melcher-2001

I enjoyed the mordant humor and I always enjoy Jeffrey Wright's performances. Having just read 'Yellowface', the recent novel by Rebecca Kuang, which similarly deconstructs the publishing and entertainment business from an Asian American's perspective, the themes were quite familiar.

As a similarly shell shocked elitist, I totally get Wright's character and his attitude toward the world and other people, although I may be slightly better at keeping my grumpiness under wraps - up to a point.

The discussion between Wright and the black woman writer over lunch centers the films ambivalent attitude toward art and culture: In the end you either give the people what they want or you confront the wall of stupidity head on and usually come away with a concussion. The best choice is probably just to take the money and run.

"'The Morning Show' on Apple TV is the best and most pertinent political drama I've watched since Aaron Sorkin's 'The West Wing'. Both deal with power in the hands of people presented as ordinary human beings. Sorkin's drama was of a different time and climate. It expressed the lingering idealism of the baby boomer generation. In a later show, 'The Newsroom', Sorkin explored the confluence of politics and media. As in 'The West Wing there's the sense of an omniscient moral order, watched over by benign patriarchal authorities, represented by Jeff Daniels and Sam Waterston, that invariably delivers on the side of truth and Justice (Law and Order).

'The Morning Show' is a product of another century, when that very authority is under question and uncertainty reigns in the shadows of every institution. Its political and interpersonal machinations are at least as complex as those in another show of the era, 'Succession'. Both deal with issues of power and authority, but 'Succession' takes a more comedic approach, while 'The Morning Show' more aggressively and tragically addresses the real world.

In 'Succession' the patriarch and his entourage are portrayed as fools, inhabiting an environment of almost cartoonishly excessive wealth and power. This is not a place where people have jobs, it's where they have 'positions' somewhere within the arcane mazes of control. It's a world drenched in male ego, where both men and women thrive and survive only by ruthlessly manipulating each other to gain the approval of the king. It's ultimately a game of abject surrender, in which a gaggle of fools gambol just at the boundaries where comedy and tragedy meet. In the end nothing in that world has substantially changed, and we go home satisfied that everyone pretty much got served what they deserve.

Inspired by the real life sexual abuse scandals that emerged during the MeToo scandals that lead to the fall of power brokers at Fox News, 'The Morning Show' doesn't hold back in aggressively challenging the power of the king and the patriarchy. It takes the path of tragedy, in which the hubris and foolishness of each player is met with individual consequences.

'The Morning Show' is about struggle and a heroic journey toward redemption. Every character is brought to the edge of a precipitous fall, and is severely tested with the choice between pure survival and risking everything for the pursuit of clarity. As in classic tragedy a sacrifice of innocence is required in order to bring down the king. No one emerges unscathed.

At the end of the first season we've witnessed the inevitable fall, and are left with a little grief mixed with a sense of possibilities. The show leaves us with a hopeful motto, 'sic semper tyrannies', which translates, 'thus always to tyrants'.

My first viewing of 'Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles' at the Denver International Film Festival in 1983, made a deep impression on me as one of the most challenging and affective films I've ever seen. Yesterday I finished watching it again on HBO and was reminded of why it made such an impression, and why it's a landmark work of cinema, displacing 'Citizen Kane' and 'Vertigo' in the top position in this decades' 'Sight and Sound' poll of over 1,639 international film critics selecting the 100 greatest films of all time.

Chantal Akerman's masterpiece, made when she was 25, emerged out of a revolutionary period in cinema, strongly influenced by the French New Wave and the American Avant Garde scene in New York of the 70's. More than most of the experimental efforts of that time, 'Jeanne Dielman' remains as daring and challenging today as it ever was.

The film is a challenge to viewers, as it explores the 'spaces between' the sort of activities portrayed in conventional cinema. At 3 hrs and 18 minutes it demands considerable patience from the viewer. Following the daily routine of a middle class woman over three days, observing the most mundane activities in real time, our attention is drawn into an acute awareness of the most minute details that make up the activities of a person's life. We watch her wake up, prepare breakfast and dinner, wash the dishes, shop, attend to her rather disengaged teenage son, and receive middle aged men every afternoon for an act of prostitution. What little dialogue that occurs is only in the form of questions and answers to convey the minimum of necessary information. Delphine Seyrig, playing Dielman, holds an almost fixed and neutral expression on her face throughout the entire film.

As we become immersed in the film, there is only time passing, and the endlessly repetitive tasks that become a ritual devoted to order, and the absolute repression of emotional life. We become so attuned to the rigidity of routine, that when the slightest violation occurs we feel a shock of disorientation that signals an underlying current of unbearable tension. When the inevitable explosion takes place it's as sudden and unexpected as a stroke of lightning, happening almost out of our sight and passing quickly into silence and darkness.

We are never more than observers, almost as if we are looking through a microscope. Each scene is a set piece in which characters go about their tasks while the camera remains stationary. The only cuts are between scenes. The actress moves from room to room, to hallway, to street, to post office, to shop. In a strange way we get a clearer view into the deterioration of a person's state of mind than if we were given close ups or POV shots. Here the camera becomes more of a witness and less of a filter.

'Jeanne Dielman' is credited as being one of the pioneering feminist films (films not made by men about women competing with men). It is that and more. Besides presenting a radically feminine perspective on the nature of daily life, it shows us a different way to experience time and space through the eye of the camera. Rather than offering escape through aggressive action and the manipulation of the image, it forces us to become aware of the nuances of inner life as etched in our outer behavior.

For those patient enough to engage with 'Jeanne Dielman,' the rewards are revelatory and well worth the effort.

As all of Reggio's work, this is a film that defies all categories. I can guarantee that it's not like anything you've seen before. Reggio is 83 and has been breaking boundaries for over 50 years. 'Once Within A Time' is a fitting capstone to an amazing career.

This is the movie Godfrey Reggio was born to make. It's in many ways unlike anything he's done before, and yet everything leads to this. The film uses no documentary footage, instead it's entirely constructed in a studio (Red Hook, NY). It has a story and characters that are played by actors and a crew of ordinary children. It's perhaps his most accessible film, as it will appeal to both children and grownups.

The themes that prevail through all of Reggio's films are present. This time he confronts the technological alienation of culture from nature and the total commodification of human life with a narrative of hope that thrives within the innocence and playfulness of child's vision. There's a feeling of playfulness and delightful improvisation in every aspect of the production.

As in all of Reggio's films since 'Koyannisqatsi', the score is composed by Phillip Glass, but it features interludes of childlike song and ceremonial improvisations. There's even a triumphant jazz interlude that features the shamanic presence of Mike Tyson!

(The companion film, 'The Making Of 'Once Within A Time' is also well worth watching.)

Luchino Visconti's masterpiece of Italian realism functions on two levels. On one hand it delivers an uncompromising depiction of an impovershed rural family's struggle to survive in an alien urban industrial environment in the sixties. On the other it serves up an operatic narrative that calls upon mythical and literary themes that transform the realistic milieu into a stage for mythical and romantic tragedy.

The characters are all larger than life, and the themes and characters owe more than a little to the 19th century Russian novel, 'The Brothers Karamasov'. Dostoevsky created the scenario of three brothers of contrasting personalities that embody conflicting qualities of faith, doubt and reason under the unconquerable umbrella of fate.

Rocco, like Alexis (Alyosha), is the saint who is willing to sacrifice all and everything, even his own happiness, for the welfare of others. Simone, like Dmitri is the brother who is slave to his own untempered libido. Ciro, like Ivan, is a creature of reason and practicality. Nadia, like Katerina in Dostoevsky's novel, is loved by both Rocco and Simone, and instead of the father, who is absent, functions as the sacrificial lamb. (A third, younger brother, Luca, plays only a minor role.)

Personally, I found the characters in the movie as sympathetic and infuriating in much the same way as I did in the novel. The role and treatment of women is appalling. Perhaps more easily tolerated in a 19th century novel, things hadn't improved that much in 1960's Italy.

'Those who serve and those who take.' Class, class, class...

The writers worked for Seth Meyers, John Oliver and on 'Succession'.

Mylod, Fiennes, Hoult, Taylor-Joy - all English.

Like Veep and Succession it incorporates an English perspective on class that has a rich theatrical tradition.

I found ending quite satisfying, with the whole cheeseburger connecting the photo that Margot dwells on in the house with the making of the burger. Fienne's subtle portrayal of satisfaction as he turns the meat is his most perfect dramatic moment. When she asks the chef for the burger I thought it was the perfect coda for their relationship. Of course the magic words, 'to go' would seal the deal and allow her to escape.

How American cheese would get into that kitchen is a mystery, but hey, it's about America...

I must say, I share the chef's critique of S'mores.

Everything that needs to be said about America, justice, guilt and sacrifice, men and women, and what's at the core of human nature, all in one film, from the beginning to the David Bowie 'Young Americans' credit sequence at the end. All done on a single sound stage. Everything not necessary is removed, so there's nothing to distract from the central narrative. Daring performances from an incredible international cast.

A radical, brutal, Brechtian, 'In Your Face' masterpiece.

Like every Lars von Trier films this one is intended to provoke and move us beyond our complacent acceptance of conventional assumptions. Slyly and smoothly, in the manner of a parable or fairy tale it invites us in, opening us to the possibilities of human charity and compassion, only to bear witness to the self-serving hypocrisy and arrogance that can lurk beneath the surface. The film sheds an unforgiving light that penetrates a veneer of mercy that covers for self-deception and cruelty. In the end it asks us to question the very meaning of justice.

A true/rare masterpiece where artifice and improvisation, deliberation and spontaneity, planning and play, fiction and documentation, emotion and intellect are woven together seamlessly in one of the great road films of all time. Composition, rhythm and immaculate editing throughout as we are guided back and forth across the lines between personal revelation and fanciful imagination through the singular genius of a truly great artist and storyteller.

The gift of Agnes Varda is her ability to draw an audience into the down-to-earth worlds of daily life in ways that bring to the surface a sense of wonder, engagement and deep appreciation. Her work with the photographer JR in this film brings us into the creative encounter in a cascading variety of methods. We share in the care, warmth and intimacy of the creators, while at the same time we are teased and tricked by carefully arranged contrivances that occasionally remind us that we are seeing a performance designed to disarm us and surprise us and entice us to joyfully participate in a journey of a lifetime.

A fitting last feature in a career that helped to define the cinema that we've come to live.

...is that I'm not finished with it yet, so we'll see.

So far it's one of the best political dramas on the air right now...and one of the best shows to look at. The Cinematography and it's depiction of American cultures, North, Central and South, is superior to anything I can compare it to, outside of theatrical release.

Beyond that, it's not catering to the mainstream expectations of those who are looking for one more 'American Hero' adventure, where the only real point is rooting for the Top Gun Top Dog good guys to survive and beat the bad guys. Instead it's actually a portrayal of characters and cultures in conflict. More specially its a view and powerful critique of American values in sharp relief with the values of others.

The two main characters are both arrogant and ruthless, and at the same time devoted parents. The children are caught in the bubble of their parent's universe grasping for an anchor in the real world. There are things that I like and dislike (sometimes strongly), about each of them. I see in them a reflection of my own arrogance, selfishness and ignorance.

The worlds they're fleeing into has its own agendas and rules, including their own conditions for survival. At every stage we see the American family, with both good intentions and seriously flawed assumptions journey through the world leaving death in their wake.

The real 'villain' of the piece is the delusional dreamworld that drives Alie, played by Justin Theroux, and it's most succinctly described by the character Chuy Padilla (my favorite character so far) played by Scotty Tovar at the beginning of episode 4, 'Bus Stop'.

On the other hand it's the resourcefulness, familial connection, teamwork and competence that allow our 'heroes' to escape by the skin of their teeth, and that's a pleasure to see. In that there's hope amid all of the frustration and collateral damage.

I see that the series has been cancelled. Not surprising. A bit out of the spirit of American dreaming, where the good guys always win.

Finally Disney has gone beyond the nostalgic vision at the center of Star Wars films ever since George Lucas first landed on Tatooine. Most of the franchise has been anchored in the sagas involving a single dysfunctional family, the Skywalkers; Luke, Han, Leia, Solo, Anakin, Padme, et. Al., and their wizard friends Obiwan and Yoda. Most of the new and original ideas and interesting characters have been confined to the various animated series and novels.

With a single exception. Based on an offhand remark spoken by Leia in the first Star Wars film, 'Rogue One' spun a tale that instead of dwelling on Skywalker royalty, unfolds a plot by an array of misfits and desperate freedom fighters, not always pure and not always victorious. As an outlier to the central narrative the ending left little room for sequels (Star Wars IV is the sequel).

The film garnered both critical acclaim and popular response, offering something that both longtime Star Wars fans and new generations were hungry for, original stories about people that felt accessible and real.

It has taken six years for the film franchise to revive the chemistry that made 'Rogue One' so universally successful. With the series 'Andor' on Disney they've made that leap, and the result is quite impressive.

A notable lineup of directors, beautiful cinematography and a brilliantly original screenplay by Dan Gilroy (Nightcrawler, The Bourne Legacy) weaves a narrative that leaves behind most of the familiar Star Wars tropes to take us through a drama featuring characters and situations that echo the real world. The cast is led by Diego Luna and Stellan Skarsgard, and every character is given a depth that goes beyond the usual simplistic archetypes of good and evil.

A Star Wars story without light sabers, or Jedi, or those Storm Troopers with their ridiculous white armor who fall like tenpins in every battle against heroes who never miss. A Star Wars that depicts warfare and struggle realistically. Can it work? '

Andor' works beyond any of my expectations. It's the best Star Wars saga I've seen since 'Rogue One', and possibly the best Star Wars I've _ever_seen. It's Star Wars for adults that goes beyond the replay of old westerns that have so far been the template for the popular Mandalorian and Boba Fett series, or the repeat of old battles on the Obi-Wan Kenobi show.

I look forward to the further expansion of the Star Wars universe into new kinds of narratives, new characters and new worlds. I hope 'Andor' marks a new course that I'll eagerly follow.

There are a handful of contemporary films that so fully embrace the formal elements that make up a frame that they almost carry a sense of ritual trance. Here the spell woven by writer, producer and director Emerald Fennell employs every element of sound, composition and color to capture the viewer in ways that resonate long after the story is told. I was reminded of Nicolas Winding Refn's 'Drive', another movie starring Carey Mulligan with similar formal qualities and emotional range that goes from tenderness to extreme violence. Both films use music, color and tempo in a style that has the sense of a musical composition.

Mulligan's performance hits every note and nuance, taking us through a harrowing tale of revelation and revenge. There are twists and psychological turns that pull us into moments that reveal disturbing depths of emotional intensity. From the stark image where her character Cassandra stands in the middle of a highway with a tire iron to the pivotal interior scene enveloped in soft pinks that evokes both passion and grief, we are taken ever more deeply into a spiral of calculation and rage.

Aside from its entertainment value, this movie could be viewed as a requirement for male admission to adult society. There'd be fewer sexual predators on the seats of our premier institutions.

Executive producers Bernadette Caulfield (X-Files, Big Love, Game Of Thrones) and Joss Whedon (Buffy, Firefly, Avengers) both have an impressive track record as master storytellers. Here they've combined their writing, producing and directing talent to create a truly original spin on sci-go and the supernatural.

With a great cast of characters and great writing this show hits every base without ever falling into over familiar routines or getting lazy. It's continually full of surprises.

With HBO's decision to rely on continuing the Game Of Thrones franchise along with the tedious high tech misanthropy of Westworld, while cancelling Ridley Scott's excellent but challenging Raised By Wolves, I was wondering whether they were shying away from truly original material.

The Nevers gives me hope. We'll see if it gets the go ahead to continue.

It takes more than a single idea to make a good sci-fi series. This show has only one, not original but very well executed in the first season. Unfortunately, every season since has been a huge disappointment, as the writers keep redoing the same tropes only with different costumes.

The dialogue is uninspired, as if it's nothing more than an afterthought. Even the likes of Jeffrey Wright can't give these hackneyed lines life (he spends all of his time wandering through the sets in a bewildered haze). Scenes are drawn out to ridiculous length and only completed after what seems like dozens of incremental cuts all around the circle between plot lines.

Full of badly contrived plot twists and unlikely escapades, with liberal doses of mayhem thrown in just to hold our attention (or distract it). The bad guys are so bad and the good guys so good that all pretention to subtlety is out the window. As a costume adventure it's almost like watching Snidely Whiplash battling Dudley Doright to save the damsel on the railroad track.

Most disappointing is that HBO, since being acquired by Warner Brothers, and after a run of great sci-fi/fantasy classics like 'The Watchmen' and 'Lovecraft Country' and 'Leftovers' has decided to dump what's original and hang on to a show with all the hi tech buttons and nothing new to offer.

Who would make a movie that mixes horror-comedy-western and family drama all-in-one and pull it off with ease? Jordan Peele of course! This is is his best so far.

It features one of the most original and creepy monsters I've ever seen, and so many film and television references it makes a movie geek's head spin. We're taken into a classic western landscape, filled with strange elements that stretch all the way into the absurd and still manage to be extremely creepy.

Daniel Kaluuya as the taciturn western hero is a perfect and almost immovable anchor among a cast of characters that range from the frenetic (Keke Palmer) to the weird (Steven Yuen). There are numerous lessons here about dealing with creatures much different than ourselves. The only way to get through the adventure is to let go of all expectations and take the ride.

This is Doctor Who in the right direction...thinking BIG. The problem with most of the Chinbal era thus far has been that of thinking too small. Davies and Moffat excelled in throwing everything at the wall and daring all boundaries, taking the story to the End of Time, The Galaxy, The Universe and Everything and then bringing us back with our identities barely intact.

The Doctor and his adventures have taken the most over-the-top imaginative leaps of imagination of any show on television. The most satisfying conclusions have left us with the thought, 'How can they ever top this!' They always have managed in the past. It's a lot to ask I know, but the only choice is onward. This is the job of The Doctor and all his handlers after all.

Trimming the three companions down to a single character was a necessary choice. The relationship between the Doctor and his one constant companion has always been at the core of the show. It's the vehicle through which the character grows. The Doctor isn't meant to be the parent of an unruly family, but an evolving being who needs a single commitment in order to evolve.

The Holy Mountain: Circa: 1973. It was filmed in Mexico, released a couple of years after massacres there of hundreds of students in 1968 and 1971 in a peak era for post colonial dictatorships around the world.

Jadorowsky draws his artistic vision from the surrealist and psychedelic movements to assault frontally all forms of social oppression and dogma, contrasting the drive for greed, wealth, power and ego with his radical (and weird) depiction of the mystical quest. He incorporates and subverts symbols and shibboleths from virtually every religion, ancient and modern, to conduct a shamanic journey that essentially has no destination outside of where we begin.

I'd never seen it before, but the imagery of the time is very familiar. 'Hippie Architecture' indeed. Oddly, as whacked out as the movie gets, I found it to be one of his most coherent efforts.

One of the best films In the Harry Potter universe. J. K. Rowling is one of the most successful writers in the world for a reason. I believe it's that, besides being a hell of a good storyteller, she understands both real magic and real people. As a longtime student and fan of magic I must say this film fully hits the mark.

I was a Marvel devotee and grew up reading Doctor Strange, my favorite 'superhero'. The first film, starring B. Cumberbactch (also Mads Mikkelson) is a gem of casting and plot. I fell in love with both Lev Grossman's novels, 'The Magicians' and the series based on them. The first two 'Fantastic Beasts' movies were enjoyable but aimed at a more junior audience.

'The Multiverse of Madness' is more about madness than magic. While Marvel's 'The Eternals' offers a more promising direction for the whole franchise in my opinion (and one of its best films), the producers decided they needed a switching yard in order to pull together all of the complicated strands of the MCU. Sam Rami is good at monsters but the movie is so busy It comes off more like a cross between a soap opera and an amusement park ride than a film about magic. Sam Rami knows his monsters and action, but I don't believe anyone could of added much to such a busy narrative.

In comparison, 'The Secrets of Dumbledore' tells a compelling story about believable characters performed with the restraint and subtlety that true magic requires. The visuals are stunning and original and never overdone. Mads Mikkelson and Jude Law are perfectly paired as hero and villain. Even the score is outstanding. The Harry Potter franchise is now grown up. I give it my full applause.

A film about sound. Sound is what's going on. Except for an intriguing 'special effects' visual near the end sound is pretty much what's going on. Otherwise, this is one of the most static films I've ever seen. There were long takes where I closed my eyes and missed absolutely nothing. The completely obscure pre-credit intro delivers, in total silence, mostly illegible drawings and text against mediocre photography, and the end credits are as ridiculously long as those on a Marvel movie, although the soundtrack and all references to sound, from the mundane to the extraterrestrial are nicely done.

As with all of his documentaries, Herzog approaches a vast subject in order to discover the questions, and not necessarily to provide answers. Made in 2016 the film ages surprisingly well. Like all of his films it has a dreamlike quality, as if we are drifting through a world made as much of imagination as materiality. Isn't this the true purpose of science fiction, to imagine and to ask questions?

Sci-Fi done with imagination rather than depending on lots of dollars put into special effects. Instead of another outer space western this is a story told about us and where we live. Strong performances all around and lots of surprises going from the humorous and grotesque to the shocking and magical. The best science fiction is a well told story about people and less about technological spectacle. This is the best I've seen in a while.

A deliberate reboot of the original that manages to upgrade the Enterprise convincingly beyond plywood and Christmas lights. Anson Mount, who already carved out the role in the second and best season of Discovery is excellent as a captain in the mold of Kirk. Not only does he physically resemble William Shatner, he delivers the very familiar mix of command and wry humor. He even manages to deliver the mandatory speeches on ethics without making us cringe. The new Trek's have tended to veer over the line in terms of sappy moralizing. The new/old Pike breaks the rules with the same refreshing confidence and ease as in the old days, never taking himself too seriously. The decision to make stand alone episodes is also a plus.

A clever and original take on the classic film and the original novel that inspired it. Part homage, as the locations in New Mexico echo the Nicholas Roeg classic, with a contemporary twist that's flawlessly executed without the usual over reliance on cgi and special effects. An exceptional cast carries the story forward with convincing performances in a narrative that relies on good acting rather than flash. This is a story that takes place in the real world. I look forward to seeing where they go from here.

As a film it's more about madness than magic. While Marvels 'The Eternals' offers a more promising direction for the whole franchise, the producers decided they needed a switching yard in order to pull together all of the complicated strands of the MCU. I suppose it does it's job. Sam Rami is good at monsters but the film is so busy It comes off more like a cross between a soap opera and an amusement park ride than s film about magic. Sam Rami knows his monsters but I don't anyone could succeed putting together a coherent narrative g to hat doesn't require a whole slew of fan based you tube videos to figure out. It does a respectable job of announcing that from now on, everything Marvel is multiverse, everywhere, all the time.

As a stand alone it's pretty uneven, cramming an incredible lot of plot twists into one overwhelming vehicle, at times hurtling forward with unrelenting action and then seeming to stop for totally static scenes of dramatic exposition. The title is apt, as the plot and dialogue more or less resembles an intense psychotic episode. Being a major fan of the Doctor Strange character, I look forward to future narratives with a bit more coherence along with ghe slugfest.

Visually and artistically brilliant. A film that demands everything from every performer and holds back nothing. A tale at the shamanic roots of European culture, it's branches are the inspiration for Wagner, Tolkien and Shakespeare.

Eggers blends dream, hallucination, myth and brutal historical reality in a work of uncompromising force and passion. Every element, including the score, blends to summon the primal spirits of our civilization. This is the best film of the season.

An Asian cast with a shopworn American premise. Basically a rehash of so many Rags to Riches movies made over the years about poor people falling in love with rich people and becoming fabulously wealthy. (With an interesting critique of family values that elevate wealth and prestige over 'true love'.) Mostly an overblown exhibition of excessively conspicuous consumption by a class of people that are the same everywhere no matter what culture or system of government they're a part of.

Best lines in the movie: "What a wonderful wedding. They spent $40 million dollars on it." "Oh, how excessive. We are Methodists, $20 million is our limit."

Most interesting is Michelle Yeoh, who plays a role that's almost diametrically opposite to the one she plays in 'Everything, Everywhere All At Once'. In this one she's the aristocratic head of one of the most obscenely rich families in the world - in the other she's an immigrant trying to run a failing laundromat business.