Thoughts on "Joker" (2019)

One week out from the opening of Joker, the Todd Philips-directed film depicting the origin of the infamous comic book villain, the United States army was put on high alert over concerns that the film’s opening could prompt violence.

It was the culmination of several months of controversies that surrounded the film, and it was the deciding factor that prompted me to wait nearly three weeks before finally seeing the film.

But what guarantee was this of my safety? Even as I watched the movie, was I not also watching my audience?

Joker obviously pushed buttons for critics and audiences alike. Some viewers lauded the film’s boundary-pushing narrative and conventions, and rightfully praised Joaquin Phoenix’s central performance as the troubled Arthur Fleck who becomes the titular Clown Prince of Crime.

Other viewers were quick to label the movie nothing short of a public menace; a movie which justified the mindset of countless loners who saw in the Joker a kindred spirit and whose own warped actions could led to copycat crimes.

And, for a lot of Joker I was willing to give the movie the benefit of doubt.

The acting was phenomenal and Phoenix is, understandably, an Oscar front-running for his evocative and nuanced performance.

The cinematography was breathtaking, rendering the film’s version of Gotham City more modern hellscape than bustling metropolis.

The score was riveting; each chord of Hildur Guðnadóttir’s haunting string score felt as if it were born from the same pit of despair out of which Phoenix’s Joker crawled, and it was complimented by some truly stunning needle drops that ran the gambit from Frank Sinatra to Garry Glitter.

On a visual and aural level, Joker succeeded brilliantly, but its script – penned by Philips and Scott Silver – was shallow and unfocused, practically copying and pasting some of its most visceral moments and images from the films that Philips insisted Joker was paying homage to.

It is clear that Joker owes much to the early works of Martin Scorsese; this supervillain epic feeling like the outrageous result of combining Taxi Driver (1976) with The King of Comedy (1983), both of which starred Robert De Niro who, in Joker, plays the late-night comedian with whom Fleck is obsessed.

In doing so, Joker tries to lift the mirror to the audience watching it and show us the murderous clown reflected in it, but did nothing to comment upon that image.

Joker does nothing to invalidate the Joker’s reign of terror – if anything it justifies the warped worldview perpetuated by lone wolf terrorists who insist that they were somehow hurt by society at large.

Joker wants to be a tale of moral ambiguity like its gritty predecessors, but Philips cannot handle the volatile material that he has crafted with the same skill and steady hand that Scorsese displayed over 40 years ago, and the film is painted in stark blacks and white with not a single shade of grey in sight.

On a narrative level too, the film is not sure what it wants to be; its moments of cold-blooded drama vying for attention with plot threads which attempt to attach the movie to the larger, extended universe of the Batman comics and though the Caped Crusader is nowhere to be seen in this particular origin story, anyone with a passing familiarity with the Batman mythos is liable to feel just as pulled out of the film as I was.

Joker does not fail entirely, but its merits are overshadowed by its obvious drawbacks. Joaquin Phoenix’s excellent performance is unfortunately lost amidst the film’s patently dangerous rhetoric and any film that does not take care to explore controversies like these with careful baby steps, but instead elects to dance down the whole staircase is highly suspect.

Cynicism and Film

For consumers of media, it is undeniable that we stand in the threshold of great change. The way in which we view media has fundamentally changed in the past few years; the world of even just 10 years again feels distant and antiquated.

Never before have there been so many streaming platforms catering up movies and TV to viewers than there are today.

Never before has technology allowed us to watch a blockbuster film from the comfort of our own homes and on the screens of our smartphone.

Never before has the amount of content been so diverse and so individually catered. The major motion picture is now the realm of action blockbusters and our favorite franchises; our need for character development, original storylines, and original storytelling now accessible at the press of a button on the smallest of screens.

All of these factors have changed the landscape of media consumption in the twenty-first century and their contributions to those changes cannot be underestimated. There is, however, another factor that has changed our view of media drastically and yet imperceptibly:

Cynicism.

To illustrate: early this week I opened Twitter and saw a tweet promoting the cast of the upcoming mystery thriller, Death on the Nile. The film, an adaptation of Agatha Christie’s 1937 novel, is the follow-up to Murder on the Orient Express (2017), another Christie adaptation, starring Kenneth Branagh as Christie’s celebrated sleuth, Hercule Poirot. Branagh was in the director’s chair for Orient Express and he returns to both rules for Poirot’s sojourn down the River Nile.

The accomplished cast includes Gal Gadot, Letitia Wright, Armie Hammer, and Annette Benning to name but a few of the film’s stars.

Needless to say, I was excited with the news and hit that Retweet button to both spread the word and flummox my followers.

But then I scrolled down and began to read the replies. Amidst the spattering of fellow fans excited to see the Queen of Crime’s novel adapted to the big screen, there were numerous others that were already putting the film down, mocking the film’s cast, and letting it be known that they would be skipping the film’s release.

I was shocked by the near-vitriolic level of criticism that the film already received when it should be noted that not one frame of film has been shot yet and the movie is not slated for release until October of 2020.

A whole year from now.

Some might say that there is no such thing as bad publicity and by actively tweeting their reservations, a host of twitter users are in their own way promoting the film; inciting at least one fan to use the upcoming release as evidence in his article for a college newspaper.

And it is certainly short-sighted to suggest that pre-production word-of-mouth does not touch most major film releases today. Did we not do the same thing when Marvel released the titles for their upcoming Phase Four releases? Were we not taking to the Twitterverse and posting our thoughts, feelings, and opinions on a series of movies that none of us have seen yet?

Pre-release discussion can be good. Todd Phillips’ Joker (released October 4, 2019) has generated much buzz ahead of its wide release, many commentators fearful of the film’s potentially harmful underlying message and presentation in today’s society. These informed discussions can be beneficial to not only devoted filmgoers but the public en masse.

Yet, we cannot forget that these discussions are occurring before most people have even been able to rule on the subject with evidence to support them.

In the case of Death on the Nile filmgoers dissatisfied by the Murder on the Orient Express film are already writing off this forthcoming effort.

Are we really so hesitant to stray from what we know as media consumers nowadays?

Unless something has been recommended to us on our favorite streaming service, are we unwilling to give a movie or television show the benefit of the doubt?

Do we lean so heavily on the accessibility of our favorite media that it is an arduous task to go out and experience something new?

These are all questions which buzz through my head as I contemplate the media landscape in which we live and I cannot help but feel like the answer to all of the questions posed above is yes.

That answers why films have morphed into literal events – three-hour epics depicting our favorite franchise characters and built upon cast lists that are a mile long – moving away from the kind of totally original storytelling that is now consigned to the realms of Netflix Originals and HBO series.

The cynicism is all too rampant, the justification all too familiar:

Why go through the trouble of getting out of bed and putting on pants and driving all the way to the movie theater and paying for popcorn and soda?

The movie will probably be disappointing anyway.

Thoughts on "IT: Chapter Two" (2019)

There is a running joke in IT: Chapter Two that writer Bill Denbrough (James McAvoy) cannot write a satisfactory ending to his books. Horror writer Bill is, of course, a stand-in for Stephen King whose mammoth 1,138-page novel serves as the basis for IT: Chapter Two, and the criticism is often applied to King’s books; IT in particular.

Stephen King needn’t be upset though, because the task of writing a worthwhile conclusion eluded the writers of this film too.

IT: Chapter Two is the highly-anticipated sequel to IT (2017) and finds the grown-up versions of the Losers Club, a group of social outcasts who vanquished the fear-mongering entity that often takes the form of Pennywise, the demonic clown in the ‘80s, being drawn back to their hometown of Derry, Maine when it becomes apparent that the creature has returned.

IT was a monster success upon its release, usurping The Exorcist as the highest-grossing horror film of all time, but it only adapted the first half of King’s tome. The promise of a sequel was a tantalizing one, and with the creative team back behind the camera and a distinguished cast including Jessica Chastain and Bill Hader in front of it, IT: Chapter Two seemed poised to keep the spirit of the first movie – which still permeates our culture, perverting our vision of storm sewers and red balloons – alive and vibrant.

IT: Chapter Two makes a valiant effort as it hurtles towards the finish of its nearly three-hour runtime, however more often than not in the race to get there, it trips and falls over its big, floppy clown shoes.

Part of what made the first IT movie a success was the freedom it felt in distancing itself from King’s prose. The corporeal monsters of the novel were replaced with demons of the mind, each chasing after, and tormenting the kids of the Losers Club in several well-staged scenes of horror.

IT: Chapter Two, while retaining the psychological edge which marked the first movie, elects to reinstate the monsters; lots of screen-time devoted to the adult Losers coming up against ghastly CGI creations that are liable to elicit titters of bemusement rather than cold shivers down the spine.

In fact, laughter may be one of the film’s great downfalls. IT: Chapter Two is a much funnier movie than it has any right to be; most of the jokes issuing from the Losers’ joker, Richie, played to perfection by Bill Hader, but the film’s humor manifests itself at the most inopportune moments, undercutting the tension which the movie works so hard to create. And while the juxtaposition of comedy can actually strengthen the scares of many horror movies, in IT: Chapter Two, Hader’s juvenile quips do nothing but dilute a potentially unnerving moment.

However, Hader still delivers a stellar performance, matching – if not surpassing – those given by the other performers. James McAvoy is excellent as the still grieving and self-loathing Bill, still blaming himself for the death of his brother, Georgie, and Jessica Chastain adds nuance to the role of Beverly whose abusive relationship we see is part of a viscous pattern which began in her childhood. There is real emotional weight to all of the characters and, as was the case with the child actors in the first film, there is a real sense of comradery among the adults.

It is such a shame, then, that the film gives us so few opportunities to see them all together.

The middle section of the movie feels bogged down by repetitive scenes of the Losers encountering Pennywise on their own which is liable to make one feel as though this stretch is much longer than it actually is. And when the characters’ stories converge once more in the final act, the action feels drawn-out and tedious.

More than once I felt while watching the Losers standoff with Pennywise that I was watching the final battle of an Avengers movie and this odd amalgamation of genres sat uneasily with me.

It is telling too that there is little to say of Bill Skarsgård as Pennywise who made such an impact in the first movie by remaining a shadowy presence throughout. Here, Pennywise is brought front-and-center diminishing the horror of the creature’s elusive presence and damagingly rendering him as a campy figure of fun.

IT: Chapter Two is not a bad movie. It simply bears all of the hallmarks of a Stephen King story – schlocky and confused – which the first movie worked so hard to correct. For an entertaining romp, IT: Chapter Two fits the bill but leaves one feeling that the film left a great deal of untapped potential to be mined.

300 Words on "The Call" (2013)

How do you define a dumb movie? Perhaps, better yet, I can elucidate by way of an example. Take The Call, for instance - the 2013 thriller directed by Brad Anderson and starring Halle Berry as a 911 dispatcher who must save the life of a teenage girl (Abigail Breslin) who has been abducted and thrown in the trunk of his car.

It should be noted from the start that dumb movies are not necessarily bad movies. Indeed, The Call is thoroughly entertaining from start to finish, and its central premise is wrung of all its dramatic potential. I would be lying if I said that I was not on the edge of my seat as Berry instructed Breslin on how to attract other driver’s attention on the highway from within the trunk, and in moments like these I – like the film – reveled in all its suspenseful splendor. Ultimately, however, The Call is a hollow piece of work, best enjoyed if one’s brain is checked at the door and the pesky nuisance of logical reasoning is not brought into it.

Like so many movies predicated upon such dramatic elevator pitch ideas like The Call’s, its central premise is not enough to sustain it and the film’s final act feels like a cheap rip-off of The Silence of the Lambs leading to a thoroughly underwhelming finale which only cements the film’s status as a dumb but harmless way to spend two hours. The Call is the type of film that is seemingly designed to be relegated to the bargain bin, but remains sufficiently entertaining enough for at least one viewing. 

Thoughts on "Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood" (2019)

We like to think that we know our favorite directors. The simple fact is that we do not, and the best of them are always capable of surprising us. Alfred Hitchcock, the Master of Suspense, delivered outright horror in Psycho (1960); Steven Spielberg proved that he was just as adroit when handling the special effects extravaganza of Jurassic Park as the hard-hitting and grounded Schindler’s List; and now Quentin Tarantino shows us that he has a soft side with his nostalgic look back on old Hollywood in Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood.

Of course, any film that Tarantino directs will still feature his greatest hallmarks, but Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood is another matter entirely. Indeed, one could look at the director’s previous movie, the bleak and nihilistic Hateful Eight, and this film and be hard-pressed to suggest that they were the work of the same director. Not since Jackie Brown (1997) has Tarantino delivered a film quite as laid-back and relaxed, a film that is happy to take its time in meandering through its story, and whose characters are brought to the forefront, deconstructed, analyzed, and presented for the audience’s enjoyment.

Those characters in Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood are embodied by Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt as Rick Dalton, a struggling former western TV star, and his stuntman Cliff Booth respectively. DiCaprio and Pitt are front-and-center in this film. This is their story as both struggle to find their place in a changing film industry, and both men are pitch perfect in their parts. DiCaprio in particular is enthralling in every scene he’s in. Whether he’s chastising himself for forgetting his lines, or drunkenly accosting hippies in his pajamas, it is no exaggeration to agree with little 8-year-old Trudi Fraser who Rick shares the screen with when she whispers in his ear that “that was the best acting I have ever seen in my whole life.”

DiCaprio and Pitt almost never leave center stage in the film, and so they are complimented by a number of glorified cameos from Margot Robbie as Rick’s neighbor, Sharon Tate, Mike Moh as Bruce Lee with whom Booth spars on set, Damian Lewis as Steve McQueen, and Al Pacino as Rick’s agent. But perhaps the most important character in the film is Los Angeles of 1969, meticulously recreated by Tarantino and his team. Hollywood is evocatively brought back to life not only through the beautiful set dressing, but a massive soundscape of late ‘60s radio hits, nearly all of which seem to be blaring from the speakers of Rick and Cliff’s cars.

Though Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood is atypical Tarantino, when he does serve up his standard profanity-laced, razor-sharp dialogue and excessive violence, it does not disappoint. But, for any audience member expecting this film to be a retread of the director’s earlier work, they shall be disappointed. I, however, was thrilled to watch Tarantino spread his wings and am of the opinion that he has done some of his finest work here. Indeed, the film’s last thirty minutes may be some of Tarantino’s very best as a storyteller; stretching tension at every turn and then wrongfooting the audience at nearly every opportunity.

If film fans can learn nothing else from Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood it is not to pigeonhole their favorite filmmakers. The best of the bunch have always got a surprise up their sleeves.

*

In my ongoing ranking of Tarantino films, I have discovered the list to be a much more fluid entity than I once thought. This revised list has changed since my last Tarantino review (Death Proof) and perhaps it is time to properly revisit this list. In the meantime, here is my ranking as it currently stands updated to include Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood from favorite to least favorite:

Pulp Fiction (1994)

Inglorious Basterds (2009)

Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood (2019)

Jackie Brown (1997)

The Hateful Eight (2015)

Django Unchained (2012)

Reservoir Dogs (1992)

Kill Bill (2003,2004)

Death Proof (2007)

300 Words on "Yesterday"

It should be mentioned right from the top that I love the Beatles, so it was destined that I would probably like Yesterday. I think that they are the greatest and most revolutionary band that ever existed and it’s obvious that writer Richard Curtis believes the same thing as character after character extoll the virtues of the songs that down-on-his-luck musician Jack Malick (Himesh Patel) has supposedly written, repeatedly calling them the best songs they have ever heard. It’s the kind of dialogue that made this die-hard Beatles fanatic smile from ear to ear.

But Yesterday is unlikely to have any more effect than to leave an audience smiling which, in itself, is not a bad thing. But the unique premise feels as if there is room for untapped potential as Curtis leans heavily upon his preferred cheesey romantic comedy conventions which he has already used in his previous hits Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) and Love Actually (2003). I love cheese, but a can of spreadable whiz just doesn’t pair well with an already beautifully-prepared platter.

The film certainly looks fantastic though, director Danny Boyle creating a brightly-colored landscape against which Patel, Lily James, Kate McKinnon, and (surprisingly) Ed Sheeran all deliver solid performances. And the arrangements of the Beatles’ music is well done too; not only are Himesh Patel’s covers excellently done, but Daniel Pemberton’s score which subtlety weaves the Fab Four’s melodies in the most unexpected places had me humming as soon as I left the theatre.  

If you are in search of an entertaining diversion for a few hours, Yesterday is the film for you. If you are a Beatles fanatic, you’ll probably get a kick out of this fun alternate history. However, Yesterday is about as saccharine as “Love Me Do” but a whole lot less resonant.

300 Words on "The Twilight Zone" (2019)

Submitted for your consideration…

Since the original series left its undeniable mark on our culture, there have been several attempts to reboot, remake, and reimagine Rod Serling’s The Twilight Zone. These attempts always fell short, but this most recent version – executive produced and hosted by Academy Award winner Jordan Peele (Get Out, Us) – gets the Twilight Zone formula for success right.

And the show knows it. In the series’ metafictional finale (a Twilight Zone episode about making a Twilight Zone episode) Zazie Beetz’s writer extolls the genius of Serling’s original series which mixed science fiction and horror with genuine social commentary, and it was this commentary which felt lacking in every other iteration of the show until now.

This new Twilight Zone is unafraid to tackle potent societal issues, and some of the series’ finest episodes confront police brutality, toxic masculinity, the Trump Administration, and gun violence. The episodes themselves may not always live up to the sum of their parts – nearly every episode features at least one recognizable guest star complemented by stunning visual direction – sometimes hindered by predictable plotting and the occasional twinge of unlocked potential from these storylines, but to say that Peele’s Twilight Zone is the closest thing that modern viewers have to the Serling original is praise enough.

For the first time in nearly fifty years, The Twilight Zone feels as if it is hands which truly understand its purpose and potential – a team who have achieved a seemingly impossible feat; to push sand upward through the hour glass, rewinding to the origin of the fabled show’s history. A feat that is impossible except in that fifth dimension; a dimension of sound and mind.

A feat achieved only in The Twilight Zone.