Category Archives: Watching

The year on screen so far – 2016

The Wolfpack, dir. Crystal Moselle

This documentary film is incredibly haunting and stayed with me long after I saw it. I wasn’t prepared for how close to home it would hit, so unwittingly, I watched it on a flight from Europe to the U.S. I cried through a good portion of it, prompting some wary looks from fellow passengers and flight attendants. And I rarely cry, not just for movies, but for anything.

It’s a story about a band of brothers raised in total social isolation by their tyrant alcoholic father in the midst of New York City. Not allowed to set foot outside their home during their entire childhood because the streets of New York are “dangerous and full of evil people” waiting to corrupt their souls, the brothers turn to their father’s movie collection as their sole source of both entertainment as well as education, re-enacting their favorite scenes and learning entire dialogue scripts (which they transcribed) by heart. Things take a turn when the second oldest brother, at age 15, defies his father’s orders and starts going outside into the ‘real world’ to explore it, prompting the rest of his brothers to follow suit.

Getting such a candid glimpse into the pathologically sick mind of the father and into the lives of the dysfunctional family he’s created provokes nothing but raw emotion. This family’s story is so strange, that it stretches your consciousness just trying to comprehend something so beyond the pale. “I guess you could say he was overprotective,” quips one of the brothers. The boys do not paint their father as a monster, but rather expose him as a megalomaniac.

My parents were not tyrants and I had a relatively happy childhood as an only child, but I was brought up to believe that evil people lurked around every corner and that my innocent soul was constantly in imminent danger of being corrupted. I think my mother was happiest when I stayed at home. It took me a long time to shake a feeling of dread and anxiety, not just every time I stepped out of the 500-meter radius from my house, but also over my future out in the world. “I remember being scared of going out into the world,” says one brother.

My father never worked a day in his life and justified it in exactly the same way that the brothers’ father does in the documentary. He used to voice lofty beliefs about freedom from working for the Man, proclaiming himself an all-knowing guru. When the brothers explained that their Dad didn’t believe in working for a living because it meant “being a slave to society,” it painfully rang a few bells. (My father has since modified his views and regrets some of his decisions.)

What is maybe the most astonishing aspect of this story is how articulate, intelligent, kind and thoughtful these boys have grown up to be. It would almost suggest that education by movies is not the worst thing that can happen to a child, especially to these children, who grew up in an alternate reality that they themselves created in response to their confinement. This story actually has a happy ending.

Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.
– Kahlil Gibran

Spotlight, dir. Tom McCarthy

The reason this movie works, and is well worth watching, is that it avoids being bombastic and loud about its highly explosive material, which is sexual abuse of children in the Catholic Church. McCarthy approaches his subject matter the way The Boston Globe’s “Spotlight” team of investigative journalists approached the scandal they uncovered: with calm precision, and yet not without emotion.

Emotions do run high in this film, but they remain contained because they’re filtered through the perspective(s) of the journalistic team. There is no triumphant glee in exposing systemically endorsed depravity, only a bitter-sweet mix of sadness, anger, and righteousness that comes from doing right by somebody, because the ultimate focus of the story is not on the Catholic Church, but on its victims.

The Witch, dir. Robert Eggers

I’ve reviewed this movie extensively in an earlier post, so I won’t go into it again here. Having recently re-watched it, I can only confirm what I’ve already said: it’s one of the best psychological horrors ever made, and one of the top five films of 2016. My expectations for director Eggers’ future endeavors are now impossibly high.

The Embrace of the Serpent (El abrazo de la serpiente), dir. Ciro Guerra

It’s easy to connect the dots between Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, Coppola’s Apocalypse Now, and this Colombian masterpiece. If Conrad’s book is a condemnation of the British colonial experiment in Africa, and Coppola’s film is a condemnation of the American war experiment in Vietnam, then The Embrace of the Serpent is the extension of Kurtz’s “The horror! The horror!” to the big business’s wholesale occupation and destruction of the Amazon forest and its native tribes.

Quiet and meditative like the gliding of boats along the Amazon river, Guerra’s film is bursting with poetic imagery, and yet the lushness of the rainforest is subdued by the use of black-and-white cinematography. It provides a dreamlike, almost psychedelic backdrop for a story of greedy imperialism and cultural appropriation.

Guerra subverts the trope of the wise shaman, the Last Mohican of his people, by giving us an old man who has lost his spiritual mission and whose quest to retrieve it mirrors that of the white scientists searching for a sacred healing plant. The shaman’s emotional disorientation, as he reluctantly agrees to act as a guide for the two scientists, also quietly refutes the white-man perspective of Joffè’s 1986 The Mission, which Guerra deliberately takes under advisement.

As journeys into the heart of darkness go, this one is emotionally very rewarding, largely thanks to the warm and fascinating character of the shaman in the midst of it.

Midnight Special, dir. Jeff Nichols

I would watch anything with Michael Shannon in it. The intensity of his screen presence, of those haunted but not unkind eyes, is always on the verge of hijacking the plot of every movie he’s in. In the rare moments when he smiles, it’s like the evening breeze at the end of the summer, when the days start to get shorter – you shudder lightly and reach for something to cover yourself with.

Midnight Special is a bit of an outlandish movie, even by sci-fi standards, but very clever in slowly revealing the motivations and personal histories of its mysterious main protagonists. It could’ve easily given way to cheap sentimentalism and oh-so-obvious Jesus Christ parallels, but both young Jaeden Lieberher’s (as the gifted/cursed main character) and Kirsten Dunst’s (as his mother) subdued, controlled performances nicely counteract Shannon’s emotional intensity, which harks to his turn in Nichols’ earlier film Take Shelter.

It reminded me a little bit of 1997’s Contact, mostly because of its quiet but sustained meditation on science vs. religion, which viewers from both sides of the fence are likely to find palatable.

“The Americans”: Game of Spies

A typical American family unit in the early 80’s is actually a front for a couple of Soviet spies embedded in suburban idyll, living the American Dream. The premise of The Americans is straightforward enough – it is, after all, a spy show set at the height of the Cold War – and maybe doesn’t sound like much more than a cool idea. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it keeps running just slightly below most people’s radars even after four seasons – just like its central characters try to do. Personally, I find it to be the best drama show currently on television.

As Emily Nussbaum correctly pointed out in The New Yorker, The Americans is a show driven by sexual tension. That said, there isn’t a single scene of gratuitous nudity in all its four seasons (yes, I’m looking at you, Game of Thrones). Instead, the show writers make sure that every sex scene counts, because it needs to demonstrate that sex is power. The power to gain purchase in negotiations, to subdue a strong character and make them vulnerable, to weaken a psychological advantage, or simply to balance trust/domination issues between spouses.

Mostly, however, it’s a show about the slow unraveling of lives built around a lie, but sustained by bonds of love and a struggle for genuine intimacy. This paradox at the core of the show is what creates the suspense and propels the action. It also keeps circling back to the same questions: where do the lies stop, and where does the real person begin? Are they getting close to someone because they crave genuine human contact and warmth, or are they working to convert them into “assets”? How can you trust anything that comes out of their mouths?

This is Game of Spies. The basic issue explored in the show is the unreliability of the characters’ narratives, both in what they tell others and what they tell themselves. The viewer is drawn into this guessing game almost unconsciously, trying to read poker faces and guess at motivation. Both the Soviet and the American spies find themselves in the same position, which is impossible to defend, or sustain, for long: they lie and fight to keep their secrets, but they also lie and fight to protect those they love. And slowly but inexorably, their loved ones become collateral damage. Strung out between love and duty, there is no win-win situation for anyone on this show.

As I already mentioned in a brief note a few months ago, Keri Russell and Matthew Rhys, as the married spy couple Elizabeth and Philip Jennings, are a revelation. I used to watch Felicity religiously in my college days, and always found Russell’s acting good, but nothing that I saw there hinted that she could deliver this taut performance of fierce single-mindedness. Rhys, whose face seems to be set in a permanent mask of pain by season three, is a study in emotions.

Elizabeth and Philip’s relationship anchors the show and is an emotional masterpiece unmatched by any other show in current running. Russell and Rhys have a strong chemistry that somehow deepens from season to season. As Elizabeth and Philip slowly crack under the pressure of guilt and fear, they still fight through to find a way to communicate and to support each other. By season four, they are both so exhausted and weighed down by the increasingly futile nature of their work that their communication is often wordless, yet clues in the viewers seamlessly.

In an interesting subversion of typical masculine and feminine roles, Elizabeth has the stronger will of the two. Already in season one, Philip starts to question their mission and his unraveling begins. She seems more guarded in her emotions. There is a coldness about her, visible in the grim set of her jaw. It’s her determined focus and ideological conviction that keep Philip on track. Elizabeth doesn’t waver until season three, when their family is threatened and her past is dragged into the present.

Philip’s strength is gradually revealed in the gentle way he cares for Elizabeth; a role typically reserved for female characters on similar shows. Viewers come to realize that he’s only staying in the job so that he can look after her and their family. When she is weakened, he steps in to shield her and give her some breathing space. In any other show, the emotional and psychological strain these two labor under would exact a heavy toll on the relationship, but hardship seems to solidify Philip and Elizabeth’s bond. In their line of work, they are quite literally the only two people they can trust.

⌈spoiler alert!⌋

In season three, the couple’s elder daughter, Page, turns 15 and finds out that her parents are Soviet spies. Her life becomes confusion and turmoil beyond typical teenage wasteland. And yet, in a show that doesn’t lack strong female characters, it’s Page who takes you by surprise. Sweet and docile in the first two seasons, she reveals enormous willpower and unexpected strength in seasons three and four when she shoulders the burden of sharing her parents’ secret. Drawn into the arena of lies and subterfuge, her struggle to maintain a sense of integrity and self-respect becomes a major plot point in season four.

Season four is about parenting as much as it is about spy-work. As she processes and adjusts, Page starts to serve both as a mirror to her parents and a mouthpiece for the viewers. Her questions echo those posed by the show itself: who are you people? How can I trust anything you say? Are you telling me something because you’re trying to recruit me to your cause, or is this something you genuinely believe? Do you realize how crazy and overwrought this all looks to an outside observer? In a show centered around the exchange of information, words suddenly lose meaning, and an ‘I love you,’ or ‘Everything will be all right,’ are simply not enough.

There is a permanent feeling of doom about The Americans. Season four ended with Philip and Elizabeth’s whole mission on the verge of collapse as they face a difficult choice – stay or run? But history also looms large on the show’s horizon: it’s late 1983 and everyone is glued to their television sets watching the movie The Day After, which fictionalized an escalation of nuclear war on U.S. soil to show its possible aftermath. In the larger picture, the end of the Soviet Union is nigh, and the spies on both sides are weary and frightened. How, and when, will it end for Elizabeth and Philip?

Maybe Sting captured the sentiment best of all:

 

“The Witch”- Resurrecting Hawthorne on screen

For one of the top 5 films I’ve seen in the last few years, Robert Eggers’ The Witch admittedly made a serious mistake in promoting itself as a traditional horror movie. When you read movie-goers’ reactions on IMDb, for instance, you see predominantly negative reviews stemming from frustrated expectations. People bashed it because they went in anticipating gore, jumpy scares, and screams. There are none in The Witch.

If it’s a horror movie, it’s a purely psychological one. The characters generate the psychodrama themselves, furthering the plot with very little external help. The tradition it follows is that of “psychological gothic” found in films like The Innocents, Don’t Look Now, and, more recently, The Babadook. These eschewed typical horror tropes to achieve anxiety and terror via setting, music, and direction. The Witch is a syncretistic blend of history, fairy-tale, and Dark Romantic fiction in the vein of Hawthorne.

Eggers’ first and basic building block is the family, the nucleus of man’s social being. Husband and wife, with four children and one on its way, in a patriarchal paradigm where the family’s fate and fortune are in thrall to the will of the father. His next step is to place the family in the context of 17th-century Puritan New England, among the first waves of settlers escaping religious persecution in Britain. The theological views expressed by the family show them as Calvinist. Eggers then dislocates this family from a colonial settlement onto a wild, untamed piece of land bordering a forest.

Ever since Dante wandered into one, a forest has been a metaphor for sin and the darker side of human nature in the canon of Western culture. And long before that, in the tradition of fairy-tales and folklore, a wood has been a dangerous and frightening place, an abode of spirits and dark things. (If you’ve ever visited the Black Forest in Germany, you’ll understand.)

IMG_6749
Urwald Sababurg, Germany (picture is mine)

The forest in this movie encroaches, physically as well as metaphorically.The family members expressly warn each other against straying into the woods, and even if there is good reason to go into it, such as gathering wood for kindling, the activity is viewed as a transgression. And in this wood there apparently lives a witch, who steals the family’s newborn baby while the eldest daughter, Thomasin, is playing with it. The witch is then shown using its blood and fat to make a flying ointment.

In writing this script, Eggers did his homework well. He taps straight into the spiritual turmoil of the 17th century, when the nascent scientific revolution and the dawn of the Age of Enlightenment battled with widespread belief in witchcraft. In times and places where religious excitement is whipped up into a frenzy, ideas about agents of evil easily take root in the mind, melding the supernatural with the psychological. Eggers collected his arsenal of folk-lore meticulously, and wove it piece by piece into the film.

Acauldron6

During an unsanctioned trip through the woods, brother and sister Caleb and Thomasin get separated, and Caleb subsequently gets lost. As twilight gradually descends on the wood, he stumbles onto a small cottage, where a beautiful young woman welcomes him with a warm smile. While Caleb is paralyzed in a psycho-sexual trance, a close-up reveals that her smile is lascivious, her whole appearance signals wantonness, and as she lays a hand on Caleb’s shoulder to draw him in, the hand is shown to be a shriveled claw.

There in a gloomy hollow Glen she found
A little Cottage built of Sticks and Reeds
In homely wise and walled with Sods around
In which a Witch did dwell, in loathly Weedes,
And willful Want, all careless of her Needes
So choosing Solitarie to abide,
Far from all Neighbours, that der devilish Deedes
And hellish Artes from People she might hide
And hurt far off unknown, whom ever she enviede.
– Spenser, Faerie Queen

In a hat-trick unparalleled in horror movies since The Exorcist, Eggers here touches, syncretistically, on Hansel and Gretel, on a Gothic narrative thread of vampirism, and on a historically well-documented obsession with witchcraft. The hairs on my arms were prickling in the movie theater.

In the cottage scene, Eggers is directly tapping into the narrative of the witch as the psychic vampire, pioneered by Coleridge in his poem Christabel and later adopted by J. Sheridan Le Fanu for Carmilla. A vampire, as we know, exudes glamour that is at once sexual and psychological in nature, thereby seducing its victims. A witch, however, is usually an old, physically decaying woman who needs to assume the form of a beautiful young woman in order to trick her victims. In Eggers’ movie, the witch doubles as a psychic vampire preying on the weaknesses of anxious, frightened minds.

As Eggers explained in an interview with Vanity Fair, the paranoia surrounding witchcraft is a manifestation of fear feeding off of anxiety and despair in order to grow stronger. In the movie, once the idea of the witch is planted into the family’s minds as an explanation for their misfortunes, it slowly cannibalizes the psyche that gorges itself on fear in a closed loop. The psychodrama culminates in a physical manifestation of the witch to the twins and Thomasin. The physical manifestation serves as proof to the mind that legitimizes the fear.

The story thus latches onto the Romantic tradition in literature, specifically its darker strain, cultivated by Coleridge and continued down the line in America by Poe and Hawthorne. As Camille Paglia explains, in this more Gothic strain, nature is not experienced as benevolent in a Wordsworthian way, but rather as daemonic.

In The Witch, daemonic nature is primarily associated with the wilderness and the wood in whose shadow the family lives, but it is also symbolically represented by the black goat the family owns, the raven plucking at a breast in a can’t-unsee scene, and the hare that keeps popping up here and there about the family’s farm – all animals that, in traditional folklore, are endowed with supernatural attributes. As the tagline for the film warns us, evil takes many forms.

the-witch-poster-2
(image found on indiewire.com)

Eggers fused this daemonic aspect of nature with a Puritan worldview, dubbing his movie a “New England Folktale.” In doing so, he firmly anchored it in the legacy of Nathaniel Hawthorne, a native of New England who was obsessed with its colonial history as much as he was with the Puritans’ neurotic preoccupation with questions of moral law and evil. Although Eggers blames Hawthorne for misrepresenting Puritans, my claim is that his work is directly and consciously indebted to Hawthorne; specifically, to his eerie short story “Young Goodman Brown,” set in the same period as Eggers’ film .

Hawthorne, along with Guy de Maupassant, is for me a master of the short story, and “Young Goodman Brown” is one of my favorites. In it, the titular Goodman Brown finds himself on a mysterious, no-good errand in the woods, at dusk, despite his wife Faith’s protestations that he should stay at home that night.

He is accompanied on his journey by an older man who looks like his dead grandfather, but is gradually revealed to be the Devil himself, sporting a staff that looks like a coiled serpent. On the road and deep in the woods, they encounter an old woman Brown recognizes as his catechism teacher and spiritual adviser. As they trade recipes for witches’ brews, the good lady seems to be familiar with the Devil, who lends her his staff to help speed her on her journey, and she promptly vanishes.

This encounter increases Brown’s anxieties with regard to his errand, and shakes his faith. He considers turning homeward but suddenly hears a multitude of voices on the air, all belonging to his fellow villagers, who seem to be travelling in a kind of cloud formation to the same destination as he is. Among those voices, he hears one belonging to his Faith, and as proof that it’s really her, catches one of her pink ribbons as it falls from the sky.

This event precipitates his loss of faith. “‘My Faith is gone!’ cried he, after one stupefied moment. ‘There is no good on earth; and sin is but a name. Come, devil; for to thee is this world given.'” In despair and a fit of madness, he also flies through the forest until he happens on a Witches’ Sabbath – a midnight orgy presided over by Satan himself. There he sees all the villagers he’d known his entire life, both those who pretended to be saintly and those who were known for their loose morals. And last, but not least, he sees his wife Faith, about to be inducted into Satan’s circle.

Satan welcomes them with the following words: “Depending upon one another’s hearts, ye had still hoped that virtue were not all a dream. Now are ye undeceived. Evil is the nature of mankind. Evil must be your only happiness. Welcome again, my children, to the communion of your race.”

A second before they are baptized by Satan, Brown tells Faith to resist, but before he can see her reaction, the scene before him vanishes and he finds himself alone in the quiet, dark wood. When he returns to his village in the morning, where everything seems normal, he’s a changed man who cannot go back to his old way of life: unsure of what happened on that night, he sees falsehood everywhere and cannot bring himself to trust even his wife. He dies as an old man with no hope.

younggoodmanbrown
(an illustration for the printed story)

Eggers drew for his movie on the same body of collected folklore and historical documents from 17th-century New England as Hawthorne did, but some moments from the movie were nevertheless eerily reminiscent of “Young Goodman Brown” – in particular, Satan’s utterances in guise of the black goat, and the Witches’ Sabbath portrayed at the end of the movie. Certainly, both works strive to show the Calvinist/Puritan concept of mankind’s natural depravity and the belief that salvation can only be achieved through grace.

Salvation is hitched on the person’s ability to believe that grace is possible, and on the striving to be included among those on whom it is eventually conferred. (Calvinism teaches that only some people are chosen by God for salvation.) Ironically, both Hawthorne’s and Eggers’ story is about a man’s loss of this capacity for belief. As bearer of moral rectitude, the patriarch’s fall from grace precipitates the misfortune of the rest of his family, since they depend on him for moral guidance.

In The Witch, the patriarch William is the mouthpiece for these beliefs, carefully instilling them in his young son Caleb as his heir, who faithfully reproduces the creed although he doesn’t understand it. But more importantly, he believes his father. As Paglia explains, the Puritan notion of rectitude is a “masculine straightmeasure.” Sexuality is the stumbling stone of Puritan culture. Women, by virtue of their problematic sexual power over men, are excluded and dubbed the weaker sex, for biting into the apple first, forever more open to Satan’s whispers than men. In this worldview, witchcraft is perceived as woman’s subversion of masculine authority, an attempt to escape the rigid laws of morality that point the way to salvation in exchange for an “easy” life here on earth.

When the witch initially steals the newborn baby and later causes Caleb to get lost in the woods, the blame for it falls squarely on Thomasin’s shoulders, and she’s the first to be suspected of witchcraft by her own family members. It is in fact her budding sexuality that unleashes a minor Freudian family drama of its own, stirring up incestuous thoughts in her brother Caleb, and unconscious sexual rivalry with her mother for the father’s attention and approval.

The Witch can thus be viewed as a portrayal of a family’s gradual loss of capacity for faith and consequent fall from grace, triggered by a psychodrama driven solely by their own interpretations of events. Much the same can be said of Goodman Brown, of whose strange tale even he cannot be sure. Although the depicted events in both stories are tragic, it’s clear from Eggers’ insistence on a detailed rendering of the alleged practices of witchcraft that he is also gently mocking his Puritan subjects.

The same tone can be detected in Hawthorne’s tale, not only in Satan’s gentle prodding of the poor Goodman Brown, but even in Brown’s own exhortation to his wife at the outset of his journey, when he seeks to calm her mind by telling her,”Say thy prayers, dear Faith, and go to bed at dusk, and no harm will come to thee.” The explicit condemnation of such a simplistic outlook on life, where – for a woman – adherence to a regimented course of daily prayer and early bed times is supposed to guarantee safety from any moral pitfalls, is of course to be found in her eventual presence at the gathering in the woods, and implicitly, in Brown’s failure to follow his own advice and uphold the moral standards he was supposed to represent.

Both The Witch and “Young Goodman Brown” thus subvert the traditional morality tale in order to expose the sexual and moral hypocrisy of their times. While I think Hawthorne’s tale functions more as a retrospective critique of what he perceived to be the failure of the Puritan colonial experiment, Eggers’ message seems to be that not much has changed since the 17th century, and America’s conceit of a society in progress is an illusion.

 

 

 

Further reading:

Paglia, Camille. Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson. Yale University Press, 1990.

Hawthorne, Nathaniel. “Young Goodman Brown.” In: The American Tradition in Literature. Ed. Bradley et al. Grosset & Dunlap, Inc., 1974

The best that Netflix has to offer

I think one of the reasons I’ve seen few good movies in 2015 is that I’ve been watching far more TV series, and with the advent of Netflix in our home, the scale has decidedly been tipped in favor of TV. There is also the fact that the TV viewing experience has changed drastically in the last few years, with many film directors crossing over to the “dark side” to produce, write and/or direct TV series. Frank Darabont, Jane Campion, Guillermo del Toro, and Cary Fukunaga are among these, and they have proved to be very good at it. But there have also been plenty of maverick “start-ups” picked up by smaller and/or independent networks in the U.S. and Canada that achieved more with less.

If I had to pick my top five shows in terms of subject and character development, it’d have to be Mr. Robot, RectifyThe Walking Dead, the first season of True Detective, and Netflix’s documentary series Making a Murderer.  If I picked them in terms of how exciting and irresistible I found them, I’d have to include Daredevil, Orphan Black, and Better Call Saul.

What follows is a list of series and documentaries that I think are worth watching, and which can be currently found on Netflix. While it’s true that the majority of these shows were made in North America, there are still a few cultural beacons left in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand that more or less regularly churn out something intelligent and praiseworthy. I’ll be mentioning those at the end.

On Netflix:

Making a Murderer

Probably the top TV event of 2015, this documentary series snares you with its righteous passion for exposing injustice, and it takes some time and distance from it to realize that it’s not as objective as it purports to be. It nevertheless offers a sobering, at times heart-breaking insight into the failings of the American justice system.

Daredevil

Finally a show where fight scenes look realistic and feel physically real! Expertly shot, supported by luscious imagery, and a well-devised plot, Daredevil invites binge-watching. I also applaud the choice of Deborah Ann Woll as one of the main female protagonists for her blend of tough and fragile femininity. I now have high expectations of season 2.

Jessica Jones

It took me about five episodes to get past Krysten Ritter’s permanent scowl and tough bitch routine, copy/pasted from her turn in Breaking Bad, and really get into the series. Jessica doesn’t really come into her own until she’s played off her arch nemesis, Kilgrave, and bits and pieces from early episodes finally start falling into place. Kudos to the show for exploring, for the first time ever in TV format, topics such as the guilt of the brainwashed, PTSD via rape survival and brain cannibalization, and lesbian divorce.

The Americans, Season 1

This show was a nice surprise, both in its choice of subject matter (KGB sleeper agents embedded in suburban America) and in terms of how suspenseful and engaging each episode is. Keri Russell and Matthew Rhys are excellent leads with genuine on-screen chemistry. Even the sub-plots are well-executed and interesting in their own right.

Walking Dead

This show deserves a post of its own, as it continues to give me food for thought even after five seasons. It has long since stopped being a show about zombies, and is now a full-on heart-of-darkness exploration of the misery and perseverance of the so-called human condition. Season 4 was a particular favorite of mine because it was the darkest; it took me days to recover from some episodes. I don’t know how long and how far the showrunners can keep it going before it descends into solipsistic madness, but until such a time, they’ve got me utterly hooked.

Orphan Black, Seasons 1 and 2

The series explores the ethical conundrum posed by human cloning. It starts off slow and small, and then suddenly explodes into a fast-paced, tightly wound action/drama. The plot doesn’t unravel but only keeps getting more complicated, with Tatiana Maslany slaying the many-faceted lead role(s). Looking forward to seeing where the show goes in the third season.

Rectify, Season 1

This show is pure poetry and philosophy, as is its central character. As such, it’s not the easiest pill to swallow. Its plot line is straightforward enough and its premise interesting in a Shawshank Redemption kind of way, but its deeper concerns are somewhat incongruous with what is currently on air in terms of prison-related shows. But that’s where the beauty of the show is hidden.

Fargo, season 2

Don’t get me wrong, season 1 of Fargo makes for very entertaining viewing, but is also constricted and bound by the tone and plot of the movie it’s based on. The familiar ground the show’s treading on is somewhat freshened up by the likes of Martin Freeman and Billy Bob Thornton, but while the latter plays the villain tremendously well, Freeman is reprising Bilbo Baggins with an American accent. I didn’t feel like he brought anything new to the role. For that matter, Allison Tolman as Deputy Molly Solverson is the heart and soul of the season.

Season 2, on the other hand, is marked from the very first shot by fantastic directing, editing, and score. No longer in thrall to the Coen brothers’ movie, the plot of season 2 ranges wide and free to include the vicissitudes and predicaments of every single member of a mobster family, as well as the heartbreak and creeping grief of watching a loved one waste away from cancer. The casting for this season was so good that even the normally insipid Patrick Wilson shines as a state trooper (and father of Deputy Solverson from season 1). But the stand-out performances of the season belong to Kirsten Dunst and Jesse Plemons, who play a married couple trying to cover up a hit-and-run and murder. I haven’t seen Dunst on such high form since 2011’s Melancholia, or even further back, since The Virgin Suicides and Drop Dead Gorgeous from 1999.

I’m telling you, Fargo is going places.

Better Call Saul

As someone who was in turns underwhelmed, nonplussed, and knackered by Breaking Bad, I found that its prequel, Better Call Saul, hit just the right spot for me. In very simple terms, the show is funny, sad, and surprisingly deep. You just don’t expect to see so many facets to the joker and clown you came to know and love in Breaking Bad. The back story I particularly enjoyed was the one about Mike Ehrmantraut, played so very well by Jonathan Banks. Here’s hoping that they can keep it up in season 2.

Breaking Bad, seasons 4 and 5

This show and I didn’t get off to a good start. By the time I sat down to watch it, it was already in its fourth season, and everyone had told me it was the best show they’d ever seen in their entire lives. Naturally, this generated very high expectations on my part, and at first I couldn’t understand how people came to binge-watch it: the second season especially I found to be sluggish and often quite boring.

It wasn’t until season 4 that the show grabbed me, and my ambivalence toward Walter White turned into hating his guts. I  finally understood that I was meant to feel this way about his character, and I could also finally see the overarching plot line that had eluded me before.

What galvanized me was the appearance of Gustavo Fring. Up until that point, the show seemed to be about Walter one-upping different small-time egomaniacs while micro-managing his family and his reluctant assistant, Jessie. This was exactly what had failed to entice me: I couldn’t really see anything particularly original or ground-breaking in how the show handled its characters or its plot.

Gustavo Fring was, finally, Walter’s only true antagonist and a match for his intellect. He called out the worst in Walter, and Walter had to be at his absolute worst in order to outmanoeuvre him. He also seemed to have quite the opposite effect on Jessie: I greatly enjoyed the gradual evolution of Jessie’s character as the show’s one true humanist. I was very sorry to see Gustavo go, but season 5 nevertheless turned out to be the best wrap-up I’ve seen on a TV show so far.

Shows outside the Netflix platform that I’ve greatly enjoyed in the last two years:

Australia/New Zealand:

Top of the Lake

Danger 5

UK:

Happy Valley

Black Mirror 

Utopia

U.S./Canada:

Mr. Robot

True Detective, Seasons 1 and 2

 

Honorable mentions across the board:

Game of Thrones

Sons of Anarchy, seasons 1,2 and 3

Justified, seasons 1 and 2

Modern Family

Master of None

The Last Kingdom

Thoughts on… Aronofky’s Fountain

If I’d watched Darren Aronofsky’s The Fountain when it first came out (in 2006), I’m not sure I would’ve liked it, or even understood it, as well as I did when I finally saw it a couple months ago. My views on life, death, and love have changed drastically in the last few years and in the light of emotional experiences I’ve had in that time, which I believe made it much easier for me to relate to the topics explored in the film.

It’s a sumptuous feast of beautiful imagery and recurring visual motifs – the Tree of Life/cosmic tree/sacred tree, the cosmos as a living, breathing organism, the human body as the organic extension of the earth/clay it came from. These all reinforce the central idea perpetuated throughout the movie: that all forms of life are interconnected. Death is thus not treated as the end of existence, but as just another phase in the cycle of life. There are no overtly religous overtones in the movie, but rather a reliance on ancient spiritual traditions stemming from many different cultures. In this sense, The Fountain is parent to Malick’s Tree of Life.

It’s also a love story for the ages, and through the ages, set in the past (Spanish Reconquista and Inquisition in the 15th century), the present (2005), and the future (2500). It remains unclear whether what is depicted is one and the same love story between one and the same couple, but in each iteration they’re played by Rachel Weisz and Hugh Jackman. I don’t think it matters how you choose to interpret it, because the focus is on the sacrifices, pain, and enduring power of love.

Love and death are so interwoven in this movie that it’s hard to consider them separately. Ultimately, the movie is about coming to terms with losing the love of your life to (untimely) death, and coming to terms with your own mortality. Dr. Tom Creo, in the present-tense storyline, makes the emotional journey from being a scientist bent on finding a cure for cancer and putting an end to death, which he perceives as the end of the line that will forever separate him from his wife, to becoming a more spiritually aware person who accepts that death is a natural continuation of life.

In all three storylines, Hugh Jackman’s character is spurred on by unconditional love for one and the same woman, who is literally and metaphorically his queen, the ruler and compass of his life. In each timeline, he is on a quest of sorts while also fighting to preserve their connection, be it battling church authority, cancer, or time itself. The question is never posed whether this woman is worth it – she obviously is, because she is, quite simply, the love of his life, of all his lives, and he will do whatever it takes to stay with her. It’s cheesy, but also beautiful, and not unattainable. If you have ever truly loved, and been loved in return, it will ring true on a level beyond just romance.

Thoughts on… “Interstellar”

I was one of those people who didn’t “oooh” and “aaah” at Christopher Nolan’s Interstellar. It gave me food for thought, it was suspenseful, and visually stunning, but I also felt it was deeply flawed. Especially compared to its nearest predecessor, Gravity, which I absolutely loved (the way I love everything Cuarón has done). Where Gravity is tight, compact, and focused, Interstellar is expansive, and ultimately overreaching.

To me, the biggest problem with Nolan’s movie is that it tries to be technical and emotional at the same time, which only works if you’re Kubrick and the movie’s 2001. While I was happy to finally see Nolan make a movie about the “human touch,” he doesn’t seem to be able to let go of his trademark brain teasers, which end up swallowing genuine emotion and replacing it with cheap sentimentality.

This is what happens to Interstellar‘s emotional arc: the intensity of the connection between father and daughter (with just a whiff of the Electra complex), so well portrayed in the first, heart-rending half of the movie, isn’t sustained all the way through to the ending. Rather, it’s swapped for well-placed tugs at the audience’s heartstrings which merely serve to heighten the suspense before the final resolution. The same happens with all other emotional relationships shown in the movie.

So, while I was deeply touched by the different range of emotions explored both in the Earth-part and early space-part of the film, the preoccupation with technicalities of black hole theory and keeping the audience sufficiently brain-teased in the final 60 minutes overshadowed and muted the emotional impact of earlier events. I left the theater trying to work out the technical/scientific puzzle posed at the end of the movie, instead of working through the heightened emotional state provoked in me earlier, which made me feel like I was messed with, and not in a good nerdy way.

It is nevertheless one of the best big-budget movies of 2014, and certainly one of the more widely appealing ones from the sci-fi genre, since it’s not an art film. I recommend that you watch it for its strong emotions and strong performances, not for its science.

Some belated entries in my personal Oscars

Whiplash, Damien Chazelle

There’s not much I can say about this film, other than – watch it. It defies all expectations. And the performances by Miles Teller and J.K.Simmons are out of this world. It’s incredible that a movie about an ambitious student at a music conservatory can pack so much adrenaline and tension.

Force Majeure, Ruben Östlund

I was really sorry to see this movie so unceremoniously dumped from the Oscars race for best foreign film. (Granted, it was jostling for a spot against such tours de force as Ida and Leviathan.) It’s a quiet and understated but brilliant piece on human weakness and the perceived role of men in families and society. At times, it’s hard to watch. It also forces you to ask some really uncomfortable questions about yourself, and how you would react in certain situations. I loved it.

Honeymoon, Leigh Janiak

The dread in this movie is slow in the building but pervasive. It culminates in true, disturbing horror without resorting to any of the typical devices employed by bigger-budget productions. Rose Leslie, of Game of Thrones fame, is excellent. The second best horror movie of 2014 for me.

The Drop, Michaël R. Roskam

James Gandolfini’s last movie sees him in his familiar Sopranos milieu, and he doesn’t disappoint. But the true star of this flick is Tom Hardy, delivering another surprise performance after Locke. I was also happy to see Noomi Rapace finally cast in a role that brings her closer to her breakout performance in the Millennium trilogy (and sadly missing from her Hollywood exploits ever since). Beside the excellent cast, the clever and well-written script departs from the clichès of so many similar crime dramas, thanks to Dennis Lehane who also authored Mystic River and Gone Baby Gone (both fantastic films in the same genre). A quiet but strong movie.

Copenhagen, Mark Raso

When this small movie punches you in the gut, you don’t quite see it coming, because at first it looks like so many other movies you’ve seen. I don’t want to talk about the plot because I’d be giving away the whole crux of it. It’s a love story, it’s a coming-of-age story, it’s a drama, but all of it quietly subverted by the twist in the tale. It’s deep and it’s uncomfortable. The chemistry between the lead characters is palpable. The young Frederikke Dahl Hansen is amazing. I can’t wait to see what Raso does next.

Huge disappointments:

Birdman, Alejandro Gonzalez Iñárritu

I truly fail to understand what makes this movie great. It’s not bad per se, but it’s certainly not all that it’s cracked up to be. Michael Keaton is great, and there are a few other really good performances (Emma Stone, Edward Norton). I even laughed for a couple scenes. But the incessant drumming backdrop and Keaton’s voiceover narration drove me insane. I wasn’t able to connect or relate to any of the characters. The worst thing about it is that it’s so utterly forgettable: no memorable moments or lines, no lingering food for thought.

Inherent Vice, Paul Thomas Anderson

I gave up watching after about two thirds of it. I’d stopped trying to make sense of the storyline shortly before that. When I read reviews and reactions afterwards, the general recommendation seemed to be to not look for a plot, but to just sit back and enjoy the evocativeness of the movie. Well, I’m sorry, but for me, born at the butt-end of the 70’s in communist Yugoslavia, and having never been to California, it was evocative of absolutely nothing, even after I realized the plot was not important. Plus, I have a real problem with loose-to-non-extant plots: I only survived Malick’s Tree of Life because of the poetry and beauty I saw in it. I saw none in Anderson’s movie.