rating: ****
the story: Chris finds out it's dangerous to be black among white folks with ulterior motives.
review: Wow, so this is a great example of knowing what a movie technically accomplishes, and getting a totally different grasp upon actually seeing it. Get Out, for me, was a victim of the vast scaling back of film watching I've experienced over the past decade. I was pretty out of control, generally speaking, for a few years. I went to the movies all the time. I had a pretty comprehensive sampling of what was released. Then I had to become more selective. I had to start making some snap judgments before movies ever hit theaters, including must-see picks and things that didn't seem like they were for me. Get Out seemed like it wasn't for me. It seemed like one of those movies hipsters like, that only seemed to be clever.
Boy was I wrong.
The surface elements are certainly there but even those underscore its greater message. It's funny that Get Out even had a chance to be widely celebrated, as it mocks liberal attitudes at a time when liberals have virtually succeeded in dominating popular entertainment, both the product and reception of it. But by the end, it becomes so savage as to become inexplicable. Clearly a lot of people just didn't get it. They chuckled knowingly, without comprehension.
You see, Chris's fate is damn ironic. That he ends up escaping it is much a part of how we've reached this endless public hysteria as anything that helped create it. When Bradley Whitford says he would've voted for Obama a third time if only given the option, which he repeats after Allison Williams has already told us he'd say so, director Jordan Peele has shown his hand. That's the whole message right there. Liberals somewhat liberally exploited black people to get the White House. Period. And then moved on, after everything spiraled out of control.
Yeah. Peele's ascent as filmmaker came from a popular sketch comedy series, Key & Peele, which can be felt in Chris's best friend, who hilariously puts the whole thing in context for viewers and comes to his rescue at the end. Chris himself, as portrayed by Daniel Kaluuya, is dumbfounded by the whole experience but never at a loss for action. The only time he's a victim is when Catherine Keener brainwashes him.
Stephen Root shows up in a supporting role, subverting his usual comedic persona by both leaning into and away from the stereotype Southern racist the movie never actually delivers. This is a horror movie with comedy instincts, not a comedy with horror instincts, not a parody. That's what makes the whole thing so refreshing, so subversive, and so biting. It might even be called satire. Probably the way it will properly be understood later.
So I'm glad I finally saw it.
Sunday, November 3, 2019
Saturday, October 19, 2019
Under the Silver Lake (2019)
rating: ****
the story: A struggling LA resident finds himself deep in the midst of a wild conspiracy.
review: Essentially Once Upon a Time in Hollywood without Tarantino, a sort of love letter to Hollywood culture. Under the Silver Lake is a one man spotlight for Andrew Garfield, letting him drift through the film and its kaleidoscope of craziness, in the process giving director David Robert Mitchell his highest profile movie yet.
Garfield has been a highlight in the movies for about a decade at this point, but two Spider-Man movies that weren't especially well received meant his profile began to suffer. Silver Lake is a reminder of his appeal. The movie, and the music around him, is a vision of Hollywood that only Hollywood itself could conjure, full of beautiful women and logic that makes little or no sense, except that it somehow does, and explains everything from pop music to the fates of the obscenely rich.
What's most impressive about the movie is that it's sort of classic noir, too. Not noir in the way you usually think, whether because you still think of noir for its black and white roots (such as recent examples like The Man Who Wasn't There and The Good German, wrongly dismissed as a Casablanca knockoff because...it features Nazis, and a romance), or general style (as in Brick, which I've never been able to entirely enjoy despite appreciating its overall achievement), but approach, which again, is why we follow Garfield around, and listen to the particular noir-style musical score accompanying him.
The result is a mood piece. Garfield is not a detective, but sort of stumbles into becoming one, as he attempts to solve a bizarre conspiracy theory. One of the running plot points is that he's going to be evicted because he's failed to make rent, but he never seems especially concerned about it. He exists in a wonderland where the only real concerns are ephemeral, and he doesn't mind the eventual solution to his real problem, even if he seems to have had many better ones available.
All of it really means that whatever Mitchell does next, I'll be paying attention.
the story: A struggling LA resident finds himself deep in the midst of a wild conspiracy.
review: Essentially Once Upon a Time in Hollywood without Tarantino, a sort of love letter to Hollywood culture. Under the Silver Lake is a one man spotlight for Andrew Garfield, letting him drift through the film and its kaleidoscope of craziness, in the process giving director David Robert Mitchell his highest profile movie yet.
Garfield has been a highlight in the movies for about a decade at this point, but two Spider-Man movies that weren't especially well received meant his profile began to suffer. Silver Lake is a reminder of his appeal. The movie, and the music around him, is a vision of Hollywood that only Hollywood itself could conjure, full of beautiful women and logic that makes little or no sense, except that it somehow does, and explains everything from pop music to the fates of the obscenely rich.
What's most impressive about the movie is that it's sort of classic noir, too. Not noir in the way you usually think, whether because you still think of noir for its black and white roots (such as recent examples like The Man Who Wasn't There and The Good German, wrongly dismissed as a Casablanca knockoff because...it features Nazis, and a romance), or general style (as in Brick, which I've never been able to entirely enjoy despite appreciating its overall achievement), but approach, which again, is why we follow Garfield around, and listen to the particular noir-style musical score accompanying him.
The result is a mood piece. Garfield is not a detective, but sort of stumbles into becoming one, as he attempts to solve a bizarre conspiracy theory. One of the running plot points is that he's going to be evicted because he's failed to make rent, but he never seems especially concerned about it. He exists in a wonderland where the only real concerns are ephemeral, and he doesn't mind the eventual solution to his real problem, even if he seems to have had many better ones available.
All of it really means that whatever Mitchell does next, I'll be paying attention.
Sorry to Bother You (2018)
rating: ****
the story: A black man encounters the full absurdity of the workforce.
review: Director Boots Riley was worried about comparisons to other black filmmakers, but I think Sorry to Bother You will enjoy its greater legacy in comparison to other workplace comedies, chiefly Mike Judge's Office Space (1999).
Riley's perspective stems from the fact that on its surface, Sorry to Bother You comes from the same recent surge of black filmmaking as Get Out (2017). On the surface, its story arc is chiefly concerned with the role of black people in white society. But it can be a universal message, too. By the time the movie reaches the concept of equisapiens, I think my point has been proven.
I mean, equisapiens, right?
Maybe my greater point is that you don't need to be black to enjoy the movie itself? That seems needlessly reductive. You don't need to be black to understand it, either, you don't need to be black to enjoy it, and you don't need to be black to get something meaningful from it. I mean, on the one hand it seems to be satire from a black perspective, but it's also...just satire. Hilarious satire. I mean, equisapiens. That's an iconic movie image regardless of context, but the context grounds it, too, even while it's so absurd that the whole movie might end up being remembered for it.
The cast is impeccable. I caught Lakeith Stanfield in a supporting role in Girl in the Spider's Web (2018), and he was compelling even in a fairly limited capacity. Here, in the lead role, he remains so. Tessa Thompson is fast becoming one of my favorites. She stands out in everything. Armie Hammer has found new life as a supporting actor. Danny Glover and Steve Yeun are among a strong supporting cast. Patton Oswalt and David Cross are hilarious as a few of the "white voices" in another of the film's hilarious digs at society at large.
Basically, a movie that succeeds well past its initial goals.
the story: A black man encounters the full absurdity of the workforce.
review: Director Boots Riley was worried about comparisons to other black filmmakers, but I think Sorry to Bother You will enjoy its greater legacy in comparison to other workplace comedies, chiefly Mike Judge's Office Space (1999).
Riley's perspective stems from the fact that on its surface, Sorry to Bother You comes from the same recent surge of black filmmaking as Get Out (2017). On the surface, its story arc is chiefly concerned with the role of black people in white society. But it can be a universal message, too. By the time the movie reaches the concept of equisapiens, I think my point has been proven.
I mean, equisapiens, right?
Maybe my greater point is that you don't need to be black to enjoy the movie itself? That seems needlessly reductive. You don't need to be black to understand it, either, you don't need to be black to enjoy it, and you don't need to be black to get something meaningful from it. I mean, on the one hand it seems to be satire from a black perspective, but it's also...just satire. Hilarious satire. I mean, equisapiens. That's an iconic movie image regardless of context, but the context grounds it, too, even while it's so absurd that the whole movie might end up being remembered for it.
The cast is impeccable. I caught Lakeith Stanfield in a supporting role in Girl in the Spider's Web (2018), and he was compelling even in a fairly limited capacity. Here, in the lead role, he remains so. Tessa Thompson is fast becoming one of my favorites. She stands out in everything. Armie Hammer has found new life as a supporting actor. Danny Glover and Steve Yeun are among a strong supporting cast. Patton Oswalt and David Cross are hilarious as a few of the "white voices" in another of the film's hilarious digs at society at large.
Basically, a movie that succeeds well past its initial goals.
Operation: Finale (2018)
rating: ****
the story: The capture of Adolf Eichmann in Argentina by Mossad agents.
review: One of my favorite historical dramas, in fact one of my favorite movies in general, is Spielberg's Munich (2005), a triumph in pretty much every regard. Operation Finale is a very different movie, but both share the idea of horror at the world their characters are forced to inhabit, which in both cases is the real world, and as such are both all the more compelling for it. Operation Finale is a story of the Holocaust, but instead of focusing on the Holocaust itself (such as with, say, Schindler's List), it centers on the decades that lay ahead, of the people who were affected by it, or in Eichmann's case, helped make it happen.
The most stunning thing about the film is how Eichmann himself is presented. Ben Kingsley is a famously charismatic chameleon. He brings that quality to Eichmann, whom we catch up with already ensconced in his literally new life (with a new name and family) in Argentina. We see an Argentina where Nazis still exist, holding rallies with the same hateful bluster, something history has tended to gloss over (the musical Evita covers a version of events). The movie is mostly concerned with Eichmann himself, and the Mossad agent, played by Oscar Isaac, who finds himself in the unlikely position of convincing Eichmann to agree to stand trial in Israel.
Isaac has emerged in recent years as a reliable film presence, still searching for a truly breakout lead performance despite a wealth of interesting roles behind him. He often appears as ambiguous figures, which is perhaps what allows him to pull off this particularly tricky part. His scenes with Kingsley are the heart of the movie, and both actors deliver. Will Eichmann agree to stand trial, despite every attempt to justify himself as a mere bureaucrat (in so many words)?
Director Chris Weitz (a bit of a chameleon himself, with a track record as varied as About a Boy and Twilight Saga: New Moon) is able to find the right balance, and is wise enough to give Isaac roadblocks, but remove them as necessary. This is a rare trait in such storytelling, often wrongly pursued with the belief that increased use of roadblocks increases the drama, when it only proves how little faith there is in other elements.
(Among the supporting cast is Melanie Laurant, who appeared in another WWII movie, albeit a far different one, Inglourious Basterds.)
By the time Isaas is just another observer, as we glimpse the trial itself, we already know that Operation Finale has done exactly what it set out to accomplish: give audiences the outrage of the Holocaust at exactly the banal level Eichmann himself was said to represent.
the story: The capture of Adolf Eichmann in Argentina by Mossad agents.
review: One of my favorite historical dramas, in fact one of my favorite movies in general, is Spielberg's Munich (2005), a triumph in pretty much every regard. Operation Finale is a very different movie, but both share the idea of horror at the world their characters are forced to inhabit, which in both cases is the real world, and as such are both all the more compelling for it. Operation Finale is a story of the Holocaust, but instead of focusing on the Holocaust itself (such as with, say, Schindler's List), it centers on the decades that lay ahead, of the people who were affected by it, or in Eichmann's case, helped make it happen.
The most stunning thing about the film is how Eichmann himself is presented. Ben Kingsley is a famously charismatic chameleon. He brings that quality to Eichmann, whom we catch up with already ensconced in his literally new life (with a new name and family) in Argentina. We see an Argentina where Nazis still exist, holding rallies with the same hateful bluster, something history has tended to gloss over (the musical Evita covers a version of events). The movie is mostly concerned with Eichmann himself, and the Mossad agent, played by Oscar Isaac, who finds himself in the unlikely position of convincing Eichmann to agree to stand trial in Israel.
Isaac has emerged in recent years as a reliable film presence, still searching for a truly breakout lead performance despite a wealth of interesting roles behind him. He often appears as ambiguous figures, which is perhaps what allows him to pull off this particularly tricky part. His scenes with Kingsley are the heart of the movie, and both actors deliver. Will Eichmann agree to stand trial, despite every attempt to justify himself as a mere bureaucrat (in so many words)?
Director Chris Weitz (a bit of a chameleon himself, with a track record as varied as About a Boy and Twilight Saga: New Moon) is able to find the right balance, and is wise enough to give Isaac roadblocks, but remove them as necessary. This is a rare trait in such storytelling, often wrongly pursued with the belief that increased use of roadblocks increases the drama, when it only proves how little faith there is in other elements.
(Among the supporting cast is Melanie Laurant, who appeared in another WWII movie, albeit a far different one, Inglourious Basterds.)
By the time Isaas is just another observer, as we glimpse the trial itself, we already know that Operation Finale has done exactly what it set out to accomplish: give audiences the outrage of the Holocaust at exactly the banal level Eichmann himself was said to represent.
Sunday, October 6, 2019
Joker (2019)
rating: ****
the story: Arthur Fleck begins to suspect his life is a comedy.
review: Toss Andy Kaufman, Heath Ledger's Joker, Taxi Driver, and You Were Never Really Here into a blender, and you would get Joker. The result is greater than the sum of its parts, and completely justifies making a movie about Batman's most famous nemesis, something Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight, virtually was, based on Ledger's show-stopping Joker.
You Were Never Really Here also stars Joaquin Phoenix, by the way, in a role that almost combines the concept of Batman and the Joker (at least as represented in Joker), a man living with his mother and meting out terrible vengeance. Phoenix doesn't make any effort to duplicate Ledger's performance; visually the similarities begin and end with the stringy hair we see Arthur Fleck, late in the movie, dye green. The makeup is halfway between Ledger's and your average circus clown (and we see him apply that, too; no chemical baths in this story, thank you).
Director Todd Phillips (previously best known for the Hangover trilogy before branching out with War Dogs) was vocal about evoking Scorsese; that's your Taxi Driver connection (the social commentary is there, too, demonstrated best by Peter Boyle in perhaps his best role), other than Robert De Niro himself, sounding like Lawrence Welk as a Gotham late night TV host. Brett Cullen, who appeared in a different role for Nolan's Dark Knight Rises, puts a sinister spin on Thomas Wayne (you know, Batman's dad), an elite who thinks he knows what's best for the poor but won't associate with them if he can help it, including viciously cutting off Arthur's mom when her problems prove too complicated. Zazie Beetz (for the second time, following Deadpool 2) puts in another small but knockout supporting role as a would-be love interest for the erstwhile Joker.
And, Andy Kaufman? Today he's best remembered for the Jim Carrey movie Man on the Moon, but his whole career was defined by defying logic, rebelling against expectations. Arthur may not be intentionally following in his footsteps, but that's the best way to explain his reality, including a misguided sidestep into standup comedy that most feels like Kaufman.
This is another 2019 movie (after Once Upon a Time in Hollywood) that feels like a classic in the making that I'm not ready to dub quite yet. It's got better viewing appeal than You Were Never Really Here (a relentless tone that alienates the viewer), and mesmerizes in its descent into madness, as it spirals to the inevitable. This may not become the definitive Joker, but it will be the definitive Joker story; it will be impossible to beat. The movie is set in the '80s, but feels as if it's ripped from the playbook of the modern era, in which riots are well-intentioned but...still riots. Heroes are hard to find, and even those who stumble into the role seem more like villains. Arthur Fleck is the hero we deserve but don't need. Wasn't that said about somebody else? Something like that?
Anyway, Joker will be a definitive film for this era, regardless of its ultimate worth.
the story: Arthur Fleck begins to suspect his life is a comedy.
review: Toss Andy Kaufman, Heath Ledger's Joker, Taxi Driver, and You Were Never Really Here into a blender, and you would get Joker. The result is greater than the sum of its parts, and completely justifies making a movie about Batman's most famous nemesis, something Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight, virtually was, based on Ledger's show-stopping Joker.
You Were Never Really Here also stars Joaquin Phoenix, by the way, in a role that almost combines the concept of Batman and the Joker (at least as represented in Joker), a man living with his mother and meting out terrible vengeance. Phoenix doesn't make any effort to duplicate Ledger's performance; visually the similarities begin and end with the stringy hair we see Arthur Fleck, late in the movie, dye green. The makeup is halfway between Ledger's and your average circus clown (and we see him apply that, too; no chemical baths in this story, thank you).
Director Todd Phillips (previously best known for the Hangover trilogy before branching out with War Dogs) was vocal about evoking Scorsese; that's your Taxi Driver connection (the social commentary is there, too, demonstrated best by Peter Boyle in perhaps his best role), other than Robert De Niro himself, sounding like Lawrence Welk as a Gotham late night TV host. Brett Cullen, who appeared in a different role for Nolan's Dark Knight Rises, puts a sinister spin on Thomas Wayne (you know, Batman's dad), an elite who thinks he knows what's best for the poor but won't associate with them if he can help it, including viciously cutting off Arthur's mom when her problems prove too complicated. Zazie Beetz (for the second time, following Deadpool 2) puts in another small but knockout supporting role as a would-be love interest for the erstwhile Joker.
And, Andy Kaufman? Today he's best remembered for the Jim Carrey movie Man on the Moon, but his whole career was defined by defying logic, rebelling against expectations. Arthur may not be intentionally following in his footsteps, but that's the best way to explain his reality, including a misguided sidestep into standup comedy that most feels like Kaufman.
This is another 2019 movie (after Once Upon a Time in Hollywood) that feels like a classic in the making that I'm not ready to dub quite yet. It's got better viewing appeal than You Were Never Really Here (a relentless tone that alienates the viewer), and mesmerizes in its descent into madness, as it spirals to the inevitable. This may not become the definitive Joker, but it will be the definitive Joker story; it will be impossible to beat. The movie is set in the '80s, but feels as if it's ripped from the playbook of the modern era, in which riots are well-intentioned but...still riots. Heroes are hard to find, and even those who stumble into the role seem more like villains. Arthur Fleck is the hero we deserve but don't need. Wasn't that said about somebody else? Something like that?
Anyway, Joker will be a definitive film for this era, regardless of its ultimate worth.
Sunday, September 29, 2019
Into the Ashes (2019)
rating: ***
the story: Vicious thugs end up getting their comeuppance.
review: If it weren't for the performance of Robert Taylor as the sheriff whose son-in-law goes on a revenge rampage, I wouldn't be talking about Into the Ashes. I watched the movie at all because it was another of James Badge Dale's string of minor 2019 releases, the best being Standoff at Sparrow Creek and Donnybrook, which like the latter also costars Frank Grillo. Grillo has been a fascinating career to follow recently, too, and he gives a different kind of performance, in the same basic role, than he does in Donnybrook. (A far cry from my first distinct memory of him, in Warrior, where I assumed he was a real-life MMA fighter cast to give authenticity to training sequences.)
Dale, meanwhile, has such a minor role in this one that he doesn't spend too much time creating a distinct character, which is the opposite of what he did for Donnybrook.
But as I said, I'm talking about Into the Ashes at all because of Robert Taylor. I know, who? There's an earlier Robert Taylor, but this one is the guy who starred in the latter-day western TV series Longmire. Late in the movie he settles into a low drawl that totally transforms the performance, and becomes the best reason to watch, and talk about, the movie.
Because suddenly you're watching the western Harrison Ford never quite made. Ford did make a kind of western, Cowboys & Aliens, but even as it was being billed as "Indiana Jones Meets James Bond," the movie was much more centered on Daniel Craig than Ford's grizzled rancher. The Harrison Ford being channeled in Into the Ashes actually comes circa Blade Runner 2049, one of the many times in recent years Ford has revisited an iconic role. As in Cowboys & Aliens, Ford's work in Blade Runner 2049 is a relatively minor one, all considered, but in it he seems at last totally comfortable as an older person. If he'd made a western (I suppose he still could), it would be Into the Ashes, exactly as Taylor does it.
And Taylor looks like Ford (except, maybe, the hair, but why quibble?), and I can't help but wonder if that was all completely deliberate. Before I got swept up in the idea, I even thought the filmmakers were deliberately looking for a bargain basement Ford, but Taylor is a relatively known commodity. I have no idea if he did the same sort of channeling in Longmire, never seen it and probably never will. But by the time we're following Taylor's sheriff basically more than anything else (sort of making the movie in the same spirit as No Country for Old Men or Hell or High Water, with Tommy Lee Jones and Jeff Bridges, respectively, in similar roles, but here perhaps at its best, even if the other elements aren't), it no longer really matters. Taylor is fulfilling what Ford had done, but would probably never do this way.
And maybe doesn't have to, really, now that Taylor has.
the story: Vicious thugs end up getting their comeuppance.
review: If it weren't for the performance of Robert Taylor as the sheriff whose son-in-law goes on a revenge rampage, I wouldn't be talking about Into the Ashes. I watched the movie at all because it was another of James Badge Dale's string of minor 2019 releases, the best being Standoff at Sparrow Creek and Donnybrook, which like the latter also costars Frank Grillo. Grillo has been a fascinating career to follow recently, too, and he gives a different kind of performance, in the same basic role, than he does in Donnybrook. (A far cry from my first distinct memory of him, in Warrior, where I assumed he was a real-life MMA fighter cast to give authenticity to training sequences.)
Dale, meanwhile, has such a minor role in this one that he doesn't spend too much time creating a distinct character, which is the opposite of what he did for Donnybrook.
But as I said, I'm talking about Into the Ashes at all because of Robert Taylor. I know, who? There's an earlier Robert Taylor, but this one is the guy who starred in the latter-day western TV series Longmire. Late in the movie he settles into a low drawl that totally transforms the performance, and becomes the best reason to watch, and talk about, the movie.
Because suddenly you're watching the western Harrison Ford never quite made. Ford did make a kind of western, Cowboys & Aliens, but even as it was being billed as "Indiana Jones Meets James Bond," the movie was much more centered on Daniel Craig than Ford's grizzled rancher. The Harrison Ford being channeled in Into the Ashes actually comes circa Blade Runner 2049, one of the many times in recent years Ford has revisited an iconic role. As in Cowboys & Aliens, Ford's work in Blade Runner 2049 is a relatively minor one, all considered, but in it he seems at last totally comfortable as an older person. If he'd made a western (I suppose he still could), it would be Into the Ashes, exactly as Taylor does it.
And Taylor looks like Ford (except, maybe, the hair, but why quibble?), and I can't help but wonder if that was all completely deliberate. Before I got swept up in the idea, I even thought the filmmakers were deliberately looking for a bargain basement Ford, but Taylor is a relatively known commodity. I have no idea if he did the same sort of channeling in Longmire, never seen it and probably never will. But by the time we're following Taylor's sheriff basically more than anything else (sort of making the movie in the same spirit as No Country for Old Men or Hell or High Water, with Tommy Lee Jones and Jeff Bridges, respectively, in similar roles, but here perhaps at its best, even if the other elements aren't), it no longer really matters. Taylor is fulfilling what Ford had done, but would probably never do this way.
And maybe doesn't have to, really, now that Taylor has.
Mary Magdalene (2019)
rating: ****
the story: Mary decides to follow Jesus Christ, but finds Peter about as accepting as her brother had been.
review: With Rooney Mara and Joaquin Phoenix leading the cast, it's safe to say Mary Magdalene isn't necessarily the kind of movie that will appeal only to Christian audiences (plenty of uninspired filmmaking does exactly that, though). Mara is the eponymous Mara, Phoenix is Jesus. The fact that it isn't entirely beholden to the religious viewer doesn't mean Mary Magdalene is akin to The Last Temptation or Jesus Christ Superstar. It's a serious approach that wishes to explain the material at face value, not wildly reinterpret it.
Mary as the central subject is a way to explore not only how the ministry of Jesus would've looked, but the world around it, and even Jesus himself. I don't think any of it radically departs from the Gospels, but there's also room for an interesting idea or two.
The most interesting one, perhaps, is exploring the character of Judas Iscariot (a brilliant Tahar Rahim), the apostle who would later betray Jesus. Here he's depicted as a true believer, but motivated, it seems, in the hope that Jesus will resurrect his dead family. Conversely, Peter (Chiwetel Ejiofor in his best role since 12 Years a Slave) is presented perhaps for the first time as the grumpy figure he always was, without the focus on his ultimate redemption, just how he would've come across before it.
Mara has been a fascinating chameleon at least since her breakthrough role as Lisbeth Salander in the Hollywood version of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (the performance, and the movie itself, still criminally underrated). She tends to inhabit low-key individuals in trying situations, and is always compelling to watch. Her Mary has an older brother who's scandalized that their father has been indulging her, letting her remain unmarried and living at home well past the traditional norms. If there's something of the modern feminist in the conception of Mary in the film, it becomes less about that and more the liberating idea of finding freedom in budding Christianity, an idea that seems completely outrageous today.
Jesus in the movie becomes drained of energy in vast crowds, especially when dispensing miracles. I don't know if the idea is unique to this movie, but it's perhaps the most humanizing thing it does with someone who has sometimes seemed difficult to conceptualize on a human scale (although many have argued that he was just human, even those who believed in him). His disgust at the tenders of sacrificial lambs at the temple is one of the most electrifying sequences in a movie about Jesus ever filmed, finding new context in one of the familiar scenes of his life. In this version, the disgust is more about the awareness of his impending sacrifice (the whole entrance to Jerusalem is fraught with destiny) than profaning God's home with mere financial matters.
Anyway, we also get a scene or two in a synagogue, which surprisingly is something that's never really been emphasized in a story about Jesus. When you remember that Jesus was Jewish, and that he was known to preach in synagogues, it seems all the more surprising, but then so few attempts have been made to stray, in good faith, from the traditional narratives. It's actually Mary attending services, by the way.
I don't know if watching a film like this will affect someone's perspective on matters of faith, but it feels like something that has genuine insight, and on that level alone can be recommended. But it's also good filmmaking and worthwhile viewing for fans of Mara, Phoenix, and Ejiofor.
the story: Mary decides to follow Jesus Christ, but finds Peter about as accepting as her brother had been.
review: With Rooney Mara and Joaquin Phoenix leading the cast, it's safe to say Mary Magdalene isn't necessarily the kind of movie that will appeal only to Christian audiences (plenty of uninspired filmmaking does exactly that, though). Mara is the eponymous Mara, Phoenix is Jesus. The fact that it isn't entirely beholden to the religious viewer doesn't mean Mary Magdalene is akin to The Last Temptation or Jesus Christ Superstar. It's a serious approach that wishes to explain the material at face value, not wildly reinterpret it.
Mary as the central subject is a way to explore not only how the ministry of Jesus would've looked, but the world around it, and even Jesus himself. I don't think any of it radically departs from the Gospels, but there's also room for an interesting idea or two.
The most interesting one, perhaps, is exploring the character of Judas Iscariot (a brilliant Tahar Rahim), the apostle who would later betray Jesus. Here he's depicted as a true believer, but motivated, it seems, in the hope that Jesus will resurrect his dead family. Conversely, Peter (Chiwetel Ejiofor in his best role since 12 Years a Slave) is presented perhaps for the first time as the grumpy figure he always was, without the focus on his ultimate redemption, just how he would've come across before it.
Mara has been a fascinating chameleon at least since her breakthrough role as Lisbeth Salander in the Hollywood version of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (the performance, and the movie itself, still criminally underrated). She tends to inhabit low-key individuals in trying situations, and is always compelling to watch. Her Mary has an older brother who's scandalized that their father has been indulging her, letting her remain unmarried and living at home well past the traditional norms. If there's something of the modern feminist in the conception of Mary in the film, it becomes less about that and more the liberating idea of finding freedom in budding Christianity, an idea that seems completely outrageous today.
Jesus in the movie becomes drained of energy in vast crowds, especially when dispensing miracles. I don't know if the idea is unique to this movie, but it's perhaps the most humanizing thing it does with someone who has sometimes seemed difficult to conceptualize on a human scale (although many have argued that he was just human, even those who believed in him). His disgust at the tenders of sacrificial lambs at the temple is one of the most electrifying sequences in a movie about Jesus ever filmed, finding new context in one of the familiar scenes of his life. In this version, the disgust is more about the awareness of his impending sacrifice (the whole entrance to Jerusalem is fraught with destiny) than profaning God's home with mere financial matters.
Anyway, we also get a scene or two in a synagogue, which surprisingly is something that's never really been emphasized in a story about Jesus. When you remember that Jesus was Jewish, and that he was known to preach in synagogues, it seems all the more surprising, but then so few attempts have been made to stray, in good faith, from the traditional narratives. It's actually Mary attending services, by the way.
I don't know if watching a film like this will affect someone's perspective on matters of faith, but it feels like something that has genuine insight, and on that level alone can be recommended. But it's also good filmmaking and worthwhile viewing for fans of Mara, Phoenix, and Ejiofor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)