ReportWire

Tag: Rosemarie DeWitt

  • The Voss Water Repetition in Smile 2 and What It Says About Film Product Placement Today

    The Voss Water Repetition in Smile 2 and What It Says About Film Product Placement Today

    [ad_1]

    Perhaps even more than the various terrifying scenes of Smile 2, what audiences are seeming to remember most after seeing Parker Finn’s sequel is the rampant product placement for Voss water. Woven so “naturally” into the script as a kind of “character quirk” that Skye Riley (Naomi Scott) feels the need to grab a bottle of Voss every time she feels “out of control.” And yes, this is explained in fairly elaborate detail to her best friend, Gemma (Dylan Gelula, who will forever be Xan in Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt). A best friend who, for the last year, was an ex best friend due to Skye’s Britney Spears-in-2007-level breakdown after getting in a car accident with her boyfriend, Paul Hudson (Ray Nicholson). Both were, it should go without saying, intoxicated and, no, her boyfriend did not survive the crash.

    In the aftermath of the accident, Skye only began to use drugs and alcohol all the more (coping mechanisms and all that rot), acting out erratically toward those in her life who were closest to her…Gemma included. But now that she’s being essentially forced to make a comeback (again, sort of like Britney after her 2007-early 2008 turmoil), Skye has never felt more alone or more mistrustful of the numerous sycophants around her. This extends to her “momager,” Elizabeth (Rosemarie Dewitt), and their joint assistant, Joshua (Miles Guitierrez-Riley). Hence, her desire to reach out to a no-bullshitter like Gemma again.

    Right after she gathers the courage (not to mention summoning the total loss of pride and dignity) to call Gemma and admit that 1) she misses her and 2) she wants her to come over for some emotional support, Skye makes a beeline for the Voss water, chugging it as though she’s just come off the field in the wake of scoring the winning goal for some nail-biting soccer game. The audience doesn’t yet know why Voss water is such a “thing,” perhaps initially assuming that there won’t be any explanation at all about it—that it’s just one of the more glaring examples of unapologetic product placement in recent years. In fact, maybe not since Pizza Hut in Back to the Future II has product placement been so unabashed. Except, in that case, the product and its distinctive logo were used to underscore a point about all the so-called advancements that would happen in the future. Conversely, in Smile 2, the brand is less about “progress” (unless referring to the emotional kind) and more about convenience. And, obviously, Finn thought that having Skye actually say the brand name might be the one way to go “too far” with product placement.

    However, just because “Voss” isn’t said aloud at any point doesn’t mean that Finn doesn’t end up calling plenty more attention (than is really necessary) to the brand via her character quirk. One that is explained when Gemma obligingly materializes at her apartment despite all the bullshit Skye put her through during her atomic meltdown. Unfortunately fro Gemma, she shows up just as The Smiler (which has, by now, possessed Skye for about twenty minutes’ worth of the movie) has done a hallucinatory number on the pop star, prompting her to act more skittish and erratic than usual. And also sending her straight for the bottle…of Voss water.

    That’s right, she doesn’t even acknowledge the fact that the two haven’t spoken or seen one another in a year before she goes for the Voss as a source of comfort. Watching her drink an entire bottle, all Gemma can say is, “Thirsty?” It’s then that Finn gives Voss its real moment to shine by interweaving it (albeit using a generic name: water) into the dialogue as Skye explains, “This therapist from my recovery program, she suggested that anytime I feel overwhelmed by the urge to use or get drunk, that I should stop whatever I’m doing and drink a full glass of water. It’s supposed to be some form of acknowledgement for what I can and can’t control.” (Never mind that Voss bottles aren’t exactly “a glass” of water.)

    Though that doesn’t really seem to apply to what brand of water she has available to her. Granted, Voss is supposed to be “renowned” for being reserved solely for the bougie set (it even seems to appear—or at least a bottle that has the exact same size and style—in Anora, when Vanya [Mark Eydelshteyn], rich son of a Russian oligarch, hands “Ani” [Mikey Madison] the water she asked for while over at his mansion). Even though it was once rumored to be bottled at the same source where tap water comes from in Iveland, Norway. But one supposes that rich people are willing to shell out high amounts (let’s call a bottle of Voss five dollars) so long as they’re told the product is of the “finest” quality. For, as is the theme in Smile 2, it’s all about what you think anyway, not reality.

    As for what the elaborate and heavy-handed use of product placement in Smile 2 reflects in the movie-going audiences of today is that, more than ever, people need not just repetition to remember a brand, but to have the product become a part of the storyline in a way that ends up being “integral” to either the character or the plot. And, in this case, both—though the viewer won’t know just why it’s so central to the more hallucinatory aspects of the plot until much later in the movie.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Smile 2: Stars—They’re Just Like Us!, Or: Even Pop Stars Get Demonically Possessed

    Smile 2: Stars—They’re Just Like Us!, Or: Even Pop Stars Get Demonically Possessed

    [ad_1]

    With such pressure to outperform the success of 2022’s Smile, writer-director Parker Finn wanted to approach the movie’s sequel from an entirely new angle. And what could be more divergent from the setting of the first movie than the (theoretically) high-glamor world of pop stardom? In Smile 2, the pop star in the eye of the proverbial storm is Skye Riley (Naomi Scott)—think of her as an Ashley O (Miley Cyrus) from Black Mirror type, or even a Celeste from Vox Lux sort. Or, if one wants to make real-life comparisons, there are a few similar options to choose from, including Halsey and Lady Gaga. It is the latter that Naomi Scott specifically calls out as a source of inspiration, particularly her early 2010s aesthetic and musical vibe.

    But then, of course, there is the Britney Spears element of it all—not just in terms of Skye being scrutinized for her “bad,” drug-addled behavior, but also because of the nature of her relationship with her mother, Elizabeth (Rosemarie DeWitt). It is she who embodies the entire Spears family by acting as her “momager” and, therefore, usually being most concerned with how much money Skye can make for “them” (but really, for Elizabeth). During her “off the rails” period, Elizabeth was clearly more concerned with “getting her back on track” for financial reasons as opposed to reasons related to concern for her well-being. Which, yes, smacks of the way Britney was given essentially no time to recover after her 2007 through early 2008 breakdown before she was cajoled into putting out new music and going on a tour. In many regards, too, Skye’s substance abuse and mental breakdown that caused her to cancel her last tour bears a similarity to Jocelyn’s (Lily-Rose Depp) backstory in The Idol (and yes, Spears was also the blueprint for creating the Jocelyn character, as was the abovementioned Ashley O).

    In order to do some “damage control” for that breakdown, which came to the fore after she got in a car accident with her boyfriend, Paul Hudson (Ray Nicholson—that’s right, the son of Jack), while both were intoxicated, Skye agrees to make her first promotional appearance in a year on, of all things, The Drew Barrymore Show. Which makes plenty of sense when one takes into account the meta nature of Drew Barrymore being an essential to the opening of any horror movie.

    What’s more, there’s even another new pop star in the game that exhibits occasional similarities to Skye—at least in terms of her emotional fragility. That pop star being, of course, Chappell Roan. Particularly in terms of how creeped out Skye starts to get by her obsessive fans—even if that’s due, in part, to “The Smiler” (as the demonic essence/antagonist of the movie is called) making them seem creepier than they actually are…to an extent. Because everyone knows fandoms really can come across that way. In any event, the “creep factor” doesn’t just include The Smiler’s ability to make fans at a meet-and-greet smile at her in that eerie, plastered-on way, but also its ability to make them seemingly appear anytime, anywhere. Most chillingly of all, inside of her massive NYC apartment, where one especially notable scene (the one where a gaggle of them are leering/diabolically smiling at her from within her closet, before chasing after her throughout the abode) comes off as a re-creation of how Roan must more than occasionally feel about her own obsessive fans: like they’re going to fucking murder her and wear her skin.

    Needless to say, The Smiler is tapping into Skye’s dormant anxieties about her fans and their potential for “going totally psycho” on her at the drop of a fedora hat (that’s a 2003 Britney reference). To be sure, The Smiler is having an even easier time toying with and preying upon the headspace of a pop star, though that’s not why Finn opted to make Smile 2 come from this perspective.

    Instead, Finn’s decision to render the Smile 2 universe from the view of a pop star was largely due to his desire to challenge himself with the difficulties that setting and lifestyle would present. As Finn recounted to The Wrap, “I really wanted to step back from what I had done in the first film, and try to be like, ‘What is the least likely path forward for a sequel?’ I really wanted to challenge myself and drill down. Any idea that I could come up with that first week or two, I was like, ‘This is too obvious.’ I really held it to task.” The result is a breed of horror that’s right at home with pop music and celebrity, for as many a famous pop star keeps emphasizing more and more: there’s nothing fucking scarier/more potentially life-threatening than being known on an international level. Making the pressures of an already demanding job become further compounded by all the scrutiny. Add a “cosmic evil beam that no one else can see” into the mix and the pressure becomes insurmountable (which, in Skye’s case, results in severe bouts of trichotillomania).

    Indeed, this turns out to be one of the most surprising statements of Smile 2: that it’s almost a kind of defense/“let’s have more empathy” for famous people manifesto. As The Wrap phrased it, “This isn’t someone who can suffer in isolation. Everyone will see her disintegrate.” And that makes everything feel so much more heightened—not just for Skye, but for the audience watching, often suffering from second-hand embarrassment as they watch her “biff it” in very public scenarios. For example, while acting as a presenter at a music industry charity event, Skye not only goes out onstage nwith smeared lipstick (after swatting away a bug from her face backstage), but also proceeds to act increasingly unhinged once the teleprompter ceases to show her what she’s supposed to say next.

    Of course, no matter what she says or does next, in the end, just as it was in Smile, Skye 1) can’t even be sure what is and is not reality and 2) it won’t matter if it is or not anyway since The Smiler is bound to have his “committing suicide” way with her. Granted, the manner in which the “entity” does it this time around has far graver consequences for the witness(es) of her death. But at least those taking in Skye’s demise can relish that certain “Stars—They’re Just Like Us!” quality. Even if nothing could be further from the truth.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Lessons in How the 50s Were a Fucking Nightmare, Or: Lessons in Chemistry

    Lessons in How the 50s Were a Fucking Nightmare, Or: Lessons in Chemistry

    [ad_1]

    “Let’s begin, shall we?” So goes the final line of the final episode (“Introduction to Chemistry”) of Lessons in Chemistry. A “catch phrase,” if you will, that proves the so-called end is usually only the beginning. As it is for Elizabeth Zott (Brie Larson), whose battle against the patriarchy is just another day for any woman in the 1950s. In fact, not since Mona Lisa Smile has a piece of pop culture reminded women how far they’ve come from the ills their forebears had to suffer during this decade. Despite that recent overturning of Roe v. Wade and the enduring reign of men in positions of power that dictate how women are treated and viewed in their day-to-day lives, there’s no denying that the mid-twentieth century was far more nightmarish for the “fairer” sex. That term itself being rooted in sexism, as it has nothing to do with how much more “just” women are, but how “hot” they are (never forget that “fair” meant “hot” back in the day—hence, Eris labeling the Apple of Discord, “For the fairest” or the Evil Queen staring into the mirror and demanding, “Who is the fairest of them all?”). And the 1950s in particular have a reputation for being women’s most “Stepford wife-y” time. 

    Amid this climate, Elizabeth, a brilliant chemist, feels more stifled and slighted than the average woman (though she might be the first to tell you that no woman is average). Relegated to working as a lab tech at Hastings, a well-respected university near Los Angeles’ Sugar Hill neighborhood (before Sugar Hill ceased to exist), Elizabeth is constantly reminded that she is not only “lesser” because she’s a woman, but because she doesn’t have her PhD in chemistry. In other words, she’s “not a chemist,” as the head of the department, Dr. Robert Donatti (Derek Cecil), likes to remind her at every opportunity. But before we get to that point, Lessons in Chemistry, with its fondness for showing ends as beginnings, commences in the late fifties, when Elizabeth has already become a minor celebrity thanks to a cooking show she hosts called Supper at Six. As we see her ordering the men around her who work behind the scenes, it’s clear that Elizabeth is a rare breed of woman for this decade: someone who has made herself indispensable enough so as to not be told what to do. Cut to seven years earlier, and, as mentioned, that’s certainly not the case. She’s as much of a pariah as one can be…except for another chemist on campus: Calvin Evans (Lewis Pullman, who, yes, looks very much like his father, Bill). The difference is, Calvin has the benefit of being 1) a man and 2) the key to the Remsen funding that Hastings has grown quite fond of for its chemistry department. 

    Painting viewers a picture of a day in the life of Evans, we see him rowing, running (with a foreshadowed moment of his fate arriving when a bus nearly hits him…call it some Final Destination shit) and showering in his lab, writer and show developer Lee Eisenberg (of The Office fame) reveals a parallel portrait of Elizabeth’s daily life at Hastings. One that consists of being called “sweetheart” and “honey” while cleaning and setting up the lab for a team of all-male chemists. And, of course, she’s asked to make coffee. In contrast, Evans has total autonomy, talking to his boss in a manner everyone only wishes they could because he knows that he’s still considered the university’s golden goose for funding. All throughout this episode, titled “Little Miss Hastings,” we see Calvin and Elizabeth living their parallel lives as they nearly cross paths but never quite “touch.” But after Elizabeth is brazen enough to kife a few bottles of Calvin’s ribose supply (in the book, it’s beakers), their paths cross quite easily, as Calvin berates her for her insolence and calls her a secretary. When the head of personnel, Fran Frask (Stephanie Koenig), tells him she has her master’s in chemistry (specifically, a master’s from UCLA, where she studied cellular metabolism of nucleic acids), he seems to immediately change his mind about her. Regards her with a new set of eyes, as it were. 

    It doesn’t take long for the two to suddenly form their own antisocial social club, with their mutual interest in abiogenesis allowing for no lulls in any conversation they might have. Conversations that start to take place over lunches in the cafeteria…lunches made by Elizabeth. Because, yes, cooking is chemistry. But their closeness brings up a sudden sense of panic and anxiety in Elizabeth. Not just because she keeps having flashbacks of being cornered in a room and attacked by her UCLA professor (thus, dropping out after being told to apologize to said assaulter). A man who thought he was “owed” something after her PhD qualifying exam in 1950 went so well. Trying to “collect” on that “debt,” he underestimates Elizabeth’s willful defiance of “playing the game.” In fact, much of the comedicness of Lessons in Chemistry (whether in its TV adaptation or book format) is a result of Elizabeth acting as though she does not exist in a system so patently rigged against women. Indeed, her refusal to “play the game” and, contrastingly, insist that the game ought to be fair (“just fair” not “hot fair”) in the first place is part of the reason many readers have speculated she’s on the autism spectrum. Her inability to learn or heed social cues, however, is part of what makes her so charming to a man like Calvin. He being the “uncontrolled variable” of her experiment called Living Life Dogmatically. 

    This is why, at the end of the first episode, when she pulls a burned lasagna out of the oven while live on the air, she admits to her audience, “In science you endeavor to control every variable of your experiment… Sometimes you can’t count on a formula. Sometimes you can’t control each variable. Sometimes…many times…things just turn out messy.” Obviously, she’s not talking about lasagna, but rather, Calvin. How it all went so wrong so quickly. That is, after it all went so right so quickly (but, mind you, their romance was not an “easy come, easy go” situation). That is, once Elizabeth stopped fighting the obvious chemistry (had to do it) between her and Calvin. The intensity of their reaction to one another stemming from the fact that neither had ever had much experience with the opposite sex (in fact, it feels like both of them were probably virgins, and that much is confirmed in the novel). What’s more, any “mild experience” usually resulted in never hearing from the erstwhile interested party again after a first date. But with each other, it’s as though they can just finally “be” without having to try. Without having to worry about being perceived as…autistic. Or something. 

    It is in the second episode, “Him and Her,” that not only do things escalate to the next level between Elizabeth and Calvin, but the true star of both Bonnie Garmus’ book and the show that adapts it arrives onto the scene. Six-Thirty. The dog named after the time of night Elizabeth finds him—though, in the series, named after the time of morning he consistently wakes up. But, as Garmus also noted of the name’s meaning, “In chemistry the number six stands for carbon—one of the foundations of life. Meaning Six-Thirty is elemental!” That he is, in both formats of the story. Particularly since he is the indirect cause of Calvin’s death. Played by a Goldendoodle named Gus, “Him and Her” is the lone chance Six-Thirty gets to express his remorse (through the voiceover narration of B. J. Novak) for what happens to Calvin, describing his own backstory and how he came to be a stray before encountering Elizabeth. Whereas in the book, the wielding of his thoughts is more consistent. Alas, translating that onto the screen would have, invariably, proven to be too difficult. Mirroring the sentiments of many fans of the novel, Garmus herself remarked, “He’s not quite the dog I’d envisioned in the book [characterized as “tall, gray, thin” with “barbed-wire-like fur”] but he’s definitely a presence. It’s a challenge to add a thinking dog to the cast and at this point, I have no idea how it will come off. But the Hollywood people working on the series are the greatest and I feel confident they’ll find a way.” 

    Ah, those “Hollywood people.” They find a way all right. Though it’s clear they found a way mainly for those who have not read the book before to glean especial enjoyment from the series. And one of the most obvious changes apart from Six-Thirty is Harriet Sloane (Aja Naomi King). Most markedly, in the show, she has a loving and supportive husband instead of a highly abusive one. In this regard, the series seems to allow Harriet a greater opportunity to shine (even if the portrayal of her home life is perhaps far less realistic). Save for her inevitable failure to spare her neighborhood from being effectively destroyed. For, in real life, by 1961, approval was secured to build a ten-lane highway as part of the I-10 expansion commenced right through the vibrant and thriving (and yes, predominantly Black) Sugar Hill neighborhood…a name that ceased to exist (like a woman’s singular identity upon getting married) as it became merely “West Adams.” 

    Unfortunately, what didn’t cease to exist as part of the “1950s runoff” that bled into the 60s was women being treated like second-class citizens. Nothing Elizabeth hadn’t been conditioned to anticipate since she began working in the chemistry field. Most glaringly when she was attacked by her advisor at UCLA. And yes, that attack is rendered much more brutally and grotesquely on the page than it is on the screen. What’s more, the show fails to include the post-attack appearance of the extremely misogynist police treating her like the criminal as they look her up and down and appraise her overtly violated state. 

    When she tries to tell Calvin about how her advancement in the career of her choice has been stymied at every turn by “sex discrimination,” he can’t seem to fathom it. Until she asks him to name one female scientist besides Madame Curie. In the novel, she goes on to say, “…women are at home making babies and cleaning rugs. It’s legalized slavery. Even the women who wish to be homemakers find their work completely misunderstood. Men seem to think the average mother of five’s biggest decision of the day is what color to paint her nails.” In other words, as Garmus phrases it, “When it came to equality, 1952 was a real disappointment.” Not to mention the entire decade. 

    No wonder Elizabeth comes up with the empathetic catch phrase for her cooking show, “Children, set the table. Your mother needs a moment for herself.” After all, what mother of the 50s was ever allowed moments to herself despite being made to feel as though her entire existence was as “cush” as a house cat’s? In the book, Calvin is the one to symbolically shake Elizabeth and remind her, “…you continue to operate as if [life is fair]—as if once you get a few wrongs straightened out, everything else will fall into place. They won’t. You want my advice? Don’t work the system. Outsmart it.” Vexed that he would presume to lecture her about fairness, Garmus writes, “She didn’t like the notion that systems had to be outsmarted. Why couldn’t they just be smart in the first place?” Perhaps because the people who created and continue to run them aren’t the brightest bulbs in the tanning bed. And tend to think primarily about how a “one size fits all” system only really fits their needs. 

    Even Calvin, for as “evolved” as he is, still can’t resist the urge to propose to Elizabeth, who has already made it clear that marriage is out of the question for her. That it would automatically cast every chemistry achievement she made in the shadow of Calvin. In the series, Calvin never actually does propose after buying a ring, deciding to respect Elizabeth’s wishes when she expresses them. The TV Calvin knows that to ask for Elizabeth’s “hand” is to ask her to erase herself and become Mrs. Calvin Evans. Like so many women before and after her had to erase themselves in order to fall in line with the societal conventions of marriage. In the fifth episode, “CH3COOH,” as Elizabeth appraises the set that is her TV kitchen while her new producer, Walter Pine (Kevin Sussman), looks on, there’s a moment where she opens the oven and we’re given the perspective of seeing her as though from the inside of it. So that it looks like she just might stick her head in, Sylvia Plath-style.

    That’s what it was to be a woman in the mid-twentieth century. To be made to feel so crazy just for saying or doing anything a man might that it sometimes felt as though suicide really was the only recourse. To get through it—the constant belittling, gaslighting and overall steamrolling—a woman truly did need to have the strength of ten regular men (to loosely quote a song from Aladdin). And maybe, just maybe, the support of an extremely intelligent dog. Lessons in Chemistry reminds us that the women of today owe nothing but gratitude for the strides that managed to be made in such an oppressive era. One that we cannot allow to reanimate again.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link