was, that would make more sense.  But Strickland seemed to just be electrocuting him for no discernible reason.  I could also have done with less of the double-crossing-spy-agents storyline.  It didn't particularly add anything to the storyline, and since it's Giles' story to tell, I'm not sure how he would have discerned all that information.  I'm also a little disconcerted that no one bats an eyelid when Elisa starts having a relationship with a sea creature (but it's a del Toro film, so maybe that's fine?).

When the Oscars roll around, I think it's a strong contender for Best Picture but I don't think it will win (fantasy rarely does).  Hawkins may win against Frances McDormand for Best Actress but it's a tough call.  I think Guillermo del Toro may get Best Director.  Alexandre Desplat may win for Best Score.  But I think this may be one of the films that leads in terms of nominations, but walks away with little. 

If that's the case, I'm sure Zelda will have something to say about that...

Additional thoughts, questions, comments:

• Is Elisa selectively mute?  She seems to speak, but that's as part of a fantasy moment - was any of it real?  Is Strickland's assessment that her voicebox has been cut an accurate one?

• Alexandre Desplat created a beautiful score for this film - it sounded a lot like the theme from Up to me, with elements of The King's Speech (another Desplat score).

• Giles' cats seem remarkably forgiving of a creature that eats the head off one of their friends.

• Do green and red represent something?  Giles is asked to paint green jello instead of red; Strickland's candy is green; the pie guy's pie is green.  I should watch this film again...

The Post

(Warning: contains spoilers for The Post)

It's been a strange year, hasn't it?  I don't think I'm going out on too much of a limb to say that the world in the Trump-era feels a lot more uncertain, and that most of us can't believe that Trump's been president for a year.  Only a year?  Haven't we all aged so much more than that?

It's often interesting to see how current events then shape the artistic, and what we're seeing now can usually be traced back to previous events.  That said, this years awards films feel a little on the "safe" side (with the exception of Get Out which is a surprise nomination).  There's many uncontroversial messages being told well - people overcoming seemingly insurmountable adversity, people seeking redemption, people finding love.  That's all pretty standard fare.   The Post stands out as timely and topical as it draws pointed comparisons between the presidencies of Nixon and Trump - Republican administrations at war with the press.  I'm happy to be corrected, but I think this might be the first (of many) responses to a Trump presidency. 

Postman Pat: the sequel?

The Post tells the story of how a military analyst in Vietnam leaks his classified reports to the papers, and the papers (specifically the Washington Post) decisions about whether or not to publish the findings of those reports.  The reports date back over four Presidential administrations, and are very clear on the following - American politicians knew that they could not win the Vietnam War.  Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon were all briefed as such.  They continued to send troops to Vietnam to save face, and tell the American public that America is winning and making great progress.
In "present day" (Nixon administration), Katharine Graham (Meryl Streep) has inherited the Washington Post and is trying to make it financially stable by floating it on the Stock Market.  She is close friends with various politicians and other people of public significance.  She and chief editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks) find themselves in receipt of the leaked papers and must weigh up the consequences of what they decide to do with them.  Moral dilemmas ensue.

In some ways, it seems like Steven Spielberg has specifically stopped everything that he was doing in order to make this film.  Right now.  He's said as much.  In other ways, it's the latest in a line of Spielberg films which point out that the U.S. has a Constitution that was put in place for a reason and should be followed as such (Lincoln, Bridge of Spies).  There is a real sense of urgency and consequence throughout, heightened by the trappings of the time (Journalist Ben Bagdikian - Bob Odenkirk - goes to get a tip off on a payphone, but drops the quarters that he needs to keep the call going; decisions need to be made in order to hit the deadlines for the day - newspapers being created by typesetting; Daniel Ellsberg - Matthew Rhys - stealing actual cumbersome physical files, rather than the memory stick and digital file equivalents of the Snowden era).   
There has been some criticism that the writing is a little too on-the-nose in places, and that the audience are spoonfed a little too much, rather than being allowed to actively come to their own conclusions.  Comparisons are made to 1976's All the President's Men (a film I haven't seen yet, but I understand that it credits the audience with a little more discernment and intelligence) but I would argue that in 2018, audiences need something sharp and on point to cut through the endless cacophony and vagaries.  There will be time for allegory and metaphor later.  For now, there is definitely a need for being deliberately reminded of things like "free press serves the governed, not the governing".  There is also a need for these things to be said by some of America's most trusted people (Hanks, Streep, Spielberg).

I have an idea...

Let's turn our attention to that cast.  In real life, Meryl Streep has already been called "highly overrated" by the current President following her criticism of him last year.  In The Post, she is on top form as Katharine Graham and has been Oscar nominated as such.  Her story is a concise portrayal of the issues of gender inequality - constantly being undermined and devalued in a sea of men (pointed out by Sarah Paulson as Tony Bradlee).  There's some sneaky direction throughout her transformation from hesitant to confident.  The first half of the film is shot from above, with Streep looking tiny and subservient.  She's made more vulnerable in a series of meetings where someone (usually Hanks) arrives unexpectedly at her house while she's in a nightdress (and uncomfortably trying to pay attention while hiding bare flesh behind throw cushions).  By the end, she is shot from below in white and gold (albeit, bizarre looking) garments which make her look like a goddess and not to be trifled with.

What *is* this garment?

"This is MY paper" she eventually squeaks out.  "Not my father's and not my ex-husband's.  It's mine [and I'm in charge]".  It's a reminder that the decisions of history are not arrived at easily.
Tom Hanks, in the meantime, has not publically suffered the wrath of Trump, but has been quietly critical in a more subtle way.  His verbal sparring with Streep throughout is enjoyable, and it's strange to think that these two actors have not been in any previous films before.  While Streep's Graham shows uncertainty in herself and her decisions, Hanks's Bradlee constantly lays down all the pertinent facts needed to come to a decision.  It's difficult to see why Hanks (and Spielberg for that matter) have not been equally nominated alongside Streep - perhaps the Academy are confused by a role in which Hanks smokes like a chimney and drops a lot of f-bombs.

No Tom!  Stop swearing.

Actually, to take this a step further, this film doesn't seem to be getting a lot of love and I'm unsure why.  The combination of Streep, Hanks and Spielberg fighting for truth, justice and the American way is magnificent, and yet I've struggled to see it at the local cinemas around here.  I'm clearly not in the minority, if the monologue for this years Golden Globes is anything to go by (from 5:03).

That is not to say that this film is perfect.  It takes a while to get going, and in places there's some details which are specific to American audiences (an issue, I imagine, which is the same in reverse in films like Darkest Hour).  The New York Times have also been critical that they are essentially side lined in a story that could have been theirs.  The film also, I think, could benefit from spending a bit more time with Ellsberg - this starts off by being his story, but he is forgotten about quite quickly.  This is a real shame, because he is never considered in the decisions to print (or not to print).  At one point, he was facing a prison sentence of 115 years as a result of his actions - surely a fact worth noting?  But I can also see the rationale behind these decisions - this story itself is not about the people involved, it's about the freedom of the press and upholding of the Constitution.    

    

For my money, The Post is the film that should win Best Picture at this year's Oscars (well, actually, it should be Blade Runner 2049, and it's frankly ridiculous that it's not even nominated).  If the Academy want to make a point to the increasingly fascist Donald Trump, then this should win.  His adulation of Hollywood, and desire to be popular are both sore points and worth poking.  And surely he should approve?  I hear he's very much against "fake news"?

Additional comments, thoughts, questions:

• Apparently the film was originally called "The Papers".  In hindsight, a much better title.  Sorry Steven.

• This marks John Williams' 28th collaboration with Steven Spielberg.  He's 86 and still composing great music.  I have trouble walking and chewing gum.

• Ben Bagdikian isn't credited much in this film, but should be.  He is famously quoted as telling students at Berkeley University "Never forget that your obligation is to the people. It is not, at heart, to those who pay you, or to your editor, or to your sources, or to your friends, or to the advancement of your career. It is to the public." - that's the throughstory of this film.  Turns out that Ben Bagdikian should have his own film.  Google him. 

Darkest Hour

(Warning: contains spoilers for Darkest Hour)

There seems to be a focus on World War 2 at the moment - 2017 alone brought Churchill, Their Finest, Dunkirk, to name three.  2018 begins with Oscar hopeful Darkest Hour, tracing the early days of Winston Churchill as Prime Minister for the United Kingdom in 1940.

Gary Oldman well on his way to nicotine poisoning...

Gary Oldman is already garnering much praise for his portrayal of the titular character.  At the time of writing, he's received the Golden Globe, Screen Actors Guild award, AACTA international award, Alliance of Women Film Journalists award, Critics Choice award, Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association award, Hollywood Film award, New York Film Critics award, Online Film Critics Society award, Palm Springs International Film Festival award, St Louis Film Critics Association award, Washington DC Area Film Critics Association award, and Women Film Critics Circle Award.  So by the time he receives the BAFTA and the Oscar (both of which seem inevitable), there will be nothing left to say in the acceptance speeches and nobody left to thank.  Oldman has ticked all the Oscars boxes - troubled, historical figure, overcoming adversity and deliberately disfiguring himself in order to look the part.  He's taken things to Daniel Day-Lewis lengths of Method by accidentally giving himself nicotine poisoning during the filming (due to a frankly ridiculous amount of cigars).  He has been a pub discussion favourite for while ("who is the best actor never to have won an Oscar?") and now it seems likely that the Academy will reward his depiction of the wartime PM.  Deservedly so.  Oldman (as well as being unrecognisable in makeup and prosthetics) portrays a figure who is derided for his past decisions, distrusted by his own party, given a job he doesn't necessarily want at a time when every decision matters, whilst also being simultaneously absolutely sure of his decisions and absolutely full of doubt and fear at the "what ifs..." of them.  His introduction is great - his reputation as cantankerous and difficult being spelled out to his new secretary - Miss Layton - on her first day as she is ushered into his bedroom/study.  Our first glimpse of Churchill is as he lights up his first cigar of the morning, and his familiar features are caught briefly by matchlight.  As the film progresses, we see many sides of Churchill and Oldman plays them with aplomb - the blustering, angry, difficult to please Churchill, the catatonically depressed Churchill, the trying-to-be-better Churchill, the family-man Churchill and the barnstorming public speaker Churchill.  To give you some idea of how good Gary Oldman is in this part - Daniel Day-Lewis is also up for the Best Actor Oscar this year.  Nobody is talking about Daniel Day-Lewis.

To be fair, he will really go out of his way to be the best at being sad now...

Whether it will win Best Picture though is up for debate.  Certainly, Anthony McCarten (The Theory of Everything) has written a compelling script - more political thriller than wartime biopic, and loudly trumpeting the belief that words do more than guns.  It takes careful steps to explain what is going on on both a global scale (the reticence of Roosevelt to help feels like a personal blow) and national scale (with the scenes of wartime everyday London).  As a result, events like the Dunkirk evacuation feel like they have actual meaning and consequence, in a way that Nolan's Dunkirk didn't quite master.  However, as with The Theory of Everything it presumes some knowledge of the main character and the people around him.  So without knowledge of, for example, Churchill's prolonged and recurrent episodes of depression, you may be forgiven for wondering why he's sitting on a bed in a state of undress, staring at the wall.  Some better explanation of what all the politicians are playing at wouldn't go amiss either (all very House of Cards, with backstabbing aplenty, but I wonder how much sense it makes to an uninformed audience).  It also seems that McCarten did some careful plotting to bring the action to Dunkirk, and knew that he wanted to get to the rousing "We shall fight on the beaches" speech to end the film, but wasn't quite sure how to couple the two together.  Thus, there is an entirely fictitious scene in which Churchill rides the Underground, meets the "common folk" who all tell him that everything he's doing is brilliant and they definitely want to keep fighting - a scene so oddly specific in its naming of the characters, that I assumed it must be a random true anecdote.  It's not, which means the film wanders needlessly into schmaltz.
There's some interesting suggestions peppered throughout the film, however.  For example, that Neville Chamberlain's (Ronald Pickup) decision to support Churchill rather than encourage party dissent (if Chamberlain agreed with Churchill's speech, he would wave his handkerchief so that everyone would follow his lead) was a symptom of his progressing terminal cancer, rather than a change of heart.  Or that Churchill offered counsel to King George VI about whether to move his family and govern from Canada.  McCarten's poetic licence feels a little less artificial here.

As with Martin McDonagh (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri), I am not sure why Joe Wright is not recognised for his work as director.  His direction provides a striking film - from tiny cramped bunkers to grand state rooms, the direction makes for a beautiful film, with well used shards of light, ascending and descending lift shafts, and exhilarating aerial shots of the suicide attack at Calais.  Wright's directorial choices make the film slow down and speed up at exactly the right plot points and as such, the 2 hour film zips by.

George VI hoped his mirror was broken...

There's not too much for the women of the film to do, and the success of whether or not it's a feminist friendly film rests on what you think the film is.  Both Clementine Churchill (Dame Kristen Scott Thomas) and Elizabeth Layton (Lily James) both exist to more fully flesh out the facets of Churchill, which is fine if you contend that Darkest Hour is a Churchill biopic, but less so if you don't.  That said, Scott Thomas and James do a lot to make their small character roles memorable and their actions help progress the plot.

As for whether Oldman's Churchill is accurate or not, Elizabeth Layton (who became Elizabeth Nel) was Churchill's personal secretary from 1941-1945.  In her memoires, she describes Churchill thus; "Sometimes [while dictating a letter] his voice would become thick with emotion, and occasionally a tear would run down his cheek. As inspiration came to him, he would gesture with his hands, just as one knew he would be doing when he delivered his speech, and the sentences would roll out with so much feeling that one died with the soldiers, toiled with the workers, hated the enemy, strained for victory ... [T]hat great man – who could at any time be impatient, kind, irritable, crushing, generous, inspiring, difficult, alarming, amusing, unpredictable, considerate, seemingly impossible to please, charming, demanding, inconsiderate, quick to anger and quick to forgive – was unforgettable. One loved him with a deep devotion. Difficult to work for – yes, mostly; loveable – always; amusing – without fail."

That is definitely the Churchill of this film. 

Additional comments, thoughts, questions:

Just this, really...

Coco

(Warning: contains spoilers for Coco)

How many feature films do you think Pixar have made?  About 10, right?  Nope - Coco is the 19th film from the creative team behind the films that made you weep as an adult, and is arguably the strongest film in Pixar's canon since 2015's Inside Out.

Set in Mexico, Coco is the story of 12 year old Miguel, who is the latest in a long line of shoemakers in a family that has banned music.  Miguels' great-great-grandfather was a musician who left Migel's great-great grandmother to go and pursue fame and fortune as a musician, and as such all music is forbidden.  Miguel doesn't want to be a shoemaker.  Miguel wants to be a famous musician.  Due to some vague magic (which may or may not be related to Día de Muertos - the Day of the Dead), Miguel finds himself in the Land of the Dead with his now deceased relatives, and must find a way back before morning, or he will become one of the dead too.  Las aventuras sobrevienen!

Hey cool - even the guitar is a skeleton!

It is worth noting that Coco is the first ever film with a nine figure budget to feature an all Latino cast (including Anthony Gonzalez, Benjamin Bratt, Gael García Bernal, Alanna Ubach and Edward James Olmos amongst others) .  Coco does for Mexican culture what Moana did for Polynesian culture, perhaps more successfully.  I feel I understand more about Día de Muertos and its importance in the Mexican community.  The film does a lot of work early on to help the uninformed viewer (i.e. me) understand the traditions surrounding this festival, and what happens if those traditions are not adhered to (specifically, that we have two deaths.  The first is the one that takes us from the Land of the Living to the Land of the Dead.  We remain in the Land of the Dead until the last person forgets us, and then we disappear completely.) That said, most of the films themes are more universal - family, life, assumptions, death and memories.
It doesn't sounds like it's going to be a cheery film - a boy spends his time sucked into the land of the dead, and in the land of the living the only person that he talks to is his grandmother who suffers from dementia...but Coco is nothing if not relentlessly positive in the face of significant adversity, which is typical of Pixar films.  The story is remarkably similar to Back To The Future (both are stories featuring young men who find themselves in impossible places, play guitar, solve issues with their families, have significant photos and risk vanishing if they get it wrong - writer and director Lee Unkrich has since said that although they didn't set out to borrow from it, the film was an influence on a lot of the people working on Coco), with nods towards It's A Wonderful Life.  Unkrich has also said that two important films that the crew referred back to were Billy Elliott and Whale Rider - stories of children torn between their own aspirations, and the wishes of their families.  Fans of those films will be better placed to make comparisons

Your kids are gonna love it...

The film looks stunning, with the Land of the Dead being portrayed as a series of interconnected neon districts, loosely based on Guanajuato in Central Mexico.  Each of the characters looks distinctive (which is no mean feat, given that they're all skeletons), and the alebrijes (animal spirit guides) are beautifully blacklit (black lighted? Whatever the word is for "done with black light").  A lot of time and love has gone into creating and realising this expression of the Land of the Dead, and it really pays off.  The first shots of Land of the Dead and the golden bridge are breathtakingly rich in design and detail and the overall effect is glorious.

This doesn't even do it justice.

Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez return as songwriters following the success of 2013's Frozen, and although there isn't anything as earwormy as Let It Go on the soundtrack, Remember Me is a lovely recurring song that has earned the pair a further Oscar nomination for Best Song.

My main criticism is that 1 hour 49 minutes, Coco is one of the longest Pixar films, and needlessly so.  While it doesn't drag it takes a while in getting set up, both in the Land of the Living, and in the Land of the Dead.  A lot of the initial back story is told quickly through the paper cuttings in the first five minutes, and is then repeated as the film goes on.  Considering how much Pixar has historically proved they can pack into a 90 minute film (and has proved that they can tell an entire lifetime in under 5 minutes and not lack for emotional response in Up), tighter storytelling could have made for a much leaner film.  That said, it has a very strong third act which pulls everything together well and hits it's emotional beats well in a way that was missing from Finding Dory and The Good Dinosaur.

Miguel begins the film stuck between a rock and a hard place.  Should he follow his dream and play music, or listen to his family and ban it from his life?  The decision at the start is two really contrasting ideas.  By the end of the film, the choice is a small and easy one, both for Miguel and his family (living and dead).  It also involves realistic shifts in attitudes from everybody (living and dead).  The main takeaway messages for viewers to chew on are these: what sort of legacy actually matters, how do you want to be remembered, and whose responsibility is it to remember you?  And, arguably, if you are remembered do you ever really die?

Additional comments, questions and concerns:

• There is no Pixar short.  The one that was planned - Olaf's Frozen Adventure - was scrapped after poor audience reception.  At 21 minutes long, it would have made the total running time well over 2 hours long (and maybe less appealing to younger Pixar fans).  A 21 minute short seems like a terrible idea - that's pretty much the average length of an episode of Friends.  If it's the length of an actual television programme, it's not a short.

• A113 can be found in the office of the Bureau of Family Grievances.

• If someone's memory is disgraced, aren't they still remembered?

• Dante looks a lot like Ed from The Lion King

• 

  Ed

Dante

• Remember: the film is called Coco. (*small tear*)

• Coco arrives at an interesting time.  While Donald Trump continues to sow seeds of discord about Mexico and its inhabitants, Coco quietly and sympathetically shows a nondescript family in a nondescript town, and shows that they're just like everyone else in their family love and squabbles.  Well played, Pixar.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

(Warning: contains spoilers for Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri.  Also has racially offensive terms)

Yaaaay!  Oscars time, where I move into the cinema and watch as many of these films as possible.  Even though, admittedly, they're often excessively long, over-hyped, and about Serious Issues.  Feeling happy seems to be actively discouraged.

So imagine my surprise to discover that one of the main contenders for this years awards is less than 2 hours long, and funny (albeit in a really dark way...)

Three Billboards.  Count 'em

It's not a cheery subject matter, admittedly.  Frances McDormand plays Mildred Hayes, a woman whose teenage daughter has been raped, set on fire and murdered.  Seven months on, the police have pretty much stopped investigating.  Incensed by this, she hires the eponymous three billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri and has the following messages posted. RAPED WHILE DYING.  AND STILL NO ARRESTS.  HOW COME, CHIEF WILLOUGHBY?  Unsurprisingly, Chief Willoughby (Woody Harrelson) isn't delighted by this, and neither are a lot of the Ebbing townsfolk who have sympathies for Mildred's loss, but are close friends with Willoughby and are keen to make their displeasure at Mildred known.  Paths to redemption ensue.

There's a lot of factors that make this film great, and most of them are found in the acting.  Frances McDormand seems likely to add another Oscar to her wins this year for her portrayal of Mildred Hayes.  Instantly iconic in her blue boilersuit (notably similar to the one she wore in 1984's Blood Simple.), she is quickly a character to root for.  Seven months after a major trauma is an interesting place to start the drama.  We see flashes of Haye's life with her children, and the family arguments that ensue.  We see life after Angela's murder, and what is left once all the immediate furore has died down.  We do not see Angela's murder, nor Mildred's discovery of it.  The closest we get to that is the charred body-shaped patch of grass under the billboards that Mildred returns to in order to plant flowerbeds by.  Some of her best scenes, however, come with Chief Willoughby, who tries every trick he has to get her to take the billboards down.  There is a respect between the two, and it feels a lot like the two are verbally sparring (and enjoying it), but know the boundaries not to cross (compared to Sam Rockwell's Jason Dixon who lashes out with the deliberate intention of hurting people).  When Willoughby plays his trump card ("I have cancer"), Hayes counters unsentimentally with "yeah, I know.  Everybody knows." and needles him into getting on with solving Angela's murder before he dies too.  Mildred is entirely unsentimental, as seen in the meeting with the deer ("You're pretty, but you ain't her"), her meeting with the local pastor ("You're all culpable"), her meeting with the man who claimed to have murdered Angela ("Did you?  Were you?").  She refuses to play nice, because playing nice has got her nowhere, long before Angela's death.  Her abusive ex-husband now has a significantly younger girlfriend, her son hates her, she won't countenance the man who loves her (Peter Dinklage).  That is not to say she doesn't care.  When Willoughby unexpectedly sneezes blood on her during one of their verbal spats, he is quick to apologise and she is quick to forgive ("I didn't mean to...", "I know, baby, I know").

Everyone online should learn to argue like these two.

Willoughby and Dixon have earned both Woody Harrelson and Sam Rockwell Best Supporting Actor nods, and it is difficult to choose between them.  Willoughby is the more temperate of the two, and Harrelson definitely holds his own in his scenes with McDormand.  His influence is clearly felt even when Harrelson is not on screen, and his actions guide and define both Mildred and Jason.  But it's Dixon who changes the most during the film, and it's Dixon who has the longer "journey".  In some ways, he's very much still the child - living subserviently with his horrible mother, reading comic books at work instead of doing any work, and essentially throwing tantrums when he doesn't get his own way.  But he begins to move past that as the film progresses until you actually find yourself rooting for him.  The problem with his story arc is this: Jason Dixon is a violent racist who has made a reputation for himself by actually torturing black people.  He arrests and detains a black woman for days because she is friends with Mildred.  He is vile to every non-white person he sees.  The film does little to address that.  He does, however, go through a lot of pain. In film land, that can equal some form of redemption.  The problem in this instance, is that we find ourselves rooting for this reformed character who has at no stage even vaguely acknowledged that his racist outlook was wrong, or even vaguely problematic.  Admittedly, this is a film in which redemption is started but not completed - but I would argue that the racism of Jason Dixon has to be, at the very least, acknowledged.

He's got problems with white folks too...

Outside of the main three, the supporting cast also feel very well fleshed out.  Peter Dinklage lends real pathos to James - a character who could have easily been a throwaway 2-dimensional plot contrivance.  Lucas Hedges is compelling and complicated as Robbie - Mildred's son who is grieving the death of his sister, angry with his mother about billboards, protective of her when it comes to his father (the speed and fluidity of movement when he pulls a knife on his abusive dad is all it takes to show that this is a well-practised move).  Kathryn Newton has one scene as Angela, but immediately sells the dynamic of teenage daughter, saying throwaway vile things to her mother because families always known the short cuts to hurt each other.  Momma Dixon, Charlie, Red, Abercrombie, Denise, Penelope - all characters that feel like they got significant screen time because I feel that I know them, but actually maybe got three or four lines each.

I can't understand why Martin McDonagh (writer and director) hasn't been shortlisted for the Best Director Oscar, but has been nominated for Best Original Screenplay.  Ebbing feels like such a well-realised powderkeg of a town, and it feels like everything is at stake all the way through.  There's Tarantino-esque levels of tension, and a couple of solid gut-punches in terms of plot twists and emotional beats.  It's a real shame that the racial tensions aren't better explored (for a film that explores racism in modern America, Get Out is your go-to).  But there's so much crammed in to a sub-2-hour film (without it feeling hurried) - that is down to skilled writing and skilled direction. 

I have no desire to return to Ebbing, Missouri, but I wouldn't mind spending a lot more time with those characters.  But from a distance.  They're scary.

Additional comments, thoughts and concerns:

• PC progress in Ebbing - Mildred: "how's the nigger-torturing business?" Jason: "You can't say that - it's people-of-colour-torturing" 

• Warning: There are about three things that will have you watching from between your fingers: the dentist, the diner, the bathroom.

• I look forward to a Mildred Hayes action figure.

  

  It'll look a bit like this...

Moonlight

(warning: contains spoilers for Moonlight)

So, the thing about La La Land is that...Wait, there's been a mistake. 

Moonlight is the film I'm reviewing (laaaaame joke, but it's right there).

So, now we're out of Oscar season, we know that Moonlight came away with a very respectable haul of awards, winning Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Supporting Actor for Mahershala Ali (a name that is particularly pleasing to say).  As such, it has created a lot of "firsts".  For example: it is the first film with an all-black cast and the first LGBT film to win the Academy Award for Best

Picture.  Joi McMillon (one of the editors) became the first black woman to be nominated for an editing Oscar.  Mahershala Ali is the first Muslim to win an acting Oscar (and is one of an embarrassingly small group of 17 black actors who have won an acting Oscar).  So we know that it is a history making film.  Honest Trailers went as far as renaming it "All the Oscar Things" after describing it thus:

"...a poetic unfolding of a life, beautifully directed by Barry Jenkins as this young (tick), black (tick), gay (tick) man struggles to escape from poverty (tick) and drug addiction (tick).  Told across three decades (tick), based on the life story of it's author (tick), so yeah I'd say it's nominated for an Oscar."

Definitely not La La Land

That's a good description.  Inspired by the unpublished theatre project "In Moonlight Black Boys Look Blue" (Tarell Alvin McCraney), the film is split into three parts each of which is named after the different identities that the central character is known by ("Little", "Chiron" and "Black") in his childhood, adolescence and adulthood respectively.  Those acts break very cleanly into setup, confrontation and resolution.  There is no driving plot narrative, each part examines the life of the protagonist - where he is, who he's with, what he's doing.  The only two other characters that recur in all three parts are Paula (Chiron's mother, a care worker whose addiction to crack and subsequent decline is charted as the film progresses.  She is played by an almost unrecognisable Naomie Harris) and Kevin (Chiron's childhood friend, and the subject of his first sexual experience).

In terms of awards, for me it's not the best film but it is an important one.  On the back of the #Oscarssowhite furore of the past few years, here is a film that speaks about what it is to be a) black and b) gay, and be proud of both.  Is there a comparable film - if there is, I don't know it.  A good film should enable me to experience, understand and empathise with characters who have a different experience than my own.  To that end, this film succeeds by miles.  Additionally, the juxtapositions are stark, but pass by almost without being commented upon.  Black (as he is at the end of the film) outwardly looks fierce, with unsmiling gold teeth, but is the most vulnerable and brittle character of the film.  There are virtually no older role models (particularly male role models).  The closest we have is Juan (Ali) who is a mess of contrasts himself - a tall, imposing man who is a drug dealer but who befriends the young Little and confounds expectations by teaching him how to swim, making sure he is fed, offering his own home with its clean (and always available) spare bed and providing this foundation to teenage Chiron's sexuality:

Chiron: "What's a faggot?"
Juan: "A faggot is a word used to make gay people feel bad."
Chiron: "Am I a faggot?"
Juan: "You might be gay but don't let anyone ever call you a faggot."

It is positively cheering that Juan is the most "masculine" character, and the absolute model of gay acceptance.  He features heavily in the life of Little, and then symbolically in the life of Chiron (in the house that Chiron visits) and Black (represented by the little gold crown on the dashboard of his car).


Spoilers: Juan does not just drop Little in the sea.
I would totally have done that.
And that's why no one makes films about me.

I doubt it is accidental that none of these characters "succeed" in a conventional sense.  By the end, most have been involved in drugs, prison, gangs and fights.  Their jobs are low income, or downright illegal.  Everyone in Black's life is under some kind of state surveillance by the end.  But none of that matters because they are all more than their circumstances.

If I'm honest, I wasn't blown away by this film when I first saw it.  I watched in a warm cinema on a Monday evening after work.  I was half asleep, and this film is not full of riveting action.  But the more I write about it in this review, the more sure I am that I need to see it again.  And so do you.

Important life lesson: always love a man who can cook.

Additional thoughts, comments, questions:

1.  This is not a particularly female friendly film.  The two women Paula (Naomie Harris) and Teresa (Janelle Monae) are thinly written at best.  But even they provide an interesting contrast to each other as Chiron's biological mother (who neglects him) vs his "adoptive" mother who has no children, but is a better parent.

2.  Parenting itself is a noteworthy theme of the film.  When Juan calls Paula out for being a neglectful, drug addicted mother who cannot take care of her child, she rightly points out that he is the person selling her drugs so is contributing and participating in the neglect of Chiron.

3.  This film looks beautiful.  I want to go to Miami and eat all the food.