LET THE SUNSHINE IN: a review of "Wonder Woman 1984"

"WONDER WOMAN 1984"
Based upon the DC Comics series "Wonder Woman" created by William Moulton Marston 
Story by Patty Jenkins & Geoff Johns
Screenplay Written by Patty Jenkins & Geoff Johns & Dave Callaham
Directed by Patty Jenkins
***1/2 (three and a half stars) 

RATED PG 13

In the comic book movie wars continuously playing out upon our movie theater and now, television/streaming screens, the clear winner is so obviously Marvel over DC.

This is not to suggest that the Marvel Cinematic Universe is perfect by any means, due to the overall sameness of the films combined with a few subpar entries. And truth be told, Christopher Nolan's Batman (a DC character for those taking notes) trilogy, which consists of "Batman Begins" (2005), "The Dark Knight" (2008) and "The Dark Knight Rises" (2012) all operate on a completely different, more sophisticated and decidedly more adult level than the Marvel movies. 

But even so, Nolan's series is also considerably elevated, so much so, that one doesn't really connect them to the movies that have become the growing yet comparatively struggling DC Cinematic Universe, which consists of, but is not limited to, Zack Snyder's "Man Of Steel" (2013) and the bombastic mess that is "Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn Of Justice" (2016) and David Ayer's downright odious "Suicide Squad" (2016).

Where Marvel has so strongly played the long game, carefully building up its universe film by film into something where quality and content is relatively consistent with itself, DC has been playing catch up ever since, making for a series of films that are certainly expensive, but bludgeoning, bombastic, sometimes ugly, relentlessly grim rush jobs. And unlike the Marvel movies, the DC movies just aren't any fun!!!  

This is precisely what made Patty Jenkins' "Wonder Woman" (2017) feel like such a miracle!! It was, and remains, the best DC Comics entry by a wide mile due to its sense of absolute joy, excitement, exhilaration, unabashed and unquestionable sense of empowerment and yes...wonder...so much so, that even the trademark protracted, pyrotechnic drenched climax could not slow it down due to the combined enthusiasm of Jenkins and her leading superhero Gal Godot as Wonder Woman. 

Of course, the sequel to "Wonder Woman" was inevitable and now, at long last, after several postponed release dates due to the on-going pandemic, it has finally arrived via a joint release in theaters and streaming services. Patty Jenkins' "Wonder Woman 1984" is a high flying, splashy colored escapade that again showcases what a terrific screen presence Gal Godot actually is in this role and what a perfect team she makes with her Director. While it does not fly nearly as high as its predecessor, and despite quite a lot of the responses I have seen to this sequel, which have been decidedly muted at best, I enjoyed the film very much and for many of the same reasons that I loved the first film...although, this Wonder Woman arrives in a bit of a different tonal package.

Patty Jenkins' "Wonder Woman 1984" opens with not one but two stellar prologues. The first is a flashback sequence to the hidden Amazonian island of Themyscira, as the child Diana Prince (Lilly Aspell), daughter and niece of Queen Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen) and General Antiope (Robin Wright), respectively, competes in an Amazon Olympics event, which results in a failure bot one packed with a lesson to be fully learned over the span of time.

Flash forward to 1984, where Diana Prince (Gal Godot), employed at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C. leads a solitary, insular life when she is not, however, secretly saving the day from all manner of crimes as Wonder Woman...in this case, a spectacular display of heroism as she foils a robbery of antiquities at a sprawling shopping mall. 

Enter the shy, awkward, genuinely sweet and habitually ignored Barbara Minerva (Kristen Wiig), a geologist, crypto-zoologist and new employee to the Smithsonian, who gradually becomes friends with Diana. The twosome soon take considerable notice of one strange object from the failed robbery attempt, an item identified as the "Dreamstone" and is adorned by a Latin inscription which details that the occupant of the stone may be granted one wish.

Also in pursuit of the Dreamstone is Max Lord (Pedro Pascal), a failed businessman posing as a wealthy donor in order to gain access to the Smithsonian. All three principals intertwine as Lord duplicitously woos the Dreamstone away from Barbara, which by this point, they have each accessed the power of the stone through their subconscious and/or fully intentional wishes. For Barbara, it is to have what she views as so powerful and engaging about Diana. For Max Lord, it is to become the stone, attaining its power to grant wishes entirely within himself. And for, Diana...her wish arrives when the love of her life, pilot Steve Trevor (Chris Pine), miraculously returns from the dead.

Be careful what you wish for...   

Patty Jenkins' "Wonder Woman 1984," is pure, unadulterated escapism, ebulliently executed is an array of boundless energy, candyfloss colors and an unrepentant cheerfulness, which I found to be quite welcome. In our time of superhero stories and which are just so seemingly consumed with trying to "out dark" each other with an overblown self-seriousness, what Jenkins has devised feels to be more of a throwback to the untainted innocence of Richard Donner's "Superman: The Movie" (1978) and Richard Lester's "Superman II" (1981), two films that remain at the pinnacle of the genre unquestionably.

No, "Wonder Woman 1984" is not operating at the same level as those aforementioned classics but it is finding itself somewhere within that similar cinematic neighborhood. One that is frothy, filled with derring do, is often a bit cheezy and corny but is so open hearted in its overall enthusiasm and belief in itself. 

A sequence where Diana and Steve taking flight in her new Invisible Jet as a rainbow of fireworks flash around them reminded me very much of the iconic sequence when Superman (Christopher Reeve) and Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) first take flight and set to John Williams' lushly romantic score augmented with Kidder's interior vocal of "Can You Read My Mind?" The also aforementioned shopping mall robbery sequence at the start of the film, plus other action set pieces, also carried that red, white and blue buoyancy, including a desert truck chase clearly inspired by Steven Spielberg's "Raiders Of The Lost Ark" (1981). 

I do understand some of the criticism towards this film, which is decidedly less serious than the first film, especially as Diana flies through the skies with her Golden Lasso of Truth as some sort of hybrid between Spider-Man and 1970's Saturday morning television's "Isis" (1975-1977). But, I am thinking this may have been an intentional yet risky choice. 

With "Wonder Woman 1984," Patty Jenkins has created a film that feels to scale younger than its predecessor as its messages are broader in tone as opposed to the bolder, more epic tone of the first film. It is a conscious choice to be a comic book film that is striving for a sunshine positivity than the grim, darker tones that have become a bit too sadly commonplace and therefore taken much more seriously than they really need to be or actually are. 

Honestly, the world can take only so many films like "The Dark Knight" or even Joe and Anthony Russo's "Avengers: Infinity War" (2018) and "Avengers: Endgame" (2019), all of those I loved. I think that there is something to be said for just being lost in the glow and succumbing to what is essentially a fairy tale and that is what Jenkins has given. "Wonder Woman 1984" is a fairy tale, a fable, a children's story and I completely fell for its "Super Friends" styled aesthetic.

Even with all of the bubblegum, Patty Jenkins and Gal Godot do take the time to inject some gently placed social commentary within the proceedings. One aspect about the origin al film that I was truly astonished by was how never at any point was Wonder Woman, all dressed in her provocative and revealing costume, ever objectified sexually, by the characters and certainly not by Jenkins. With "Wonder Woman 1984," the sexual objectification of women by men is weaved cleverly into the narrative suggesting how sexist behaviors have escalated and have become more open and overt as time has marched on since the 1920's. 

Diana is consistently wolf-whistled and Barbara Minerva is nearly raped at one point, only to be rescued by Diana, which is later followed by Barbara's brutal retribution over her attacker once the powers of the Dreamstone continue to take hold. But, what I felt to be most notable was how Jenkins attributed sexist to both men and women in regards to how we perceive women  based upon how they appear. When we meet Barbara, she is the proverbial wallflower with unkempt hair, large glasses and an inability to walk in heels, and so, she is fully disregarded...and that even includes Diana initially. 

Yet, once that Dreamstone takes hold, affecting Barbara's appearance, wardrobe, gait and even sense of self-confidence, only then do people take notice, become attentive, hang onto her every word and is also seen as sexually desirable--all of wish fuels Barbara's wishes to increasingly darker and dangerous degrees as her rise in power comes at the expense of her humanity. Jenkins argues that Barbara Minerva was fully worth knowing, respecting and loving from the very start but because she did not fit into societal constructs of what women could and should be, she was rejected and that instilled her rage which becomes unleashed during her transformation into the Cheetah.

Furthermore, there is Max Lord, played to the hilt by Pedro Pascal, who is obviously having an ecstatic time being unleashed from the taciturn, stoic and even faceless quality in his performance as "The Mandolorian." To me, this character was so obviously Patty Jenkins taking broad swipes as Lord is really a stand in for...Donald Trump! Come on!! The failed businessman and low rent television charlatan who masquerades as a big shot in order to swindle people out of their fortunes for his own gain and is called a "loser" several times in the film. Who else could it be? 

Lord's rise to megalomania via the Dreamstone, to me, truly felt like Patty Jenkins was wrestling with her own reactions to our exceedingly dark times under the Trump presidency as we witness a dubious character being granted everything he wishes for and how, again, the unlimited power is all consuming, resulting in a figure who becomes uncontrollable, unrepentant, unfeeling and operates with a full absence of malice and empathy, existing solely to serve himself at the expense of the world. Again, Jenkins presents all of this with a heaping spoonful of sugar but just swallow it and the bitterness is there.      

Now...to address the inexplicable controversy of the return of Steve Trevor, with all of the calls from viewers and writers regarding sexual politics and  sexual consent, to them, I would ask...are you aware of what kind of film you are watching? We have a movie about a mythical Amazon who flies an Invisible Jet and there are real concerns about sexual consent as Steve's presence arrives courtesy of the Dreamstone. Remember, this film is set in 1984, and to that end, Jenkins is just having a riff on all of the body swap movies of that time period like Carl Reiner's "All Of Me" (1984), Rod Daniel's "Like Father, Like Son" (1987), Brian Gilbert's "Vice Versa" (1989) and of course, Penny Marshall's "Big" (1988). So, and with all of that in mind, can we just eject this non-controversy once?

Additionally, to also address the controversy/criticism over Diana's longing for Steve, as if being in love and mourning  over her first and one true love makes her a weaker figure. Really? Moving over to the Marvel movies, um...wasn't Steve Rogers a.k.a. Captain America (Chris Evans), mourning over his lost love throughout seven films over a ten year period?! We certainly never questioned his strength, resolve or even his manhood and neither should we for Diana Prince. In fact, this is a quality that has ensured the character has attained growth over the two films while still retaining the purity of her being, especially her womanhood. 

In "Wonder Woman 1984," we now have a Diana Prince who is older, wiser and in constant mourning over Steve as well as everyone she had grown close with, loved and lost over several decades, an experience which has simultaneously isolated her from humanity as she embraces and is determined to protect it. That makes for a touching dichotomy for the character which again, is not taken too seriously as to upend the fun. But, it does give the film a taste of gravity so it does not float away into the skies.

If I had a real criticism for the film, it would actually have to be in its construction of 1984. We, as a society, have amassed a tremendous amount of archival material from and of the 1980s that I woud feel it to be easier to replicate in a truthful manner, more like "Stranger Things" and decidedly less like Frank Coraci's "The Wedding Singer" (1998), which seemed to exist inside of a 1980s funhouse and was resoundingly unrepresentative of the actual decade. At any rate, Patty Jenkins' representation was not terribly successful either, an all White breakdancing crew in Washington D.C. notwithstanding. 

I guess it just felt like a plea for nostalgia rather than anything driven by storytelling.  Jenkins didn't seem to utilize much of the decade purposefully and even by mid to late film, the conceit felt to be abandoned entirely. I mean --why was this film set in 1984? What was the significance of using that year when the movie felt that it could take place in nearly any year?

Regardless, I had a good time and for me, I think that was all Patty Jenkins' "Wonder Woman 1984" aspired to be. No, the wealth of inspiration and empowerment that made the first film soar is not present but with our world so fraught with uncertainty and anxiety, it felt good to me to spend some time with a film that possessed such a sunnier disposition. 

Wonder Woman legitimately placed a smile upon my face and I cannot fault her, or her movie, for that. I can only be appreciative. 

PRETZEL LOGIC: a review of "Tenet"

"TENET"
Written, Produced and Directed by Christopher Nolan
**1/2 (two and a half stars)
RATED PG 13

I suppose that it was a matter of time and it can happen to the best of them, even to filmmakers as superlative as Christopher Nolan.

For the past 20 years Writer/Producer/Director Christopher Nolan has unquestionably emerged and cemented himself as a true filmmaking visionary as well as a figure who can pop one absolutely tremendous bag of cinematic popcorn. He is one of the few major American based filmmakers whose filmography possesses an uncommonly high level of quality control and has the box office dollars to back him up, therefore making him a rare modern era director who can open a film based upon his own name and reputation. And in these days of franchises, sequels, prequels, reboots, re-imaginings and the like, Nolan's output is largely original, and his detours into the Batman saga all fit perfectly into his consistent themes of identity, memory, causality and the ever tenuous grasp to sanity.

Yet, for his full body of work, Christopher Nolan's number one prevalent theme is the concept of time, in all of its fluidity and fragility, and it has been an ingenious threshold to tackle over and again and he has proven its inexhaustible quality as a storytelling engine. In fact, over the years, Nolan's films have become increasingly complex and challenging yet very much like the magicians at the core of Nolan's "The Prestige" (2006), he is a storyteller of considerable gifts as he has miraculously been able to make the density of his concept tangible and even soulful and his commitment to his characters and story always carries the day and us right along with him.

With his latest epic, "Tenet," it feels as if Christopher Nolan has not only outdone himself but to the point where he is considerably undone. While not a disaster or even a mess, "Tenet" is a film that struggles tremendously to even make sense of itself due to its plot and themes which twists the concept of time inside and out to a degree that is essentially impenetrable and therefore, nowhere near as enjoyable or as satisfying as the remainder of Nolan's output.  

Where the actual plot of "Tenet" is extremely straightforward--a nameless secret agent known only as The Protagonist (John David Washington) embarks upon a mission to stop World War III by using time manipulation in order to cease an attack upon the present from the future--yet the execution is anything but. In addition to all manner of truly extraordinary action set pieces, in which we witness the art of time shifting backwards and forwards simultaneously, the film delves into additional elements including the svelte art appraiser Kat Barton (Elizabeth Debicki), her estranged husband, the Russian oligarch Andrei Sator (Kenneth Branagh) and the fight over their son, the pursuit of a case of plutonium, crucial algorithms, paradoxes, inversion turnstiles, temporal pincer movements and the clash of free will, destiny, order and entropy.

On the surface, Christopher Nolan's "Tenet" falls firmly in line with every other film within his oeuvre. Merging the heist film, espionage adventure and science fiction, it is a muscular production, staggeringly well filmed, staged, edited and mounted and propelled triumphantly by Composer Ludwig Goransson's dynamically propulsive score. And unquestionably, John David Washington asserts himself and anchors the film beautifully in the leading role, more than affirming his skillful magnetism as evidenced in Spike Lee's "BlacKKKlansman" (2018). He is no fluke and is definitely his Father's son!!

Nolan's talents as an action filmmaker remain superbly impeccable and as always, he possess the ability to fully raise your pulse rates due to the speed, intensity and outstanding choreography of his action sequences. An attack upon an opera house makes for one absolutely sensational opening sequence. The ensuing fight fights, war sequences and car chases all flowing forwards and backwards simultaneously are all breathlessly superb in their visual heft and force. It is such a shame that this global pandemic has affected our lives seeing movies in the theaters so profoundly for if "Tenet" delivered anything at all, it is that large scaled cinema screen scope and breadth that Christopher Nolan is known for and with this film he undeniably delivered the goods and even more than as expected.

But if only there was a compelling story to give a greater weight to the proceedings as a whole. Or better yet, because the film does indeed have a compelling story...if Christopher Nolan had told his story in a fashion that was as tangible as everything else he has made previously. It is not the concept. I tis all in the execution of that concept. 

Believe me, I deeply appreciate, and am so thankful, that Nolan is a filmmaker who clearly trusts that his audiences are intelligent enough and patient enough to accept his films, which do blend the visceral with the cerebral, the philosophy and the physics alongside the popcorn. For me, this has been a joy from essentially the beginning with "Momento" (2000), his crime thriller told in reverse and from the point of view of a man with short term memory loss. It was an ingenious storytelling tool utilized ingeniously and then further made firm by the commitment to the character development as well as the conceit. 

This specific balance has served Nolan extremely well throughout his career, especially as his narratives grew more complicated, most notably, the levels of dream states and corresponding time signatures of "Inception" (2010) to the enormously risky "Interstellar" (2014), with its usages of wormholes, black holes, astrophysics and time travel. 

As each film grew in their respective complexities, Nolan always devised of ways to keep the audience engaged and involved without dumbing down his material. With "Inception" for instance, we had the character portrayed by Ellen Page (NOTE: I am using Elliot Page's former identifying name and gender solely to mark and specify that film and that time), who served as the audience stand-in or as the student while Leonardo DiCaprio's character was the teacher. With "Interstellar," for all of its intricacies, everything in the film emotionally hinged upon the tenuous relationship between Matthew McConaughey's astronaut Father and his daughter (played over three time periods by Mackenzie Foy, Jessica Chastain and Ellen Burstyn, respectively).   

With each film, Christopher Nolan has upped the stakes conceptually, as if he wanted to see how far he could go as a storyteller and filmmaker and in doing so, possibly see how far he could take us in the audience as well. He always ensured a proper "through-line," an emotional core for us to get from one end of the film to the other.  For "Tenet" however, it is as if Nolan got inside his own head and couldn't find a way out, and in doing so, he left all of us behind in a story that left me confused, frustrated and even after having read a full synopsis after watching the film, I was even more confused as to what I had even experienced, regardless of how often I was held enthralled. 

To say that "Tenet" is confusing would be an understatement. Now, for a story such as the one this film is trying to tell, as with several of Christopher Nolan's past films, a certain level of disorientation is to be expected and it is indeed a sizeable part of the fun. With regards to "Tenet," I was enjoying myself so much during the film's spectacular opening sequence, which begins at the aforementioned opera house and then smash cuts to a sequence where The Protagonist is being tortured by some goons on some train tracks which then smash cuts again to The Protagonist finding himself upon a large boat with a CIA operative. The feelings of disorientation continued in a quiet montage sequence in which we view The Protagonist in various states of exercise, meditative thought and even retiring for sleep and even those moments are all presented as if part of a jigsaw. 

It is all so breathless, sleek and confidant that even though I was fully unsure as to what was happening and why, I was masterfully carried away. In fact, I even wondered if I was seeing some sort of quasi-sequel to "Inception" as Nolan was certainly delivering similar vibes. Yet once the film began marching further into its plot, and therefore its conundrums, Nolan surprisingly began to lose me.  

I think for me it all came to a head during a moment fairly early in the film between The Protagonist and a scientist who unfolds a considerable amount of exposition in order to explain how one bullet could move forwards in time, how another could move backwards, how to tell the difference and then, even further, how to manipulate and interact with items flowing backwards. It is all a bit much but then everything is waved away when the scientist proclaims, "Don't try to understand it."

That line of dialogue stuck with me for the remainder of the film, as if it was something Christopher Nolan was attempting to tell us in the audience because it is unthinkable to me that he had no idea of how complicated his story actually was. If he was indeed informing us to not think about his concepts terribly heavily and just go with the flow of what he was showing us, then I  do have to have quite a bit to quibble about with him. Because if it is not that important to understand his story, then why write it in such away where it cannot be understood? 

From a pure construction level of writing, especially when it comes to the concept of time travel, one does need to establish a certain set of parameters in order for us in the audience to follow along and ultimately connect with the story and characters. I do think of Robert Zemeckis's "Back To The Future" trilogy (1985/1989/1990), as his rules for time travel were air tight in their construction. You knew exactly in which year you were, when characters were interacting with or as their past, present or future selves. You were never lost. James Cameron's "The Terminator" (1984), also set up a tricky paradox which was equally well established, consistent and therefore, easy to follow and connect with. For that matter, Joe and Anthony Russo's "Avengers: Endgame" (2019) set up their time travel plotline with a even greater intricacy that will undoubtedly continue to play out over future Marvel films and television series and even still, we connected. 

Granted, all of those films lean more heavily into fantasy rather than Christopher Nolan's films which attempt to inject a scientific realism but I do think you understand my point. In "Tenet," there was really nothing to hang onto beyond its concept as his characters were mostly unknowable and essentially constructs to shuffle the plot points along. That, and astonishing visuals are not nearly enough to hang an entire movie upon...or are they?

Nolan's exquisite, exhausting war film "Dunkirk" (2017) actually achieved perfectly the very thing that ultimately failed for "Tenet." Within "Dunkirk," we experienced one World War II event over three different locations and over three different time periods of one hour, one day and one week, with Nolan delivering everything in an entirely non-linear structure, with scant dialogue and little character development. What worked was that the film showcased Nolan's theme of the elasticity of time when in the throes of war, for when pinned down by bullets underneath a boat while nearly drowning or spiraling through the air in an aerial dogfight, one minute can feel like a lifetime as you cling to what might be the final moments of your life. That was Nolan's "through-line" the connective tissue that merged his film to all of us and it was brilliant. "Tenet," by contrast has no "through-line." 

But there is yet another exceedingly crucial element to this film, and has actually been a complaint about Nolan's work, and has increased considerably over the years, reaching its highest levels with "Tenet," and that is his increasingly controversial sound design. 

Christopher Nolan has often been criticized that his movies are simultaneously too loud as well as harboring dialogue that is often either inaudible or incomprehensible. While  have felt that he does mix his films to the louder side of things, I haven't really had any issue with his dialogue levels until this film, during which large swaths of dialogue are nearly impossible to understand as it is either seemingly buried in the mix, or voiced by characters in intense rushed hushes while wearing gas masks and so on. This again brought me back to that line of dialogue: "Don't try to understand it."

Now unlike "Dunkirk," which was primarily a visual experience and was not fueled with dialogue, "Tenet," by contrast, is loaded end to end with dialogue, to the point where even Nolan regular Michael Caine shows up to pass along a few key words (mostly about Brooks Brothers suits and their ineffectiveness in the extremely high finance world The Protagonist is about to step into). But so often, I found myself struggling to understand exactly what the characters were saying and it, as you can imagine, began to frustrate me. Nolan has been asked about his sound mixes in interviews and has expressed that if audiences really just understand "the gist" of what is being said, that works well enough for him.

To that, I really bristle because then, I have to ask the question: Why write expansive dialogue if I am not meant to understand it, either conceptually or audibly? Why not just make "Tenet" a visual experience like "Dunkirk" then? It makes no sense whatsoever to me. I even mused that if I had watched the film with subtitles, would I have enjoyed the film more. And to that, I felt that would also serve as a rightful criticism of the film because I should be able to connect on the first viewing, subtitles or not. 

Certainly, there is a tremendous amount to admire about the film and believe me, it is a spectacle that contains some of his most ambitious material. But for me, Christopher Nolan's "Tenet" was the film where he either reached too far or didn't reach far enough in every area of his writing and filmmaking in order to ensure the film hit every high note consistently. 

I have faith that Christopher Nolan will hit a grand slam again, and I am certain that I would watch this one again as well...but yeah, I'd better click on the subtitle feature.

SAVAGE CINEMA'S COMING ATTRACTIONS FOR JANUARY 2021

Happy New Year to all of you and in additional news since my most recent posting, on December 30, 2020, Savage Cinema reached its 11th birthday!!

As always, I have you to thank for this achievement because if not for you taking the time out of your lives to read anything that I have written and then, following up by reacting so positively to these reviews, I never would have written a second posting let alone 11 years worth of them. Yes, I write because I love to write but without you, writing in a vacuum just would not be as satisfying. Thank you so much for being here with me.

And now, here we are in January 2021, still with a global pandemic and the act of returning to a movie theater is nowhere near as safe as I would wish for situations to be for me to return to them--especially as the  COVID-19 numbers are as exceedingly high as they remain. While I long for the day to return to the movie theater to see films as they are designed to be seen and experienced, the streaming and On Demand services have by default proven themselves to being the format to see movies and in some ways, there are advantages to seeing films at home from obvious opportunities to pause, to stop, to return to them later, and to watch them at whichever time you choose rather than a movie theater's schedule. 

The disadvantage for me is that I am honestly overwhelmed. Much like the annual film festival in my city, which I have actually never attended due to feeling overwhelmed to the sheer amount of films being shown and the variety of venues screening them (where do I even start?), the sheer amount of films combined with which streaming format is showing them is a sort of opening of the floodgates that is counter productive for someone like myself.  Not only do I actually keep forgetting what is and is not yet streaming, I also struggle to remember which format has which film and so, this process has slowed me down more than I would like (in addition to being involved with the business of living and working within a pandemic and just having the mental energy to devote to my passion).

Even so, I will carry onwards and I am hoping that this very week, I can have my review for Patty Jenkins' "Wonder Woman 1984" ready and posted, as I just finished watching it very late last night.

And then, on the MUBI site, I also wanted to check out this new short film from Director Yorgos Lanthimos entitled "Nimic" and starring Matt Dillon.

At this time, it is probably much better for me to play it slow and steady rather than tossing out giant loads of ambition which ultimately goes unrealized. Nice and easy...that is the way to start a new year on Savage Cinema after such a tumultuous and unpredictable 2020. 

Please stay safe everyone. Please wear your masks and remain socially distanced and once yo have an opportunity to get yourselves vaccinated, do so. I wish to get to the other side of this entire awful experience as much as you do so let's all please band together and get to it.

OH DADDY! : a review of "On The Rocks"

"ON THE ROCKS"
Written and Directed by Sofia Coppola
***1/2 (three and a half stars)
RATED R

It truly is a feat when a filmmaker is somehow ab le to take a familiar theme and miraculously discover new sides, shades, tones and avenues with which to explore those familiar themes. 

Writer/Director Sofia Coppola has made her career exploring themes of ennui, loneliness, isolation, and definitely the trappings of and feeling trapped by affluence, whether through birth or acquisition. More often than not, and most crucially, we have gathered Coppola's thematic vision through the eyes of her female characters as evidenced through the hazy teenage dream of "The Virgin Suicides" (1999), the culture clash of "Lost In Translation" (2003), impressionistic period dramas "Marie Antionette" (2006) and "The Beguiled" (2017) and the tabloid-esque docudrama of "The Bling Ring" (2013) while the stark, esoteric "Somewhere" (2010) exists as her sole feature to be viewed exclusively through a male character. 

To me, this quality of Coppola's body of work is notable because her filmography is unquestionably filtered through her unique perspective and life experience, which has arrived from her gender functioning and continuing to thrive within a male dominated industry plus her own family pedigree. It is a viewpoint that I have thoroughly enjoyed over the course of her entire career as she has more than delivered the goods and for my sensibilities, has cemented herself as a continuously provocative and idiosyncratic artist as no one else makes films in quite the same way that she does. 

With her latest film "On The Rocks," Sofia Coppola has reunited with the great Bill Murray and has successfully merged her artistic sensibilities with the romantic comedy genre, making for a particularly fine fit. With this film, we are graced with the welcome arrival of Coppola's sly, frisky side while not ever sacrificing any sense of her seriousness and overall empathy for her characters and situations. In doing so, "On The Rocks" makes for a more than fully ingratiating, entertaining and still ever enlightening and bittersweet ride.

"On The Rocks" stars the wonderful Rashida Jones as Laura Keane, a New York City based author struggling with writer's block as her life is consumed with raising her two adorable little daughters Maya (Liyanna Muscat) and Theo (Alexandra and Anna Reimer), being a homemaker, and feeling her inner light dimming in the face of her husband Dean's (Marlon Wayans) rapidly rising career as an entrepreneur with a tech start up company.  

With Dean increasingly entangled at work as well as feeling frustrated with her lack of creative productivity, growing further apart from the vapid social scene of her children's school culture, growing more existentially exhausted and feeling threatened by the presence of Dean's gorgeous business associate Fiona Saunders (Jessica Henwick), Laura begins to fear that Dean is having an affair which therefore, jeopardizes her overall sense of self as a wife, Mother and a woman.

So, it is time to ask for help from Dad, who happens to be, Felix Keane (Bill Murray), wealthy, world traveled art dealer and eternal playboy who is more than thrilled to assist Laura is her discovery of the truth about her husband while also continuing to repair and rejuvenate their precarious relationship after his departure from her family when she was a child due to an affair.   

While Sofia Coppola's "On The Rocks" more than displays her trademark melancholic style and sharper than it may seems satirical outlook (Jenny Slate's terrific appearances throughout as Laura's vacuously self-absorbed school Mom "friend" are especially razor sharp), what she has achieved here is possibly her lightest, most charming escapade. As she more than typically displays a minimalistic approach, this film contains a larger amount of dialogue than we would usually witness in a Sofia Coppola film, but again she utilizes a terrific economy of words, set ups and situations to convey precisely what she needs in order to present a world of meaning in the lives of her characters. 

As Laura Keane, Rashida Jones again displays not only why she is a gift of a strong comedic and dramatic actress but also a certain incredulity as to why she is not utilized more than she is. Jones instantly makes for the perfect Coppola conduit leading character as she nails all of the aforementioned themes of ennui, loneliness and isolation within the confines of a young marriage, young Motherhood, being an aging daughter and finding oneself within a professional and personal rut. She accomplishes this feat with such detailed and meticulously observed efficiency and empathy that she does not ever overplay a moment, situation or emotion, making her as believable as life, as believable as any woman you may know in your own personal lives. 

As a writer, Sofia Coppola always feels to leave holes within her stories, holes for us to fill in the details to which she implies, but does not overtly state, for ourselves to discern. In addition, and as far as I am concerned, wrongly so, Coppola has been routinely criticized over the years for succumbing to her own sense of White privilege due to the opulence of her settings and the lack of diversity in her casts. With "On The Rocks," both she and Rashida Jones confront both criticisms head on and also without broadcasting neon signs of defensiveness. Again, everything is presented as matter-of-fact and with all of the implicit history and baggage contained snuggly. All we have to do is look and listen and all we need to know is there for us to find.  

With regards to race and class, part of Laura Keane's existential quandary is due to the constant feeling that she does not belong. We can gather this from a more personal/familial standpoint as she is clearly still processing the trajectory of her life and relationships due to her Dad's long ago affair and departure. Equally primal are the attitudes of race and class that permeate her life in upper class New York City, as Laura is biracial, married to a Black husband and has two Black daughters. Yes, both she and Dean have more than earned their station in life, to which they are still adjusting to, but even so, Laura always feels out of place and out of step and additionally, with her birthday being a plot point, she is increasingly feeling as if she is out of time.

Remarks are consistently made about Laura's wardrobe and overall appearance compared to others or in regards to a social setting, and definitely when she compares herself to Fiona. She questions her own talents as her writer's block persists, thus making her feel as if she is a fraud who therefore has no right to be where she is. And in one particularly crucial sequence, after she and her Dad have lost track of Dean in a ridiculous car chase, and have been stopped by the NYC police--a situation Felix Keane easily talks his way out of--she utters to her Dad, in full sarcasm, "It must be very nice to be you."

What a brilliantly multi-layered (and very funny) statement that is for Laura to express. On one level, it speaks to the relationship she has with her Dad and the fullness of his character--or her perception of him--as Felix Keane is easily a soul flowing through life seemingly without consequence due to his confidence and charm obviously but also due to his status and privilege as a wealthy, White man. Laura knows only too well that if she or Dean were caught in the exact same situation, a more fateful outcome is more than likely, and it is that specific quality of writing, direction and performance that allows this moment to have its edge as well as comedy. 

Bill Murray remains an absolute joy to behold! And as Felix Keane, as well as returning to the Sofia Coppola landscape, he is also operating on a series of levels in order to deliver a performance that is richer, deeper and more solemn that it may seem to be on the surface. 

First of all, we are receiving his classic "Saturday Night Live" persona, the devil may care, always ready with the perfect wisecrack character and filled with a laconic merriment that always finds some song in his heart. (Honestly, to this day, I still do not understand the sheer pleasure I feel when Bill Murray sings and in this film, his performance of the song "Mexicali Rose" is a gem.). 

Secondly, we have the real world Bill Murray persona, the nearly enigmatic figure, the one without an agent and who hopeful filmmakers have to reach by use of a secret 1-800 number, and is also world traveled and seemingly at home anywhere and everywhere surprising unsuspecting folks in all manner of situations and events. 

Third, we have the persona of the eccentric, cultivated, cultured, exceedingly wealthy, melancholic, romantic and ultimately lonely man of late middle to early elderly age as witnessed within Wes Anderson's "Rushmore" (1998), Jim Jarmusch's "Broken Flowers" (2005) and of course, Coppola's own "Lost In Translation."  

All three of those personas go into the makeup of the character of Felix Keane, which showcases precisely how and why he is a figure that so many people, especially women, are attracted to...and in many ways, it is also a large window into why Laura continuously seeks his counsel, his assistance, and his advice even when she is rightfully infuriated with him. 

Clearly, Laura wishes that she harbored the same outward confidence that Felix possesses while it simultaneously exasperates her as what is alluring to others often feels callous and even sexist to her, based upon their shared history. Felix waxes philosophically over again with stories, tales and historical homilies about the innate natures of men and women, to Laura's increased chagrin as she questions Dean faithfulness. Yet, for Felix himself, it is not a question of whether he believes his own stories, in a way, they all serve as confessionals, admissions, and even forms of regret and shame for his past and maybe current transgressions. 

Felix's adventures, and the detective hijinks he initiates with Laura, are all designed for him to outrun his guilt for the pain he has caused, serves as a means for him to ask for atonement without ever openly saying the words and soothe his intense loneliness as he is a man about the world but he quite possibly does not have any real friends. He adores his daughter undeniably and he longs to spend time with her, to be included and he is so obviously thrilled to be asked for help that he makes the mistake of presenting himself as being so cavalier that he is unfeeling for the real damage that he has caused. Bill Murray inhabits every inch of this performance with such grace and ease that he just makes it all look so deceptively easy and he is just a pleasure to regard again.    

I am just amazed at how each film that Sofia Coppola releases, while existing at its own entity, all feels like chapter of a continuing cinematic novel of which she is the author. "On The Rocks," so clean and efficiently direct in its execution, while also presenting the emotional messiness within the interpersonal relationships between a collective of family members, makes for one especially delicious chapter to explore and experience.

And what's more, it is a bonafide love story that cares deeply about its protagonists, and how they treat each other and themselves as they continue to make their respective ways in an ever challenging world.

LIFTED: a review of "Soul"

"SOUL"
A Pixar Animation Studios Film
Story and Screenplay Written by Pete Doctor, Mike Jones & Kemp Powers
Directed by Pete Doctor  Co-Directed by Kemp Powers
**** (four stars)
RATED PG 

Tremendous!!

It has been five long years since the wizards of Pixar have released anything that I felt lived up to the gold standard of animation that they achieved and maintained for so much of their existence but have seemingly long abandoned in favor of creating an assembly line of uninspired sequels. It was truly enough to sadden me as Pixar has, from the very beginning, devised an ingenious way to merge the worlds of art and commerce as they made film after film that served as an artistic statement while raking in a bonanza of box office dollars plus subsequent merchandising. Everything was "win-win," and once the studio reached what I felt to be their pinnacle with three absolutely superlative films--Brad Bird's "Ratatouille" (2007), Andrew Stanton's "WALL-E" (2008) and Pete Doctor's "Up" (2009)--I felt them to be unstoppable.

I have been here before upon this blogsite with these laments concerning Pixar and the trajectory they chose to take upon themselves in the years since that outstanding trio of films and this let down I have felt with the bulk of their output since. Save for Pete Doctor's audacious, extraordinary "Inside Out" (2015), the sequel route has really not done much for Pixar outside of increasing its bottom line, as far as I am concerned. Or for those who would wish to quibble with me about that point, allow me to re-state. 

My interest in Pixar releases dwindled considerably because the studio had reached a certain plateau where they were making the sorts of films that increasingly didn't seem to be relatively concerned if there were children in the audience or not. They were ensuring that what was being made was not disposable or forgettable. That even if the the films sailed over the heads of children, there would be enough to keep them entertained at the present and then, they would be the very films that they could grow with, thus making them timeless works of art. The glut of Pixar sequels, while beautifully rendered as always and as expected, in totality felt to fall dramatically short in terms of impact, affection and even purpose beyond existing as "lunchbox movies." And so, what was the point of me sitting through something that was obviously painstakingly made but emotionally thin to empty? Frankly, I just didn't wish to waste my time being further disappointed. 

And now, we arrive with "Soul."

Pixar's "Soul," again directed by Pete Doctor and in collaboration with co-director Kemp Powers, is a full bodied return to unquestionable animated and storytelling glory as it is a film that beautifully extends from "Inside Out" and becomes something even more audacious, surprising, spectacular, innovative, boldly imaginative and emotionally provocative and while also remaining dazzling, playful, brisk, fanciful and enormously entertaining. It is the finest Pixar film since "Inside Out" and what's more, it is one of the very finest the studio has made to date.

"Soul" tells the story of Joe Gardner (voiced by Jamie Foxx), a middle school part time band teacher who feels unfulfilled with his current station in life as he continuously dreams of success as a jazz pianist, much to the chagrin of his seamstress Mother, Libby (voiced by Phylicia Rashad). 

On one fateful day, professional jazz drummer Curley (voiced by Questlove), a former student of Joe's, reaches out and informs Joe that the great jazz artist/saxophonist Dorothea Williams (voiced by Angela Bassett) is playing in town that night and is in sudden need of a pianist. Joe auditions, gets the job on the spot, and in his elation of his life finally ascending as he has always wished, a freak accident occurs separating Joe's body from his soul, sending it on its way to The Great Beyond.

Unconvinced that he has indeed passed on, Joe's soul races away from The Great Beyond, finding himself within The Great Before, the domain where unborn souls are paired with soul counselors, all named Jerry (all voiced by Richard Ayoade, Alice Braga, Fortune Feimster, Zenobia Shroff and Wes Studi, respectively), in preparation for them to be assigned personalities traits as well as that elusive "spark" in order to ready themselves for their lives on Earth. 

Masquerading as a mentor, while also attempting to elude the ever persistent Terry, the soul accountant in The Great Beyond (voiced by Rachel House), Joe's soul is paired with the belligerent, cyclical Soul 22 (voiced by Tina Fey), whose defiantly skeptical nature has avoided her from living life on Earth for as long as time itself.    

From this point, Joe and 22 embark upon a metaphysical journey during which they each discover what exactly what is soul.

Pete Doctor's "Soul" is an absolute wonderment of a film. Even more than "Inside Out," I am stunned with how Doctor and his entire team have even able to take subject matter so esoteric and somehow make everything accessible. Where "Inside Out" was a film about emotions and our feelings about those emotions combined with the stages of memory and aging, "Soul" concerns itself with nothing less than the meaning of life and how that definition pertains to our individual and collective existences via our sense of fate, destiny, and inter-connectivity to all other living things.  

In so many ways, "Soul" could very easily exist in the same neighborhood as Terrence Malick's "The Tree Of Life" (2011) but by the same token, and without delving into spoilers as to upend any potential surprises and entertainment for you, the film is also not too far removed from Alexander Hall's "Here Comes Mr. Jordan" (1941), Warren Beatty and Buck Henry's "Heaven Can Wait" (1978) and Carl Reiner's "All Of Me" (1984), as Doctor has injected his film with a sprightly pace and copious amounts of sharp, satirical and slapstick humor which keeps the proceedings flying high even as it never squanders any emotional and dramatic poignancy. 

In fact, be prepared to find yourself exploring some extremely deep personal waters, and therefore, moved to a primal level, as the film probes the philosophy and psychology of Joe and 22's odyssey with a superlative empathy, openness and honesty. For both characters, and therefore for all of us as we watch, we are engaged with a story that asks of us to view and explore ourselves from the outside in as well as the inside out, which for both Joe and 22, allows them to learn about themselves in ways they otherwise would not. 

For Joe, by having such a single minded pursuit in becoming a famous jazz artist existing as the one thing in life worth living for, is that a life lived at all? For 22, it is the discovery of what does it mean to live at all and the purpose being the act of existing and experiencing. I loved how the film took the time to challenge the characters and ourselves as to what it truly means to have purpose and whether having a purpose defines the meaning of one's soul. I also found an especially deep connection to the film's metaphysical landscape's depiction and representation of lost souls and the inner demons that can so easily rise up to engulf our spirit, thus crippling our ability to engage and fully live. And to that end, we, and the film, question where our personalities actually derive from and how they are shaped once we experience existence and even further, what happens when we are confronted with the inevitability of death. 

From end to end, "Soul" implores of its characters and all of us to essentially do what it takes to "Know Thyself," as the full knowledge of who we are is a life long quest that is forever changing, is forever challenged (especially when the perceived disappointments of one's parents possesses a powerful influence and impact upon one's sense of self-perception) and hopefully filled with some sense of enlightenment, if we are open enough to receive all of the messages the world, and therefore, we, are sending to ourselves. 

Pete Doctor's "Soul," is a creative, inventive, emotional and existential feast and this film emerging from Pixar, it is undeniably a full, lush cinematic feast, one in which these wizards have truly outdone themselves and have advanced so incredibly far from when they first blew our collective minds with John Lasseter's game changing "Toy Story" (1995).

With the metaphysical worlds presented in "Soul," we are given a psychedelic wonderland filled with sumptuous impressionism and haunting symbolism. It is fantasia of colors, landscapes, moods, textures, colors, and even sounds as evidenced by the surprising space and depth as delivered by Composers Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, clearly the last people one might think of to score anything emerging from Pixar, and therefore, Disney...and the fit is perfection.   

Even better are all of the elements that depict a real world New York City and every single frame is as resplendent as the sequences of Paris in "Ratatouille." From middle school classrooms, to apartments, jazz clubs, neighborhood storefronts and brownstones, city streets, sidewalks, clothing and even the sunlight flowing through the autumn leaves, the richness of detail is so photo realistic that every image felt as if they were from still photographs. A barbershop that Joe visits, in particular, deserves an award in and of itself due to the clear affection given towards its meticulous construction and presentation. I even took a moment to freeze frame shots just to have time for my eyes to really explore and drink the sights (admittedly an advantage to having the film to stream at home instead of seeing it for the first time in a theater, which is not an endorsement but merely an observation).

And to that end, we arrive at what may be its greatest success and that lies in the fact that representation is everything. It was so wise of Pete Doctor and the filmmakers to not solely have Joe exist as the studio's first African American leading character and just call it a day. From a visual standpoint, it was a dream to see the animated visage of a Black man so presented with such clarity and beauty and a natural quality of a real, living breathing Back gentleman. The way skin was colored and therefore illuminated was breathtaking for me to behold. And therefore, to witness all of our African American characters look, and therefore exist as the beautiful people we are in the real world was downright revolutionary. Great care was obviously taken to never present any that could be construed or even misconstrued as caricature. And just that is enough reason for me to celebrate this film...but Doctor went even further.

"Soul," while being celebratory of the life experience overall, it is a film that is also celebratory of the Black experience in particular yet in a way that is so matter-of-fact and slice of life rather than anything one could fathom as being remotely dogmatic or confrontational. We are given a supremely warm view into the Black family experience, from blood ties to the overall neighborhood and community, again including crucial areas of its schools, homes, night clubs and the barbershop, which also includes a variety of Black male figures living life, sharing conversations and aspirations together. We are then further given views into Black hair culture, Black history (Charles Drew, you ask? Look him up!)and of course, the magical, musical Black invented art form of jazz music itself, which features selections overseen by Jon Batiste.  

To be represented with such detail, authenticity and affection was just one more way in which I felt to be seen and acknowledge as being an essential piece of our overall human connection and I deeply applaud Pete Doctor, Kemp Powers and the entire team for ensuring that the humanity of us as African American was served and embraced as profoundly as it was, and will forever be with this timeless film. 

And timeless is precisely what we have with "Soul," the very type of film Pixar used to make and has returned to with a greater artistry than they have exhibited in quite some time. This is without doubt or question a film for the ages as it delivers a story about what it means to live, from the taste of a lollipop, to the feeling of wind upon or bodies, to a touch, taste, or smell, the feelings contained in memories, the connections forged with each other, and the sensation that only arrives in inspiration.

What is soul? For me, this time, it is the feeling derived as I watched every single moment of this elegant, extravagant film.

KEEP IT UNIQUE: a review of "Zappa"

 "ZAPPA"
Directed by Alex Winter
***1/2 (three and a half stars)

NOT RATED

It is amazing to think that if Frank Zappa had lived, he would be celebrating his 80th birthday. 

To that end, it is unfathomable of how much more music he would have composed, should he had lived another 27 years, instead of passing away from prostate cancer in 1993 at the age of only 52. Even further, should he had lived, what would his reputation potentially had become? Would he have still remained upon the fringes of the fringes of the counter culture, forever appealing solely to his passionate fan base or might he have at long last achieved a greater sense of recognition and acclaim for being the iconoclastic artist and composer that he had always set out for himself to being? And even then, might he have ever attained a sense of satisfaction, or possibly even inner peace?

Certainly themes of personal satisfaction and inner peace feel to run at complete contrast to the uncompromising music, unrepentant legacy and defiantly mercurial persona of Frank Zappa, who I am sure would have openly scoffed at any such leanings. But, those themes indeed came to the forefront of my mind as I viewed Director Alex Winter's excellent, meticulously researched and executed documentary, simply entitled "Zappa," an experience that works equally well for the Zappa novice and longtime fan while giving us a greater insight into his musical universe while simultaneously preserving and enhancing the mystery of his inscrutable persona.

Alex Winter's "Zappa" takes a largely chronological path in detailing the life of the titular artist. While there is no narration, we are given this tour via a variety of interviews with the man himself plus past band members (including percussionist Ruth Underwood and guitarist Steve Vai), creative collaborators (including late claymation filmmaker Bruce Bickford, and Alice Cooper, whom Zappa signed to his record label) and most crucially, his widow and guardian of the Zappa Family Trust, Gail Zappa, who herself passed away in 2015 at the age of 70. 

Winter, and therefore, we the audience, are also given access to a startling amount of previously unreleased visual and musical material from Zappa's private and voluminous archival vault, inside of which seemingly every single thought Zappa possessed has been collected and conserved.

What Winter presents through this material is not necessarily a portrait of Zappa as a guitar hero, rock music satirist, bad boy provocateur, political activist, social critic or even an album by album narrative chronology, although aspects of all of those areas and more are present. What we do have with "Zappa" is a compelling, often riveting and surprisingly emotional portrait of a staggeringly self taught, ferociously inventive, restlessly creative soul whose intense pursuit of perfection was his life's driving force, for better or for worse. 

A man of contradictions, Frank Zappa's life was one that Ruth Underwood describes as "a polarity of passions." While at his Laurel Canyon compound with Gail and their four children, he wrote and recorded constantly, tirelessly and at times at the expense of being anything resembling a family man. In fact, Zappa's surprise hit song "Valley Girl," which featured the now iconic vocals by his daughter Moon Unit Zappa, came into being via a note Moon Unit slipped under the studio door with the words, "Remember me?" According to Underwood, while at home, Zappa itched to return to the road (which of course, included the rock star life and "occupational hazards of groupies) yet while on the road, he was anxious to return to the safety and sanctuary of home. 

Although Zappa existed as a member of the counter culture, providing commentary both incredulous and intolerant of the mainstream culture, he also did not represent the counter culture stereotype to a large degree, most notably his personal rejection of the drug culture. While willing to appear upon television programs, including a 1978 stint on the counter culture turned juggernaut variety show "Saturday Night Live," his disdain for the medium in its entirety was more than apparent. 

As an artist and bandleader, Zappa was a figure who attracted like minded artists and musicians yet his aloof nature and uncompromising demands alienated many. To that end, his single minded desire to hear the music that he heard in his head, which he composed by hand, be performed to absolute perfection found itself to the point where he eschewed working with the imperfections of human beings altogether. Seemingly computers and synthesizers were the only way to having his work realized with no mistakes plus always keeping up to speed with his relentless work ethic. 

And then, there is the music itself and Zappa's unshakable reputation as a rock satirist and guitar playing behemoth who often submerged himself in all matters profane, vulgar, sophomoric and scatological. Winter shows that as Zappa clearly embraced that role, the film questions if that particular musical route was itself a means to an end as perhaps what Zappa really wished to achieve and build his reputation upon was to become a serious orchestral composer, but that genre of music just happens to not pay the bills. Winter ponders if Zappa maybe found himself famous for the wrong reasons and therefore, any sense of creative misanthropy was fueled by not ever being as appreciated as he may have wished. 

Alex Winter's ability to take this mountain of the material that cultivated the life of Frank Zappa and distill it into these fascinating moments in which Zappa's eyes reveal more than he ever expressed openly are truly remarkable. 

A section of the film set in the early 1970's after Zappa was attacked and thrown from the stage by a crazed fan, leaving him unable to walk and in a state of convalescence for a  year was more than telling. We can see the frustration in his eyes when faced with his body forced into stasis when his mind was racing. We can see the anger and seething contempt in his face during a television interview at a point when Zappa was recording his work with the London Symphony Orchestra, a seemingly bizarre "stunt" for a rock star when the pursuit was undeniably genuine. And most definitely and poignantly, near the end of his life, during interviews and after a triumphant live performance with the Ensemble Modern featuring himself as conductor, with cancer rapidly doing its irreversible damage, just regard Zappa's eyes. They say everything and it is honestly moving to regard, especially from a figure who always felt to be so impenetrable and even unknowable.  

In many ways, I think it would be nearly impossible for solely one film to fully encapsulate the vast reaches of Frank Zappa's life, just as the music he composed far outstretched any one genre. In fact, I would highly recommend that this film be viewed in combination with Director Thorsten Schutte's excellent documentary "Eat That Question: Frank Zappa In His Own Words" (2016) in order to paint a wider, more comprehensive picture of its subject. 

In some ways, Winter is perhaps could have added more and is also perhaps a little too reverential. With regards to Zappa's actual music, I had wished that more of it was featured in full--a more "show don't tell" approach, so that viewers unfamiliar could really gather a sense of the sweep, dynamism, unpredictability and sheer innovation in Zappa's amalgamation of classical, doo wop, R&B, rock, jazz, funk, music concrete and whatever else appealed to his sonic display that allowed his music to defy categorization in everything other than his own name. 

Additionally, there is the nature of his lyrical content, which often ranged from schoolboy locker room puerile to overt sexism and how they relate to satire as well as his fans and detractors, and to be fair Winter glosses over that aspect considerably--but also to be fair, that topic could exist as another full length documentary film as there is a tremendous amount to unpack. Extending even further from the concept of controversial material, I actually did not appreciate how Winter essentially made Frank Zappa a lone noble hero in the fight against censorship when related to his Congressional appearances decrying the movement of the PMRC (Parents Music Resource Center) as both Twisted Sister's Dee Snider, and of all people, the late John Denver spoke out against that organization and their efforts.  

All of that being said, what Alex Winter has accomplished is remarkable, especially considering the sheer amount of material he had to work with from Zappa's personal vaults, a hideaway that I think that only Prince could rival. Speaking of Prince, Winter's film gave us a rarefied view into a certain type of artistic personality that is also of a rare quality. That ability to create and cultivate a vision inside of which one is able to essentially invent their own musical language and then to possess the uncanny ability to discover the very individuals who just may be able to help realize it. We have seen this quality in Prince as well as Miles Davis and the presence of Frank Zappa within this specific collective is essential, as his skills far extended from composing into the larger arenas of filmmaking, independent business and politics...and he was uncompromising in every conceivable aspect, to all benefits and detriments.  

It feels so fitting that Frank Zappa spent his formative years being fascinated with editing and explosives, as he loved creating his own Super 8 films and editing family home movies as much as he enjoyed deriving violent chemical reactions. 

Construction and Deconstruction, indeed. 

For this was indeed the quality of his entire output, of which we are still exploring its contents. His ability to be inspired by Edgard Varese and Johnny "Guitar" Watson, and to merge these influences into something so combustible that he was deconstructing what we thought about music while he was simultaneously constructing a sound we had never heard before. Alex Winter's "Zappa" illustrates how this most idiosyncratic of artists was a slave to his muse and inner ear, composing and performing music for himself, making the presence of others people a double edged sword of necessity and nuisance, which so often seemed to bring about stages of malcontent and possibly even some inner suffering due to being faces with obstacles that were outside of his much desired sense of control. 

Maybe that is why the film's final sections, during which his final live appearance received a 20 minute ovation, became as moving as they were for me, as well as surprising as he would allow them to be visually documented. To achieve and to fail. To reach that brass ring only to not have control over time and mortality itself despite his own desires. 

Again, it was all in his eyes and Alex Winter's "Zappa" allows us to look into and through them captivatingly. 

SAVAGE CINEMA'S COMING ATTRACTIONS FOR DECEMBER 2020

To be continued...

With the movies, this entire year, almost, has been nothing but one extended cliffhanger due to the on- going pandemic. Even though theaters have essentially re-opened to a degree, I know that all of them have not in my city--and this sadly includes the second run theater Market Square, which has transformed itself into my city's only theater to really offer independent films--and to that end, I have not set foot inside of a theater since February.

Yes, I miss it. So very much.

And in some ways, I haven't had the mental space to fully engage with how much I have missed going to the movies as my brain has been overflowing with worry, stress and anxiety, just as I am more than certain that it has for all of you...and it is just exhausting. 

Additionally, I haven't watched that many movies either, even though there are more than enough titles for me to peruse at home via the streaming services that I have subscribed to. Again, this is more than due to that aforementioned mental fatigue as well as time as my real world life as a preschool teacher is busier and more stressful than during the pre-COVID times. 

Just this past week, Warner Brothers announced that it will now have its entire 2021 release slate go to streaming services as well as arrive in theaters, which some have seen as a death knell for the movie theater industry. I am not that fearful...yet. Now that there are vaccines on the horizon, I wish to see where that will take us as a society. In defense of Warner Brothers, they have made a business decision which I do think is a smart one as the coronavirus is still with us with a vengeance and the future of it is still so unknown, even with the forthcoming vaccines. I wouldn't count movie theaters out just yet and I really think that once the world is safer, people will be just itching for a night out at the movies again.

I try to remain hopeful. I am choosing to be hopeful.

The experience of spending time in the dark with a roomful of strangers all sharing the experience of cinematic storytelling is unlike anything else to me, so much so that it is sacred. I need to believe that one day, I will again purchase a ticket, get some popcorn, find my seat and and immerse myself in sight and sound. But for now, I have to be patient as well as take the proper precautions.

And then, there is Savage Cinema, which has remained vital all year long and I am hoping that even with a slower pace, it will remain steadfast with new material arriving each month from me to you.  I have you to thank for this site's continued existence and I ask of you to keep doing your part so that we can go to the theater together again.

Please wear your masks, wash your hands and keep a safe physical distance.

Let's all work together to ensure 2021 is not the worst sequel ever made for no one on the planet wants "2020 Part 2."