Movie review: Poor Things

Yorgos Lanthimos

I was wary of seeing the film Poor Things. A knowledgeable friend of mine wrote that the film was not on his list to be seen “due to my dislike for Emma Stone’s acting and my doubts about having the stomach for another Yorgos Lanthimos grossout.” I was unfamiliar with the director.

The good news is that this movie of Frankenstein’s monster’s monster, of a sort, was not particularly gross. It was weird and funny, and weirdly funny. But though I saw it a couple of weeks ago at the Spectrum 8 in Albany, I’ve been bereft of useful descriptions.

Weird:  it had impossible combinations of animals walking about the laboratory of Dr. Godwin Baxter (Willem Dafoe) as he, er, “re-animated” Bella (Stone). Early on, Bella acts like a very large infant but matures relatively quickly.  While Dr. Baxter’s assistant Max (Ramy Youssef) is assiduously recording Bella’s development, she is fascinated by the flashy Duncan Wedderburn (Mark Ruffalo), who wants to liberate her from the cloister Dr. Baxter has created.

I agree with the general assessment that the movie is “wildly imaginative and exhilaratingly over the top… bizarre, brilliant…” Reviewers used terms such as fascinating, disturbing, beautifully odd duckling, darkly comedic, and cerebral.

Know thyself

One critic notes, correctly, “Bella comes to identify herself and her possibilities … in accordance with Goethe’s notion that ‘Man knows himself only in as much as he knows the world … Each new object truly recognized, opens up a new organ within ourselves.'”

Another one notes that it’s a surreal/acid movie… “It wonderfully combines fantasy, sex, and a tiny bit of Sic-Fi to shape a fable about chauvinism, toxic masculinity, and female sexuality, using Emma Stone’s performance as the perfect vessel.”

Oh, yeah, sex. There’s a fair amount of that in the middle third of the film as part of Bella’s self-discovery. It’s not particularly sexy.

The critics who hated this film REALLY hated it as “dull, arthouse trash… Hollywood elites are fawning over this reprehensible film, claiming it’s about female empowerment, but that supposed empowerment actually disguises the worst sort of exploitation.” So either it’s the proto-Barbie or the anti-Barbie, I guess.

I am not sure what the title means, although I surmise that those who don’t embrace life are the poor things, I guess, maybe. Ultimately, I did like the film, though it’s not for everyone.

Movie review: Anatomy Of A Fall

French Alps

Sigh. I asked the folks at Spectrum 8 in Albany whether the film Anatomy Of A Fall was coming to the cinema. Evidently, I missed its brief appearance, and I didn’t even remember seeing the trailer. So I watched it on Amazon Prime, a suboptimal choice, at home during the last week in January, but so it goes.

As one can discern from the graphic, someone, in this case, Samuel (Samuel Theis), a writer, has taken a fatal fall from a secluded dwelling in the French Alps. But, to paraphrase Richard and Linda Thompson, Did he jump, or was he pushed?

If he were pushed, it would almost have been by his wife, Sandra (Sandra Hüller). There was a witness, perhaps, their eleven-year-old son Daniel (Milo Machado Graner), but he may not be a reliable witness.

As the authorities pull at the onion that was Sandra and Samuel’s complicated and conflicted relationship, they accuse her of his death.

This is NOT Law and Order

At this point, it becomes a procedural thriller. If you’re used to the American trial system, this is a different thing, interesting in its own right. Sandra is defended by an old friend, Vincent (Swann Arlaud), who gives her sage advice, which she sometimes disregards. L’avocat général (Antoine Reinartz) is a relentless prosecutor.

As we learn more about the tensions that Sandra and Samuel experience through flashbacks, we remain unsure of her guilt. As sometimes happens in the US, the press is busy dissecting Sandra’s foibles. The ambiguity is deliberate and makes the  150-minute film seem shorter.

Sandra Hüller, who I was unfamiliar with until I saw her in  The Zone Of Interest the week before, is deserving of her Oscar nomination for Best Actress.  The screenplay, by Arthur Harari and the film director Justine Triet, worked well for me. It received 96% positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, and the negative comments – “predictable”? – I was not feeling.

Movie review: The Zone Of Interest

The banality of evil

I went to see the Oscar-nominated film The Zone Of Interest. It’s based on Martin Amis’s 2014 novel of the same name. It starts mundanely with a family, a couple with five children and a dog, out on a picnic by the river. They return to their pleasant home with a lovely garden, a greenhouse, and a pool. They must be well-to-do, as they have a few servants, at least one of them a young Jewish woman.

The father has a few of his work colleagues stop over to discuss plans… to build a more efficient way to incinerate people, a technological marvel.

Oh. The father is Rudolf Höss (Christian Friedel), and he is the commandant of Auschwitz. And it’s not as though the camp was a distance away.  As Vox noted: “There’s an ambient noise in The Zone of Interest, akin to the hum of a white noise machine — except in this case, it’s omnipresent, the sound of furnaces in the distance, laced with occasional gunshots and howls.” The wall is almost always visible, with occasional plumes of smoke lofting into the sky. “To hear what’s going on in the house, we have to tune them out a little.”

Domestic bliss

The household’s mother, Hedwig (Sandra Hüller), is well aware that the niceties she acquires used to belong to someone else, someone imprisoned or, more likely, dead. She leans into being the self-designated Queen of Auschwitz, so she is not unaware of her husband’s job.

I saw this movie at Landmark’s Spectrum 8 theater on Saturday afternoon, January 26. Two folks I knew from church happened to be there. One thought they’d wasted two hours of their life. The other got the gist of it, though they and I were confused by one particular effect. After the lights came up, the five folks sitting behind me remained in their seats as though they were still trying to discern what they had just seen.

When I say not much happens in the film, especially in the beginning, it’s not a criticism but a fact. Then, Rudolf is so efficient at work that he’s designated for a possible promotion, which leads to an astonishing conversation with Hedwig. This is the “banality of evil” writ large.

The music throughout is haunting.

Rotten Tomatoes critics gave it a 92% positive review, though audiences were only 79% enthusiastic. A positive review by Robin Holabird: “I watched the movie with interest—not pleasure, but with appreciation for the point and risk it takes.” Edwin Arnaudin, conversely, writes dismissively, “Well, that’s certainly one way to tell a Holocaust narrative.” I get both POVs.

This was interesting: “Director Jonathan Glazer used up to five fixed cameras in the house and garden with no visible crew to capture many scenes, so the actors didn’t know if they were being shot in a close-up or wide shot. They were totally immersed in the scene and enjoyed working in that realistic environment.”

I admired the film. I don’t think LIKING it is entirely possible.

Movie review: American Fiction

Jeffrey Wright in a rare lead performance

As a bribe to get her to update her passport, I took my daughter to lunch, and then we bused to the Spectrum 8 Theatre in Albany to see the new film American Fiction on a snowy Tuesday afternoon (January 16) in a near-empty room.

If you’ve seen the trailer, you know that Theolonious ‘Monk’ Ellison (Jeffrey Wright) is a prickly black novelist frustrated that his writing is not “Black enough” to sell many books. At a book conference, he sees how the new book by Sintara (Issa Rae) receives thunderous applause for its portrayal of the Black experience.

Under a pseudonym, Monk writes what he considers an outlandish “Black” book of his own and has to deal with the consequences of the book’s release.

But that’s not all the film was. It touches on family dynamics, specifically Monk and his siblings Lisa (Tracee Ellis Ross) and Cliff (Sterling K. Brown), including how to take care of their aging mother (Leslie Uggams). Who was the favorite child? How do those characteristics get passed down, particularly as one relates to others, such as Monk’s potential girlfriend, Coraline (Erika Alexander)? That throughline alone was worth the price of admission.

I laughed aloud several times and often nodded my head in an “oh, yeah” agreement.

They’re missing the point.

As is my wont, I like to look at negative reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Sometimes, it speaks to how I was feeling. Occasionally, it points out something I might have missed. In this case, I think most of the 7% who didn’t recommend the film missed the point.

“A buzzy film adaptation of Percival Everett’s Erasure, a novel about publishing’s racial politics, misreads what is truly ailing the book industry.” I don’t think it was explicitly supposed to be specifically about the book industry, but rather about how even well-meaning white people can get the issue of race so wrong. My daughter said that one character in particular reminded her of of someone we both knew, and I totally see it.

“By softening the blow with its cuddly human side, American Fiction feels too self-satisfied by half.” The film needed the human side, especially Lorraine (Myra Lucretia Taylor), the Ellisons’ long-time housekeeper, to help contextualize the portrayals.

“American Fiction is an intriguing conundrum. It starts as a sizzling, hilarious satire that manages to sling pointed arrows at most of its targets. However, by trying to become too many things, it ends up sanding the edges off its sharpness.” I LIKED the “too many things” because these people are complex. One critic suggested Monk was “flat,” but he seemed pretty authentic to me.

The ending is a bit murky, but I don’t much care. American Fiction may be my favorite 2023 film, but I must ruminate on it more.

Book review: Prequel by Rachel Maddow

pro-Nazi, isolationist literature

You will probably remember reading about the fear of Communism in the 1950s United States, with Senator Joe McCarthy leading the way. But there was also a Red Scare in the 1930s.

This led some folks, including within the US government, to lean into the leadership of that dynamic leader in Germany, Adolf Hitler. The Germans were happy to provide Americans with the needed propaganda.

This is the takeaway after reading Rachel Maddow’s new book, Prequel: An American Fight Against Fascism, inspired by her work for the Ultra podcast.  While there were many villains in the narrative, there were also several heroes. She talked with MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell about how she discovered the largely forgotten threat to American democracy revealed in the podcast.

The book has so many characters that she spends three pages briefly describing 30 people who will appear. The book is not in strict chronological order, though the info after the US entered WWII in 1941 is mostly so.

Loyalty to his homeland

The first is George Viereck, a Munich-born who immigrated to the US with his parents to America when he was eleven. The writer distinguished himself as “an advocate to the American public for his beloved fatherland,” starting with World War I.

After the War, he cultivated relationships with more celebrated men”: Kaiser Wilhelm II, Henry Ford, Nikola Tesla, Benito Mussolini, Albert Einstein, and others. Dr. Sigmund Freud suggested that he sought a father figure, and Vierick found him in a man five years his junior, Adolf Hitler.

Another character was Philip Johnson, who had lots of family money and would become a significant architect.  He helped form the Gray Shirts in the US, inspired by the Brownshirts.

Meanwhile, in 1933, the German Foreign Office “dispatched a young man named Heinrich Krieger to the University of Arkansas School of Law.” [He learned all about “race law” in the United States, how Jim Crow laws “were… just one of many bulwarks in American law constructed for the protection of white people from the “lower races” Germany used it as a blueprint for an ethnic hierarchy.

Yellow journalism

Some of these names are unfamiliar. Here’s one you’ll know: Henry Ford, whose antisemitism was “rank, and it was unchecked.” One of the staffers of the Dearborn Independent, a newspaper owned by Ford, recommended a sensationalist approach. The paper came across the “newly translated edition” of “Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion.” It was “the work of rabidly antisemitic Russian fabulists furious at the Bolsheviks’ toppling of the old tsarist aristocracy.’ In Mein Kampf, published Hitler lifted ideas from Ford’s writings and namechecked him.

By the 1930s, Nazism had become normalized in large swaths of the United States. The situation is described in the book, but you should note The Nazis of New York from Now I Know.

There were several plots to sabotage the US in several ways. Leon Lewis, an “antifascist spymaster of Southern California, and his agents provided evidence of sedition, but the FBI was not initially interested.

There were Congressional hearings. Witnesses such as General George Van Horn, who wanted to be the American fuhrer “but was unwilling to risk his U.S. Army pension to do so,” were allowed to drop astonishingly antisemitic diatribes into his prepared testimony.

Hollywood!

Among the films released in 1939, such as Stagecoach, Gone With The Wind, and The Wizard Of Oz, here’s the most unlikely. Warner Brothers put out a film in 1939 called Confessions Of A Nazi Spy, a ripped-from-the-headlines thriller about four German-Americans were charged with spying on U.S. military installations… The espionage plot went all the way to the Nazi-led government in Germany, implicating Göring (president of the Reichstag), Goebbels (minister of propaganda), and even Adolf Hitler himself.”

The movie was very controversial because cinema was supposed to be entertainment. Louis B. Meyer held a party for Lionel Barrymore “on the eve of his 61st birthday” to keep his MGM actors and staff far from the Nazi Spy opening.

“During filming, a sixty-pound piece of equipment fell… and barely missed the film’s biggest name, Edward G. Robinson.” It was a clear case of sabotage.

The Production Code Administration, the industry censor that looked for “swearing, drugs, nudity, sex, gore, religion, and racial controversy,” also enforced a “subjective, amorphous sort of ban on political proselytizing. So the PCA, which had been lobbied by the German consulate in Los Angeles, to be “on the lookout for anti-Nazi sentiment in American movies.” The movie was made, miraculously, but mentions of antisemitism, and even the words Jew or Jewish, were scrubbed.

Propagandist

Still, Goebbels is quoted in the film. “From now on, National Socialism in the United States must wrap itself in the American flag. It must appear to be a defense of Americanism. But at the same time, our aim must always be to discredit conditions there in the United States. And in this way, make life in Germany admired and wished for. Racial and religious hatred must be fostered on the basis of American-Aryanism. Classism must be encouraged in a way that the labor and the middle classes will become confused and antagonistic. In the ensuing chaos, we will be able to take control.”

Religion

Father Charles Coughlin was the “antisemitic ‘Radio Priest’ with an audience in the tens of millions. His sermon after Kristallnacht in November 1938 “conveyed that Jews of Germany had brought this violence upon themselves by their ‘aggressiveness and initiative’…There was a lot more to worry about in the commies killing Christians than there was in Germans (or anyone else)killing Jews.”

The paramilitary Christian Front, under the leadership of John F. Cassidy, Coughlin’s handpicked appointee, trained to shoot at targets of FDR. They were armed with weapons of war, such as automatic rifles.

Historian Charles Gallagher began obtaining the FBI files about the Christian Front in 2010. “Not only were these religious crusaders determined to carry out their mission, but they also had real support inside the National Guard and the New York City Police Department.” Yet the group, even after the FBI arrested several members, was widely perceived  as “more frightened than revolutionary.”

“Promiscuous Use of His Frank”

Henry Hoke, “direct market guru,” had uncovered a Nazi plot inside Congress. He collected a vast amount of sophisticated “pro-Nazi, isolationist literature that was being mailed to citizens across the country for free.

He eventually ascertained that 20 members of Congress were “inserting propaganda into the Congressional Record and letting pro-Nazi groups use their franking privileges.

Nazi propagandist George Viereck was writing articles for Senator Lundeen (R-MN) in several magazines, which was lucrative for both. Viereck set up a Make Europe Pay War Debts Committee with Lundeen as chair so the mailings could be sent nationwide.

Eventually, 30 defendants, none of them members of Congress, were indicted on sedition charges, but the trial was repeatedly undermined and ended up being suspended.

The question I wonder about is whether we have learned anything from the past. Or are we doomed to echo it?

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial