ReportWire

Tag: Kirsten Dunst

  • It Was Champagne and Cigarettes at Armani’s Star-Studded Academy Museum Gala After-Party

    On Saturday night, a crowd gathered outside the Chateau Marmont. It wasn’t to get in—there was an unsaid understanding between those on the Marmont Lane sidewalk that the Chateau, already known as one of the hardest doors in Hollywood, was firmly closed tonight. The only way for it to open? If you were on a list carefully, cutthroating-ly curated by Giorgio Armani. Instead, the crowd was there to watch who did.

    Their dedication to people-watching paid off. SUV after SUV pulled up, dropping off names more glamorous than the next: Zoë Kravitz, Charli XCX, Olivia Rodrigo, Demi Moore. “Turn around for the camera, gorgeous!” A paparazzo shouted at Laura Harrier, who acquiesced after several more shouted similar sentiments. “Yes, love you Laura!” A fan added from a distance.

    She was heading inside to a party thrown by the Italian house for their Armani/Archivo initiative, an ambitious project that aims to create a publicly-accessible digital archive of the designs of the late and legendary founder of the house, Giorgio Armani. It was an event that would have attracted a starry crowd regardless—Armani, a brand known for their glamorous eveningwear, has long been a red carpet favorite for celebrities from Cate Blanchett, to Elle Fanning, to Selena Gomez. Yet tonight was also the Academy Award Museum Gala. With Armani’s late start time at 10 p.m, word quickly spread through the Academy crowd that the Chateau Marmont would be the unofficial after party.

    Olivia Rodrigo.

    Courtesy of Giorgio Armani

    Elise Taylor

    Source link

  • How the Real-Life ‘Roofman’ Charmed a Small-Town Churchgoer: “He Was Just So Polite”

    While hiding out in the Toys “R” Us, Manchester met Moore while visiting a nearby church. He started attending regularly, and before long, Moore found herself falling for the charming, intelligent thief. “I thought he was very handsome, and he always dressed well, and he smelled well,” says Moore. “He was just so polite, and you don’t see that every day. So it was very refreshing to see such a nice young gentleman coming into church.”

    Though Tatum and Dunst skillfully capture the pair’s chemistry onscreen, Moore says their actual courtship lasted a little longer than it’s depicted in the movie. The most notable change, though, is that Dunst’s character works at the Toys ”R” Us where Tatum’s character is hiding; in real life, Moore never worked at the toy store.

    While Moore counted herself as a fan of Dunst’s before production began, she didn’t meet the actor until Roofman was shooting. Her family and friends who have seen the film are impressed with Dunst’s work, as is Moore: “Kirsten did a phenomenal job portraying that sweet, honest, charming young lady who is just trying to raise her kids and pay the bills,” she says. “I have not had one negative feedback. They’re all truly touched.”

    Moore wound up visiting the set several times and has a cameo in the film, briefly appearing as a crossing guard. Many of the film’s young background actors were excited to meet her once they realized who she was: “They got all giddy and had me take photos with them,” she says.

    For Moore, the toughest scene in Roofman comes toward the end, when Leigh discovers who Jeffrey is—and helps the police apprehend him. That part, too, is true to life. Just like in the film, she was sitting in a nearby police car when Manchester was apprehended for a second time, and could hear his arrest unfolding over the police radio. “That was truly the hardest part, because I wasn’t going to get to see him again,” she says. “That was pretty rough. Every time that happened in the movie, it made me cry.”

    Rebecca Ford

    Source link

  • Roofman Post-Credits Scene Reveals What Follows Its Ending

    Fans are excited about the new Channing Tatum and Kirsten Dunst movie, Roofman, and many are curious if it has a post-credits or mid-credits scene. The big question is: should you stay after the film ends?

    The answer is yes. Roofman shows a mid-credits scene that fans don’t want to miss. It gives extra details about the real-life story behind the movie and helps the fans understand the events better.

    Does Roofman have a mid, end, or post-credits scene? What is shown during Roofman’s credits?

    Derek Cianfrance’s Roofman has a mid-credits scene after the movie ends, so fans should definitely stick around to watch it. This gives them more background on the real events that inspired the story.

    The mid-credits scene shows pictures of the real Jeffrey Manchester, Leigh Wainscott, and others from the movie. It also shows clips about the McDonald’s robberies. The scene also features short interviews with people who interacted with Manchester, including McDonald’s employees, the prison truck driver, the church pastor, and Leigh.

    The movie follows Jeffrey Manchester (Channing Tatum), a single dad who robs McDonald’s through their roofs, earning the nickname “Roofman.” After escaping prison, he hides in a Toys ‘R’ Us for six months while planning his next move.

    Things change when he falls for Leigh Wainscott (Kirsten Dunst), a Toys ‘R’ Us employee and divorced mom drawn to his charm. Manchester’s secret life starts to fall apart, leading to a tense and exciting struggle with his past coming to haunt him.

    It has already earned praise from critics, especially for the chemistry between Tatum and Dunst. Derek Cianfrance directed the movie and co-wrote the screenplay with Kirt Gunn. The cast also includes Ben Mendelsohn, LaKeith Stanfield, Juno Temple, Melonie Diaz, Uzo Aduba, Lily Collias, Jimmy O. Yang, and Peter Dinklage.

    Channing Tatum stars in the movie and works as an executive producer alongside Cianfrance.

    Ojas Kulkarni

    Source link

  • ‘Roofman’ review: Channing Tatum is charming in the hilarious true story | The Mary Sue

    Never did I think that the lone Toys R Us by the Pineville Mall would get its time to shine but thanks to Roofman, my beloved Charlotte was displayed in all its glory. The Derek Cianfrance film tells the true story of Jeffrey Manchester, a thief known as the “Roofman.”

    Jeffrey (Channing Tatum) is a former Army Reserve soldier who was suspected of stealing from McDonald’s in the surrounding Charlotte, North Carolina area. In Cianfrance’s film, we get to see the kind of family man Manchester is. He starts to steal because he wants to make a better life for his daughter and sons but makes bad decisions to get there.

    He’s a deeply flawed man who doesn’t really understand that his family not wanting to talk to him is warranted but it makes Tatum’s take on the man so much more interesting. He is, at his core, a man who just wanted a better life for his wife and kids. Yes, he went about it in the wrong way, but it is the kind of movie that really tugs at your heart strings when it comes to compassion and understanding.

    The use of humor in Cianfrance’s script, which he co-wrote with Kirt Gunn, lulls the audience into a “cutesy” little feeling as Jeffrey hides away in a Toys R Us to keep himself safe from the police. But there, he meets Leigh (Kirsten Dunst) and all his caution goes out the wind.

    A story of compassion, love, and bad decisions

    two people standing by a car
    (Paramount Pictures)

    Maybe my love of this movie comes from a mix of going to school in the Carolinas and living in Charlotte or maybe I have a deeper understanding of men trying but I do love it. My own father always thought of these half-baked ideas to make things easier for our family and he was never right, much like Jeff. Which is why I think I found myself moved by Jeff’s attempts to still be a great guy.

    And even with the true story element to this movie, we still have moments that shock us. Like the reveal at the end of what Jeff continued to do behind bars and Cianfrance and Gunn’s work make the 2 hour run time fly by as we’re learning who Jeffrey Manchester really is.

    What makes Roofman special is that it doesn’t pretend like Manchester’s crimes are nothing to worry about. Those trying to track him down are not villains, he’s not some hero. But we do see why he was forced into that possession. It’s an interesting balance between understanding why someone does the things they do and knowing that you might not do the same but you can understand their motivations.

    Tatum’s work as Jeffrey is a perfect character study and one made that much better with the scenes between Leigh and Jeff. These two people just want a fresh start and while a lot of it is based around Jeff’s lies, it is still a beautiful story about resilience and how long someone can sustain living behind the bike rack.

    Roofman is in theaters on October 17.

    (featured image: Paramount Pictures)

    Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

    Image of Rachel Leishman

    Rachel Leishman

    Assistant Editor

    Rachel Leishman (She/Her) is an Assistant Editor at the Mary Sue. She’s been a writer professionally since 2016 but was always obsessed with movies and television and writing about them growing up. A lover of Spider-Man and Wanda Maximoff’s biggest defender, she has interests in all things nerdy and a cat named Benjamin Wyatt the cat. If you want to talk classic rock music or all things Harrison Ford, she’s your girl but her interests span far and wide. Yes, she knows she looks like Florence Pugh. She has multiple podcasts, normally has opinions on any bit of pop culture, and can tell you can actors entire filmography off the top of her head. Her current obsession is Glen Powell’s dog, Brisket.

    Her work at the Mary Sue often includes Star Wars, Marvel, DC, movie reviews, and interviews.

    Rachel Leishman

    Source link

  • Channing Tatum and Kirsten Dunst on Falling in Love and the One that Got Away

    How well did the two of you know each other before this?

    Dunst: Not at all.

    Tatum: She doesn’t remember it, but I had met her at a screening at a producer’s house the one time, and that was for three seconds. That was it. It was Melancholia or something, and we had a conversation.

    Dunst: We didn’t have a conversation! You said three seconds!

    What did you learn from your real-life counterparts that surprised you?

    Tatum: The biggest surprise for me with Jeff was just how unbelievably warm he was. He was warm and charismatic. I have friends that have been in jail and convicts, and you go in and there’s this heaviness and the sadness. I felt very little of that on the phone. He just felt so optimistic—he didn’t feel like he’s been in jail for years and years and years. That takes a mind that is so strong. And he has so many dreams. He has so many wants for himself still. He took care of me on the phone, in a way, rather than me trying to give him something from the outside.

    Dunst: I was surprised that there was zero resentment, but that was how she felt: “I fell in love. He took us on this journey and I’m grateful for it.” And I think there’s so much grace.

    Tatum: You could feel that if Jeff hadn’t messed up, she would’ve loved him. She still loves him.

    Dunst: It’s still there. You can’t erase that. Also she’s a very Christian woman, and there’s a lot of grace in that.

    How are your acting styles the same?

    Dunst: What you want is honesty, being open, trust. I don’t like when people want to talk about things for a very long time. I’m like, “let’s just do it.” And he’s the same. And we know when it’s not feeling right instinctually, and what we can try. So we are quick communicators.

    Tatum: We just met each other really quickly. Wherever the person wants to go, you just try.

    Dunst: And if I was like, “why isn’t this working?” You just give each other what they need. And honestly, because we didn’t have a lot of time, there has to be so much infused into these scenes. Sometimes I would say totally different things to Channing than in the scene—not to manipulate or get a reaction, but to just to shake it up, and also just get different feelings. Derek is interested in the minutiae of humans, that blink or that little crook of the lips. He wants human beings – not acting.

    Tatum: Because making a movie is so artificial, obviously, but you’re trying to make it feel like real life. Something like feeding your kids and making them go to bed can look like so many different things, depending on the character you’re playing. And what’s exciting about Derek he’ll be like, “now try it like this.”

    Rebecca Ford

    Source link

  • Danny Elfman’s Spider-Man 2 Score Is Finally on Vinyl

    Danny Elfman’s Spider-Man 2 Score Is Finally on Vinyl

    Image: Sony Music Soundtracks

    The golden age of superhero movies led by Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man films was like no other, the webbing on which every Marvel movie that followed bounced into the stratosphere off of. They gave us Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker with Kirsten Dunst as MJ, facing off with nefarious foes like the Green Goblin (Willem Dafoe) and Doc Ock (Alfred Molina)—and were the blueprint to the blockbuster summers that have dominated over the last couple decades.

    To celebrate the 20th anniversary of what some consider the greatest Spidey film—Spider-Man 2—Danny Elfman’s iconic score will finally be released in vinyl record form for collectors out there. The immaculate themes are legendary and still inspire. I was at Danny Elfman’s Coachella set where he performed Spider-Man themes from the first two Raimi films and I ascended. A live orchestra in the desert calling to all the film nerds in attendance was wild but a real moment that happened.

    You’ll be able to own the vinyl though Sony Music Soundtracks which will be taking pre-orders starting at midnight ET tonight, with details teased on its X and Instagram platforms.

    Danny Elfman’s Spider-Man 2 score is a must for any cinephile audio collector; I’m excited to add it to my own physical media library. For more information visit Sony Music Soundtracks on X or Instagram.


    Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.

    Sabina Graves

    Source link

  • Civil War’s Overarching Message Isn’t Political, Or: One Must Do What They Can to “Pass the Baton,” Even in Apocalyptic Times

    Civil War’s Overarching Message Isn’t Political, Or: One Must Do What They Can to “Pass the Baton,” Even in Apocalyptic Times

    Sadly, it’s not really a stretch to imagine the United States finding itself in a second Civil War. Perhaps this is why writer-director Alex Garland doesn’t get too specific on the details of “why” (racial tensions, political divisions, an unhinged president—take your pick from a gamut of ever-brewing causes). In fact, Garland in general is not a “details guy,” preferring instead to focus on the “big ideas” of what he’s saying. And what he’s saying here isn’t necessarily related to being a “cautionary tale” (in truth, he appears to view another civil war in the U.S. as a mere inevitability), so much as the need for “elder generations” to do whatever they can to ensure the success of the younger ones, no matter how fucked and ostensibly beyond repair the world might be. 

    Garland’s (or A24’s) decision to release the film months before what is likely to be an extremely fraught and polarizing election is surely not a coincidence. The Trumpian president (played by Nick Offerman, always happy to seem Republican), after all, ends up invoking this Civil War after, from the errant bits of dialogue that allude to it, taking an illegal third term, dissolving the FBI and banning the press from Washington, D.C. It is through the lens (no camera pun intended) of the press, as a matter of fact, that viewers are made to see this war unfold and reach its denouement.

    At the center of the “war photojournalism plot” is Lee Smith (Kirsten Dunst), a wizened, ultra-jaded war photographer that’s been traveling the country with her colleague, Joel (Wagner Moura), to cover the calamity. At the outset of the film, the two are in New York City, where Lee initially encounters the twenty-something woman she’ll end up grudgingly (at first) mentoring. Jessie Cullen (Cailee Spaeny, continuing to come up in the world since starring in Priscilla) approaches Lee in Brooklyn (a milieu that’s no stranger to the carnage of Civil War fighting) to gush about being a fan of her work.

    In this moment, one gets an All About Eve vibe from the narrative (especially when Jessie takes a picture of Lee taking a picture), and it could have gone in that direction many times were it not for Lee’s open embracement of Jessie’s aspiration to become the next great war photographer (just like another Lee with the last name of Miller, who, yes, also comes up in conversation). Rather than resenting or feeling competitive with this young talent, Lee does what she can to “subtly” direct and advise Jessie—not just on her style, but the unique and often soul-crushing demands of this job. 

    Before this dynamic forms, however, Lee does her best to avoid Jessie’s hopeful gaze and eagerness to learn. Alas, that plan goes to shit when her protective instincts kick into high gear upon seeing Jessie get caught in the melée just before a suicide bomber detonates himself in the crowd, sending bodies flying everywhere. Ducking down with Jessie behind a police car, Lee has it effectively confirmed for her that this girl is way too naive for the war photography game, therefore way too much of a liability (and not just an emotional one). And yet, as Joel and Lee’s mentor, Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson), point out, the only way to become a war photographer is to just get out there and do it—glean the brutal, sobering experience that will help shape you into one of “the greats.” Besides, Sammy adds, Lee was about the same age when she started out, too. 

    So it is that Jessie maneuvers and, let’s face it, manipulates her way into their dangerous expedition once Lee is “out of frame,” appealing to a drunk Joel in the hotel that she tracks them to (stalker much?). Sammy also wormed his way into the journey, but he has the pedigree and seniority to make such a request. Even though he knows that, at his age and level of decrepitude, he could be just as much of a liability as the novice. As for Lee and Joel’s “mission” with regard to venturing into the highly dangerous D.C., their dogged purpose is to snap the last photo of the president before Western Forces overtake the White House and invariably pop the “commander-in-chief” off. 

    That the Western Forces are comprised of California and Texas seems a bit odd, as does the fact that the “Florida Alliance” is on California’s side. Mainly because, in a scenario where a Trumpian president takes dictatorial control, it would be unlikely—fascist president or not—that the ultimate red states of Texas and Florida might 1) want to secede from the Union and 2) join forces with a “pinko” state like California. Even so, American viewers can overlook such a discrepancy (as is usually the case when British writer-directors give their perspective on the U.S. [see: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri]) if forgiving enough.

    However, Garland insisted the choice was “intentional” and done ​​“partly to get around a kind of reflexive, polarizing position that people might fall into, that’s one thing, but actually that’s not the main thing. The main thing is to do with how the president is presented and what can be inferred from that. Then it’s saying that two states that have a different political position have said, ‘Our political difference is less important than this.’” Garland added, “And then the counter to that is if you cannot conceive of that, what you’re saying is that your polarized political position would be more important than a fascist president. Which, when you put it like that, I would suggest, is insane. That’s an insane position to hold.” Clearly, then, Garland is vastly underestimating the insanity of Americans. 

    In any case, just as American viewers can get over this hard-to-fathom alliance, Lee can forgive Jessie her shortcomings in favor of seeing her potential as they spend more time together. Even though she mocks the “demographic” of the backseat of their Press SUV for being on the polar opposite spectrums of “retirement home” and “kindergarten,” Lee slowly loosens up just enough to allow something to happen that she never does: becoming emotionally involved (in truth, the secret to her success is avoiding that at all costs).

    This “cardinal rule” of being a war photojournalist is, to be sure, what Jessie learns better than anyone by the end of the film. An ending that is foreshadowed by Jessie asking Lee if she would simply take her picture if she saw her being killed. Lee responds, “What do you think?” This exchange occurs in front of a crashed helicopter decaying in the parking lot of a post-apocalyptic J. C. Penney. In point of fact, one of the most horrifying things about Civil War is seeing that the “ruins” of America amount to nothing more than depressing malls, office space and gas stations (in other words: what the hell are these people actually fighting for?). That’s the so-called American legacy. Granted, the U.S. has produced some worthwhile entities. Like the American institution that is Madonna. Who once said of her 2003 MTV VMAs performance with Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera that she was effectively “passing the baton” to the next generation of pop princesses with those “controversial” kisses (even though few people remember the one she shared with Xtina). 

    What one can’t help but take issue with when it comes to how that metaphorical phrase is thematically wielded in Civil War (namely, with its conclusion) is that it presumes “old” people have to step out of the way after the baton is passed because they’ve now done all they can. It’s someone else’s turn to try. However, if Madonna has shown us anything after 2003, it’s that the “aged” still often dance circles around the fearful and complacent young (who occasionally stumble into “right place, right time” circumstances like Jessie). And that a “mentor type” can coexist peacefully enough with the subsequent wave of youth (just look at Lana Del Rey and Billie Eilish) without needing to “stand back” or dim their own light.

    In this regard, Civil War averts the All About Eve relationship between mentor and mentee in that the Margo (Bette Davis) of the equation—Lee—isn’t painted as being “averse” to supporting new talent by continuing to try to “eclipse” them. Then again, some “old” talent can’t avoid being naturally eclipsing, can they (e.g., Dunst’s performance being far more praised than Spaeny’s)? Even after making a big production about “passing the baton.”

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Sorry Oppie – ‘Civil War’ is the Movie That Made Me Believe in IMAX

    Sorry Oppie – ‘Civil War’ is the Movie That Made Me Believe in IMAX

    Imagine a film about war. Then, imagine a film about journalists. Somehow, Ex Machina’s Alex Garland fashioned one of the most compelling stories of the year by marrying these unlikely premises. Even more unlikely? He convinced A24 to make an action film. Don’t worry, this is not a souped-up Marvel movie. It’s exactly what you’d expect from our favorite indie studio’s first venture into the action genre: subversive, thrilling, and intrepid.


    After wowing audiences with films like
    Ex Machina and 28 Days Later, it’s no surprise that director Alex Garland’s latest dystopian effort is unsettling and awe-inspiring. The highly anticipated film is already rated 93% on Rotten Tomatoes after premiering at SXSW 2024.

    At a SXSW panel, Garland gave some insights into what it means to make a movie about the dystopian future that feels so close to being real. While movies like
    Contagion and Garland’s own 28 Days Later felt prescient at the height of the pandemic, no one could have predicted that. But Civil War feels like a nightmare we’ve all been having for the past decade. It’s comforting, in a way, to know others are experiencing this nightmare too. But it’s dread-inducing to see it play out on screen and think: this is us. This will be us. Soon.

    And that’s precisely the state of anxiety Garland wants us in.

    “Cinema is inclined towards whatever it’s presenting itself, and it’s inclined to not being anti-war,” Garland told the panel at SXSW. “To accurately present the action, it contains adrenaline. And if you add music to that, and you add a certain kind of imagery to that, essentially, it becomes seductive.”

    Garland didn’t want to make a sexy war movie. He didn’t want to give us an easy watch.

    His solution: making it as disorienting as possible. Unexpected musical moments, atrociously violent cuts of brutality, and gore abound.

    “That De La Soul track [that plays during a pivotal scene] had a particular function which was to be jarring and aggressive and speak somehow to the perverse pleasure in what was happening,” Garland explained.

    From the score to the cinematography, Garland has managed to make a war movie that does not, in any way, glamorize war. To do that, he had to keep the audience anxious and tense The product: the most stressful watching experience I’ve ever endured. But my god, it was worth it.

    What is Civil War (2023) about?

    @moviesaretherapy Civil War review #fyp #foryou #movies ♬ original sound – Kit Lazer

    Civil War is set in a not-too-distant future when California and Texas have seceded, and the ensuing civil war has caused chaos across the United States. A team of war photographers and journalists make a dangerous journey to Washington DC with the goal of interviewing the President before American democracy falls.

    It stars Kirsten Dunst in a career-best performance as jaded photojournalist Lee, alongside Wagner Moura, Cailee Spaeny, Stephen McKinley Henderson, Nick Offerman, and Jesse Plemons.

    It’s a war movie. An action movie. A morbid road trip movie. But above all, it’s a nuanced ode to journalists. “I wanted to make journalists the hero,” said Garland. “In any kind of free country or, let’s say, democracy, journalists are not a luxury, they’re a necessity. They are absolutely as important as the judiciary, the executive, or the legislature, and they are literally as important as a free press that is respected and trusted. Now, journalists have done some of the work to be distrusted themselves. But a lot of other interested parties have been complicit in making them untrusted. And I think it’s unhealthy. And I think it’s wrong. So I wanted to put journalism at the heart of it.”

    Though the characters are complex and flawed, we spend enough time with them in a van to cause us to not just love them, but respect them. We believe in them. We believe in their work. If the film’s action doesn’t manage to seduce us, we are seduced by the characters’ prevailing idealism in such dire times.

    It’s prescient, too, to be celebrating war journalists — people with nothing to protect them but cameras and press vests — in the current global climate. Garland could not have anticipated
    Civil War would be released at a time when many of us are quite familiar with the names of press journalists across the world — Motaz, Bisan, Plestia. Outfitted with far less ego and equipment than the journalists in this film, the reality of journalists in Palestine is impossible not to recall while watching Civil War. It adds another thread of reality to the film that makes it all the more effective.

    Is Civil War (2023) good?

    Civil War pulls off Garland’s intended feat of creating an unequivocally anti-war war movie. But it’s by no means flat or didactic. The tapestry of scenes the characters encounter keeps the film moving. With each stop they make and each new character we meet, we learn something new about this world — and about ourselves.

    This is perhaps the most impressive accomplishment of Civil War. It tells us about ourselves.

    Garland shows us ourselves in the characters, in the polarized nation, and in the scenes of atrocity, the film never shies away from. “The first season of
    The Handmaid’s Tale did something very interesting, which was it had bits of imagery that would seem shocking. But as you’re watching them, you realize there was a real-world allegory or parallel. We basically did the same thing,” revealed Garland.

    “The scenes are referencing moments from the real world. But not, it’s important to say, exceptional moments. Moments that you would expect in any war. And in a way, that’s part of the point. I think it was necessary to do that if one is going to be anti-war. Some of the sanitizing might pollute the message.”

    The film is also tremendously evocative emotionally because it is so immersive. The film offers the audience the chance to feel like it’s
    behind the camera by following the photographers and revealing the shots the characters “take” during the film. And to get the shot, we go with them into the line of fire.

    This is where I make my plea: you must watch
    Civil War in IMAX. Wrapped in the giant screen and surrounded by the full power of a fantastic soundtrack, this was the most immersive watching experience of my life — even more than any 3D film I’ve ever seen or Oppenheimer … sorry, Christopher Nolan. As if we needed the movie to feel more real, IMAX puts you right in the thick of it.

    Ultimately,
    Civil War isn’t really a warning — it doesn’t make political moralizations. But it’s a call to action. Or a call to remembering. It urges us to appreciate, above all, perspective and truth.

    Civil War has its wide release on April 12, 2024. Prepare your nerves. Watch the trailer here:

    LKC

    Source link

  • Alex Garland’s ‘Civil War’ shows us a violent, fractured America — but despite the verisimilitude, needs more specifics

    Alex Garland’s ‘Civil War’ shows us a violent, fractured America — but despite the verisimilitude, needs more specifics

    Reflecting the division in the country whose internecine conflict it vividly depicts, Alex Garland’s Civil War splits unevenly in two, alternating brutally effective and disturbing sequences of violence with caesuras of conversation and uneasy respite. The former, with their amped-up urgency and ratcheting suspense, display an impressive filmmaking mastery, but the latter strive for a level of sociocultural insight that they regrettably never quite reach.

    Garland deliberately withholds the backstory that would explain how a near-future U.S. descends into warring factions, and he provides only the barest hint of what’s transpiring in most of the country. We’re briskly informed that the Western Forces — an eyebrow-raising union between Texas and California — are making a final push toward Washington, D.C., with the federal government in imminent danger of collapse. Civil War implies that multiple groups (with perhaps opposing goals) are actually engaged in battle — a Florida Alliance is referenced, and armed, uniformed soldiers with unspecified affiliations and unknown intent periodically appear — but, again, Garland refuses to clarify, preferring to keep his audience lost in the fog of war.

    Civil War unfolds over a few wildly eventful days, following a quartet of journalists as they set off from New York on a circuitous road trip to reach the capital before it falls. Writer Joel (Wagner Moura) and storied war photographer Lee (Kirsten Dunst), a reporting team from Reuters, are in pursuit of an interview with the president (Nick Offerman) — an ambition that seems, given the rapidly deteriorating situation and the administration’s enemy-of-the-people attitude toward the press, both impractical and suicidal. Joining the pair on the journey are aging New York Times reporter Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson) and aspiring freelance photojournalist Jessie (Cailee Spaeny), who provide, in somewhat pat fashion, the contrasting perspectives of the skeptical veteran and the wide-eyed naif.

    As noted, Garland and cinematographer Rob Hardy — a longtime and essential collaborator — stage Civil War’s action sequences with stunning brio and verisimilitude, uncomfortably immersing us in chaos. The film features two adrenalizing battles in which the journalists embed with attacking troops. One is the climactic assault on the White House, but Civil War’s undeniable centerpiece is an agonizingly protracted confrontation with soldiers dumping a truckload of bodies into a mass grave. Shortly after the journalists encounter a pair of colleagues on the road, Jessie and one of the new arrivals are taken captive and threatened by this squad of apparent malefactors, and Lee and Joel attempt to negotiate their rescue.

    Joel makes what seems an eminently reasonable argument: “There’s some kind of misunderstanding here. We’re American.” But the coolly menacing soldier who interrogates them (an extraordinary but unbilled Jesse Plemons) remains unmoved and even amused. Balefully gazing at the journalists from behind disconcerting red sunglasses, he pointedly asks: “OK, what kind of American are you?” The reply to that maddeningly opaque, ultimately unanswerable question will determine life or death. It’s a scene that boils the film’s admonitory theme down to its essence: If we continue to turn up the heat to eliminate impurities, everything will evaporate, leaving nothing but the scorched-black bottom of a no longer usable melting pot.

    Garland has said that he intends Civil War as a companion piece to Men (2022), which offers a critique of toxic masculinity and the ways in which one bad man births another (quite literally, in the film’s fantastical body-horror conclusion). Civil War is less abstract and metaphorically inclined than Men, but in its lack of grounding particulars, the movie wants to offer the same kind of universal message rather than limit its applicable lessons to the United States. Although I understand the impulse — our country is clearly not alone in sorting its occupants into us and them (red state and blue state, rural and urban, Black and white, patriot and traitor, immigrant and native-born, and on and on) — the sketchy nature of its world-building muddies interpretation. Most problematically, Civil War suggests that the president is a Trumpian autocrat — for example, it’s mentioned almost in passing that he’s serving a third term, which would indicate a defiance of the 22nd Amendment. Is the insurrection therefore an effort to restore democracy? If so, that would seriously complicate our attitude toward the rebels.

    As much as I appreciate the film’s heroicizing of journalists — the media can certainly use the positive press! — Civil War also provides an oddly conflicted and almost cartoonish view of the profession. Lee laments that her celebrated combat-zone photography, which she hoped would harshly illuminate war’s devastating effects, had no persuasive impact on the current conflict. She appears weary, utterly defeated. What then is her purpose now? Is there value in her pictures beyond the aesthetic? Especially ludicrous is Lee and Joel’s pursuit of a presidential interview. Beyond the implausibility of securing an audience, what possible news do they think will result? And what would prompt a newbie photojournalist like Jessie to shoot on film rather than digitally in the midst of conflict? She would need a substantial supply of expensive, difficult-to-obtain film stock, and changing rolls under fire and on the run would seem a pointlessly high hurdle for a novice.

    These complaints, however, don’t diminish Civil War’s legitimate ability to provoke. Garland says that he wants the film to prompt conversation, and by not making explicit what either side of the conflict represents, he perhaps allows for at least a tentative reach across the yawning divide. But even if we stay warily siloed in our respective bunkers, Civil War’s grim vision of a riven America provides a sobering look-what-can-happen warning. Sadly, like Lee’s photos, Garland’s film will no doubt prove ineffectual despite its considerable power. We’ll know as early as November.

    Cliff Froehlich

    Source link

  • Civil War Is a Powerful Alt-Reality War Movie That’s Not What It Seems

    Civil War Is a Powerful Alt-Reality War Movie That’s Not What It Seems

    The trailers for Civil War, the latest film by Alex Garland, give the audience a very specific expectation of what they’re going to see. It looks like a film about a United States that is so divided politically, certain states have seceded and the country is at war. A scenario that’s, clearly, a fictionalized nightmare version of our present, where America’s Left and Right have turned to violence. And, in a way, Civil War is that. But it’s also not and that’s why it’s so damned fascinating and special.

    Written and directed by Garland (Ex Machina, Annihilation), Civil War is, indeed, about a United States that’s no longer united. A United States at war with itself, hence the title. But one of the main combatants in this war is the Western Forces, a group comprised of California and Texas. Now, everyone knows California and Texas are maybe the two most polar opposite states in our current political climate. So that’s the first clue Civil War isn’t a by-the-book, pro-left, anti-right Hollywood tale. It has an agenda, for sure, and that agenda is certainly more inclusive than not, but Garland very specifically makes it clear that his America is not our America. Thereby, no matter who is watching the movie or what they believe, they can very easily enjoy the story without bias.

    In other words, the movie is as objective as possible which, not coincidentally, is also the primary ideology of the film’s main characters: a group of journalists. Kirsten Dunst plays Lee, a famous war photographer traveling the country with a fellow journalist named Joel, played by Wagner Moura. After documenting a terrifying, but all too common, act of violence in New York, Lee and Joel decide to take a trip to Washington D.C. to attempt to interview the president, played by Nick Offerman. Colleague Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson) thinks it’s a bad idea, but goes along for the ride anyway, and they also pick up Jessie (Cailee Spaeny), an aspiring photographer who sees Lee as a hero and mentor.

    Spaney and Moura.
    Image: A24

    And so the four journalists leave New York for D.C, which is usually an uneventful four or five-hour drive. In this world though, with everything happening across the country, it becomes a much longer, more arduous trip. Certain roads are blocked off. Other areas are not safe. And soon, the group realizes no matter which way they go, there is danger and terror at every turn.

    Civil War is Alex Garland’s most mature movie to date. As he sets his characters off on this road trip, you can almost feel him not pushing the agenda one way or the other. An energy permeates the film, as if Garland wants to say something but is shaking and buzzing to hold it back. Much as the journalist heroes continue to preach objectivity and the importance of reporting the facts, no matter the circumstance, Garland too unfurls his narrative accordingly. Lee, Joel, and the crew approach each situation the same way: from a place of care and kindness. Sometimes that works, other times it doesn’t. Often, the most dangerous things we see aren’t in the center of the frame. A burning building here. A pile of bodies there. And while Joel and Lee’s distaste for the president certainly codes them as sympathetic to the WF, the film never really says what the WF stands for. We’re left to wonder, is it more Texas? Or more California?

    That the film avoids ever defining the root of the conflict is one of the best things about the movie. Contrarily, one of the worst things is as the characters make the trek from New York to D.C. things can get a little repetitive. They drive, encounter an obstacle, learn something, and move on. Then they drive, encounter an obstacle, learn something, and move on again. The pattern repeats itself a few times and while each of those obstacles unfolds in a different, usually surprising way, some of the film’s momentum does falter following this structure.

    Dunst and Spaeny.

    Dunst and Spaeny.
    Image: A24

    Where Civil War doesn’t falter is portraying intensity. Whenever the heroes encounter one of those obstacles, be it a booby-trapped gas station, hidden sniper, or a pink-sunglassed Jesse Plemons, the film’s tension always gets turned to 11. We are rarely sure what’s going to happen, and who is going to survive, primarily because of that objectivity. No one is treated like a hero or villain at the start. That changes scene to scene, of course, but the film, like the journalists, gives everyone an equal shot, which can be scary.

    That can also make you question yourself, your biases, and more. Civil War is a film that challenges its audience to put themselves in the shoes of not just the main characters, but everyone. Partially that’s because everything in the movie seems so plausible that we see ourselves, our friends, and our neighbors in it. But it’s also because the performances are all so strong across the board that it’s easy to relate.

    It feels like it’s been forever since we’ve seen Kirsten Dunst in a big, showy, starring role like this and watching Civil War, you have no idea why. Dunst gives a nuanced, powerful performance as Lee, a veteran so confident in herself that she’s almost carefree. That is until she meets Jessie. In Jessie, Lee sees a younger version of herself and it terrifies her. Lee knows Jessie, portrayed with lots of raw emotions by Spaeny, is dooming herself to danger. Choosing this life is probably the wrong thing for her. And so what should be a simple, mentor-mentee relationship is always strained. Lee sees too much of herself in Jessie, and Jessie doesn’t care.

    Just another day.

    Just another day.
    Image: A24

    Their complex relationship, as well as the gravitas provided by Moura’s Joel and McKinley Henderson’s Sammy, come to a head in the film’s final act, which sees the team finally make it to Washington. Garland then unfurls a guttural, shocking, ground-level war in the heart of the nation’s capital, featuring views of national monuments and more that feel akin to 1996’s Independence Day. What happens in these scenes I won’t spoil, but it all builds to a final few minutes destined to be discussed and quoted for as long as movies exist. It’s that fantastic.

    Ultimately, Civil War is a Rorschach test designed for maximum impact across political ideologies. You can watch it and view it however you’d like. Is not taking a side a bit of a cop-out? Should there have been a bit more of the story leaning left or right? I’d argue the fact it doesn’t have that is the authorship. Garland isn’t necessarily interested in changing anyone’s mind about anything. He wants any and everyone to consider themselves and what those differences could end up becoming. And hey, if playing it down the middle helps more people see it, that’s just a bonus.

    Civil War is in theaters Friday.

    Why Alex Garland Loves Science Fiction

    Why Alex Garland Loves Science Fiction

    Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.

    Germain Lussier

    Source link

  • See How Alex Garland’s Civil War Divides the United States

    See How Alex Garland’s Civil War Divides the United States

    Alex Garland’s Civil War isn’t shy about its premise. It’s right there in the title. It’s about a United States of America that’s no longer united, with various sections engaged in a civil war. But while many would assume it’s some kind of easy-to-understand red state, blue state thing, A24 has released an image that shows it’s anything but.

    Civil War is scheduled for release April 12. In it, Kirsten Dunst and Wagner Moura play journalists attempting to travel from New York to Washington, D.C. Along the way, they pick up a young, aspiring photo journalist played by Cailee Spaeny who is about to get a baptism of fire traveling through the country.

    But what does the country these characters exist in look like? Over on social media, A24 released the below image to show exactly where the divisions are in the nation and, as you’ll see, there’s a lot to discuss.

    The (not so) United States of Civil War.
    Image: A24

    A few things jump out here. The first, of course, are the “Western Forces,” which include exactly one Western state—California—along with Texas. In reality, few states are as fundamentally different as California and Texas, but therein lies Garland’s point: Civil War isn’t about our 2024 reality. It’s an alternate version inspired by ours that comments on the potential consequences of our actions. And, it doesn’t really take a side or explain anything. Are the Western Forces more politically aligned with California or Texas? We never find out, and that’s the point.

    This map also doesn’t make it clear who are the good guys and bad guys in the movie. Which, again, is the point. Who are the Loyalist States loyal to? Why is the Northwest a “New People?” And the Florida Alliance… well, that one actually kind of makes sense.

    Having seen Civil War I can reveal that not all of these questions are answered, but seeing this map and thinking about it will begin to prepare you for the unexpected nature of the film. Tickets are on sale now.


    Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.

    Germain Lussier

    Source link

  • ‘Civil War’ Review: Alex Garland’s Dystopian Thriller Starring Kirsten Dunst Stimulates the Intellect, if Not the Emotions

    ‘Civil War’ Review: Alex Garland’s Dystopian Thriller Starring Kirsten Dunst Stimulates the Intellect, if Not the Emotions

    The details of American politics do not concern Alex Garland in Civil War.

    Despite the controversy it’s already courted about its supposed prescience, the unsettling feature from the British filmmaker doesn’t predict a future based on the country’s current two-party system. Garland is far more interested in the United States’ self-regarding exceptionalism, its belief in its own safety from executive instability. He is fascinated by how factionalism instigates conflict and how no nation is immune to the results of its violence. 

    Civil War

    The Bottom Line

    A subversive and unsettling exercise.

    Venue: SXSW Film Festival (Headliner)
    Release date: Friday, April 12
    Cast: Kirsten Dunst, Wagner Moura, Cailee Spaeny, Stephen McKinley Henderson, Sonoya Mizuno, Nick Offerman
    Director-screenwriter: Alex Garland

    1 hour 49 minutes

    Premiering at SXSW, Civil War explores these preoccupations from the perspective of a group of journalists as they chronicle life in their war-torn country while traveling to Washington, D.C. We meet the crew in New York, where they are covering a tense confrontation between civilians and police. Lee Smith (Kirsten Dunst) —  a conflict photographer whose success and abrasiveness are modeled on that of celebrated World War II correspondent Lee Miller — works quickly with her Reuters colleague Joel (Wagner Moura) to capture the scene before the percolating violence bubbles over. 

    When it eventually does, the pair crosses paths with Jessie (Priscilla‘s Cailee Spaeny), a freelance photographer who gets hurt in the police-instigated melee. The young documentarian is eager to express admiration for Lee after the veteran correspondent saves her life and gifts her a neon press vest. Later that evening, Jessie, through a winning combination of will and charm, convinces Joel to let her tag along on the road trip to D.C. This is already after they agreed to let Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson), a New York Times journalist, join them despite the risks. 

    The group hits the road the next morning despite Lee’s protestations over Jessie’s inclusion. (She, fairly, doesn’t want to be responsible for a stranger and an amateur.) Their roughly 800-mile journey to D.C., where Joel and Lee have been promised an interview with the president (Nick Offerman), takes the journalists through hostile tracts, military checkpoints and makeshift refugee camps.

    These scenes of America as an active war zone are some of Civil War’s most potent images. In a subversive move, Garland, partnering again with DP Rob Hardy, documents these conditions with the distant vérité style found in American films about international regional conflicts. The Ex Machina and Annihilation filmmaker juxtaposes images of displaced Americans, armed resistance fighters and other evidence of war with familiar shots of the nation’s pastoral landscape to create a sense of destabilization.

    As the crew drives south of New York, they come across abandoned and blown-up cars on interstates lined with vibrant, verdant trees. A football stadium is now an aid camp, which adds a melancholic layer to the graffitied messages (“Go Steelers,” one  says) that remind of life before. A winter wonderland dotted with statues of Santa Claus, for example, becomes an active conflict zone, and a small town that feels eerily distant from the destruction happening everywhere else turns out to be manned by an armed militia. 

    These sequences coupled with other nostalgia-loaded gestures — the use of country music needle drops, for example — effectively recast American iconography, implicitly questioning a nation’s tendency toward self-mythologizing. Garland also weaves in the snapshots captured by Lee and Jessie along the road, a technique that not only examines the ethics of war photography but also American expectations of what these images must be. As for the subject of race — the organizing principle of the nation — Civil War gestures but does not explicitly confront.  

    All of these thoughts, considerations and questions — what does it mean to be American is one the film repeatedly asks — are experienced by the viewer on a largely intellectual level. Garland has always been a director of big ideas, and Civil War is no exception when it comes to that ambitiousness. But he’s also reaching for an intimacy here that his screenplay doesn’t quite deliver on. Despite strong turns from the cast, the American journalists at the center of the story feel emotionally sterile vis a vis the dissolution of their country, and their motivations for doing the work register as similarly remote. Of course war hardens, contorts and traumatizes, but Civil War presupposes that the press, in this distant future, can always see the forest for the trees. The film is wise to avoid big, melodramatic gestures, but characters sharing stories might have conjured a better sense of their depth. 

    Dunst makes Lee an incredibly compelling figure whose faith and ability to stomach the demands of the job unravel slowly over the course of the film. But a lack of detail keeps her character in the shadows. The same goes for Jessie, whose youth offers insights into her risky behavior, and Joel, who is Latino and from Florida (a state that here has its own faction separate from the alliance between Texas and California). 

    With the precision and length of its violent battle sequences, it’s clear Civil War operates as a clarion call. Garland wrote the film in 2020 as he watched cogs on America’s self-mythologizing exceptionalist machine turn, propelling the nation into a nightmare. With this latest film, he sounds the alarm, wondering less about how a country walks blindly into its own destruction and more about what happens when it does.

    Lovia Gyarkye

    Source link

  • Priscilla: The Marie Antoinette of the 1960s

    Priscilla: The Marie Antoinette of the 1960s

    It’s a story that becomes harder and harder to tell in the present epoch. That of Priscilla’s overt grooming by Elvis in order to eventually make her his virgin bride. Of course, that’s not really the story Sofia Coppola wants to focus on with her eighth film, Priscilla. Just as the 1988 TV movie (or “miniseries,” to make it sound more elegant) called Elvis and Me, so, too is Priscilla based on that autobiography of the same name. And yes, the title of it should be telling of the fact that Priscilla continued to view herself as being forever stuck inside the towering shadow of Elvis. Why not Me and Elvis, after all? That her autobiography should have to include Elvis’ name in it was also indicative of the already publicly-held belief that she really was “no one” without him. Had no identity of her own. And a large part of that, as we see in Priscilla (which remains largely faithful to Presley’s book), stemmed from Elvis “getting her” while she was young. Worming his way into her mindspace and heart before she ever had a chance to fully form. 

    This reality is one that many still don’t want to acknowledge or look at too closely. Including none other than Elvis’ only daughter, Lisa Marie. Indeed, a leaked email that Lisa Marie wrote to Coppola shortly before her death stated, “My father only comes across as a predator and manipulative [in your movie]. As his daughter, I don’t read this and see any of my father in this character. I don’t read this and see my mother’s perspective of my father. I read this and see your shockingly vengeful and contemptuous perspective and I don’t understand why?” This form of denial about the type of man her father was is perhaps to be expected. Even questioning her mother’s “awareness” of what she hath wrought in letting Coppola go through with filming this script. So it was that she added, “I am worried that my mother isn’t seeing the nuance here or realizing the way in which Elvis will be perceived when this movie comes out. I feel protective over my mother who has spent her whole life elevating my father’s legacy. I am worried she doesn’t understand the intentions behind this film or the outcome it will have.”

    But isn’t it long overdue to look at Elvis’ “dark side” (read: creep factor) with a less flattering microscope than has been done in the past? Hell, even the celebrated Baz Luhrmann biopic, Elvis, chooses to sidestep detailing much of his domestic life with Priscilla, instead focusing on his artistry and the exploitation he suffered at the hands of the Colonel. Some might even say that being exploited so blatantly was what made Elvis want to do it to someone else. That someone else being, most of the time, Priscilla. Subject to his whims and mood swings, Coppola’s adaptation of Elvis and Me shows “Satnin” slowly adjusting to the life she thought she wanted, because that’s what it would take to be with Elvis. The man she pined for from the moment they separated in March of 1960, after Elvis completed his tour of duty in the Army and went back to the U.S.

    Being an impressionable young teenager prone to easy attachment and tending to amplify everything more than it actually should be, Priscilla continued to yearn for Elvis as almost two years went by. Years during which she was tortured by published accounts of Elvis’ sexual exploits with his costars. In 1960, that co-star was Julie Prowse, the fiancée of Frank Sinatra (ergo, Elvis “stuck it” to a fellow musical titan while “sticking it in” Prowse). Forced to watch Elvis’ career and personal life unfold from the sidelines, Priscilla almost gives up hope entirely that their year spent getting to know one another on the Army base meant anything at all. And then, out of the blue, just like that, Elvis calls her and invites her to Graceland. This after Coppola shows us the bittersweet passage of time through the girlhood ephemera of Priscilla’s room. For example, a string of pearls hung over a birthday card that reads, “To My Granddaughter Happy Sweet 16”—the words positioned around a blooming rose with two hummingbirds hovering over it. Symbolism indeed. But men don’t tend to have much interest in girls once they “bloom past a certain age.” Maybe, in that sense, it was best for Priscilla to leave Elvis before she turned thirty. 

    Priscilla’s “Sofian” foil, Marie Antoinette, on the other hand, never had such a choice. Even though she, too, was leading a life largely separate from Louis XVI. A life she made the most of by “being frivolous.” Decorating the palace, overseeing the construction of the Hamlet at Trianon and, needless to say, buying plenty of clothes and shoes. That latter “hobby” being something Priscilla was well-trained in by Elvis himself as he remade her in his image. Not like a god (though Depeche Mode’s “Personal Jesus” is based on Priscilla’s worshipful dynamic with Elvis), but more like a man playing with a Barbie doll. One he could dress up and style however he wanted. And he did, telling her what and what not to wear (patterns were an absolute no-no). Despite having gotten what she wanted when her parents concede to letting her live with Elvis full-time while she finishes high school (a Catholic one chosen by Elvis), Priscilla finds that the “real relationship” she was hoping to achieve by moving in is largely impossible to get in that Elvis is perennially absent (often mentally, as well as physically), blowing in whenever he wants with the same whimsy as a breeze. Worse still, he continues to avert any sexual consummation with her (one supposes at least he had some limits, but that was more about his own fucked-up psychology than anything resembling a moral code). 

    Priscilla’s privileged girlhood connection to Marie is a motif Coppola established from the outset of her career, with The Virgin Suicides. Its star, Kirsten Dunst, would go from Lux Lisbon to Marie Antoinette in a pinch. And, although mostly panned at the time, 2006’s Marie Antoinette has evolved into being something of a Coppola favorite—one of the most shining gems in her still scant canon. And, of course, it speaks to all the themes Coppola is so fond of: a teen girl’s loneliness and isolation despite living in a gilded world of privilege. One that’s ultimately a prison where she can be abused under the guise of being “taken care of.” Both Marie and Priscilla experienced this in different centuries and places, but the feeling Coppola evokes about what each woman goes through remains entirely similar. In point of fact, Coppola herself remarked of her attraction to the project, “I was just so interested in Priscilla’s story and her perspective on what it all felt like to grow up as a teenager in Graceland. She was going through all the stages of young womanhood in such an amplified world—kinda similar to Marie Antoinette.”

    What’s also “similar” is the idea that both women were basically sold off to a suitor. With Antoinette, that reality was obviously more glaring and straightforward. With Priscilla, it was done with more “subtlety.” In this regard, Coppola is certain to include Priscilla’s (whose last name was then Beaulieu) parents’ initial hesitancy about succumbing to Elvis’ overtures. But, in the end, of course, no one ever says no to power. They didn’t call Elvis “The King” for nothing (a modern-day Louis XVI to Priscilla’s Marie). Which is why he had “little minions” to do his bidding for him…like, say, scouting young “talent” for his bedroom. That’s essentially what Elvis’ “Army buddy,” Currie Grant (not to be confused with Cary), did when he spotted Priscilla at the Wiesbaden, Germany “malt shop,” if you will. Seeing something that he knew Elvis would like, he invited her to a party at the house Elvis was renting. Over the course of that year, things remained decidedly Rated G (though Coppola does leave out a scene from Elvis and Me where Elvis comes up to his room to join Priscilla by lying in bed with her). As they did for Marie’s own sex life with Louis, who has the very French male problem of impotency during the beginning of their marriage. 

    A girl living in a beautiful location with a beautiful man who 1) does not give her any attention and 2) cannot sexually satisfy her seems to be the name of Coppola’s thematic game. To boot, Coppola “was initially drawn towards the character of Marie Antoinette as an innocent and caring character who found herself in a situation outside of her control, and that rather than creating a historical representation, she wanted to create a more intimate look into the world of the heroine.” The same goes for Priscilla Beaulieu. Who never went back to that surname after taking Elvis’—almost like she couldn’t admit that she wasn’t ever a “whole person” without him. In this sense, Priscilla focuses very little on the “transformational” period of “Cilla’s” life (packed in for a few minutes at the end of the movie), which began in the early 70s when she started taking martial arts lessons with Mike Stone. The instructor she would have an affair with (vaguely alluded to by Coppola) and who Elvis would want to have murdered upon finding out. Because, duh, only a husband can have his affairs, not a wife. One who is mostly responding to the lack of emotional and physical attention from her husband. But even when Priscilla started to talk about the sense of independence karate was giving her, she couldn’t help but relate it back to Elvis by saying, “I think he was really proud of me; very few women were doing karate at that time.” 

    That wouldn’t exactly track, though, considering Elvis didn’t like “his” woman to display any signs of masculine energy. So it is that Priscilla falls into her role as “trophy wife,” though often with no one to “display herself” to. To convey this type of rudderlessness—this emotional vacancy—Coppola provides so many scenes that echo the decadence-drenched loneliness of Marie Antoinette, like Priscilla sitting in isolation on a massive couch at Graceland holding her only companion, Honey. The dog Elvis gave her right when she moved in (likely in anticipation that it would be the only being in her life she could call loyal and constant). Or sitting alone (and pregnant) in the morning at the kitchen table, furnished with lavish fruits and fresh orange juice, in addition to her breakfast, only to further sink into despair upon encountering yet another gossipy headline about Elvis and Nancy Sinatra “canoodling” on the set of Speedway

    Already well-acquainted with Elvis’ affairs after the highly publicized one involving Ann-Margaret during the production of Viva Las Vegas!, Priscilla “learns her lesson” about bothering to confront him. “I need a woman who understands things like this might happen,” Elvis has the gall to scold her after she brings up his affair with Ann-Margaret. But eventually, she knows that nothing will change. Elvis “is who he is.” And “boys will be boys.” 

    So it is that Priscilla keeps wandering Graceland like the empty palace that it is, her bereftness enveloping the viewer. As does the emptiness of her life in contrast to the abode she haunts, so chock full of opulent furniture and decor. Seeing her life unfold under Elvis’ specter, most audience members of today would ask why and how she could stay with him for so long before realizing how toxic the relationship was. Granted, the TV movie version of Elvis and Me is way more on blast than Priscilla about that toxicity (side note: Priscilla served as an executive producer on both films). Which makes one wonder why Lisa Marie was so scandalized by Coppola’s rendering. It’s far more generous than past presentations have been, doing its best to uphold the myth that this is a love story and not a story of perverse grooming followed by a master-slave dynamic. Even the rape scene in Elvis and Me is much more direct than the one merely inferred in Priscilla. It happens at the very end, with Coppola making it the catalyst for Priscilla’s final decision to leave him the next morning. 

    And yet, despite all the abusiveness, all the cruelty, Coppola has the “reverence” to conclude the film with Priscilla driving away from Graceland to the tune of Dolly Parton’s “I Will Always Love You,” which comes across as altogether sick after witnessing what we just did. Nonetheless, it’s another classic case in point of Coppola’s acumen with musical selections, especially as she was forced to get creative after being denied use of Elvis’ music by his Estate. Though it was technically allowed to be used in Elvis and Me (even if “rendered” by another singer named Ronnie McDowell), an equally unflattering portrayal. But maybe that just goes to show how much public tastes have changed to reflect that the Estate wouldn’t want to be part of any project that makes Elvis look like the abusive predator he was (what’s more, even Lana “Daddy Lover” Del Rey didn’t make the time to contribute a song to a biopic about a woman she’s often been aesthetically compared to). 

    As for Coppola’s casting choices, Cailee Spaeny looks like a mashup of Carey Mulligan in An Education (a film that also deals with a teen girl-older man romance) and Natalie Portman circa Closer (with her vocal inflection also mirroring Portman’s), while Jacob Elordi sounds more like Elvis than he looks like him. But Coppola assessed, “I thought nobody was gonna look quite like Elvis, but Jacob has that same type of magnetism. He’s so charismatic, and girls go crazy around him, so I knew he could pull off playing this type of romantic icon.” Though “romantic” doesn’t feel like quite the right word for Elvis anymore. 

    To that end, while the story it tells is increasingly difficult to stomach in the modern era (Lisa Marie was right about that), Priscilla is a return to form for Coppola after she veered horrendously off course with 2020’s On the Rocks. Perhaps an indication that she’s better at telling stories about daughters and “Daddies” rather than daughters and daddies.

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • 10 Impeccable Studio Ghibli English Dubs, Including The Boy and the Heron

    10 Impeccable Studio Ghibli English Dubs, Including The Boy and the Heron

    Image: Studio Ghibli

    In defense of English dubs, no one does it better than Studio Ghibli. It’s not a matter of either-or; with the incredible global talents that span the original Japanese voices and the English casts, it just means we get more!

    With the release of The Boy and the Heron, which features Robert Pattinson’s dedicated vocal bird transformation, we’re looking back at the best Studio Ghibli dubs. When it comes to Hayao Miyazaki’s films, care has always been taken between by the Disney and GKIDS distributors to cast the English roles with incredible talent. It’s no easy feat to perform in sync with animation, let alone in a foreign language, but it helps to have the guidance of directors such as Pixar’s Pete Docter (Howl’s Moving Castle) who approach the task with appropriate reverence. While we understand the importance of subtitles—and we’d never take away from the wonderful work of the original Japanese voice casts—dubs help make the films accessible to more audiences. And as an animation fan, I love dubs because I can bask in the art and storytelling without reading and then revisiting with subtitles. It’s a preference and a gateway for more global animation to travel the world.

    Here’s a list of the top 10 English Studio Ghibli dubs we love.

    Sabina Graves

    Source link

  • Uncomfortable Interview Resurfaces Of 12-Year-Old Kirsten Dunst Being Grossed Out By Kissing Older Co-Star

    Uncomfortable Interview Resurfaces Of 12-Year-Old Kirsten Dunst Being Grossed Out By Kissing Older Co-Star

    Francois Duhamel / Sygma via Getty Images

    The clip begins with Dunst being asked: “Did you really hate kissing Brad Pitt?” to which she explains: “Yeah because, well, y’know what, I love Brad, he’s so nice… it was just, like, it feels awkward.”

    Source link

  • Despite Being A Satire, Drop Dead Gorgeous Accurately Mirrored Kirstie Alley’s Politics

    Despite Being A Satire, Drop Dead Gorgeous Accurately Mirrored Kirstie Alley’s Politics

    As is usually the case when a celebrity dies, all former political effrontery tends to be glossed over. This certainly held true for the likes of James Caan (who died earlier this year) and Doris Day (who died in 2019). Granted, these might be prime examples of “Old Hollywood Republicans” (because, believe it or not, it used to be much chicer to be conservative than liberal in that town), but the point is, no one brought up the political leanings that formerly made people cringe once these “icons” were dead. The same seems to go for Kirstie Alley, who was, as a Midwesterner, perhaps an unavoidable Republican. A reality that came to harsh light during the 2016 election, when she announced her intention to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton. Backpedaling after her declaration was met with verbal reprisals, she claimed, “I hate this election and I’m officially no longer endorsing either candidate.”

    “Endorsing” him or not, Alley still voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020 (the ultimate sign of a “die-hard” [read: white supremacist] Republican). Being vocal about it again the latter election year when she tweeted, “I’m voting for @realDonaldTrump because he’s NOT a politician. I voted for him 4 years ago for this reason and shall vote for him again for this reason. He gets things done quickly and he will turn the economy around quickly. There you have it folks there you have it.” The pronouncement was met with a swift barrage of venom, including from the likes of Judd Apatow, who replied, “Shelley [misspelled as Shelly] Long was way funnier than you.” Alley went on The Sean Hannity Show the next day to continue to defend her stance, doubling down once more on her position. All of this is to say that, despite the 1999 mockumentary masterpiece that is Drop Dead Gorgeous being a satire, Alley’s role as pageant mother/head of the pageant organizing committee Gladys Leeman wasn’t that much of a reach for her to embody. Not politically speaking, anyway.

    Directed by Michael Patrick Jann and written by Lona Williams, the latter was highly inspired by her hometown of Rosemount, Minnesota (hence, the name of the town in the movie being Mount Rose, MN) for the story. Complete with over-the-top Minnesota accents that Alley was happy to accommodate as she said on-brand conservative things like, “I know what some of your big city, no bra wearin’, hairy-legged women libbers might say. They might say that a pageant is old-fashioned and ‘demeaning’ to the girls…” Her cohort, Iris (Mindy Sterling), chimes in, “What’s sick is women dressin’ like men!” Gladys agrees, “You betcha, Iris. No, I think you boys are gonna find something a little bit different here in Mount Rose. For one thing, we’re all God-fearin’ folk, every last one of us. And you will not find a ‘back room’ in our video store. No, no. That filth is better left in the Sin Cities.” Iris clarifies, “A.k.a. Minneapolis-St. Paul.”

    Gladys’ carefully-curated image as the perfect mother and homemaker is especially crucial this pageant year as her own daughter, Rebecca “Becky” Leeman (Denise Richards), will be competing. Which is why it’s also so important for Gladys to come up with an “original” theme like “Proud to Be An American.” So much different from previous themes like, “Buy American,” “USA Is A-OK” or “Amer-I-Can!” Although mostly confident that Rebecca has what it takes to win, Gladys isn’t so naïve as to discount the potential of someone such as doe-eyed, blonde Amber Atkins (Kirsten Dunst) or even Tammy Curry (Brooke Elise Bushman), the dyke archetype who beat out Rebecca to become the president of the Lutheran Sisterhood Gun Club. This win being precisely her motive for rigging Tammy’s tractor to blow up.

    The explosion turns out to be a foreshadowing of the comeuppance Gladys will get with another big kabluey at the end of the movie—this time of her own daughter on a giant swan. After fixing the pageant so that Rebecca would win (even though Amber was the clear favorite), it’s obvious the Leemans had no intention of ever letting Rebecca lose in that they had pre-purchased this massive piñata-esque float for their daughter to ride in at the celebratory parade. A parade, by the way, filled with scenes that mirror the most grotesque cliches of American stereotypes as perpetuated by Republicans. Ignorance abounding in shit-kicker aesthetics (from army camouflage to oversized khaki shorts) and behaviors (e.g., mocking a mentally challenged person with their overalls caught in a car door).

    At Rebecca’s funeral, reference to the swan being made in Mexico comes back as the pastor notes to God, “Maybe it’s your way of telling us, ‘Buy American.’” Or that Rebecca’s own win-at-any-cost mother epitomizes the sort of tactics that Trump himself would employ to “get the job done.” Ignore reality, ignore what the majority actually wants and just bulldoze your way to “success.” The “anti-wokeness” of Gladys Leeman—which comes out in dialogue like, “I said I’d move if a cripple came” (re: parking in a handicapped spot)—is an additional foil of Alley’s own nature, which would go on to reveal some very pro-MAGA, QAnon-sympathizing sentiments.

    Determined to wield her “blunt” persona as “telling it like it is,” it became increasingly evident over the course of the post-90s years (particularly with Scientology becoming less tenable for many outside observers and defectors alike, including Leah Remini, who clashed a number of times with Alley after leaving the organization) that her brand was less “freedom of speech” and more mumbo-jumbo. Including her response to the war in Ukraine being that she didn’t “know what’s real or what is fake in this war. So I won’t be commenting. I’ll pray instead.”

    Incidentally, Scientologists don’t subscribe to prayer. Something the aforementioned Remini was eager to point out in her back-handed tribute/condolence to Alley and her family when she said, “Although Scientologists don’t believe in prayers, my prayers do go out to her two children, who are now without their mom.” Another thing Scientologists don’t believe in is seeking cancer treatment before it’s too late, told by the Church that they can conquer such “ailments,” particularly someone who was at Alley’s Operating Thetan Level VIII. Yet another reason it feels all too pointed that fellow Scientologists Kelly Preston and Chick Corea also died of cancer in 2020 in 2021, respectively. And both, like Alley, near the Church’s Flag Building in Clearwater, Florida.

    While there’s no denying Alley had many beloved roles, from Mollie Jensen in the Look Who’s Talking trilogy to Diane Barrows in It Takes Two to Veronica Chase in Veronica’s Closet to a caricaturized version of herself in Fat Actress, her death doesn’t deify her enough to dismiss her often problematic politics. Of the same ilk that Gladys Leeman was only too proud to trumpet under the banner of “Proud to Be An American.”

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link