BEAT THE CLOCK: a review of "Jim Henson: Idea Man"

 

"JIM HENSON: IDEA MAN"
Written by Mark Monroe
Directed by Ron Howard
*** (three stars)

UNRATED

"Run, rabbit, run

Dig that hole, forget the sun 

And when at last the work is done

Don't sit down, it's time to dig another one

For long you live and high you fly

But only if you ride the tide

And balanced on the biggest wave

You race towards an early grave"
-"Breathe"
Pink Floyd

lyrics by Roger Waters
music by David Gilmour, Roger Waters & Richard Wright  

In my most recent review posting about Director Andrew McCarthy's documentary "Brats," I wrote about how I thoroughly enjoyed that film as it transcended its primary subject matter to showcase a certain dichotomy that exists for its principal film subjects, as well as all of us in the audience, regarding the sense of perception we hold for ourselves and when it conflicts with the perceptions others have of us.

With Ron Howard's fine documentary "Jim Henson: Idea Man," I was struck by this very quandary as Jim Henson never seemed to think of himself as a puppeteer, even though that is of what he is most famous and beloved for generations. He never saw himself as one who necessarily provided entertainment for children, although his now iconic work has entranced and enchanted generations of young viewers. Jim Henson described himself as "an experimental filmmaker," and through Howard's documentary, we can greatly understand how Henson's more subversive, and often gently anarchistic qualities, were always fused into his work that otherwise was filled with delight and flew on the wings of his restless imagination. 

That in and of itself would make for a great documentary about this feverishly idiosyncratic artist who achieved a monumental and still enduring body of work in a life cut too short. Which makes "Jim Henson: Idea Man" a tad frustrating because as good as it is, we can see how easily it could have been better, greater, more comprehensive, innovative and fully equal to its subject. 

To be clear, my feelings are not generated toward Ron Howard himself as he has more than proved over 40 plus years that he is an immensely skilled cinematic storyteller and those skills are deftly on display here. I have a feeling that more corporate entities were at work behind the scenes, creating a work that is designed to be more of a "feel good" experience, where the darker, more complex and possibly troubling aspects are not delved into as deeply as they could have been so as to not upset a certain..shall we say...corporate brand. 

Ron Howard's "Jim Henson: Idea Man" follows a standard cradle to grave narrative structure, featuring copious archival footage, classic film clips of Henson's wide body of work, and interviews with family members and key contributors, including his arguably closest collaborator Frank Oz, who met Henson at the age of 17 and was hired by him immediately after graduating from high school.  

We are given a travelogue through Henson's creative beginnings and the origins of what would become some of his most treasured characters and technological advancements as he begins his partnership with his then future wife Jane Nebel with the Muppet (an amalgamation of "marionette" and "puppet") themed sketch comedy show "Sam And Friends" (1955-1961), the nightly lead in to "The Tonight Show."  

After a trip to Europe where he encountered puppetry being regarded as a serious art form, we follow Jim Henson over time as he develops his craft, characters and reputation through a series of commercials and guest appearances on "The Steve Allen Show," and "The Ed Sullivan Show" among others. We view his involvement with the birth and endurance of "Sesame Street" (1969-present), the first season of "Saturday Night Live" (1975), his desires and trials to create what would become "The Muppet Show" (1976-1981), which then would lead him into creating feature films including Director James Frawley's "The Muppet Movie" (1979) plus the grander, darker cinematic visions of "The Dark Crystal" (1982), co directed by Henson and Oz and Henson's "Labyrinth" (1986), his collaboration with George Lucas, the late David Bowie and starring a then 14 year old Jennifer Connelly.  

Throughout "Jim Henson: Idea Man," Ron Howard delivers a warmly presented portrait of a timeless artist who has amassed a timeless--and ubiquitous--body of work. He was a figure possessed with what one collaborator referred to as a "whim of steel" regarding his seemingly tireless work ethic fueled by his restless imagination. Yet, as widely known as he was--albeit it through the work and the characters-Jim Henson as a human being was more enigmatic to the rest of us, definitely and perhaps even to those closest to him. The film also suggests that Henson quite possibly housed a clandestine anxiety concerning the relationship between his art and his mortality and if he would have enough life to birth all of the ideas that flowed through him. To that end, I was truly gobsmacked by some brief images Howard included in the film of Henson's truly ahead of the curve surrealist live action eight minute short feature "Time Piece" (1965), starring himself and serving as an unnerving yet playful representation of his inner turmoil regarding his relationship with the speed of life.   

To that end, that one specific film project seen within "Jim Henson: Idea Man" is one in a series of revelations about the titular subject Howard presents. Or at least, these were revelatory facts to me. For instance, it never occurred to me that for a puppeteer as innovative and immersive in creating characters that possessed true soul as he was--seeing Muppets riding bicycles and driving automobiles in a very real human world still remains landmark cinema for me-Jim Henson had never even seen a puppet show as a youth and furthermore, he actually carried no interest in puppeteering whatsoever. For Henson, puppeteering was a means to an end, and in his case, the endgame was finding a way into working within the television medium, which is what really consumed his passions. 

It also surprised me that Jim Henson never truly possessed an interest in creating works designed for children, let alone educational material, as he leaned towards more absurdist comedy and even comedically violent scenarios, including one early pitch for what would become "The Muppet Show" entitled "Sex and Violence With The Muppets." His involvement with "Sesame Street" hinged upon his ability to engage with his more subversive creative tendencies, which ultimately paid off beyond his expectations, I can only imagine. For Henson, never once utilized his art to talk down to children. He created what would entertain himself, which did serve as educational while entertaining children and adults for generations on conceptual multi-levels.  

This aspect about Henson's creative spirit certainly provides a greater context towards the darker tones and elements within both "The Dark Crystal" and "Labyrinth" but for me, I think it definitely played into a film as enormously magical as "The Muppet Movie," which I still contend is a harrowing film considering its plot of a human conduit of consumerism and heartless greed spending the entire film trying to hunt down and kill Kermit The Frog in order to sell frog legs in a restaurant chain. Saccharine, cloying, overly twee and most importantly, NOT treating his audience--especially the youngest members--as mindless consumers but instead as human beings deserving of the absolute best entertainment he could possibly devise.   

And then, there was the information presented near the film's beginning that I also never knew anything about regarding Jim Henson's childhood or upbringing. So upon learning that his Mother practiced in the faith based Christian Scientist religion, an experience I had after Henson's passing reverberated loudly within me...which I will reveal later.  

Very much of Ron Howards' "Jim Henson: Idea Man" succeeds through all of the aforementioned material plus the copious archived footage of witnessing the sheer physicality of Henson, Oz and their collaborators made all of the Muppet magic happen. Howard performs a strong job of sticking to the theme of Henson hurtling through life as if he were constantly trying to beat the clock, a theme which allows Howards the opportunity to give the film a deeper context of who Jim Henson was as individual as he worked exhaustively at the expense of his relationships, his family life and even his own health. 

It was as if Howard's film is suggesting that if Henson were truly married to anything at all, it was to his creative spirit. Maybe Jim Henson was even more of an enigma than we, or those closest to him, could ever know, including his own children who proclaim that they really began to know their Father once they began working for him. Perhaps all we need to know about Jim Henson is what Jim Henson delivered in the work. I'm not sure.

Now, I wish to assure you that nothing presented here felt designed to tar a figure as universally beloved as Jim Henson. But, I was pleased that we did have the chance to see some human shadings and flaws alongside the brilliance. To see ourselves embrace Henson through our perceptions of him a one kind of artist when he saw himself as being a decidedly different kind of artist. And in the end, do the perceptions matter when we have the unimpeachable body of work forever? 

All of this being said, I still contend that "Jim Henson: Idea Man" could have been even better. For as much information we do receive, Howard's film moves at a fast clip, sometimes a bit too fast as if it was trying to hurry us along to the next Henson milestone instead of allowing the story to breathe and us luxuriate more in the work, the inspirations and the people who made the work we all revere so powerfully. I simply wanted more. Not a three hour epic necessarily but somehow a film that is a hair over 90 minutes doesn't feel like enough to do a subject like Jim Henson justice.  

Most egregious to me was material completely skimmed over most likely due to the fact that Disney owns The Muppets and this film was produced for the  Disney+ platform. Just announcing that Jim Henson sold The Muppets to Disney and all was well is nowhere near sufficient enough and truly just announces itself as having more to say in that story but due to corporate interests, whatever story could be told will remain unshared. I felt that to be a purposefully wasted opportunity because we never, at any point, gather a great sense as to why he sold and what it meant to him to sell something that had been an extension of his own being. Frankly, there are aspects like this one that felt to me to be less like a documentary and more like a press kit.  

And now, I have a short story to share with you, the very one that I alluded to earlier...

In 1991, after graduating from college, I spent four years working as a clerk in the campus bookstore, in a department called "General Books," the kind of which existed before the Border's and Barns and Nobles of the world really came into fruition. On one occasion, most likely in 1992, the store was  hosting an appearance and book signing by Douglas Adams, at that time on a book tour promoting Mostly Harmless, his latest entry in his irreverent The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy series. 

When one young-ish fan finally made his way to Adams after waiting patiently and nervously in the queue, I vividly remember him at last having his moment. He addressed Adams by thanking him for his visit to Madison, for the books he had written and for signing his copies. Then, it took a bit of a turn when he mentioned that he wanted him to watch his health and take care of himself for he and Jim Henson happened to be personal heroes and he was still reeling from Henson's passing two years prior. Douglas Adams, through his grace and generosity, gave this fan more to this moment, one that I am certain he still remembers. Adamas expressed that Jim Henson was a personal friend of his and that he still felt "mad" at him for his death at the far too young age of 53 as he explained, "Jim didn't believe in doctors." An ironic statement as Adams himself would pass away in 2001 at the even younger age of 49.      

I shared that story because I just felt that for all we learn within the film, there was so much unsaid or untouched because the powers that be are focused more upon the Muppet brand than the creative genius behind them. While my issues with Ron Howard's "Jim Henson: Idea Man" certainly do not derail the film as a whole by any means. I suppose for a figure that we all possess a certain personal attachment, especially to those of us who literally grew up with his visions, any documentary film to be made would have to feel as personal in its full intent if it is to capture a sense of the wonder and pathos of the man himself.

Ron Howard's "Jim Henson: Idea Man" gets pretty close. I wish we could get even closer.

CLASS REUNION: a review of "Brats"

 

"BRATS"
Based upon the memoir Brat: An 80s Story (2021) by Andrew McCarthy
Directed by Andrew McCarthy
***1/2 (three and a half stars)
UNRATED

I am going to go on record as having always hated the moniker "Brat Pack."

I was a teenager during the mid to late 1980's and as a budding cinephile, especially one who was urgently consuming nearly everything I was able to see, I took to the rise of the youth based teen film to a level that ran soul deep. Of course, at first, the genre was relegated to forgettable sex comedies and slasher films and still--save for the slasher films--I found myself watching every one that came along, knowing all the while of their poor, overly salacious and honestly regrettably distasteful attitude towards the subject matter and target audience. Frankly, thee films existed in the porn fueled fantasy world of adult male screenwriters and directors and never seemed to exist in any universe remotely resembling adolescence.   

And then, I saw Director Amy Heckerling and Writer Cameron Crowe's "Fast Times At Ridgemont High" (1982). While those salacious qualities, as advertised in the film's title remained, Heckerling and Crowe devised an entirely different tonality: one that was firmly footed in reality. It was a recognizable world with fully recognizably vivid emotions, moods and tenors wile also being extremely funny and endlessly quotable. I rewatched that film endlessly. 

This was soon followed by Director Martha Coolidge's surprisingly tender and no less entertaining "Valley Girl" (1983) and as anyone who knows me has ever known, by the time Writer/Producer/Director John Hughes arrived with "Sixteen Candles" (1984) and "The Breakfast Club" (1985), my head was blown apart while my heart swelled and soared. 

At last, here were films about teenagers that felt as if they arrived from the audiences they were intended for. I recognized myself. I recognized my friends and classmates. I recognized the trials and turbulence of adolescents and Hughes in particular showed an astounding empathy towards the process of growing up while also giving us opportunities to find the humor in situations that were otherwise confusing, painful and in the perceptions of our our adolescent hearts, a stretch of time that felt ever ongoing. 

Being right at the center of what would eventually be called "Generation X," a nation of kids who were often left to their own desires and voices that were essentially disregarded, John Hughes and like minded filmmakers created works that gave us a voice and the respect for our experience growing up, devising stories that spoke truth to our emotional states and told the world that just because we are young, it does not negate our stories being told with as much respect and dignity as films about adult characters. 

And with the very best examples of the genre, in addition to the sharp writing and direction, the conduits for these stories, their impact and their longevity rested heroically in the actors who embodies these characters.

Andrew McCarthy was one of the actors during that period that I did gravitate towards for I admired his fearlessness with displaying a level of sensitivity that was not the typical norm for male characters within the genre. There was a thoughtfulness to him, a pensive sometimes aloof, introverted quality that I responded to and kept returning to in films I revered as well as others I felt less successful yet he nonetheless remained magnetic. He was a figure who gave me a voice on screen as much as the likes of Molly Ringwald, Anthony Michael Hall, and John Cusack, while others like Judd Nelson, James Spader, Tom Cruise, Emilio Estevez, Eric Stoltz, Ally Sheedy and definitely Sean Penn for example always informed me that there was the potential for quality in whatever projects they chose to align themselves with.   

The relationships formulated were palpable even though we would never meet in person. In fact, due to their consistent presence, combined with the proximity to our ages, it was not out of the question to kind of think of these figures as being auxiliary classmates as we watched them grow and develop right alongside ourselves.  

And then, on the cover of the June 10, 1985 issue of New York magazine, just months after the release of "The Breakfast Club" and a mere few weeks before the release of Director Joel Schumacher's "St. Elmo's Fire" (1985), starring seven notable young actors including Rob Lowe and Demi Moore, in addition to Sheedy, Nelson, Estevez and McCarthy, Journalist David Blum's article with the now iconic headline hit like a smart bomb: "Hollywood's Brat Pack." 

Nothing would be the same again regarding the pop culture zeitgeist at the time for those of us in the audience as fans and unquestionably for the actors themselves.     

Andrew McCarthy's thoroughly enjoyable new documentary film "Brats" explores the fallout from that one article in regards to himself and his contemporaries during the 1980's and now its legacy, which for almost 40 years has straddled the thin line between pejorative and badge of honor depending upon whom is asked. 

What could have existed solely as a nostalgia piece, designed squarely for the teenagers of the time, McCarthy has ultimately devised an experience that is more introspective and emotionally and philosophically wide ranged than expected. Yes, the memories flood back for us as well as the film's participants but they are revisited in the way that we all regard our collective pasts, with deeper perspectives, viewpoints that either are more entrenched or surprisingly altered and all delving into how we all perceive ourselves in comparison and contrast to how how we are seen by others. And in consequence, how did those perceptions, from ourselves and from others affect or even form the trajectories of our lives? 

With "Brats," Andrew McCarthy as our main protagonist and as the film's director decides to confront this very inner quandary by attempting to reunite with the principal members of the "Brat Pack," some of whom he has not seen or spoken to in decades, to at long last discuss and ruminate over what this one article meant to them at the time and if emotions have deepened or changed altogether. McCarthy embarks upon a cross country voyage to visit the likes of Emilio Estevez, Demi Moore, Ally Sheedy, Rob Lowe among others.

I previously mentioned that I had thought--and I guess that I still do--think of these actors as existing as auxiliary classmates and at face value, Andrew McCarthy's "Brats" succeeds as a sort of a cinematic class reunion. I was genuinely warmed by seeing these actors again on screen and regarding how they engaged with each other. But where the film struck some gold for me was how it showcased a certain pathos that is indeed inherent but was unexpected. 

Initially, I was experiencing the feeling that Andrew McCarthy was speaking a lot, and maybe to the detriment of us hearing what his colleagues had to say in return. Yet soon, it struck me that we were regarding that certain vulnerability that McCarthy exuded in his '80's era film performances but this time, we were witnessing the real man struggling with coming to terms with the life he may had desired for himself as an actor and the life it ultimately became after the article was released to the world. We discover more about the inner lives of himself and others that we were all completely unaware of during the '80's, most notably de to the lack of social media. Furthermore, it illuminates that these people whop feel so larger than life to us in the audience, just happened to be the same striving, trying, yet scared young people simply aiming to find their respective places in the world, in their cases within an unforgiving business in Hollywood.

What results in Andrew McCarthy's "Brats" is a series of exchanges that illuminate their personal relationships with each other combined with the sheer irony of this extreme situation. They existed inside of the sheer fallacy of what the term represented as they were decidedly not a grouping of individuals constantly in communion professionally and socially. We learn that even they did not understand or agree upon actually who was and was not perceived to be included in The Brat Pack or whether they were Brat Pack adjacent. We learn of the ultimate contrast in the perceptions of them and their talents within the industry to how their notoriety with fans actually increased and intensified due to this collective name. 

And McCarthy, throughout the film, continues his travels and engages in conversations in what is essentially a road trip as therapy and truthfully, I was moved as he seemed to be processing his feelings towards whatever "The Brat Pack" meant and means in real time.

At the outset of this review, I remarked that I have always hated the term "Brat Pack." It was openly dismissive, churlish and with this one phrase, it swiftly dismantled everything that had been worked upwards with regards to giving a significant cultural voice to a generation, from the audience certainly and to the actors themselves, undeniably. Even then, at the age of 16 in 1985, it was obvious to me that David Blum coined a term that was meant to knock this generation of actors off whatever pedestal they had ascended to by grouping everyone together as vapid, overprivileged, untalented individuals who just got lucky and are collectively coasting on unearned fame. 

We learn throughout "Brats" that the actors felt wounded to varying degrees by the name and article so much so that they rejected each other professionally, declining potentially good projects because of one actor's proximity to another, and sometimes feeling that the goals they had envisioned for themselves were now unattainable. This aspect of the film, and especially during the striking sequence where McCarthy engages in conversation with David Blum himself, where a greater truth is unveiled. 

I remember that back in 1985, I had seen an interview with John Hughes who expressed that one of the messages he was trying to convey within his films was for people to just take a f ew moments before tearing someone down for we never know what ripple effects would occur and then reverberate over time. Andrew McCarthy's "Brats" feels to be a representation of that very sentiment as a journalist, whoa t the time was 29 years old, was also young, competitive, possibly scared and attempting to make his way within an unforgiving business made a rash decision in order to advance himself at the expense of others (which also illustrates how writers are often writing for the attention of other writers). 

Yet, what cannot be denied is how the generation of fans that embraced them in the 1980's have only continued to embrace these actors and the seminal projects that spoke the deepest. To that, the term of "Brat Pack" holds a different significance and weight, showcasing that their work did indeed provide meaning and engagement in addition to entertainment. In doing so, was this term as terrible as it felt on the inside? Was it a value judgement upon them as artists and human beings?

Andrew McCarthy's "Brats" allowed me to contemplate my own life, how I see myself and how I think that I am being seen by others if I am being seen at all and how has all of that affected my own life path. I can understand McCarthy's struggle as I can easily look to words said to me by my parents, teachers, friends, colleagues and so on that either ran in support of or in defiance of how I was envisioning who I am, who I could possibly become and how the right or wrong words said at choice times helped or hindered my own sense of self perception, acceptance, loathing and love. 

We are all on this same life journey with hopes and goals, foibles and fears, successes and failures and all armed with a sense of self that may not ever align with the world, who we wish to become and who we naturally are. And still, we are connected. influence and inspire so often without ever truly knowing what we have accomplished or how much and certainly, whose lives we have touched. 

Andrew McCarthy's "Brats" gently transcends its immediate subject matter as it asks of us the very same questions McCarthy asks of himself and his colleagues. It is a bittersweet experience yet one that is simultaneously enlightening as the past and present converge in order to help us all accept where we are now and where we still might travel.

THE DARKEST ANGEL: a review of "Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga"

 

"FURIOSA: A MAD MAX SAGA"
Based upon characters and situations created by George Miller
Screenplay Written by George Miller & Nico Lathouris
Directed by George Miller
**** (four stars)
RATED R

There have consistently been factors, elements and entire cinematic landscapes that feel pulled and plucked from the realm of nightmares within the films of Writer/Director George Miller.

I remember "The Witches of Eastwick" (1987), Miller's rousing adaptation of of the John Updike novel was by turns filled with a darkly comic eroticism submerged in the rightfully demonic as well as the often vomitous. "Lorenzo's Oil" (1992) fashioned a parent/child medical drama with the existential terror and velocity of a horror film.  Even his children's films were not off limits as "Babe: Pig In The  City" (1998), his extraordinary sequel to the charming "Babe" (1995), possessed a feverish creativity filled with a dream logic by way of a classic Grimm's fairy tale. Even the gentle musical "Happy Feet" (2006) took a sharp detour into a harrowing sequence of environmental collapse. And certainly there was his superior installment in 'Twilight Zone: The Movie" (1983), starring a thoroughly unhinged John Lithgow as a tormented airline passenger in Miller's remake of the television episode "Nightmare At 10,000 Feet."

Yet, out of his entire filmography, what clearly stands tallest is the nightmare of the downfall of civilization itself and its full descent into complete barbarianism in his pre and post apocalyptic "Mad Max" series, unquestionably is greatest and most signature cinematic achievement(s). It has been almost ten full years since we were last thrust into the automotive carnage of the desolate Australian wasteland with George Miller's superlative fourth installment "Mad Max: Fury Road" (2015), a work that revitalized and re-introduced his rapacious vision to audiences with a vicious, visceral skill that succeeded the iconic second installment "The Road Warrior" (1981) into something truly operatic in scope and purpose. 

With the fifth installment, "Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga," George Miller devises a prequel, giving us the full backstory of the title character first introduced to us via the titanic presence and performance of Charlize Theron in the previous film. Wisely, Miller does not attempt to just create a repeat of road rage and call it a day. 

Don't get me wrong. There is more than enough of his trademark and kinetic car chases, stunt work and largely practical effects at tremendous work. This time, Miller expands his world building even further, bringing a pathos and poetry to the blistering and bombastic, ensuring that "Fury Road" and "Furiosa" work seamlessly as a whole while also existing as two distinct and complete experiences, each one complimenting the other while telling a full story. What results is something especially extraordinary, considering that we are drowning in all manner of sequels, prequels, reboots, remakes and re-imaginings. "Furiosa" feels as if this was a film that sprung directly from George Miller's bones...more than apt as it unquestionably rattled mine.

George Miller's "Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga," set decades after the apocalypse and decades before the events of "Mad Max: Fury Road," opens at the Green Place of Many Mothers, one of the last remaining areas of fresh agriculture and water, hidden away from the desert wasteland, and birthplace of Furiosa (Alyla Browne). While attempting to sabotage the arrival of marauders from discovering her home, Furiosa is captured and taken to the warlord Dementus (Chris Hemsworth), who soon murders her Mother and "adopts" her as his pseudo/daughter with the hopes she will lead him to the Green Place.  

What follows is Furiosa's journey from existing in Dementus' capture to witnessing Dementus' thirst for ultimate power over the wasteland through his attempts to infiltrate and take over Gas Town, the Bullet Farm and finally, the Citadel, run by Immortan Joe (Lachy Hulme) and his fanatical army of War Boys. Furiosa is eventually enslaved by Immortan Joe and for over a decade, as she grows into adulthood (now played by Anya Taylor-Joy), she struggles to survive while also plotting her revenge against Dementus.

While the film does not necessarily deliver any sense of surprises regarding the backstory of the character of Furiosa (although all of the holes are indeed filled), George Miller's "Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga" beautifully widens and deepens the canvas of this chaotic universe unlike any of the previous installments. Like its predecessors, most notably "Fury Road," it is a thrilling production that showcases Miller's astonishing skill and heft as a visual stylist and storyteller. Tremendous applause must be served to Miller's entire team, with special mentions to Cinematographer Simon Duggan, Editors Eliot Knapmann and Margaret Sixel, Composer Tom Holkenbrg's booming, doom laden score, and of course, the entire stunt team, all of whom combine to bring every moment to brutally bracing life.

Admittedly, I was a tad confused when Anya Taylor-Joy was initially cast as Furiosa solely due to her physical characteristics and facial features being different enough from Charlize Theron that I was unable to envision her as this younger version. I needed not have worried. For a character that is often silent, Anya Taylor-Joy as Furiosa gives a performance that is simultaneously interior and explosive.  She conveys a world of emotion, pathos, turmoil, loss, grit, tenacity and an unending sense of purpose within her survivalist determination to the point where she is referred to as being "the fifth rider of the apocalypse."

Since we are dealing with the state of being told a myth, whomever is weaving the myth is key and in doing so, certain details can become malleable--especially regarding the exact appearance of someone. And so, it really doesn't matter that the actresses who portray Furiosa over the two films have differing features for it is in their inherent delivery and personality that we are always seeing one figure and we are submerged in her story.

This really struck me during a section of the film where Furiosa forges an alliance with Praetorian Jack (Tom Burke), the driver of the Citadel's first War Rig and who also bears a striking resemblance to a certain road warrior we already know. Certainly this relationship serves as the mirror Furiosa will create with Max (Tom Hardy) years later in "Fury Road," but additionally, those lines of mythology were effectively blurred, making me wonder just whom was entering whose story and when. 

         

That being said, George Miller was wise to not try to craft an experience that would either out-do "Fury Road" as an action spectacle, although the action set pieces presented gloriously in their white knuckle intensity. "Furiosa" is no mere retread. In fact, what I found remarkable is that this film and "Fury Road" are the most interconnected, playing off of each other while telling one complete story in two distinct halves. 

In fact, I often thought of Writer/Director Quentin Tarantino's "Kill Bill Volume 1" (2003) and "Kill Bill Volume 2" (2004), a cinematic duet that consisted of two wildly fulfilling and completely idiosyncratic film experiences that ultimately chronicled, and therefore coalesced into, one entire conception. As with Tarantino's films, where the first film was the pulse ponding, blood thirsty action epic, the second film was its pulsating soul--while not dialing down on the action one bit. 

With "Furiosa," George Miller has infused his entire quintet of film with tremendous sense of moral urgency and outrage that infuses a richer amalgamation of his post apocalyptic Western aesthetic with a greater sense of mythology and myth making. While "Furiosa" functions as a prequel, I was extremely pleased that the film never felt as if it was overworking itself to reverse engineer plot points and aesthetic elements to ensure the parts between the two films connected properly. This success is entirely due to the fact that Miller wrote and storyboarded "Furiosa" (as well as a potential film entitled "Max In The Wasteland"--set in between these two films) before "Fury Road" was even filmed, largely for the purpose of allowing himself to become completely immersed in the story's arc as well as for Charlize Theron to embody the character and her psychology as deeply as possible--and as we have already witnessed in  "Fury Road," Theron accomplished this feat to a magnetically harrowing degree. 

Where the timespan of "Fury Road" is essentially over perhaps two days and consists of the structure of a chase and then, a race with Furiosa's mission to emancipate the enslaved Women of Imperator Joe as the...ahem...engine, "Furiosa" becomes the grander epic. Spanning decades and evolving over five episodic chapters, "Furiosa" is given its most literary tenor, thus making the titular character function over both films akin to Odysseus and his quest to return home after the Trojan War in Homer's The Odyssey just as she longs to return to her home, the Green Place Of Many Mothers.

Furiosa's journey delves into the heart of her battle against Dementus as well as the entire quintet of films as it is a philosophical debate of what could prevail after the end of the world. Hate or hope in an unforgiving environment where bottomless rage is ruled by grief. For Furiosa, is it through the loss of her home and Mother as she was born into this post apocalyptic world. Yet, for Dementus, it could be inferred that his backstory and what fuels his sense of rage occurred either before or after the apocalypse. And as for Max, is rage exists on the edge of pre and post apocalypse...and it is that edge where he remains, yet somehow still unearths a sense of mercy.

The stuff of this specific set of George Miller nightmares arrives with an environmental disaster (or several) combined with--and caused by--the downfall of humanity. Yet, over and again, and evidenced heroically in "Furiosa," even when the world is gone, there is still empathy, there is still trust, there is still love, and there is still hope--the hope to just survive one moment longer in a nightmare world where the nightmares never end. Every time Furiosa seems to evade danger, she is scooped right up into it all over again. She is captured, escapes, is captured and escapes and is captured again and again...and still, she resists and summons resilience. 

The constant state of dread never felt more palpable to me within this series than right now with George Miller's "Furiosa." For in the earlier installments, I was seeing a terrifying world that I could not believe--it was cinematic awe. Yet, with the human element placed at the forefront with "Furiosa," which therefore increases the human element of "Fury Road," I see George Miller's vision more clearly and with a greater sense of terror--possibly due to the overwhelming sense of inhumanity occurring in our very real world, and that feeling of hungering for blood in the water is hanging heavily in the air. 

With so much in a precarious balance between societal order and chaos and the endless cruelty show  being rewarded and kindness is seen as weakness, perhaps what George Miller has been devising all along has been a warning.

"Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga" is one of my favorite films of 2024.

THE FAMILY THAT BUSTS GHOSTS TOGETHER...: a review of "Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire"

 

"GHOSTBUSTERS: FROZEN EMPIRE"
Based upon characters created by Dan Aykroyd & Harold Ramis
Screenplay Written by Gil Kenan & Jason Reitman
Directed by Gil Kenan
**1/2 (two and a half stars)
RATED PG 13

As I like to often tell friends and acquaintances who are too young to have been there to have experienced certain pop cultural touchstones at the time, I vividly remember a world where there was no such thing as "Ghostbusters." And then...it happened. 

And it was awesome!

This year, I am honestly gobsmacked to realize that Director Ivan Reitman's "Ghostbusters" (1984) will reach its 40th birthday. To that end, I was there on opening weekend, full ready to laugh and celebrate the latest feature film starring my Saturday Night Live heroes. But, what resulted was wholly unexpected. "Ghostbusters" was unquestionably funny but I was stunned that the gently edgy humor worked in full service alongside an actual ghost story with genuine scares that built towards a save the world aesthetic that was absolutely thrilling as I was simultaneously laughing heartedly. It was one of those movies back then that was a cultural phenomenon being born right in front of your eyes. It was that proverbial lightning in a bottle as whatever stars were in play during the conception and making of that film, they were all in astounding alignment.

In all of the years since, I have felt increasingly that perhaps it was really the type of movie that can only be made once. 

While "Ghostbusters" felt to be the culmination of what began with Director John Landis' masterpieces "National Lampoon's Animal House" (1978) and "The Blues Brothers" (1980), as well as Reitman's Bill Murray starring vehicles "Meatballs" (1979) and "Stripes" (1981) and to an extent Harold Ramis' directorial debut with "Caddyshack" (1980), in many ways, there was really no reason for an updated Abbott and Costello comedic monster mash with first rate special effects and horror films frights to have worked as well as it did. It could have resulted in a mess of an experience. But, t didn't as I would think that it far exceeded the hopes and expectations of all those who participated in that original film...because, really..."Ghostbusters" was one of a kind as it captured humor, horror ad the imagination in a then zeitgeist defining touchstone. 

40 years on, I have struggled with the concept of new "Ghostbusters" anything as Reitman's "Ghostbusters II" (1989) was a watered down underwhelming sound and light show and Director Paul Feig's female driven "Ghostbusters" (2016) could not seem to define itself as either a sequel, remake, reboot and so, it mistakenly tried all three and failed. Maybe this was just something that did not need to be a franchise and should just be better off left alone. But when, Jason Reitman, Ivan's son, and who was a child when the original film was being made, decided to resurrect the concept and push the series forwards into the 21st century, I remained skeptical but I was curious, especially as he had already established himself as a strong filmmaker in his own right, with "Juno" (2007), the masterful "Up In The Air" (2009) and the emotionally rapacious "Young Adult" (2011).    

As far as sequels go, Jason Reitman's "Ghostbusters: Afterlife" (2021) was an honest experience but overall, one that failed to recapture that elusive movie magic that made the original what it remains to this day. While I did like that it contained a genuine story with a compelling center in new character, the quirky, aloof, brainy teenaged Phoebe (McKenna Grace), granddaughter of original and deceased Ghostbuster Egon Spengler (the late Harold Ramis), Reitman's film struggled with finding that balance between humor and scares plus was damaged by underwritten characters, under utilized actors and an over reliance on fan nostalgia and easy sentiment. It was a film, however well intentioned, that over reached into pleasing everyone when serving the story needed to be absolutely first.

Now, we arrive at "Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire," this time directed by Jason Reitman's writing/producing partner Gil Kenan and we are delivered something that represents one step forward and two steps backwards in this continuing story. Yes, it remains an honest entry. Nothing about this enterprise feels as mercenary as most sequels are. The ideas presented are strong, from the story, to the supernatural threat to aspects of characters both past and present. And still, it all feels to be somewhat generic and toothless as it is again too eager to try and please absolutely everybody that it ends up satisfying few, making me wonder just who are the Ghostbusters actually for anymore. 

Gil Kenan's "Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire" picks up with the Spengler family, who consists of the aforementioned 15 year old Phoebe, her 18 year old brother Trevor (Finn Wolfhard), Mom Callie (Carrie Coon), plus former Science teacher and Callie's boyfriend Gary Grooberson (Paul Rudd), have all moved from Oklahoma to New York City to take up residence in the iconic and newly restored Ghostbusters firehouse station and have become the brand new specter catching team. 

Additionally, Phoebe and Trevor's Oklahoma friends (the unfortunately named--it just still feels like a placeholder for something better but Reitman and Kenan never though of anything) Podcast (Logan Kim) and Lucky Domingo (Celeste O'Connor) are collaborating with retired Ghostbuster/occult bookstore owner Ray Stantz (Dan Aykroyd) and retired Ghostbuster/philanthropist Winston Zeddemore (Ernie Hudson), who has created a privately run Paranormal Research Center with all manner supernatural...and all to the bottomless chagrin of their longtime nemesis Walter Peck (William Atherton) now the Mayor of New York City.  

Trouble ensues when several strange events in the neighborhood begin to converge, including the team's near capacity ecto-containment unit housing 40 years worth of ghosts, the arrival of a cursed orb, the introduction of a character with pyrokinetic powers (Kumail Nanjiani) and a lonely Phoebe's budding relationship with a 16 year old ghost named Melody (Emily Alyn Lind). The combination of these elements threaten to unleash the power of a vengeful demon and what is known as "The Death Chill," where body temperatures are lowered to the point where victims are literally frightened to death.

Who ya gonna call?

Gil Kenan's "Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire" is a handsome production drops you into the action quickly, cleanly and does establish a serviceable tone that purposefully dials down the humor (as I am thinking that Kenan and Reitman instinctively knew that they could not compete with the original film in this fashion) and carries a slightly more somber aesthetic, therefore, smartly initiating a different emotional palate. I liked that this film' supernatural threat was not another retread of the Gozer the Sumerian entity and they ventured into a well devised new direction. 

I enjoyed seeing a new Ghostbusters team in action, serving as the story of the Spengler family learning how to be a stronger family together, especially with the additional dynamic of Gary emerging as a potential new Father figure to both Phoebe and Trevor. To that end, I liked the concept of the eccentric Phoebe connecting with a teenaged female spirit, an aspect that allowed the film to venture into giving Phoebe more individualistic depth as well as providing the film with some, again, genuine window into teen loneliness and aloneness. 

With the original team, I thought Dan Aykroyd and Ernie Hudson carried a surprisingly warm chemistry and a touching dash pathos reflecting upon their advanced ages and how they would each like to spend their twilight years. And then, there is that firehouse and its connection ad function as a portal between the material and metaphysical worlds. 

Even with all of that being said, and just as with the previous installment, it still felt as if Kenan is indeed engaged in a more calculated attempt to cast the widest net possible to attract and engage the most viewers. That, to me, is the crucial problem with so many of these remakes, reboots, sequels, prequels and re-imaginings like this film because, and despite, all of the good efforts, there is too much catering at best, and pandering at worst, to the fan base, whatever it happens to be, instead of just trying to tell the best story it possibly can...regardless of the fans. Frankly, Kenan and Reitman derived an honest story and film but it is also one that is attempting to straddle too many fences and unfortunately, to a dwindling degree. 

First of all, there are just too many characters running around "Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire," a tactic that felt to be less storytelling driven and more wide net fan base gathering as we are dealing with characters both original and new, old, middle aged and teenaged in addition to all of the supernatural figures, and all seemingly designed to reach for a cross generational audience whether the story truly necessitates that need or not. Of course, we all want to see Dr. Peter Venkman (Bill Murray) again--and of course, we wouldn't complain with seeing Janine Melnitz (Annie Potts) again either--and we do for a couple of scenes. But, did this film need either one of them? I would argue that the outcome would have been the same if both characters had been removed from the film altogether.

Another new character played by Patton Oswalt served a purpose that Aykroyd's Ray Stantz could have easily served. But, this new character felt superfluous--like the spin-off episode sometimes contained within a primary television series. Essentially, should this film series continue, then Oswalt is who we would see in place of Aykroyd perhaps...so...did Oswalt need to be in this film? Was he essential? Maybe not. 

Even the amount of teenage characters took considerable time away from Phoebe, who is positioned as being the new heart of the series. Additional Ghostbuster Research team characters dolled out copious dialogue to new faces rather than allowing us more time with the Spengler family. 

What he have in "Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire" is an adventure story, a family film, a ghost tale, a coming of age film, an ode to nostalgia film while simultaneously advancing a narrative, which would all be well and good if the  parts fits together more organically. Even the film's subtitle strikes of a bland Disney-esque/Marvel-esque confection so as to not upset the masses. 

Now, I am not suggesting that the film is confused or schizophrenic. It is consistent with itself but at the same time, Kenan does not seem to want to commit to "Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire" existing as something the fan base would potentially reject on principle because it wasn't something they wanted. Yet, by not being brave enough to possibly risk their collective ire, the film winds up as being the sort of tepid, faux mid 1980s Steven Spielberg-ish production that is never as great as the real thing. 

The cast certainly is game enough and they all seem as if they want to be there and are enjoying themselves. Paul Rudd, who always looks as if he is happy to be on set, seems especially engaged with his larger role and involvement. By contrast, I strongly feel that if a filmmaker is able to claim the brilliant Carrie Coon as part of their cast, it is owed to her immensely to give her something to do other than to just be "the Mom"...a Ghostbusting Mom but even so, she deserves more and better. 

As for the OGs, Dan Aykroyd in particular looks visibly pleased that his brainchild has lived on for four decades and is able to still reel in new fans. Ernie Hudson also seems pleased to see the grander realization of his initially underused everyman character build into someone more significant to the larger and continuing Ghostbusters world. 

So, no, Gil Kenan's "Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire" is not bad but it also isn't great. And as I continue to think of the original 1984 film, I just feel more and more that we have something that simply cannot be repeated, regardless of efforts or intentions. Yet, here we are. In this cinematic state where the concept of "one and done" is non-existent. Which is a shame because there is truly such joy and satisfaction in beginnings, middles and crucially, in endings and not continuing stories ad infinitum.

I love "Ghostbusters" and I always will. And you know, to preserve it at its best, perhaps it is just time to let this series peacefully rest.

AFTERSHOCK: a few words in appreciation of "Oppenheimer"

 

"OPPENHEIMER"
Written, Produced and Directed by Christopher Nolan
**** (four stars)
RATED R

To begin, I saw this film opening weekend as the world seemingly was caught up in the throes of "BarbieHeimer," as Christopher Nolan's latest epic shared the same debut weekend as Director Greta Gerwig's exceedingly anticipated "Barbie." 

As we all know now, the counter programming paid off even greater than I would imagine anyone had hoped or anticipated as both films are nominated for Oscars (shame on the Academy for not nominating Gerwig for Best Director as "Barbie" clearly did not direct itself--and furthermore, if there are going to be 10 nominees, then I feel that the Best Director section should follow suit accordingly...but I digress...) and each film set their respective box office charts afire and then some. I did not write a review for "Oppenheimer" at that time because life, such as it is and as it was in the Summer of 2023, was fraught with too much of itself for me to  find the proper time and space to sit, ruminate and compose a posting that could represent what was a demonstrably overwhelming experience. 

That being said, I have recently watched the film for a second time and am also already finding myself returning for a third viewing and it remains as voluminous of an experience as that first time. Yet, for these subsequent screenings at home, I am able to utilize the gift of subtitles to assist me with the cavalcade of names and locations that evaded me the first time. Additionally, I regret, especially as Christopher Nolan remans one of my favorite current filmmakers and his films exist as true cinematic events, this film just might be the last time I attend a Nolan film in the movie theater as his already controversial sound mixes inspired me to wear ear plugs at the movies for the first time and even then, the film was unbearably, unpleasantly loud and therefore, more than distracting.

With that admission out of the way, I now feel free to express that out of a filmography whose artistic consistency is of an uncommonly high quality, Christopher Nolan's "Oppenheimer" has amassed what I feel is his greatest achievement to date, clearly one of 2023's best films as well as one of the top films of this current decade in cinema. It is a work that has only grown in its power with subsequent viewings as it is one that transcends mere biopic and becomes a morality play about the nature of humanity in its clash between inspiration and hubris combined with the dire warning that our own potential extinction will undoubtedly arrive at our own hands. 

Our thirst for knowledge and discovery runs up against our equal sense of self importance, self preservation, competition, avarice, exploitation, a disregard for anything beyond our own personal desires, and quest for absolute power consequences be damned all fuels Nolan's standard non-linear narrative (or dual narrative) and simultaneously tight and sprawling screenplay into a cinematic canvas that suggests an amalgamation of Milos Forman's "Amadeus" (1984), Oliver Stone's "JFK" (1993), 1970's conspiracy thrillers, most notably Francis Ford Coppola's "The Conversation" (1974) and the likes of Terrence Malick and Stanley Kubrick at their most esoteric, with the superlative aid of Cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema's visual sheen and Composer Ludvig Goransson's pulsating, urgently paranoid score. 

At the core rests Cillian Murphy in the titular role as he delivers his career best performance to date, so impressive as to how interior of a performance it actually is (he constantly made me think of a hybrid of David Bowie--the alien-esque eyes--and David Byrne--the physicality). Additionally, Robert Downey Jr. as Oppenheimer's adversary Admiral Lewis Strauss, has raised his own bar in an already impressive filmography with his career best performance to date. With Murphy, I felt that Christopher Nolan firmly placed us within a exceptional mindset that was also neither here nor there as this interpretation of the theoretical physicist was that of a restless mind speeding with such alacrity that again, consequences, whether personal or global, were never fixated upon in the present moment as he was always thinking about what could be instead of what actually is. 

After watching the film again, I believe that any confusion that I felt within that first viewing concerning the aforementioned cavalcade of names, dates, locations, etc...was purposeful due to the fever dream pacing of this hurtling three hour film as it never finds moments of rest, as we are also dealing with a figure wrestling with anxiety and mental health issues running dangerously against his incredible intelligence. There is no time to slow down, so we hang on tightly, intensity building wondering if what we are seeing and hearing is indeed actually happening as our planet teeters on its own conclusion.   

Christopher Nolan once remarked that he feels his films are building blocks towards each other and to that end, "Oppenheimer" is yet another character study of a taciturn, obsessive man yet this film, above all of the others within his oeuvre is his most Herculean.  

YOUR INHERENT BAD PERSONALITY: a review of "Shortcomings"

 

"SHORTCOMINGS"
Based upon the graphic novel Shortcomings by Adrian Tomine
Screenplay Written by Adrian Tomine

Directed by Randall Park
** (two stars)
RATED R

"The world is full of angry young men
Chip on the shoulder
An ideal in their head
The world is full of angry young men
Who think life owes them something
But you only get out what goes in..."
-"The World Is Full Of Angry Young Men"
music and lyrics by Colin Moulding
performed by XTC 

What we have right now is one of this near miss films. One that has a tremendous amount going for its success but in some ways, never quite becomes what it could potentially be. In the case of this film, its own title could not be more apt.

Director/Actor Randall Park's "Shortcomings," his directorial debut feature, is a more than amiable film, as it contains a generous spirit, a sometimes wicked sense of humor and most certainly a point of view and cultural representation that was more than refreshing to view. And still, it all seemed to be a bit anti-septic, too clean, a little pat and not as emotionally urgent as it suggested. Don't  get me wrong, "Shortcomings" is not a bad film in the least and my reaction to it is not even negative as all of the ingredients are right there in front of us. It just all felt to be a bit...underprepared, therefore making the film in its entirety unable to quite reach its peak.     

Set in present day Berkely, Randall Park's "Shortcomings" stars Justin H. Min as Ben Tagawa, a misanthropic film school dropout and aspiring filmmaker who manages a failing arthouse movie theater and lives with his girlfriend, Miko (Ally Maki), w ho herself works for an Asian American film festival. With a lack of mobility, which in turns fuels his lack of inspiration, Ben goes about his days and nights sardonically attacking any and everything he feels deserving of his scorn--which even includes aspects of his own Asian American community--and often alongside his best friend, the equally sardonic Alice (Sherry Cola).

After yet another romantic fight, Miko announces that she has accepted a three month internship in New York City, which Ben accepts. Yet, as Ben remains dismissive of Miko's choices, desires and ambitions, she soon suggests that they they take a break from each other...which leaves Ben with an opportunity to make romantic inroads with first, Autumn (Tavi Gevinson), a performance artists Ben hires to work in the theater ticket booth and later, Sasha (Debby Ryan), a grad student.

Ultimately, Ben's life remains unfulfilled and stagnant as he struggles to find his own niche and pathway to a future he fears is evading right in front of his eyes.

Certainly we are more than familiar with the young adult coming of age film which often houses the subtext of the (usually male) unhospitable cynic who arrives at some sort of awakening to either, the error of his ways, or the realization that life cannot advance if he continues in this manner. Randall Park's "Shortcomings" is precisely that film and while it is well made, intentioned and filled with a good nature, it doesn't go as  far as it conceivably could or take avenues that could help to differentiate it from other films in this subgenre. 

What Park does achieve is to create a narrative that is largely unseen, the contemporary Asian American or even more specifically, the Americanized Asian experience in the 21st century, as we have witnessed in Writer/Director Lulu Wang's beautiful "The Farewell" (2019) and Director Lee Sung Jin's rapacious television series "Beef" (2023) as well as Co- Writer/Director Domee Shi's "Turning Red" (2022), her outstanding ode to the adolescent Chinese-Canadian experience. 

"Shortcomings" takes on the stereotypes contained within a perception of Asian exceptionalism, as the film gently satirizes in its opening scenes which Park then, places us squarely into the stagnant life of Ben Tagawa. Inhospitable, clearly depressed, armed with a quickfire anger, consumed with a vague anti-Asian self hatred and a sexual preference for White women despite his relationship with Miko, and a verbal mean streak that lashes outwardly often and to the increased detriment of his dwindling social circle, Park's film always remains critical of his while always allowing us to understand his interior plight, for who among us has not felt lost at some stage in our lives and in doing so, we empathize with his existential crisis even as we, and his friends, retreat from him. 

Despite the refreshing representation perspective on what is typically viewed through a White male gaze, "Shortcomings" also feels not too far removed from any of those cinematic stories. On one hand, Randall Park is suggesting that ethnicity does not escape ennui but just as a film on its own feet, we are not seeing anything that we haven't already experienced (and exceedingly better) than in say Director Stephen Frears' seminal "High Fidelity" (2000) for instance. 

In fact, "Shortcomings" feels very much like a less profane version of Writer/Director Kevin Smith's early classics like "Clerks" (1994) or "Chasing Amy" (1997) and is very much in line with a series of films released during the 1990's (often featuring Eric Stoltz in some capacity), including Writer/ Director Noah Baumbach's "Kicking And Screaming" (1995) and "Mr. Jealousy" (1997), Director Rory Kelly's "Sleep With Me" (1994), and Director Michael Steinberg's "Bodies, Rest and Motion" (1993) yet unlike all of those films, "Shortcomings" feels a little bland, as if Park was not quite ready or willing to delve deeper into more emotionally uncomfortable waters therefore making his film exist as something more than superficial, which is a shame, as this type of story sits in my cinematic wheelhouse and would always love to gather a new angle.

As a more recent comparison,  Randall Park's "Shortcomings" is really not terribly far removed thematically from Director Alexander Payne's excellent "The Holdovers" (2023) but as I think about both of those films, I wonder if a shift in its storytelling perspective could have made a significant difference as there was one crucial element that I could not take my eyes away from: the friendship between Ben and Alice. The concept of the deep waters of a platonic friendship is not typically something that I can instantly recall as being the heart of a film, especially as movies lean into the romantic. I have long expressed that for as many films that explore falling in love or the will they/won't they dynamic, I long to see more films about staying in love or  in this case, exploring love that will not fall into a kiss but contains the same passionate and painful emotional territories.

With "Shortcomings," I actually felt that the love story of Ben and Miko was the least interesting piece of the film as the most interesting dynamic for me was between Ben and Alice, which we really do not get enough off as the film is focused upon Ben's tribulations. While Ben and Alice (as she is a lesbian), will not fall into a kiss or into bed, there is a history to their union that captivated me and made me feel that if Park shifted his lens, we could still have everything that already exists within the film but with a more poignant and potent emotional core as Ben and Alice's friendship is really the love story of the film that Ben's emotional stability hinges upon.

Just think, what if we knew more about how Ben and Alice met, and what Alice's life, hopes and foibles actually are on equal footing with Ben's? Then, we could explore the ebbs and flows, peaks and valleys of their relationship and what happens when one outgrows the other, when what was completely intertwined begins to unravel, when one begins to advance while the other remains in place, when trust  is eroded, when was was hilarious for both becomes so just for one, when love remains but is changing for no other reason than just growing up. Absolutely all of that is bubbling under the surface of "Shortcomings" but is never confronted, making for muted opportunity in making something truly memorable and greater in its emotional resonance.  

Randall Park's "Shortcomings" is a decent first feature, welcoming in its approach, briskly paced, light upon its feet and never overstays or overplays a moment. But, I just wanted more. Here's hoping that Randall Park's second feature film reaches that next bar.

KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF: a review of "The Book Of Clarence"

 

"THE BOOK OF CLARENCE"
Written, Produced and Directed by Jeymes Samuel
***1/2 (three and a half stars)
RATED PG 13

There is always something about LaKeith Stanfield that makes me feel that he is just this far over his head, out of his depth, and quite possibly, he is just not going to make it.

There is this certain vulnerability, or innocence or the combination of guile and guilessness that feels to be a natural part of his overall essence that I somehow feel protective of him, worried about him and the predicaments he finds himself engulfed in through his characters. To refresh, remember him as the philosophical stoner Darius from television's "Atlanta" (2016-2022), who finds himself trapped in a sinister mansion in the terrifying episode "Teddy Perkins." Or further still, his doomed status as a brain transplanted victim in Writer/Director Jordan Peele's "Get Out" (2017) as well as his equally ill fated status at the conclusion of Writer/Director Boots Riley's "Sorry To Bother You" (2018).

From being submerged in inner conflict as an FBI informant infiltrating the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party in Writer/Director Shaka King's "Judas and the Black Messiah" (2021) to potentially enduring a broken heart from Issa Rae in Writer/Director Stella Meghie's "The Photograph" (2020), LaKeith Stanfield's characters over and again take truly precarious risks that he may not emerge from unscathed, which makes him absolutely perfect as our conduit into the biblical satire "The Book Of Clarence" from Writer/Director/Composer Jeymes Samuel as his role as the titular Clarence runs a path adjacent to Jesus Christ himself...which should, of course, signal to you his chances for evading dire consequences. 

As for the film itself, while not sent over the top by any means, it is a film that I have not been able to shake since having seen it for it is haunting in its resonance, provocations and realizations when confronting lifelong perceptions of the Christ parable, religious teachings and the existing parallels to our present day that we may not think of. 

Opening in A.D. 33 Lower Jerusalem, Jeymes Samuel's "The Book Of Clarence," finds Clarence (LaKeith Stanfield) and best friend Elijah (RJ Cyler) losing a chariot race against Mary Magdalene (Teyana Taylor), placing them both into mortal danger with loan shark Jedediah the Terrible (Eric Kofi-Abrefa) who has vowed to kill them both in 30 days unless full debts are paid. 

Pondering his quandary, Clarence soon happens upon the idea of posing as a fake messiah to capitalize upon the growing fandom surrounding Jesus Christ (Nicholas Pinnock) and his twelve apostles, which includes Clarence's twin brother Thomas (also portrayed by Stanfield), with whom he shares a family conflict and estrangement.

To Clarence's surprise, his scheme--unlike all of his other schemes--begins to catch fire and soon, he is perceived as being precisely what he is not...which of course, draws the attention of the Romans, already in pursuit of Christ and anyone who proclaims themselves as being a messiah. To Clarence's even greater surprise, his scheme becomes the catalyst for deeper personal discovery and ascension, from being selfish to becoming selfless, from being personally driven to community bonding, to finding a greater understanding as to what divinity is and can be.

On paper, Jeymes Samuel's "The Book Of Clarence" could be regarded as a sort of spiritual successor to what is now considered to be the greatest Biblical satire, Director Terry Jones' "Monty Python's Life Of Brian" (1979). While Samuel does share a similar approach that is not too far removed from playwright Tom Stoppard's "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" (1966), what Samuel has conceived is more gently anarchistic, a slyer aesthetic that is also demonstrably sincere in its emotional stakes and core, thus grounding the proceedings with a proper pathos and social critique.

"The Book Of Clarence" possesses a streak that is playful as when Clarence gets an idea, a light bulb appears above his head and during a trip to an opium den, customers are literally floating in the air after each puff. Yet, overall, Samuel's depiction is decidedly matter of fact as he draws distinct parallels between the past and present, making for an eternal human struggle that hasn't changed terribly much in over 2000 years. The caste system and hierarchies based upon social class, race and ethnicities are in full effect as is racial profiling, Black execution at the hands of White authority leading to a power structure where the desire of those in power attempts to create an existence wholly designed to eradicate those they feel beneath themselves yet is consistently undercut by the persistence of the joy and community of Black unity.

To that end, it is through his depictions where Jeymes Samuel challenges viewer's thinking, especially as we are drowning in a time where nuance is increasingly non-existent and choices are binary. We are given a cinematic vision where Jesus Christ, all of his disciples plus the majority of the inhabitants of Lower Jerusalem are all Black people, completely clashing against the imagery of the long haired, blue eyed White Jesus, imagery which Samuel tackles in the film as well.

Clarence is the engine within this story and the conceit of the character is compelling. To have a poor Black man, one who is a bit of a scoundrel, jobless aside from drug peddling, who thieves honey wine from the Romans and who lives with his Mother (portrayed by Marianne Jean-Baptiste) instead of on his own volition as the hero in a Biblical tale might feel antithetical to some but for me, it makes the trajectory of the story carry a greater meaning...for who among us is without fault or tribulations? 

Despite Clarence's often questionable to nefarious choices, notably posing as a messiah, Samuel is wise enough to showcase how that does not suggest Clarence has a lack of character, substance or virtuousness. His feud with brother Thomas stems from the forsaking of family to leave an ailing parent to follow Christ. Clarence's devotion to his Mother, friends and community is pure. He is sweetly--and dangerously--in love with Varinia (Anna Diop), the sister of Jedediah the Terrible. Yet, most of all, Clarence is an atheist. 

The soul of Jeymes Samuel's "The Book Of Clarence" is one that challenges Clarence, as well as all of us in the audience, to think about what exactly God and divinity is or isn't, what it can or cannot be and is it something to find or to be attained or is it always elusive or does it exist at all. This makes for an experience I feel that anyone could fine value within regardless of what one's spiritual or religious beliefs happen to be. Which then takes us to the heart within the soul of the film: the concepts of "knowledge" and "belief," and how they conflict and intersect.

Now, according to the Oxford dictionary, "Knowledge" is defined as "facts, information and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject" while "Belief" is defined as "an acceptance that is statement is true or that something exists."  

This dichotomy fuels Clarence's conflict with Thomas, and with all of us regarding our individual relationships with religion and spirituality, for how can one believe when one does not know and how can one know when one hasn't experienced what really cannot be experienced? Thomas believes yet he is firm in the knowledge of his faith. Clarence, however, is absolutely certain he knows all there is to know until his odyssey truly begins with his ruse as a false messiah and what he believes is confronted, altered and changed...entirely based upon his new knowledge. 

Throughout the film, Jeymes Samuel argues that knowledge and belief are not mutually exclusive concepts but ones that are consistently aligned and therefore, symbiotic. Clarence's journey takes him upon a trajectory that runs concurrently to Jesus Christ's, even forging relationships with Barabbas the Immortal (Omar Sy), Pontius Pilate (James McAvoy), experiencing what he once thought impossible--most crucially, within himself--to climactic and tragic consequences of which we all know the story.  

In the here and now, our relationships with religion and spirituality are based upon the stories we have been told and taught, a process formulating a belief system as we were not in existence at the time of Christ (if he ever existed as some question) so we are not armed with any first hand knowledge. Our beliefs may or may not transition into knowledge or better yet, a hybrid of the two, until we each have experienced life and the living experience. Clarence's journey is our own in that regard and with that in mind, God and divinity, Samuel seems to be extolling does indeed exist because we are all here in this world together...for it is within our sense of humanity that we attempt to understand what existence is  within our respective places in the universe.

LaKeith Stanfield meets every moment within "The Book Of Clarence" with an unforced, naturally magnetic presence that we are willing to follow him anywhere he travels no matter how ridiculous, romantic, wrenching, miraculous and impossible his experiences are and become. And again, I felt protective of him as the story was barreling towards an obvious conclusion.  

Clarence's final moments on screen, as conveyed through LaKeith Stanfield's emotive, honest performance, are a wonder. Stanfield again shows all of us that he has been through it, he has seen, he has experienced and through his sympathetic, haunted eyes and the emotionally altered breaths he elicits...

...we believe.