ReportWire

Tag: vulture section lede

  • One Battle After Another Is Our New Oscar Front-runner

    [ad_1]

    Photo: Warner Bros.

    This summer came and went with decidedly few awards contenders, especially compared to the last few years’ yield of summer Oscar fare like Oppenheimer, Barbie, Top Gun: Maverick, and Elvis. Sinners established its case for Oscar consideration back in April, but since then, anything with a pedigree — be it Celine Song’s Materialists or the TIFF People’s Choice award winner The Life of Chuck — revealed itself to be a nonstarter in the awards conversation.

    Into this relative void steps Paul Thomas Anderson, whose films have been nominated for 28 Academy Awards over the course of his career. His latest, One Battle After Another, is loosely based on Thomas Pynchon’s 1990 novel, Vineland, and was described half-jokingly by the director during a post-screening Q&A on Monday as “an action-comedy with a dash of postpartum depression.” The film, which stars Oscar winners Leonardo DiCaprio, Benicio del Toro, and Sean Penn, alongside Teyana Taylor, Chase Infiniti, and Regina Hall, has been enjoying an incredibly effusive reception from critics. It holds a score of 96/100 on the review aggregator Metacritic, making it the best-reviewed film of 2025 (tied with Julia Loktev’s documentary My Undesirable Friends: Part I — Last Air in Moscow.) Headlines have touted the film as a masterpiece, a triumph, and a wonder. Our own Alison Willmore ranks it as top-tier PTA, and I’m inclined to agree.

    So: An Academy-favored filmmaker has a new film starring a bunch of Oscar winners, and it’s burning up review pages in a year where Oscar front-runners have been hard to come by. This isn’t advanced calculus. One Battle After Another is our new Best Picture front-runner. Right? Well, aside from a general reticence to hand out trophies in September, I’d point out that a number of questions and caveats need to be answered on the road from here to the Oscar podium.

    If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times: An Oscar winner in Best Picture needs a hook; preferably more than one. “Just give the award to the best movie” sounds like an incredibly simple task until you ask as many as two people what they think the best movie is. “Paul Thomas Anderson is due” could be a great hook — look how well it worked for Christopher Nolan just two years ago. But the trickiest needle to thread will be how the Warner Bros. team behind One Battle After Another is going to market the movie in relation to the terrifying state of events in the U.S. The film blends eras and references as it follows the members of an anti-fascist group called the French 75, including Bob (DiCaprio) and Perfidia Beverly Hills (Taylor), as they carry out 1960s-style guerrilla attacks on 2020s-style immigrant-detention centers. Meanwhile, the U.S. government is represented alternately by macho-psychotic military types like Sean Penn’s Colonel Stephen J. Lockjaw and an executive regime looking to racially purify the country. This should all sound familiar. If you haven’t noticed, things are pretty intense out there, with the Trump administration pushing things farther and farther toward authoritarian fascism and activists on the ground actively resisting ICE raids, and that was all before the killing of Charlie Kirk lit the fuse on MAGA promises to crush the left. With One Battle After Another presenting fascist raids on sanctuary cities and the French 75 presenting as the kind of terrorist outfit Trump claims Antifa is, it’s a safe bet that the film will be touching a few raw nerves.

    What Anderson is saying about this moment, however, is bound to be an open question. Does PTA support armed revolution? What does it mean when he undercuts that revolution with comedy? Are the villains depicted too broadly? Based on the Q&A after Monday’s screening — which gathered Anderson, DiCaprio, del Toro, Taylor, and Infiniti — the answers may ultimately be left to us. Anderson replied to one question about current events by saying that “details of the world become unplayable” when making a film, choosing instead to focus on things like character motivation and heart. DiCaprio at least twice referenced the “polarization” in the current climate but went no further, for now. That said, if the filmmakers choose to let One Battle After Another speak for itself, I think it speaks rather loudly against white-supremacist fascism, while not shying away from the costs of “doing the revolution,” as DiCaprio’s character at one point says.

    All that said, how far One Battle After Another can take its message about our political reality will likely be up to the awards voters themselves. The last few weeks have had many in the mainstream media and general public calling to tone down the rhetoric, and you have to wonder if a pervasive wish to de-escalate could move some skittish voters away from a film that depicts active violent resistance.

    Regardless of how current events end up impacting One Battle’s awards chances, it feels certain that several cast members are going to wind up in the mix for nominations. DiCaprio enters a Best Actor race that isn’t uncrowded, competing with the likes of Michael B. Jordan (Sinners), George Clooney (Jay Kelly), Jeremy Allen White (Springsteen: Deliver Me From Nowhere), Dwayne Johnson (The Smashing Machine), and Timothée Chalamet (Marty Supreme). After winning the Oscar for The Revenant in 2016, DiCaprio has only been nominated once more, for 2019’s Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood. That justly lauded performance holds similar DNA to what he’s doing in One Battle, with a performance that pivots freely from paranoid buffoonery to dialed-in emotion. The lead performance in the Best Picture winner has won either Best Actor or Best Actress in four of the last five years, and the Academy has gotten a lot less reticent to award second (or even third) Oscars lately, so I’ll be slotting Leo right near the top of my list.

    Speaking of repeat Oscar winners, Penn hasn’t been Oscar nominated since he won his second Best Actor trophy for Milk in 2010. In fact, Penn has been more notable for giving his Oscar statues away than giving the kind of performances that could earn him a third one. Until now. Lockjaw is the kind of standout supporting villain of which Best Supporting Actor victories are made. Penn’s personality has never been cuddly (to put it quite mildly), and he’s almost certainly the most likely cast member to send the film’s Oscar campaign off course with a reckless comment to the press. But he’s also historically been popular among actors. And he really is a hoot in the movie, bestowing his character with a ridiculous gait and a maniacal affect that could prove very difficult for award voters to resist.

    One downside of a Penn supporting actor campaign is that it would likely crowd out Benicio del Toro, who is doing much quieter but no less effective work as Sensei Sergio St. Carlos, a martial-arts instructor and community leader in the sanctuary city of Baktan Cross. Not only is del Toro’s decision to underplay his character a smart and funny counter to the frantic action and paranoid flailing from the likes of DiCaprio, he’s a great conduit for the film’s less bombastic ideas about resistance to government aggression.

    Best Supporting Actress offers the most intriguing angle on One Battle After Another and the Oscars, with Taylor, Infiniti, and Hall all delivering performances that deserve to be mentioned among the year’s best. Taylor owns the first third of the film with a righteous fury that only betrays an inner vulnerability at the most crucial moments. It’s a performance that lingers whenever she’s not onscreen, and the only reason she’s not a Best Actress contender is screen time. In Taylor’s absence steps young Infiniti, whose performance presents initially as softer and quieter, before transforming as the film barrels toward its climax. My guess is that Hall will end up as the odd woman out in this scenario, as her character’s screen time and prominence is more limited, but in those small moments, she shines through with a grit and determination that’s remarkable given how well she’s known for her comedic skills.

    Paul Thomas Anderson has only ever directed two movies that were ignored completely by the Academy: his debut feature, Hard Eight, and his lamentably overlooked masterpiece Punch-Drunk Love. (And if you’re looking for a spare Oscar-season narrative, an Adam Sandler Oscar breakthrough for Jay Kelly coming in the same year that Paul Thomas Anderson might finally win an Oscar is a good one.) Despite the fact that he has never won, Anderson is a filmmaker who Academy voters pay attention to pretty much every time. And with One Battle After Another, he’s delivered perhaps his most accessible, audience-friendly film since Boogie Nights. It’s a straight-up action-comedy that doesn’t get bogged down in the excesses of Pynchon’s Vineland, instead putting a tight focus on the father-daughter relationship between DiCaprio’s and Infiniti’s characters.

    Intentionally or not, Anderson’s masterpieces have carried with them alienating elements, from Magnolia’s rain of frogs to There Will Be Blood’s gory denouement. “Accessible” may be in the eye of the beholder with PTA, but after The Master and Inherent Vice pushed as far as he’s ever pushed in the direction of formal and narrative standoffishness, he’s been inching closer to something friendlier to mass audiences. Phantom Thread was a romance, after all, however comedically dark and twisted it was; he then opted for pure nostalgia with Licorice Pizza. Both films picked up Best Picture and Best Director nominations for PTA, but both remained a bit limited in their appeal. If the Academy was composed entirely of people whose love language was poison mushrooms and grew up in the San Fernando Valley, Anderson’s mantle would be lousy with Oscar statues right now.

    But even for those queasy about this country’s inexorable turn toward fascism, I think One Battle After Another will prove to be a crowd-pleaser: well-paced with action and comedic beats and with a strong undergirding of the kind of clear emotional through-lines that award voters go for. If I wasn’t already sold on the film’s Oscar potential, its ending — which delivers catharsis over ambiguity in a way I wasn’t really expecting — convinced me. Couple that with a campaign that emphasizes Anderson’s nearly unparalleled body of work, and Warner has a ton to work with. Yes, it’s a long road to March 15, and the last thing a studio wants is to be saddled with the weight of too-early Oscar expectations. But in a film year that’s been yearning to take shape, One Battle After Another is what a lot of us have been waiting for: the film to beat.

    [ad_2]

    Joe Reid

    Source link

  • The Lowdown Ambles Toward Glory

    [ad_1]

    A spiky character study of Ethan Hawke’s dirtbag “truthstorian” Lee Raybon reveals itself as a surprising showcase for Sterlin Harjo’s creative vision.
    Photo: Shane Brown/FX

    Ethan Hawke’s face, an angular, beautiful cinematic presence since Dead Poets Society, gets put through the wringer on The Lowdown. In the closing minutes of the pilot, we see him behind the wheel, bloodied and gashed, left eye swollen shut, teeth smeared with red. The image grips you, but its gnarliness is undercut by absurdity: He’s laughing maniacally, having cheated death through no effort of his own. Creator Sterlin Harjo’s follow-up to his pantheon-great Reservation Dogs for FX, debuting this week, riffs on mid-century noirs and hard-boiled detective fiction, in which snooping protagonists are routinely roughed up, shaken down, and driven to the brink of madness. So it goes in The Lowdown, but Harjo filters the genre through his distinct sensibility, equal parts comic, hopeful, fatalistic, and regional. Hawke’s character is not the smooth, trench-coated detective of yore but a mangy dirtbag, repulsive and charismatic. Imagine plucking one of Richard Linklater’s Slacker oddballs and dropping them into a Raymond Chandler novel: familiar yet skewed, in a noir world refracted through Harjo’s sly humor and lived-in specificity.

    Hawke plays Lee Raybon, a self-described “truthstorian” who runs a rare-books shop in Tulsa, Oklahoma, but moonlights as a citizen journalist — or is it the other way around? — filing longform investigations for a scrappy local magazine, The Heartland Press. The series kicks off when Dale Washberg (Tim Blake Nelson), a member of a powerful Oklahoma family, pens a suicide note, hides it inside a book on his shelves, and then shoots himself in the head. His death comes just after Lee’s exposé into the Washbergs’ long, sordid history in the state, but Lee doesn’t buy the cause-and-effect implied by the suicide. “Everything is connected,” he says. “Darkness is always afoot.” Could there be a cover-up? To him, the bigger picture is suspicious. Dale’s brother, Donald (Kyle MacLachlan), is running for governor, and he seems a little too intimate with Dale’s widow, Betty Jo (Jeanne Tripplehorn). At the same time, Lee is digging into Akron Construction, a company buying out Black-owned businesses in the region. He suspects a coordinated effort to strangle competition, which would hurt the local economy. Akron’s owner, Frank Martin (Tracy Letts), a power broker with deep pockets, is unamused by Lee’s prodding, as is the quiet, menacing Allen Murphy (Scott Shepard), who works for Martin.

    So that’s the board as it’s set. But in true pulp-noir fashion, it’s not long before the pieces scatter to the point where the game becomes unrecognizable. Only five of the season’s eight episodes were provided to critics, and by the end of the batch, I still couldn’t quite tell what we’re supposed to be paying attention to. Not that it matters. The Lowdown isn’t powered by its central mystery so much as the shaggy-dog pleasures of watching Lee stumble through a Tulsa rendered with such vivid texture you can practically smell the Plains dust. It’s the kind of show that rewards kicking back and basking in its world. Lee’s shop sits in an unassuming row next to a tax lawyer with whom he lunches and stores his valuables; a record shop his daughter frequents; and a diner called Sweet Emily’s, where he does his thinking. His odyssey takes him to estate sales, livestock auctions, hidden islands, and a rowdy, violent, surreal kegger for law-enforcement officials. It also detours into his own history, when an old friend (Peter Dinklage) resurfaces midway through the season to check in, commiserate, and spar: “Do not quote David Foster Wallace to me, my brother.”

    At its core, The Lowdown is a loving, spiky character study. Harjo — who serves as showrunner, wrote the pilot, and directed the first two episodes — harbors real affection for Lee, and you feel it in the density of quirks, contradictions, and traits packed into the role, all of which Hawke carries with ease. Lee is a pest and a scoundrel, chronically broke and overconfident, maybe a talented writer or at least one who’s quick with literary references. He’s conspiratorially minded, the sort who keeps one of those murder boards in his ratty apartment above the bookshop. He drives a sketchy white van so conspicuous that another character naturally dubs him a “pedo,” the back doors scrawled with the words You’re doing it wrong. Seen through a contemporary lens, Lee feels like a guy who’s one or two degrees away from a QAnon crank, except there’s a pure, humanistic engine in him. He’s earnest rather than angry, lost but charming in his pursuit of his purpose. “Don’t be scared for me,” he tells his worried daughter, Francis (Ryan Kiera Armstrong). “Be scared for the people sleeping away their lives. I’m doing exactly what I want to do. I’m living.” You believe he believes what he’s saying, but you doubt the argument as Lee belongs to TV’s ever-expanding fraternity of sad dads (see also Task) and lonely deadbeats. (Francis’s mother, whom Lee’s no longer with, is played by Kaniehtiio Horn, memorable as the Deer Lady on Reservation Dogs and Tanis in the underrated Letterkenny.)

    On the surface, The Lowdown may seem like a curious project to succeed Reservation Dogs. After the latter’s sheer triumph of Native storytelling, Harjo’s choice to center his next project on a sad white guy, a prestige-television staple, may feel to some like an odd reversal. But Harjo circles a fascinating and mischievous idea with Lee. For all his idiocy, brilliance, and noble intent, it’s hard not to notice how easily Lee moves through spaces where anybody who isn’t a white dude likely wouldn’t survive. Over the course of the series, Lee impersonates a white supremacist to enter the home of another white supremacist’s mother and later poses as a U.S. Fish and Wildlife officer to break into a private space to jack some rare books. He’s often saved by his own gift of gab; at one point, he talks his way out of torture and possibly death at the hands of a criminal outfit he blunders into. The show doesn’t frame this as a critique so much as a matter of amusement. Lee is grating and unquestionably benefits from the privileges of his whiteness, but he also weaponizes those advantages for some notion of good — even if it’s self-serving, even if it ultimately leads to his own ruin. Hawke is splendid in the role, which makes deft use of his chatterbox charisma, the very same that can come off as annoying yet attractive in films like Reality Bites and the Before trilogy, or menacing in something like Black Phone. For all the things Lee gets called (“a narcissistic cowboy with a penchant for thinking they’re a good person”) and the things he calls himself (“I’m a good guy, that’s what we do, we call up bad guys and make them answer the phone”), perhaps the truest description comes from Cyrus Arnold (a scene-stealing Michael “Killer Mike” Render), the publisher of a local crime rag: “A fucking white man that cares. Sad as hell.”

    The Lowdown is also quite the showcase for Harjo’s creative vision. His world-building is lush enough to smooth over however you may feel about Lee’s rough edges, and his gift for seamlessly weaving together his expansive cultural appetites gives the show a kind of referential heft that feels inviting as opposed to alienating. It draws on and echoes the great noirs (The Long Goodbye comes to mind) but also the paranoid fictions of someone like Philip K. Dick. You feel the echoes even if you’re not familiar with the reference. Jim Thompson, the Oklahoma crime writer whose reputation flourished only after his death, surfaces as a touchpoint in the notes Dale leaves behind, and hearing the name makes you curious enough to pick up one of his novels. The show sparkles with wit, sharp dialogue (“a faint heart never fucked a bobcat”), and a gallery of memorable, organically diverse characters populating Harjo’s Tulsa. And it finds real magic in small moments. Midway through the pilot, Lee meets Marty (Keith David), a stranger with as much literary flair as Lee has himself. They parry verbally until Marty tilts the encounter toward reflection. “Something brings us to Sweet Emily’s at this hour,” he muses, regarding the other insomniacs in the diner. “Look around.” The camera lingers: a cup of coffee, a man reading his Bible, rain streaking the window — a portrait of nighthawks. Lee shrugs it off. “Just a bunch of night owls, that’s all I see.” Marty corrects him: “No. You see poetry.” In this beat, the show’s essence is crystallized.

    In more ways than one, The Lowdown deepens and extends Harjo’s sensibilities. If Reservation Dogs found beauty in the embrace of community in the margins, The Lowdown draws its spark from what happens when someone in the margins starts to poke back at entrenched power. Both shows wander and amble toward something more than the sum of their parts, and both find beauty and meaning lingering in the details. The heart of noir tends to be nihilism, its abyssal mood a veil that invites you to glimpse the darker machinery of a world ruled by insurmountable powers where resistance leads only to ruin. But Harjo complicates that. “The way you write about Tulsa — there’s bad things about it, but underneath, it’s really good,” Francis tells Lee. He may be a fool, but he’s also a lover who continues to believe in the truth. It may yet end badly for him, but for the moment, he makes you believe there’s still glory in the fight to fix a broken world.


    See All



    [ad_2]

    Nicholas Quah

    Source link

  • Every Single Thing That Happened at the 2025 Emmys

    [ad_1]

    Photo: Valerie Macon/AFP via Getty Images

    According to Nate Bargatze, nobody watched Succession “in the grand scheme of things.” But those who did had to watch him tonight, as the famously milquetoast comedian hosted the 77th Primetime Emmy Awards, where the crème de la crème of post-prestige television duked it out for a couple shelves’ worth of trophies. The Studio beat The Bear for the most wins for a comedy series in a single year, while The Pitt reigned supreme in its rivalry with Severance and Britt Lower pulled an upset in Lead Actress in a Drama over Kathy Bates. Catch up with all of Vulture’s real-time reactions to the evening below, then peruse the full list of winners here. —Nicholas Quah

    [ad_2]

    Vulture Staff

    Source link

  • Farewell, Downton

    [ad_1]

    Photo: Rory Mulvey/Focus Features

    Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale is a work at fascinating odds with itself. On one hand, the film is the ultimate nostalgia bait, the third spinoff of Julian Fellowes’s upstairs-downstairs series that debuted in 2010 and has endured, in some form or another, since then. It goes down easy, the atmosphere so enveloping that you basically forget how this whole project is a love letter to the aristocracy and a patronizing pat on the head for the working class. On the other hand, despite being the narratively thinnest film in the franchise, The Grand Finale is also the most existentially despairing, driven by the questions of what it takes to enact social change and, ultimately, what it means to leave Downton Abbey behind.

    The Grand Finale offers answers that are totally unsurprising. Time marches forward, and there’s nothing we do can stop it. The new generation will always make choices their elders don’t quite understand. Capitalism is better than socialism. (I don’t agree with that one, but The Grand Finale makes that point at least three times!) Downton Abbey fans have seen this all before. But that also might be what makes The Grand Finale such an effective end point for this franchise. It reassures us that everything the ever-growing Crawley family holds dear — their money, their property, their proximity to power, and their belief in the royal hierarchy as the best way to rule — remains worthy of protection, and it also offers the thinnest sliver of forward progress to appease any worries that the series’ interest in the past is also an explicit endorsement of conservatism or traditionalism. It’s a perfect threading of the fanciful fan-service needle, aside from the fact that (spoiler alert!) Matthew Goode isn’t onscreen for even one moment. He’s now claimed two scheduling conflicts as reasons he doesn’t appear in these movies; was Dept. Q worth missing out on Goode in a tuxedo? Arguable.

    Just like how the previous film, A New Era, was a fairly meta experiment in what it takes to make a Downton Abbey movie, The Grand Finale is a meta experiment in what it takes to end the whole thing. (Simon Curtis directed this one, too.) Set in 1930, The Grand Finale begins a couple years after the events of A New Era, with everyone on the precipice of change. In A New Era’s final act, the Earl of Grantham, Robert Crawley (Hugh Bonneville), told his eldest daughter, Lady Mary Crawley (Michelle Dockery), that Downton Abbey and the future of the family were now in her hands. Similarly, longtime Downton butler Mr. Carson (Jim Carter) was finally preparing to retire and hand the running of the home’s staff over to former footman Andy (Michael Fox). What would these men, whose decades were defined by service, do when their time is over? What would their purpose be?

    The Grand Finale equates these questions as if these men are of the same class, because it’s always been part of Fellowes’s imagination that Lord and Lady Grantham and all their family members are extremely considerate, kind, patient, and generous toward their household staff, no matter how anachronistic that characterization may be, as though the kindness would erase the massive wealth gaps with which these characters live. And he applies the same Pollyannaish touch to the film’s other source of drama: Lady Mary’s divorce from her second husband, race-car driver Henry Talbot (Goode). In this age of gossip columnists and paparazzi photographers, Mary is immediately shamed by negative press coverage of her divorce, and she becomes a social pariah as soon as the news gets out. (Viewers of The Gilded Age, Fellowes’s currently airing 1880s-set historical drama, will recognize that the writer is doing some double-dipping here; the impact of a high-society lady’s divorce is also a major plot point in the HBO series’ third season.) Mary’s family is ready to go to war for her, but they have bigger things to worry about when Lady Cora’s (Elizabeth McGovern) brother Harold Levinson (Paul Giamatti) arrives in London to discuss the settling of their mother’s estate. The fact that Harold brings along an unknown-to-the-family American businessman named Gus Sambrook (Alessandro Nivola) is weird, but Gus is such a smooth talker, effective flirter, and loquacious flatterer that Mary lets her guard down — maybe to her detriment.

    Downton Abbey’s (white) ensemble grew more sprawling with each season and film, and a number of other story lines — one about a county fair and one on the entertainment industry — fly around The Grand Finale to appease them all. (A New Era had a Black band performing in Paris; The Grand Finale has a silent South Asian family bowing to nobles while watching the horse races — that’s all the diversity you’ll get in this ever-so-genteel version of Europe before World War II.) In typical Fellowes fashion, all these subplots involve class and social status in some way, and also in typical Fellowes fashion, they all boil down to “Isn’t it wonderful when the rich are nice to the workers whose labor funds their privilege? But, like, don’t get any revolutionary ideas!” How this franchise has eroded the initially shit-kicking ideologies of Allen Leech’s former Irish socialist Tom Branson boggles the mind; as if his saving the king from assassination in A New Era weren’t enough, in this film he says being a capitalist is simply “being sensible.” Fellowes’s affection for the monarchy is explicit and implicit, and his writing treats the briefest moments of attention from the wealthy — actor Guy Dexter (Dominic West) remembering Downton’s staff; playwright and composer Noël Coward (Arty Froushan) acknowledging the work of footman turned screenwriter Mr. Molesley (Kevin Doyle) — like earth-shattering events of diplomacy. Attempting any kind of praxis read of The Grand Finale is a fool’s errand.

    Yet The Grand Finale moves briskly because it’s the cinematic equivalent of great gowns, beautiful gowns. John Lunn’s soaring score makes shots of Highclere Castle, which stands in for Downton Abbey, particularly magical; Anna Robbins’s luxurious costumes, all satin, lace, and brocade, are once again gorgeous; Nivola’s smirk is a welcome bit of Yankee attitude. (God, that smirk!) The resplendent production and art design complement theater shows, dinner parties, horse races, and carnival outings, and the deeply experienced cast members hit all their marks of humor and pathos. Put aside the (lack of) realism of any of this and it’s thoroughly pleasurable, especially in how it’s a movie for the girlbosses, with Mary, Cora, Isobel (Penelope Wilton), and Lady Edith Pelham (Laura Carmichael) all getting moments to tell men what’s what, another recurring Downton Abbey bit; how gracious of their elder male counterparts to step aside so they can step forward. Lord Grantham’s disgust with the word “weekend” would have been the film’s funniest moment, until Harold falls asleep reading Charles Dickens and asks if Downton Abbey has any murder mysteries in its library, only to be snippily told by the butler that there might be some in the nursery. This film has no interest in the family’s children; they only appear onscreen to be read to and play bucolically with their nannies. But Fellowes’s formula provides such smooth-brained pleasure that I wouldn’t be surprised if Downton Abbey: The New Class materializes in a decade’s time. This franchise may claim it’s finally leaping into the future, but its identity will always be in an idealized version of a wealthy white past.

    [ad_2]

    Roxana Hadadi

    Source link

  • Eternity Should Be Sadder

    [ad_1]

    Photo: Leah Gallo/A24

    Eternity is an old-school crowd-pleaser. Directed by David Freyne, it’s big and brightly lit, the type of movie you watch during the holidays despite it having nothing to do with Christmas. It’s full of beautiful people and whimsical flourishes and features a premise so instantly appealing it begs the question, How hasn’t this been done before? A woman named Joan (Elizabeth Olsen) arrives in the afterlife and has to choose which of her two deceased husbands to spend her afterlife with: her first husband, Luke (Callum Turner), who died in military service shortly after the pair married, or her second husband, Larry (Miles Teller), whom she was married to for 65 years and raised her family with. It’s an impossible and irreversible choice between pursuing the life she never got to have and continuing to build on the life and memories she did. But for a movie with such high and clear emotional stakes, it sure has a lot of jokes.

    A lot of these jokes add to the movie’s texture, particularly those embedded in the movie’s intricate (after)world-building. For example, each newly dead person has to choose a specific “eternity” to spend forever in, and among the infinite choices they’re presented with are eternities like “smokers’ world: because cancer can’t kill you twice” and “capitalist world: What’s the point of being rich if someone else isn’t poor?” At one point, an announcement plays over a loudspeaker, issuing a reminder to the deceased: “Geopolitical differences don’t matter; you’re dead.” Jokes also land with regularity thanks to the actors who deliver them, in particular John Early and Da’Vine Joy Randolph, who play “afterlife coordinators” tasked with helping Joan and Larry plan their afterlife. They function as de facto rom-com sidekicks offering comic relief.

    But the movie never slows the pace of jokes enough for such relief to feel necessary. Even the central characters, for whom you’d think this would all be heartbreaking, constantly deliver quips. Comic beats interrupt otherwise affecting scenes, like when Joan and Luke relive their life together in a video archive of their memories on Earth, and an embarrassed Joan skips past a memory of them having sex: “No, no, no!” Larry and Luke develop a rivalry in which any genuine hurt they are causing one another gets sidelined in favor of petty squabbling; in one scene, Larry tries to discount the valor of Luke’s war death: “It was Korea, buddy. Relax!” The result is that the premise plays like a 1950s-sitcom predicament. Joan, discombobulated by the choice she’s presented with, is appropriately tortured at times by the gravity of it all but seems just as likely to put her hands on her hips, pout, and exclaim, “What a pickle!”

    None of this is to say Eternity needed to be another Past Lives, telling the story of a woman forced to confront the divergent paths of life with two possible romantic partners in as aching a tone as possible. Pure comedies have their place. But in the movie’s final act, Freyne clearly wants to evoke tears. There are big romantic sacrifices, sad good-byes, and wrenching looks of longing and regret that don’t hit as hard as they could, because the audience hasn’t been given space to feel these characters’ emotions build over the course of the film. Eternity didn’t need to be a melodrama, but sometimes a little schmaltz goes a long way.

    [ad_2]

    Hershal Pandya

    Source link

  • You Can’t Look Away From Cooper Hoffman

    [ad_1]

    In Poetic License, Hoffman is like a Gen-Z Vince Vaughn, bullshitting sophistication at a mile a minute, but also too sensitive for this world.
    Photo: Toronto International Film Festival

    There’s an early scene in Poetic License, Maude Apatow’s directorial debut, which premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival over the weekend, in which an idiosyncratic college senior with family money, played by Cooper Hoffman, floats the idea of creating a LinkedIn account. His best friend, a comparatively buttoned-up economics student named Sam (Andrew Barth Feldman), asks Hoffman’s Ari what he would write on it. Ari chews on the question for a beat, a quizzical expression on his face as it morphs subtly from curiosity to bafflement to worry to contentment. Finally, he retracts his flight of fancy: “Never mind.” There aren’t many actors doing intense character work between the setup and punch line of a joke. In Poetic License, Hoffman establishes himself as one of them.

    Poetic License is a movie about transition. By coincidence or otherwise, it comes from the Apatow school of zooming in on characters at major turning points in their lives (Apatow’s father, Judd, is a producer, and her mother, Leslie Mann, co-stars in the movie). Ari is aimless and has made the executive decision to wean himself off his antidepressants; Sam is tortured by the prospect of going straight from college into a boring and unfulfilling career at Morgan Stanley. Everyone around them is in transition, too. The boys become enamored with Liz (Mann) in a poetry class at their college, which she’s auditing to cope with the fact that her daughter, Dora (Nico Parker), is about to move away after high school. Their professor, Greta (Martha Kelly), is going through a messy divorce. They all turn in stellar work — particularly Mann, who finally gets the role befitting her talents that Judd has been trying to write for years. All of which makes Hoffman’s standout performance all the more impressive.

    Some of this is owing to the script, courtesy of first-time screenwriter Raffi Donatich. The dialogue crackles with witty, fast-paced rapport, and Hoffman gets many of the best individual lines. At one point, upon seeing Liz pull out of the school’s parking lot, he turns to Sam and remarks, “I love a woman who can drive.” When Sam points out that that isn’t an identifiable archetype, he hits back, “It is if you’re from New York.” But Hoffman also imbues the character with an innocent, slippery charisma. He’s Gen-Z Vince Vaughn, bullshitting sophistication at a mile a minute, but also too sensitive for this world. In an early conversation with Liz, she remarks that Sam and Ari have a special connection, and he says with precocious gratitude, “You’re so perceptive of what we have.” He punctuates line deliveries by flashing his eyes and curling his face into endearing half-smiles, which grow more manic as the movie progresses and his medication wears off.

    About halfway through the film, Ari and Liz talk about his decision to stop taking his antidepressants. Liz asks him why he thinks it’s safe to do, and Ari replies that he’s unconcerned because the medications are diminishing his “sparkle.” It’s supposed to be a ludicrous argument: How could anything diminish this guy’s sparkle? a viewer might think. It’s a credit to Hoffman that that comes across.

    [ad_2]

    Hershal Pandya

    Source link

  • Josh O’Connor Takes Wake Up Dead Man to Church

    [ad_1]

    As a priest clinging to faith, O’Connor is silly, sincere, and steals the new Knives Out movie from Benoit Blanc.
    Photo: Netflix

    Like any good mystery series, the Benoit Blanc movies know the value of repetition. You could call it a formula if you felt like knocking this series of films from writer-director Rian Johnson, which kicked off with Knives Out in 2019 and continued with Glass Onion in 2022. As those two films did, Johnson’s latest, Wake Up Dead Man, premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival to this year’s most rabid crowds so far. Once again, Johnson has gathered together an all-star cast — this group includes Glenn Close, Andrew Scott, Kerry Washington, Jeremy Renner, and Josh Brolin — to set up the pins so that Daniel Craig’s dapper Southern detective can knock ’em all down. But while Wake Up Dead Man is another murder mystery, the most compelling crime in the film occurs in plain sight, as Josh O’Connor outright steals the film out from under Benoit Blanc, and he does it dressed in the vestments of a Catholic priest.

    O’Connor plays Reverend Jud Duplenticy, a young priest seeking his own salvation. He gets sent to a small upstate New York church to assist Monsignor Wicks (Josh Brolin), a kind of Catholic Colonel Kurtz — aggressive and territorial and half-mad. O’Connor plays his half of the power struggle between the two priests initially as light comedy; the English actor (playing American again, as he did in Challengers) is downright nebbishy in moments. He’s a great fit for Johnson’s tendency to puncture the moment with comic relief, which is kind of infuriating. No one that handsome should also get to have good comic timing.

    But it’s in the film’s surprising degree of sincerity that O’Connor makes himself invaluable. Wake Up Dead Man is the most earnest (and least comedic) of the three Blanc films. And it’s sincere about faith, of all things, and politics, too. My guess is that will occupy a great deal of the reaction to this movie. If Knives Out and Glass Onion were sideswipes at the anti-immigrant right and Silicon Valley fascists, respectively, Wake Up Dead Man is Rian Johnson taking dead aim at Trump and his band of hard-liners. The all-star cast mostly plays Wicks’ parishioners, each with their own little set of personal foibles that at any moment could become a motive to kill. Because yes, there is eventually a murder, and Blanc turns up in town full of theories and brio.

    But this is Father Jud’s movie. We get a third of the way into it before Blanc arrives, and by then, O’Connor has already more than capably put the film on his shoulders. An idealistic priest with a profound belief in the Church’s power to save souls could be a tough sell for another actor, but O’Connor capably lands every beat — he’s awfully formidable for a pretty boy, and awfully sympathetic for a priest. There’s a darkness on the periphery of his performance, too. No man of such intense religious faith can ever be ruled out as a killer, after all.

    Daniel Craig was deservedly lauded for the first two Blanc films, and he’s no less winning in this one. But with Wake Up Dead Man as interested in salvation as it is in its whodunit yarn, Josh O’Connor ends up as the film’s MVP: Most Valuable… Priest. (So dumb.)


    See All



    [ad_2]

    Joe Reid

    Source link

  • The Lost Bus Is an Instant Disaster-Movie Classic

    [ad_1]

    The agitated, ominous vibration of giant power lines and quaking transmission towers feels like a Greek chorus throughout Paul Greengrass’s intense new wildfire thriller, The Lost Bus. Over the course of the film, Greengrass regularly cuts away to the churning cables and metal structures, as well as to the roaring flames of the 2018 Camp Fire, as the blaze makes its way across the mountains and cliffs of Northern California. This helps us follow the spread of this real-life disaster, and it also conveys the puniness and impotence of the mortals fighting it. Based on real-life stories from the Camp Fire (still the deadliest wildfire in California history), The Lost Bus, which just premiered at the Toronto Film Festival ahead of a short September theatrical release and an October 3 debut on Apple TV+, offers plenty of suspense and heroism. But it’s all tempered by the knowledge that these fires are inescapable, growing, and unstoppable.

    At heart, The Lost Bus is a disaster movie — a great one — and it has some of the classic moves of a disaster movie, complete with the slightly on-the-nose narrative shorthand designed to introduce characters quickly and efficiently. Greengrass cuts across a number of arenas and people, including the various fire crews trying to deal with this rapidly deteriorating situation, but the central narrative belongs to Kevin McKay (Matthew McConaughey), a down-on-his luck school-bus driver in Paradise, California, who returned here after his life fell apart elsewhere. Kevin is already having one of the worst days of his life even before everything burns down: His dog is dying, his teenage son is home sick from school (and also hates him), his mom is elderly and out of it, and his ex-wife is berating him on the phone. He’s also missed his bus’s inspection appointments, he’s running out of money, and his supervisor thinks he’s a flake. Once the flames come roaring into town, however, Kevin will be the only one in a position to drive a busload of elementary-schoolers, along with their teacher, Mary Ludwig (America Ferrera), through the downright biblical flames and out to safety. It’s Speed meets the end of the world.

    McConaughey was made for parts like this: the good old boy facing extraordinary circumstances. He knows exactly how to sell this character and his desperation — not with confidence, but with a “damn the torpedoes, I’ll try anything once” bravado. Honestly, they should cast him in every disaster movie. Plus, he makes a fine match with Ferrera, whose teacher must exude outward calm for the benefit of her kids while she’s not-so-secretly freaking out inside. (Both Kevin and Mary have their own kids elsewhere that they’re also worried sick about.) As everything falls apart around them in ways both big and small, we enjoy watching these two opposites butt heads and quibble and then learn to function as a team.

    The film feels like a homecoming for Greengrass, who cut his teeth in the world of you-are-there television documentaries before helping redefine the modern action movie with the handheld urgency of hits like The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum. The director also carried that approach over to docudramas like United 93, Captain Phillips, and July 22 (as well as his earlier, masterful Bloody Sunday, the movie that put him on the map back in 2002). But the “shaky cam” style ran its course some years ago; his last effort was the stately and old-fashioned Tom Hanks western News of the World, a beautiful picture whose release got swallowed up by the COVID-19 pandemic.

    In The Lost Bus, Greengrass combines his thriller side with his reportorial side. He films Kevin and Mary and the schoolkids’ journey through hellfire as a no-holds-barred action spectacle full of immediacy and awe, complete with hair’s-breadth escapes and incredible visions of destruction. (It’s frankly a shame that The Lost Bus isn’t getting a wider theatrical release; it was clearly made to be a big-screen experience.) Some incidents have been a bit sensationalized, but Kevin and Mary’s heroism was very real, as evidenced in Lizzie Johnson’s exhaustively researched and absorbing 2021 nonfiction book Paradise: One Town’s Struggle to Survive an American Wildfire, on which the film is loosely based. To that end, the film also offers a more diffuse and heavily researched portrait of what goes into battling a wildfire, and Greengrass’s vérité style lends authenticity to the scenes of fire chiefs strategizing, of ground crews and air crews trying to combat the blazes and save lives. The picture thus combines the excitement of an old-school disaster spectacle with a fly-on-the-wall portrait of institutions struggling to function in the face of a calamity. The effect is singular: We enjoy the thrill ride immensely, but it’s the realism that sticks with us. Movies end, but the fires are here to stay.


    See All



    [ad_2]

    Bilge Ebiri

    Source link

  • A House of Dynamite Is Kathryn Bigelow at Her Best

    [ad_1]

    The director’s latest, her first film in seven years, is an absurdly riveting thriller with the kind of ticking-clock suspense Bigelow does so well.
    Photo: Eros Hoagland/Netflix

    The very basic premise of Kathryn Bigelow’s A House of Dynamite is gripping on its own: A single missile is launched at the United States, nobody knows where it’s from, and the national security apparatus springs into action. Thankfully, the movie delivers on that promise. The director’s latest, her first film in seven years, is an absurdly riveting thriller with the kind of ticking-clock, military-grade suspense she does so well. Bigelow intercuts multiple arenas and juggles a small army of characters without ever losing sight of the central, upsettingly simple set of dilemmas: Can they stop the missile in time? Who fired it? How should the U.S. respond? The film is already receiving hosannas at Venice and will surely grab its share of eyeballs when it eventually premieres on Netflix.

    A House of Dynamite actually has a predictable set of moves, at least once the main plot kicks in, but this makes Bigelow’s ability to maintain suspense that much more impressive. Her technique gives Noah Oppenheim’s jargon-heavy script conviction and urgency. I probably couldn’t tell you much about what terms like launch azimuth and exoatmospheric kill vehicle and terminal phase and dual phenomenology really mean (not to mention the several dozen acronyms being tossed about), and I sure as hell couldn’t say if they’re being used properly here. But the film has an aura of technical accuracy, which is what matters. The actors sing their lines with a rat-a-tat confidence that’s so convincing we start to worry they’re giving away government secrets.

    Watching Bigelow depict these offices, situation rooms, and control centers all abuzz with increasingly hurrying (and increasingly horrified) officials, we suspect she is drawn to these type-A professionals because she relates to them. Ever since Zero Dark Thirty, her 2012 film about the hunt for Osama bin Laden, was attacked for buying too fully into the CIA’s version of events, the director has been accused of unquestioningly laundering the images of the U.S. military and the intelligence industry. There will be those who take one look at a picture like A House of Dynamite and consider it a form of propaganda for the national security apparatus. This is frankly ridiculous — the film is all about how the system, even when functioning perfectly, will surely fail us.

    Bigelow can make a movie like this because she understands the appeal and awe of power. She depicts these powerful spaces with elegant establishing shots and smooth camera moves suggesting control, calm, and certitude. But whenever it steps out into the real world, the film becomes agitated and hurried, our vision obstructed. A House of Dynamite doesn’t have the sweaty humanity of Fail Safe or the dark absurdism of Dr. Strangelove. Rather, it has a fascination with authority and professionalism and their limits: What if everyone follows orders and does their job really well and everything still goes to shit? (Forget what might happen if the people in charge are a bunch of incompetent, ignorant buffoons; surely that would never happen.)

    The film’s action is split into three sections, each focusing on a different set of individuals as they respond to the fact that, in 18 minutes, a missile launched somewhere in the Pacific will most likely hit the city of Chicago and instantly incinerate around 10 million people. The structure elegantly goes up the chain of command: Each level of the government org chart must tackle this problem at a different point in its trajectory. In the first chapter, most of the activity centers on a missile-defense battalion in Alaska, with its command and control center run by Major David Gonzalez (Anthony Ramos), and the White House Situation Room, where watch-floor senior duty officer Olivia Walker (Rebecca Ferguson) tries to respond to the rapidly developing crisis; their job is to identify and ultimately bring down the nuke. In the second chapter, we follow what happens at U.S. Strategic Command, where gung-ho general Anthony Brady (Tracy Letts) begins urging the president to prepare to strike at all U.S. adversaries in case this is a coordinated attack; meanwhile, at the emergency operations center deep beneath the White House, deputy national security advisor Jake Baerington (Gabriel Basso) tries to advise calm.

    In the final section, we watch the secretary of Defense (Jared Harris) and the president (Idris Elba), both of whom, we gather, have only recently entered office, try to deal with what’s starting to look like the ultimate calamity. At one point, they remark that they have been briefed about this eventuality only once, whereas they’ve been briefed about filling a potential Supreme Court vacancy countless times. Even as she depicts the professionalism of her characters, Bigelow makes it clear that they are all totally unprepared for this situation. Lines like “We’ve run this drill a thousand times!” and “We did everything right, didn’t we?” ring not with optimism but with bitter irony.

    Not unlike Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer, A House of Dynamite is fundamentally an institutionalist’s outcry about the horrors of nuclear proliferation. The specter of atomic annihilation, once such a major part of our collective fears, has been dormant for so long, even as the danger hasn’t decreased. We get brief, little human details for many of the characters — not enough to edge into corniness but just enough to make it clear they are, in fact, people: One is dealing with a breakup, another with a divorce; one with a pregnancy, another with a child sick at home with a 102-degree fever; one needs a new apartment, another plans to propose to his girl. The secretary of Defense is mourning his wife, which gives weight to his initially selfish-sounding reflection that his daughter lives in Chicago. These tiny bits and bobs of humanity gather power as the film marches on. As a result of the overlapping timelines, certain small moments play out multiple times, each moment with fresh context.

    The fractured narrative replicates the characters’ fractured perspectives. From within their highly secure rooms, where they can’t even bring their own cell phones, these people struggle to reach the outside world. Communication is fragile and inconsistent, reflecting both physical and existential claustrophobia: Nobody really knows or sees what’s going on. Early in the timeline, we see the president attending a WNBA kids’ event with Angel Reese, but this moment out among the public also feels highly choreographed and manufactured. Along with everyone else in this film, he is closed off to the rest of the world — even as he holds in his hands the power to obliterate all of it.


    See All



    [ad_2]

    Bilge Ebiri

    Source link

  • The Most Devastating Movie I’ve Seen in Years

    [ad_1]

    Chloe Zhao’s adaptation of the novel Hamnet reimagines the poetic act of creating the greatest play in the English language.
    Photo: Agata Grzybowska/Focus Features

    We know next to nothing about William Shakespeare’s only son, Hamnet, other than the fact that he and his twin sister Judith were born sometime in 1585 and that he was buried in August of 1596, 11 years later. Even the cause of death is unknown, though the deaths of young children were not entirely uncommon at the time; three of William’s own sisters had died in childhood. Understandably, the scarcity of our insight into the life of Hamnet and his family has inspired writers and artists over the years to fill in the details with their own imaginings. As an opening quote from Shakespeare scholar Stephen Greenblatt reminds us, in both Maggie O’Farrell’s haunting 2020 novel Hamnet and Chloe Zhao’s new adaptation of it: “Hamnet and Hamlet are in fact the same name, entirely interchangeable in Stratford records in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.” Which means we know one more thing about this boy: A few years after his death, his father wrote the greatest play in the English language, and it bears his name.

    Premiering at the Telluride Film Festival ahead of a November theatrical release, Hamnet is devastating, maybe the most emotionally shattering movie I’ve seen in years. The book was overwhelming, too, and going into a film about the death of a child, one naturally prepares to shed some tears. Still, I did not really expect to cry this much. That’s not just because of the tragic weight of the material, but because the picture reimagines the poetic act of creating Hamlet. Shakespeare’s play sits on the highest shelf, fixed by the dust from centuries of acclaim. It is about as unimpeachable as a work of art can be. And yet, here is a movie that dares to explore its inception. The attempt itself is noble, and maybe a little brazen; that it succeeds feels downright supernatural.

    Hamnet remains mostly faithful to the novel (O’Farrell collaborated with Zhao on the screenplay), but the two works center on different parts of the imagined timeline. The book ends with our first glimpse of Hamlet, and its final words belong to the Ghost of the play: “Remember me.” The film, on the other hand, directly grapples with the connections between real life and art, showing how the play (and his own role in it) became a vessel for Will Shakespeare (Paul Mescal) to confront his sorrow and help bring his wife Agnes (Jessie Buckley) out of hers. Hamlet is thought of, not incorrectly, as a work about vengeance and the conflict between thought and action; indeed, it was Shakespeare’s version of an already-existing and popular revenge play. But in shifting her focus, Zhao fully embraces something long evident but often overlooked: As reworked by Shakespeare, Hamlet is also a play about all-consuming grief, one driven at all levels by loss and guilt and questions of how to properly mourn.

    It’s a fascinating subject to imagine, but how exactly does one tell a story mired in such unspeakable sadness? Hamnet speculates that the child was a victim of bubonic plague, but it approaches the tragedy with a kind of magical realist sensibility. In this telling, the constitutionally weaker Judith (played by Olivia Lynes in the film) is the one who initially gets sick, and the loving and industrious Hamnet (Jacobi Jupe), who often traded clothes with her as a game to fool their parents, makes one final sacrifice, pretending to be his sickly twin sister and thereby drawing the disease out from her and into himself. Transference is thus at the heart of this story — narratively, formally, structurally.

    The novel jumps back and forth in time, but it keeps circling back to Hamnet’s death, as O’Farrell’s garnished prose transmutes a horrific event into something almost unreal, though no less heartbreaking; her efflorescent descriptions of nature capture something uncanny and sinister about the world (not unlike the doomed Ophelia’s florid songs of grief in Shakespeare’s play). Zhao’s film is more linear, so it doesn’t dwell as long on the details of the death itself. Instead, its breathless, queasy energy sweeps us along. Aided immeasurably by Max Richter’s score, Zhao finds melancholy not in stillness and reflection but in movement and activity. We see how young Will, a sensitive and shy Latin tutor, first met the headstrong Agnes, once a child of nature dismissed as “a forest witch” and raised by an uncaring step-mother. Buckley, an actor who can be both ethereal and earthy at the same time, makes an ideal choice for Agnes. This is a woman who doesn’t quite belong in the world and yet seems to have emerged out of its very soil. She loves to lurk in the woods with her pet falcon, she is proficient in herbs and remedies, and she possesses the gift of foresight.  Despite her reluctance to get married, Agnes has already seen that at her deathbed she will be surrounded by two children. But she has already had a daughter, Susanna, before Judith and Hamlet arrive, so the eventual birth of three children terrifies her to the core.

    Will, the “pasty-faced scholar” hounded for his meekness, sees and loves Agnes for who she is, but marriage and a family also mean a taming of her wild spirits. They are kindred souls: He too can work dark magic, just with his words. Zhao suggests that even though Will was rarely home, his family life fed his art. We see the kids doing the witches’ opening incantations from Macbeth, and of course Hamnet and Judith’s cross-dressing and play-acting echo the plots of many a Shakespeare comedy. All this could come off as corny, but the family is depicted with such loving specificity that we buy all of it. Many historians have been perplexed by how such a seemingly simple man as Shakespeare could have written works of such grandeur and depth. So here, then, is a home filled with wonder and play that could have inspired some of it.

    Which, of course, compounds the tragedy. Agnes might have access to certain powers, but she can’t bring Hamnet back. “He can’t have just vanished,” she says. “All he needs is for me to find him. He must be somewhere.” Will simply responds, “We may never stop looking for him.” But the film has already shown us where Hamnet is. As he hovers between life and death, we see a vision of the young boy wandering around a makeshift forest that is clearly a theater backdrop. He then steps into the dark void of a door at stage center, from which Will Shakespeare himself will later emerge, cloaked in white powder, playing the ghost of Hamlet’s murdered father. The undiscovered country is art itself.

    We sometimes forget what a phenomenal actor Mescal is. This is probably because he hasn’t made a good action hero yet, which is a scarlet letter in our day and age. But also, we love to quantify, classify, and dilute complicated performers into simple impressions; despite the fact that he’s only been acting in movies for five years, we think we already know what he’s all about. But he’s not really the softboi that’s been memed to meaninglessness. With his unexpected choices in both cadence and affect, he’s something closer to a young Christopher Walken. In Hamnet, his response at the first sight of his dead son represents some of the best acting I’ve ever seen; it’s matched later when he interrupts a rehearsal of Hamlet’s “Get thee to a nunnery” speech and delivers it himself with such snarling self-loathing (“I could accuse me of such things that it were better my mother had not born me!”) that he instantly and convincingly reinterprets the world’s most famous play before our very eyes. Agnes accuses Will of not grieving enough, but Mescal makes sure we see that oceans of pain lie beneath his hesitancy: He is Hamlet. And yes, we do get to see the actor as William Shakespeare reciting Hamlet’s “To be or not to be” soliloquy in this movie, one of two very different interpretations of the same speech that Zhao presents, as if to acknowledge that everyone has their own Hamlet.

    It won’t spoil anything to say that Hamnet concludes with a staging of Hamlet, one in which the play’s twisted reflection of the poet’s life becomes more evident and gains complexity. Perhaps the greatest compliment I can pay Zhao is that this recreation of such a familiar work still manages to surprise, because we see it through Agnes’s disbelieving eyes. The drama onstage doesn’t just echo and explain Will’s sorrow, it also serves as a kind of lifeline to Agnes — and when we view Hamlet as an effort by one grieving person to reach out to another, the whole thing opens up in magnificent new ways. There are references to other stories coursing through Hamnet, and one of them is the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice, which Will tells Agnes during one of their first meetings. It’s a tale of resurrection, passion, and art, and how one final longing glance traps a lover in the underworld forever. As presented here, it doesn’t apply in any schematic or obvious way to the drama of Shakespeare’s life. But it does underline a fundamental truth in both Hamnet, and Hamlet: that to see and be seen is a joyous and terrifying thing.


    See All



    [ad_2]

    Bilge Ebiri

    Source link

  • With Bugonia, Yorgos Lanthimos Enters the Real World, Sort Of

    [ad_1]

    Yorgos Lanthimos’s Bugonia began life as a remake of the 2003 South Korean film Save the Green Planet!, and it retains the broad outlines of that strange classic. But it also feels like Lanthimos through and through, albeit with the strangest of twists: It’s the first picture of his populated by characters who feel like they exist in the real world, people you could run into if you walked out the door. The power of Lanthimos’s work has always come from his ability to provide surreal but dead-on metaphors that take on lives of their own: a futuristic resort where one must debase oneself to find a mate, in The Lobster; or a family where the parents have trained their kids to accept absurdities as reality, in Dogtooth. With Bugonia, it feels like he’s entered our world at last, at least for a while. Which also makes it maybe the saddest film he’s ever made.

    Bugonia, which premieres at the Venice Film Festival and will release in theaters in October, is basically a two-hander, albeit with three central characters. Teddy (Jesse Plemons) and his neurodivergent cousin Donald (played by newcomer Aiden Delbis) live in a ramshackle house in the woods where they keep bees and are methodically preparing for a shocking act: They will kidnap high-powered, slick-suited pharmaceutical-company executive Michelle (Emma Stone) and hold her hostage until she confesses that she’s an alien who has been sent to experiment on humans. “Welcome to the headquarters of the human resistance,” they declare after shaving her head and taking off her blindfold. Teddy wants Michelle to contact her mothership and take them to her queen, with whom he intends to negotiate for the aliens’ withdrawal from Earth.

    Teddy has done his research. He’s studied all the YouTube videos and photos and he’s gathered all the necessary information, and he knows exactly what these aliens are and what their ships look like; the good-natured though not entirely convinced Donald goes along with him out of loyalty and love, and also because Teddy seems like the one person who treats him as an equal. Michelle, meanwhile, is at a loss to how to react: She’s a tough, wealthy power player, the kind of person who does martial arts in the morning and doesn’t take any shit from anyone. And she has no idea how she’s going to convince these kooks to let her go.

    Lanthimos has guided multiple actors, including these, to some of the best performances of their careers (Stone won an Oscar for 2023’s Poor Things, and Plemons won the Best Actor award at Cannes for Kinds of Kindness last year), so it seems weird to say that Bugonia is also his first film to feel like a true showcase for his stars. But it is: The movie unfolds as a series of confrontations between Teddy and Michelle, her increasingly insistent desperation crashing against the rocks of his languorous immovability. Stone is remarkable (when is she not?), emotionally wriggling like a bug pinned to a wall, trying different tactics with this psycho. First, she’s calm and controlled and confident; then, she tries kindness and pliancy. Plemons’s laid-back confidence is bone-chilling initially. But he also has to fuel our ire, earn our pathos, and maybe even provoke some twinges of solidarity. The characters in Lanthimos’s films don’t really go on traditional emotional journeys. We, the audience, do.

    The director’s work has always turned on humiliation and power trips. (Think of The Favourite and how beyond all its ornate rituals and ironclad hierarchies, the line between power and disgrace remained so tenuous.) Bugonia is no different. If what Teddy is saying is true, Michelle would be a more powerful being than he could ever dream of. And yet, he needs it to be true. He needs to explain his own powerlessness, even as he seemingly holds her life in his hands. If she is, in fact, an emissary from an alien race, then the degradations of his life will finally make sense. “We are not steering the ship, Don,” he tells his cousin. “They are.” It’s hard not to sense the slightest bit of hope amid all that outrage.

    Gradually, we learn what lies at the root of all this. Surreal flashbacks show us how Teddy’s ill mom (Alicia Silverstone) suffered at the hands of Michelle’s company, how the empty corporate platitudes offered in exchange for his family’s horror merely confirmed his belief that there was more to what was being said and what had been done. Bugonia’s narrative trajectory is, on one level, a predictable but resonant one, as we slowly learn to accept Teddy’s irrational actions as a response to a fundamentally irrational world. But we also see that the only thing that will lead to resolution and a way out of this mess is, well, more humiliation.

    So, that describes most of the movie. Bugonia heads in, let’s say, a different direction as it reaches its conclusion. (If you’ve seen Save the Green Planet!, you’ll know where it’s going.) While these developments aren’t exactly new or shocking — some viewers will probably find them predictable — they actually bring the world of this film further into Lanthimos-land. His style is Olympian on the surface, the ironic detachment of his pictures casting a cold, curious eye at humanity’s follies and derangements. But this coolness is a ruse, and he always lets the sadness peek through, making it clear that he is, after all, one of us. By the time Bugonia is over, with a series of beautiful and haunting images that seem to come out of nowhere, we understand that beneath its bemused dispassion lies a deep longing for connection. Early in the film, Teddy looks at his dying bees and sees similarities with humanity: “A dead colony atomized in a trillion directions with no way home again.” By the end, it’s clear the director has seen the same thing.

    [ad_2]

    Bilge Ebiri

    Source link

  • Every Scripted Show Nominated for a 2025 Series Emmy, Ranked

    [ad_1]

    Photo: Vulture; Photos: Lucasfilm Ltd., FX, Apple TV+, ABC

    At their best and most pure, the Emmys ought to be a recommendation engine, where the TV industry presents its picks for the best of the best and encourages the home audience to go back and watch anything good they might’ve missed while they were busy with Love Island earlier this year. The TV Academy nominated 21 total shows across Outstanding Comedy Series, Outstanding Drama Series, and Outstanding Limited Series or Anthology. I don’t think they nominated any outright bad shows, but some are certainly more worthy of their nominations than others. And since the way I show love and appreciation is by making lists, I’ve decided to rank all 21, from worst to best. These rankings are based on the season they were nominated for only. And I have done my best to bridge the apples-to-oranges nature of comparing dramas, comedies, and limited series. Be thankful I didn’t decide to include the talk and reality shows or you’d be in for some real chaos.

    Photo: Nick Wall/Netflix

    Platform: Netflix
    2025 Emmy nominations: 10

    Returning for the first time since 2023, Black Mirror delivered what you’d expect: a series of parables and dark prophecies about our technological future. I can’t say for sure how much of my low ranking here is attributable to the fact that the terrifying technological present has made the show less novel or, whether after seven seasons, these stories have simply become less impactful and more predictable.

    Photo: Patrick Harbron/Disney

    Platform: Hulu
    2025 Emmy nominations: 7

    I was riding so high on Only Murders in the Building after its musical-themed third season; it was the perfect example of a show taking a big swing to ward off stagnation. I respected the swing the show took in season four, decamping to Los Angeles to deal with a film adaptation of the titular podcast. Unfortunately, rather than stay in L.A., the show became bicoastal, keeping one foot in the Arconia with a new cadre of eccentrics (and yes, Richard Kind in an eye patch was a highlight). But the resulting season had to juggle far too many elements, and only a few of them worked: Molly Shannon as a harried Hollywood producer — yes. Eugene Levy, Zach Galifianakis, and Eva Longoria as the actors playing Charles, Oliver, and Mabel — no. The longer the season went on, the more tiresome it became, culminating in a massive “who cares” of a killer reveal. If history is any indicator, the odd-numbered seasons of Only Murders are the good ones, so there’s reason to be optimistic for the fifth. But this one was a real dud.

    Photo: Liane Hentscher/HBO

    Platform: HBO
    2025 Emmy nominations: 16

    It’s not that I think The Last of Us took some great dip in quality in its second season. The actors were across-the-board great, including some excellent new additions in Kaitlyn Dever, Catherine O’Hara, and Jeffrey Wright. But once the Big Thing happens in the second episode, the season becomes narratively unbalanced and too unsatisfying. That the show brings Joel back for a flashback episode feels like an admission that Ellie on her own doesn’t have enough story to fill up a full season while we wait for the confrontation with Abby that comes much further down the line. Once the entire series is complete, there’s every chance season two will age better in closer proximity to what comes next. We’re not there yet.

    Photo: Miles Crist/Netlfix

    Platform: Netflix
    2025 Emmy nominations: 11

    This got tagged as trash by many, and unsurprisingly so, as the Monster(s) series sits at the nexus point of two trends that are morally unfashionable at the moment: true crime and Ryan Murphy. There is certainly a layer of ick that pervades this often gleeful depiction of the 1989 murder of Jose and Kitty Menendez by their sons, Lyle and Erik, and the media circus that followed. But while Murphy and co-creator Ian Brennan take liberties with the Menendez case, their decision to tell the story from multiple and often contradictory angles is a satisfying one. Cooper Koch was rightly praised (and Emmy nominated) for his frighteningly malleable turn as Erik Menendez, but I thought it was too bad that Nicholas Alexander Chavez (as coked-up alpha brother Lyle) and Ari Graynor (as attorney Leslie Abramson) were passed over.

    Photo: Saeed Adyani/Netflix

    Platform: Netflix
    2025 Emmy nominations: 3

    The title of this rom-com turned out to be a dare that a bunch of viewers — and certainly a critical mass of Emmy voters — took Netflix up on. Nobody Wants This nails the fundamentals: two strong leads in Adam Brody and Kristen Bell and at least a few supporting characters who pop. The premise — handsome young rabbi meets shiksa with a sex podcast — got the show in hot water over whether its POV denigrated Jewish women (creator Erin Foster converted to Judaism to marry her husband, leading to a lot of raised eyebrows about the show’s autobiographical nature), but what the show needs more than refuge from the takes is simply to be funnier. It’s not unfunny. It just should be more funny. Brody and Bell have the “rom” part nailed; they could use some help on the script level when it comes to the “com.”

    Photo: Brian Roedel/Disney

    Platform: Hulu
    2025 Emmy nominations: 4

    Full disclosure: At the outset, I thought Paradise looked so dumb. There have been so many postapocalyptic shows (Silo, Fallout, Snowpiercer) in which humanity has to exist in some kind of metaphorical bubble (or a literal bubble, if you’re Under the Dome). The concept of an artificial Perfect American Town built deep inside a mountain to protect selected citizens from a vaguely articulated disaster event was one thing, but to add a murder-mystery element to that, and the murder victim is the president? A hat on a hat on a hat on a hat! Somehow, though, Paradise turns out to be compelling popcorn TV, punctuated by its two Emmy-nominated performances: Sterling K. Brown is all leading-man intensity as the Secret Service agent determined to get to the truth, while Julianne Nicholson’s Machiavellian deep-state operator manages to be delicious in her villainy as she also maintains a shred of her former “good” self.

    Photo: Kenny Laubbacher/Max

    Platform: HBO Max
    2025 Emmy nominations: 14

    Oh, Hacks. I want to defend you against your harshest critics, even if I often agree with them. It doesn’t bother me that what we see of Deborah Vance’s comedy doesn’t scan as comedy-legend caliber, or that her conflicts with Ava are predicated on tired generation-gap premises. At its best, Hacks is a workplace comedy in which the workplace is the entire comedy-industrial complex, and I like watching Jean Smart and Hannah Einbinder maneuver within those environs. My frustration comes from how shockingly repetitive the show is formally. Just an endless loop of Deborah and Ava working well together, breaking up because of a betrayal, warily reuniting because of necessity, discovering that they work best together, then breaking up because of another betrayal and starting the cycle all over again. After four seasons of this, it’s hard to just enjoy Deborah and Ava for who they are, and I’m forced to dwell on things like how Megan Stalter’s unbearable Kayla is somehow the fourth lead on this show.

    Photo: Gilles Mingasson/Disney

    Platform: ABC
    2025 Emmy nominations: 6

    Four seasons in, Abbott Elementary is doing exactly what a good network sitcom should: settling into place as a reliable but decreasingly remarkable part of a regular TV diet. And yet: To be able to pull out an episode as creative as that It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia crossover is proof that Abbott is still more than worthy of its continued place of Emmy prominence.

    Photo: FX Network

    Platform: FX
    2025 Emmy nominations: 13

    It’s thematically appropriate that The Bear has become the hot stove of the TV-awards conversation: Touch it and you’ll get burned. Season three — the one that aired last summer — was where the deeply predictable backlash kicked in. It was a comedy that not only wasn’t funny but wasn’t even attempting to be a comedy. There were some real highlights, and I want to give creator Christopher Storer and his team extra credit for their ambition. But lots of characters spent the season spinning their wheels, and even good individual episodes like the Tina flashback (featuring Ayo Edebiri’s Emmy-nominated direction) seemed too obviously a tactic to pad out the season.

    Photo: Copyright 2024, FX. All Rights Reserved.

    Platform: FX
    2025 Emmy nominations: 6

    In its final run, What We Do in the Shadows proved it could still deliver some of TV’s biggest laughs. Placing Guillermo and Nadja in a corporate setting yielded multiple strong episodes (a tip of the cap to Tim Heidecker as their jackass boss), as did Laszlo’s attempt to play Dr. Frankenstein. The series finale — nominated for a writing Emmy — was a creative way to play the “we all know there’s no ending that will satisfy everyone” card by “hypnotizing” the audience into accepting one of a myriad of final acts. It will remain an enduring shame that this show garnered only one acting nomination (for Matt Berry last year).

    Photo: Alex Bailey/Netflix

    Platform: Netflix
    2025 Emmy nominations: 2

    The Diplomat is not a sophisticated political thriller, though it does its best to fake it. Keri Russell’s performance as the new U.S. ambassador to the U.K. — or is she on the fast track to vice-president? — sits right in her sweet spot of capable-yet-irritable operator, and her scenes opposite David Gyasi (as her U.K. counterpart and possible love interest), Celia Imrie (as a master manipulator), and especially Allison Janney (as a hurricane in female form) crackle with an urgent chemistry.

    Photo: Fabio Lovino/HBO

    Platform: HBO
    2025 Emmy nominations: 23

    After pulling off the high-wire acts of class-conscious character satire and murder mystery in seasons one and two, it was inevitable that Mike White’s show would sooner or later lose its footing, so credit to season three for terminating the suspense. The White Lotus had its moments, of course — Parker Posey’s maintained mood of distress and dismay, all packaged in that ridiculous Durham accent; that Carrie Coon monologue that exists better in isolation than in context — but the seams struggled to hold it all together as satisfyingly as the previous seasons had. The finale-episode shoot-out felt like an act of throwing up one’s hands and admitting defeat at the hands of a runaway plot.

    Photo: Apple TV+

    Platform: Apple TV+
    2025 Emmy nominations: 7

    Shrinking has maintained the psychology practice of Harrison Ford’s Dr. Paul Rhoades as its nominal central base, but increasingly (and to the show’s benefit) it has become TV’s best hangout comedy. This alignment has allowed the supporting cast to shine, with Michael Urie and Jessica Williams joining Jason Segel and Ford as acting nominees, and key players like Christa Miller, Ted McGinley, and Wendie Malick orbiting freely. It hasn’t all worked (adding co-creator Brett Goldstein to the ensemble as the sad-sack drunk driver responsible for Jimmy’s wife’s death was a mistake I hope the show is able to back out of in season three), but as Cougar Town was at its best, Shrinking is a multigenerational story about gathering your network of emotional support and then hanging out with them every minute of the day.

    Photo: Macall Polay / HBO

    Platform: HBO Max
    2025 Emmy nominations: 24

    My extreme disinterest in a spinoff series about a character from The Batman that I found to be a superfluous waste of Colin Farrell’s valuable time was only matched by my surprise at how much The Penguin gripped me. Kudos to showrunner Lauren LeFranc for navigating the waters of franchise IP, taking the handoff from Matt Reeves’s film and telling a completely independent story. A story, it should be noted, that for significant stretches isn’t even the titular Penguin’s story. As good as Farrell is at operating under all those prosthetics, Cristin Milioti walks away with the season as a spurned mobster’s daughter, and LeFranc doesn’t wrest the narrative away from her unless she absolutely has to. Mob stories are a dime a dozen these days, and superhero yarns are probably worth even less, but The Penguin told a dark, twisty, operatic tale of at least two sociopaths, and it was riveting.

    Photo: Apple

    Platform: Apple TV+
    2025 Emmy nominations: 5

    Slow Horses is the most digestible show on television, and I could not mean that more complimentarily. In its fourth season, the format remains in lockstep with the three that preceded it: The discarded MI5 agents at Slough House, led by the somehow-ever-more-slovenly Jackson Lamb (Gary Oldman) are embroiled in a new unfurling terrorist threat, and one of their own (Jack Lowden’s River Cartwright) is on the run. While the individuals within Slough House — and the handful of higher-ups at the Park, like Kristin Scott Thomas’s coolly capable Diana Taverner — develop their characters over the course of the series, the discrete plots told over a tight six episodes are TV’s best approximation of reading a really satisfying spy novel. This season had several gnarly shoot-outs, the addition of new characters played by Hugo Weaving (as an American!) and Battlestar Galactica’s James Callis (as a sniveling little weasel, if you can believe it), plus, yes, new scenes of Lamb farting to punctuate a scene. Bring on season five!

    Photo: Ben Blackall/Netflix

    Platform: Netflix
    2025 Emmy nominations: 13

    Over the course of four episodes, creators Stephen Graham and Jack Thorne deliver a gripping, challenging miniseries. A 13-year-old boy is accused of stabbing a female classmate to death, and over the course of four episodes, the tale becomes thornier and more troublesome, as the culprit is revealed not only to be the child but the pervasive toxic misogyny that seduces boys before their parents even know it’s a threat. The bravado of Adolescence’s visual gimmick, where each episode is presented as a single take, is often more showy than it is effective, but when it does click into place, as it does in the show’s counseling session, it’s really thrilling.

    Photo: Apple TV+

    Platform: Apple TV+
    2025 Emmy nominations: 27

    Taking a 33-month break between the finale of season one and the premiere of season two might have proved fatal for another series, but Severance was able to establish new stakes for its central quartet and then plunge them into far more complicated waters. The love pentagon that developed between Innie Mark S., Helly, Helena Egan, Outie Mark S., and Gemma was so twisty and complex it seemed to discourage social media’s favorite pastime, unhinged shipping. Meanwhile, Tramell Tillman’s Mr. Milchick went on his own journey of self-discovery. As any good second season does, Severance plumbed deeper, explored further, traveled to chilly seaside towns and back in time to reveal the fate of its presumed-dead wife. Not all of it satisfied, but the central conundrum of Innies versus Outies trapped inside a corporate cult remained as compelling as ever.

    Photo: Apple TV+

    Platform: Apple TV+
    2025 Emmy nominations: 23

    The movie business is facing a treacherous and possibly bleak future, and while The Studio is acutely aware of that, its response is to pull back the curtain and reveal utter lunacy. One thing I loved about its first season was that it never leaned on one aspect of Hollywood for too long. Yes, there’s debauchery, sure the studio-tentpole-development process is stupider than you ever imagined, and it turns out Ron Howard is a mean little bastard. But the show lightly bounces between these observations, with only Seth Rogen’s inept but earnest studio head as the constant. Does The Studio eviscerate Hollywood enough for everyone’s tastes? No. Is it a surprise Hollywood is embracing it? Of course not. But it’s the flat-out funniest of the nominated comedies this year, and I support it breaking through the Emmy walls like the Kool-Aid Man (in theaters next summer).

    Photo: Sarah Shatz/FX

    Platform: FX
    2025 Emmy nominations: 9

    There’s no way a show about a woman (Michelle Williams) dealing with her terminal-cancer diagnosis could be anything but maudlin. Even knowing that Williams’s character responds to her diagnosis by embarking on a sexual awakening, it still seems like the show is destined for maudlin. And yet Dying for Sex never is, even till the very end, even as the tears are running down your face. Williams and the Emmy-nominated-yet-still-underrated Jenny Slate are the main attraction here, but key supporting turns by Esco Jouléy, Sissy Spacek, Rob Delaney, Jay Duplass, and the deeply slept-on David Rasche, along with some late-inning relief pitching by Paula Pell, are all so incredibly good. If you avoided this show because you were worried it would make you feel like crap, I encourage you to reconsider.

    Photo: John Johnson/Max

    Platform: HBO Max
    2025 Emmy nominations: 13

    The longform, procedural, network-style medical drama is back, baby — and this time it’s got that HBO sparkle. The Pitt is so many great things at once: a return vehicle for Noah Wyle (Emmy nominated for the first time since 1999), a showcase for a crackerjack ensemble cast (Katherine LaNasa’s much deserved nomination stands in for a good half-dozen castmates who should have joined her), and a satisfying 15 episodes that never felt like one story stretched out over many hours. Cases flowed through the Pittsburgh Trauma Medical Center’s emergency room at a steady pace, some dispatched within a single episode, others playing out over three or four, and the stories unfold at their own pace, keeping the audience at a very effective imbalance throughout. And even with the green farm kid getting fluids splashed on him all season or the seemingly stalwart senior resident showing himself to be a heel, you felt like you were watching a group of professionals doing their best in trying circumstances. An inspirational show for our time.

    Photo: Lucasfilm Ltd.

    Platform: Disney+
    2025 Emmy nominations: 14

    Andor is also an inspirational show for our time, albeit in a very different way. Over the course of two seasons, we saw the radicalization of Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) from disaffected thief to committed leader of a rebellion. Creator Tony Gilroy was unafraid to expand the field in season two, with Andor himself often taking a back seat to the expansion of characters like Luthen Rael (Stellan Skarsgård) and Mon Mothma (Genevieve O’Reilly), not to mention those within the Empire. Gilroy’s talent as a writer helped make Andor TV’s most satisfying multicharacter drama, but his verve as a showrunner is what took Andor to its greatest heights: a show that called out genocide by name and reclaimed the Star Wars legacy as a battle cry against fascists above all.


    See All



    [ad_2]

    Joe Reid

    Source link

  • Severance Doesn’t Work Without Milchick

    [ad_1]

    Tramell Tillman’s performance embodies the Apple TV+ show’s guiding metaphor.
    Photo: Apple TV+

    Tucked in the midpoint of its season-two finale, “Cold Harbor,” is a moment that bottles the disorientation that makes Severance such irresistible television. Seth Milchick, played by Tramell Tillman, meets one of his employees, Dylan (Zach Cherry), in a sterile conference room to resolve the lingering issue of the latter’s resignation request. Despite enduring repeated humiliations from his employer, Lumon Industries, and though he’s oversubscribed, Milchick nevertheless handles the exchange with faultless professionalism. “As it may yield an embarrassing, emotional response in you, and as I am duly swamped, I shall leave you to read it in solitude,” Milchick says, his diction measured and verbose as he slides forward a folder with three exacting fingers. When Dylan takes it, the camera cuts back just as Milchick pivots and darts out the door like a bat out of hell, his ramrod posture still discernible even as the odd framing crops him off. It’s a fleeting and strange beat, cartoonish if it weren’t so unsettling, but one that effectively crystallizes Severance’s surreal tone — and at its center, the Magnetic Mr. Milchick.

    As Lumon’s middle-manager par excellence, Tillman was the breakout performer of Severance’s first season. Season two gives the character more power and complications that challenge his sense of self, and Tillman capitalizes on the material, repeatedly seizing the spotlight every second he’s on the screen. Tillman earned himself an Emmy nomination for Supporting Actor in a Drama Series, and though pundits are placing their bets on The White Lotus’s Walton Goggins, Tillman deserves to take up more space in the conversation. Beyond the historic possibility of becoming the first Black actor to win the category, he doesn’t get enough credit for embodying the strange essence of Severance, a show that broke out in no small part due to the boldness of its peculiarities. In a series defined by unusual, carefully calibrated choices, from its mysterious goats to the elliptical nature of its central corporation to the constant presence of archaic language (“Has it verve?” “The most of its flock”), Tillman delivers the performance that feels the most singular.

    The exchange with Dylan doesn’t come close to Milchick’s most dazzling showcase. That comes later, in the finale’s unhinged marching-band sequence, in which his electrifying physicality shifts to genuine menace as he tries to break down the vending-machine barricade Helly (Britt Lower) built to prevent Milchick from stopping her and Mark (Adam Scott) from freeing his wife. It’s a distilled version of the force first glimpsed in season one’s “Defiant Jazz” scene, in which Milchick grooves out with Mark, Helly, and the rest of the MDR crew in a corporate-mandated effort at boosting worker morale (or “merriment”). That moment worked in the opposite direction, injecting brief humanity into a character who had until then been cast as a Sphinx-like authority figure.

    What makes both scenes pop is their contrast. As Milchick, Tillman holds his body with a statuelike composure, which makes his bursts of movement land with amplified intensity. He is the vessel through which Severance constantly communicates Lumon’s dominance over its workers, his very stillness humming with the implied threat of corporate violence. That threat is made literal in “Cold Harbor” through another character, Mr. Drummond, a hulking Lumon higher-up played by Ólafur Darri Ólafsson who savagely attempts to kill a spying Mark in the series’s most visceral confrontation to date. But Severance keeps Milchick more enigmatic. The danger he represents never fully erupts but instead simmers perpetually beneath the skin. We continue to learn surprisingly little about him, even compared to Harmony Cobel (Patricia Arquette), who gets her own standalone episode this season, but the glimpses of Milchick we do see are tantalizing: the sharp leather jacket and motorcycle, the flickers of unease on his face hinting that he recognizes the system’s wrongness, and his fierce defense of traits central to his identity, especially his ornate, loquacious speech. That verbosity can be read as a battleground of race, class, and corporate respectability, and it speaks to Tillman’s performance that it all comes through without the character having to spell it out. His obliqueness is the quality that makes him so consistently compelling, accentuated by how the show never really lets you settle on how you’re supposed to feel about him: Is he an antagonist, a victim, or something in between?

    In this, Milchick embodies a crucial facet of Severance’s workplace metaphor. While the show’s sympathies rest squarely with the macrodata refiners as put-upon workers (including even Helly, though the philosophical ambiguity as to whether she can be considered her own person is part of the show’s conceptual fun), Milchick is the consummate middle manager, suspended between the ruthless authority of capital and the moral clarity of labor. His position grows even more complicated in the second season when he’s nominally promoted after Lumon benches Cobel as manager of the severed floor. The “elevation” means little, as he’s immediately wedged between another subordinate, Miss Huang (Sarah Bock), and Mr. Drummond, who looms over him as a corporate enforcer. The effect is a tightening vise. Drummond belittles him after a poor performance review, specifically targeting his speech; Milchick displaces that humiliation onto Miss Huang, and then, in a remarkable scene, onto himself. Alone before a mirror, laboring to internalize Drummond’s order to he simplify his language, the camera zooms in as he repeats a line he once delivered to Ms. Huang, whittling it down with each iteration from “You must eradicate from your essence childish folly” to “You must abandon childish things” to the blunt, simple “Grow up.” A sequence that could very well dance on the edge of hokeyness becomes, in Tillman’s hands, a scene of a man struggling between dueling impulses. His voice gradually descends into a growl as he vibrates with a mixture of pain, anger, and yearning.

    Severance may ground its narrative and moral thrust in the plight of its macrodata refiners, but Milchick is in many ways the essence of the show’s thesis, embodying the ways corporate culture twists, consumes, and corrupts all it touches. Nothing about Milchick works without Tillman’s exacting performance, and I’m rooting for him to have a long, unpredictable career. We’ve already seen flashes of what that might look like. In Mission: Impossible — Final Reckoning, where he plays the captain of a nuclear submarine Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is trying to commandeer, he delivered the film’s single best acting performance, radiating more chemistry with Cruise in a single scene than all of Hunt’s love interests combined — “Mister, if you’ve come to poke the bear, you’ve come to the right man” — and so much militant erotic charge it could power the nuclear sub they’re inside. That moment, too, capitalizes on Tillman’s ability to radiate intimidation by way of an otherworldly strangeness, a quality that feels exciting in its sheer potential and, in this moment, award-worthy in its own right.


    See All



    [ad_2]

    Nicholas Quah

    Source link

  • Thanks for the Tears, Paul and Prue

    Thanks for the Tears, Paul and Prue

    [ad_1]

    Spoilers follow for the current season of The Great British Baking Show through the sixth episode, which premiered on Netflix on November 1.

    The problem with a great season of The Great British Baking Show is that, eventually, nearly all of the people who make that season great will be sent home. And so it goes that now, more than halfway through an engaging season of more-manageable challenges and shaken-up Technicals, this year’s first heartbreak elimination arrives.

    In an Autumn Week outcome as shocking as that one season when Paul didn’t use hair gel, Dylan and Nelly — two of this season’s earliest standouts, responsible for dynamic flavor combinations that Paul and Prue have spent weeks praising — both underperformed in their Showstopper challenge. Autumn-hater Dylan’s patchily frosted all-white Diwali cake was visually underwhelming and not very in line with the theme, but it tasted “gorgeous,” according to Paul. Nelly’s “Woman in Autumn” cake, decorated with self-portraits of her younger and current selves in vibrant frosting, was glorious to look at (“A terrific achievement,” said Prue), but the flavor combination of spinach sponge, plum jam, and chocolate and avocado cream was too chaotic. Nelly seemed to have the edge with what Paul called an “exquisite” poppy-seed-and-apple-pie Signature, compared with Dylan’s tough-textured and burnt rough-puff apple pie, and they were similarly placed in the Parkin ginger cake Technical. But the judges increasingly rely on Showstopper flavor for their decisions, which resulted in our joyously accessorized, jocularly friendly, invigoratingly honest Nelly being shown the door. Who’s going to flirt with Noel now, or brusquely tell Paul he’s “already shiny,” or confidently (and rightly) proclaim to Alison that the GBBS contestants are the stars of this show? We lost a real one in Nelly, a GBBS breakout whose unapologetic authenticity was a delight each week.

    GBBS has been around long enough now that its contestant archetypes are as set as overgelatined mousse and as comforting as a pan of savory buns. There’s often a rough-around-the-edges working-class guy with a surprising flair, a first-gen or immigrant contestant whose ingredients blow Paul’s mind, and an older man or woman whose homey — or, in GBBS parlance, “rustic” — style was shaped by the bakes their families loved. That’s not to diminish the individuals who fulfill these roles each season, but to praise how GBBS’s casting decisions complement the series’ built-in consistency. These personalities are as reliable as each episode’s Signature, Technical, and Showstopper trio of challenges, or Paul taking his handshake super-seriously, or Noel trying to stir up shit by asking bakers which hosts and judges they like the most. (Kudos to youngsters Dylan and Sumayah for directly telling Noel that, actually, they prefer Alison.) The steadiness is part of the draw.

    But every so often, you get someone willing to wiggle free of what their role was perhaps meant to be and show facets of themself that you wouldn’t necessarily expect. Think of eventual 2015 winner Nadiya Hussain’s use of bubblegum and cream-soda flavors to signal her playful personality after weeks of doing poorly on Technicals; instead of letting that anxiety overwhelm her, Nadiya reset her persona with those mischievous eclairs. Dylan and Nelly have surprised in similar ways. Dylan’s hottie appeal is partially derived from the tension of a dude who looks like he takes style cues from Rufio (complimentary) delivering such luxurious and delicate bakes, while Nelly’s forthrightness about the personal inspirations behind her offerings (her five unborn children with her husband, her own aging) are an endearing counter to her amused insouciance. They represent two different modes of GBBS contestant — Dylan is there to prove his skills to himself and gain some confidence as he pursues his dream of being a chef; Nelly is there to spotlight her family favorites, have a good time, and maybe run away with both Noel and Alison — but they’re both watchable, entertaining bakers whose skills seemed solid enough to get them to the end.

    Until, of course, Autumn Week, which only made me love Nelly more before her time on the show came to an end. Nelly tends to accept praise with a tight smile and deflect criticism with a joke, and because of the latter, she’s been a fount of reaction shots as the series has given her a class-clown-style edit. That performatively cheeky side of her personality, which includes her jokingly threatening Noel with a blowtorch and striking a braggadocious pose on her stool when finishing a challenge early, is still there in Autumn Week, as she deadpans after seeing Dylan’s Showstopper, “We need to eliminate him somehow, you know? Slap him.” But when she talks about her own Showstopper and how it will focus on how she is “entering the autumn” of her life as a woman and “harvesting all the experience” that has come before, she blends her customary self-deprecation (narrating how she’s going to pipe a “triple chin” on her self-portrait) with the same frankness she exhibited when talking about her pregnancy losses. She’s thought about what the “autumn” of her life means to her and found a way to reflect that perspective through the bake, and she’s assured enough to share all that with the judges, the hosts, the other contestants, and us viewers, embodying a candidness that is exactly why we watch reality TV in the first place. (Of course, Paul doesn’t get it, joking that he thought she was 22, but Prue and Alison both praise the concept for its candor.)

    “If it doesn’t go right today, it doesn’t go right. There is an exit, it’s fine,” Nelly says with a smile and a shrug, and that even-keeled composure stays put even after Noel announces her exit and envelops her in a hug with a whispered admission that it “killed” him to say her name. Her certainty of self is a beautiful thing, as are her parting words that her time on the show was meant to teach her sons to “enjoy” life in any way it comes. Cue my crying and all the other contestants crying; I haven’t seen an elimination this weepy in a while.

    As Alison says during Autumn Week’s deliberations, it’s jarring that Nelly and Dylan, who so rarely get negative feedback from the judges, would be in the bottom together. But even though Nelly didn’t reach the finals, she’ll be an enduring GBBS personality because she so charmingly embodies what the show is about — effort and trying and pouring every aspect of yourself into something, even if it doesn’t work out. “Come on, you can’t be perfect,” Nelly saucily says while rolling her eyes after Paul and Prue’s critical judging of her Showstopper. But she doesn’t need to be. Book her on the All-Star season immediately.

    [ad_2]

    Roxana Hadadi

    Source link

  • The Best and Nastiest of Slipknot, According to Clown

    The Best and Nastiest of Slipknot, According to Clown

    [ad_1]

    “Other bands would get steps into our bus and be, like, ‘Jesus, what is that smell?’ That smell’s money, man.”
    Photo: Vulture; Photo: Martin Philbey/Redferns

    Slipknot has one of the grodiest lores in rock music. In their early years, they made a habit of huffing dead birds pre-show, then shitting and vomiting on stage, before throwing it into the crowd. By 1999, the members each had an assigned number, mask, and killer carny costume. Against all odds, their eponymous debut — a nine-man grumble of thrash and death metal — found mainstream success, becoming the fastest-selling album in the genre’s history.

    For Shawn Crahan (aka Clown or #6), the band’s co-founder, percussionist, and overall creative strategist, this has all served a spiritual purpose. Almost all of Slipknot’s iconic attributes can be credited to Crahan. Through his vision — the masks, the boilersuits — he left no unscrew unturned. If the world wouldn’t sit up and take notice, he’d break down the door and force them to.

    Slipknot have since gone multi-platinum, founded their own music festival, and stretched far beyond their parochial metal scene into persistent cultural relevance. (They also stopped pooping and puking on stage.) They’ve become a major influence, both sonically and aesthetically, on everyone from Code Orange to Playboi Carti. During a break from the band’s 25th anniversary tour, Crahan broke down some of the grossest and riskiest moments of the band’s decadeslong career. “I’m not happy with everything I’ve put out there,” he said, “but at least I’ve helped people disappear and break down their wall.”

    Big question. Corey can go from screaming to singing in his sleep. His confidence is on another level. I could point out so many songs where he can bring you to your knees. It’s hard for me to choose between his melody and his aggressive tones. But I would say — and I’m not saying it because it’s a big hit — that “Duality” would be up there. From the beginning of the song, he’s doing things a lot of people wouldn’t dare do. Boom, he’s into the melody. It’s like he jumped out of a plane and landed right into the song. And then he’s got this crazy voice with these loud effects and he gets to put on a different persona. How does he go through all of that?

    Oh my God. I don’t even know where to begin. I mean, there’s audio, and then there’s video too. We have tons of incomplete concepts, some just under completion. There’s a lot of Slipknot I wish the culture could have. There is so much I create throughout my career but very, very little is actually put out there.

    Someone recently brought up the album Look Outside Your Window. It was a piece of art Corey Taylor, Jim Root, Sid Wilson, and myself created in 2008. We made it up the hill from the studio that we recorded All Hope Is Gone in, in Perry, Iowa. No one believes that it even exists, or that it’s ever going to come out. I’ve always talked very highly of it and I’ve always said that you will never hear Corey Taylor sing like this. It’s just a whole different approach in my mind. Recently, I approved all the art. I’ve also worked really hard to get it mixed and mastered.

    Being born.

    “The Devil In I.” It has all the ingredients for a great recipe: knives, prosthetics, wheelchairs, straitjackets, explosions, blood, stunts.

    If you watch the video for “The Devil in I,” it looks like I hang myself. Legally, they would not let me do that — it’s a stunt double — even though I offered. But it was too dangerous. I wanted to be on fire at the same time.

    I was 14 years old. I was in a mall with my girlfriend at the time. We always went to Spencer’s because they had little adult novelty toys. Then I saw this mask in the clearance bin. I remember it exactly. I put it on and I immediately understood what it was like to disappear. I was gone and the real me had just shown up. It was so natural. From that day on, I molded my face to make my own masks. I have always been the Clown no matter how the mask has changed. The essences are always there. But it’s always ironic to me that the most identifiable clown mask is the one I didn’t make for myself. It seems like that’s sort of how brainwashed the world is, that this familiar entity that a corporation made has become part of my own merchandising. I still have that baby. I kept it in a safe in Iowa before I moved to Palm Springs, and now it stays hidden away in a bag in the studio. It’s shrunken a bit from all the stage lights. I know this is going to sound a bit weird, but I always though I was going to sell it for a lot of money. If I were to donate it, there’s no guarantee that it’d be taken seriously or protected. You know, if the Smithsonian would take it, I would give it to them, but I don’t know if they’re interested.

    I thought every time would be my last. But the obvious change came during the 2019 We Are Not Your Kind chapter. My body had just taken enough abuse.

    Oh God, I mean, it’s pretty bad. Just about every body fluid has gone onto it. It’s rolled around on every floor in every city. It’s rubbed up against human beings in the middle of a pit. It’s a disease on its own. All the masks are. When we did Ozzfest in ‘98 we were on a bus with 16 people. We didn’t have any money. No one knew who Slipknot was. We weren’t even getting a hotel room. I had to steal showers, waiting for the fucking Deftones to play so I could sneak in and use their filthy ass stuff. There was this lounge on the bus, with, like, six drawers. We put our masks in there. I can remember other bands getting two steps into our bus and being like, Jesus, what is that smell? That smell’s money, man.

    Slipknot through the years. Clockwise from left: Photo: Mick Hutson/RedfernsPhoto: Scott Harrison/Liaison/Getty ImagesPhoto: Kevin Winter/Getty Images.

    Slipknot through the years. Clockwise from left: Photo: Mick Hutson/RedfernsPhoto: Scott Harrison/Liaison/Getty ImagesPhoto: Kevin Winter/Getty Images…
    Slipknot through the years. Clockwise from left: Photo: Mick Hutson/RedfernsPhoto: Scott Harrison/Liaison/Getty ImagesPhoto: Kevin Winter/Getty Images.

    There’s a lot, but the one that’s really done me in was when I ripped my bicep in half on stage by hitting a keg with a bat. If you know anything about a bicep, it’s basically two wires, one on each side that holds the muscle in place — kind of like rubber bands that connect up by your shoulder. I ripped both those fuckers. So my bicep was actually on my forearm. Like, it just dropped down and my skin fell down with it. People would vomit when they saw it. I had surgery, and I lost 25 percent of that arm. I’ll go to grab something on the top shelf in the fridge, think I’ve got it, and then whatever it is will just fall. It hurts. I have swelling on my right side where this dissolvable screw was. Out of all the injuries, that one really is a daily reminder.

    I miss them. You know, it’s too much. I feel bad even doing interviews about our 25th anniversary because most of it lives with them. Their contributions to my life are incomprehensible. Yet here I am. It’s really hard for me. I don’t like that they don’t get to talk. They are the two people you should be talking to right now. Now it’s all memory. And, you know, not that many people try to take Paul from me but a lot of people try to take Joey from me because of the circumstances. But none of the band ever talk about that. Why would we? That’s our brother. It’s hard today because so many people have all these opinions on what Joey’s thoughts might have been of me. A lot of humans like to tell you exactly what they know that I don’t know. All I can tell you is that those are my brothers, and, love me or hate me, it doesn’t matter. We did some shit.

    Whenever we play “Vermillion” I think of Paul. I just remember him upstairs in the mansion whittling away at that song for weeks. He was a genius. And Joey, God, it’s just about everything. Right now we’re playing “Scissors” and you can only play that song with his kind of ability, and we haven’t been there for a long, long time. We’re finally back there. It was a song where he’d really just go off. But even a song like “Spit It Out,” the way Joey demanded the attention in that song. He was like the conductor — everyone paid attention to him. I miss that.

    “And now it’s over” from “Prelude 3.0”

    Band co-founder and bassist Paul Gray and original drummer Joey Jordison. Gray died in 2010; Jordison in 2021.

    Jordison was fired from the band in 2013, citing personal reasons.

    [ad_2]

    Emma Madden

    Source link

  • A Megalopolis Live Actor on How He Got the Fourth Wall-Breaking Gig

    A Megalopolis Live Actor on How He Got the Fourth Wall-Breaking Gig

    [ad_1]

    After decades of development, Francis Ford Coppola’s self-financed epic Megalopolis is finally in theaters. Set in an alternate America, the bewildering film explores the power struggle between visionary Cesar Catilina (Adam Driver) and corrupt mayor Franklyn Cicero (Giancarlo Esposito). During its world premiere at the Cannes Film Festival, an actor in the crowd stepped up to the screen and addressed Catilina directly in a fourth wall-breaking press conference that stunned audiences. It’s a showstopping experience unseen in a Hollywood production since William Castle was pulling tricks on audiences in his low-budget horror films back in the 1950s and ’60s.

    It would be a mistake to call this brief sequence a gimmick, though. It’s fully in line with Coppola’s late-period work that emphasizes technical innovation and privileges the theatrical experience. It’s not the first time either that Coppola attempts a kind of immersive experience. Nearly 15 years ago, the underseen and underrated Twixt, which featured just a few short sequences shot in 3D, aimed to reimagine technology as the landscape of innovation and possibility. Due to the film’s limited general release and the overall souring on 3D technology on a whole, it’s clear that Coppola needed to go bigger to replicate the magic of the big-screen experience he grew up with.

    Not all showings of Megalopolis feature the alternatively named “immersive” or “enhanced” experience of having an actor in the room address the screen. (Or at least appear to — the dialogue is pre-recorded.) But in the few cinemas facilitating this iconic fourth-wall-breaking moment, the brief role of “live participant” has become sought after by cinephiles and actors alike. It’s not just a chance to be part of a Francis Ford Coppola film but also an opportunity to be a part of film history.

    For Alex Rose, a publicist at Communications MingoTwo a press relations and promotional firm based in Montreal, it was simple as showing up for work one day. With zero acting ambitions and no extra cash to show for it, Rose landed one of the most iconic roles in film history, almost by accident. When they needed a man to play a journalist, he was the only guy in the office that morning. That’s how he stepped into the spotlight.

    How did you end up with the gig? How long before the first “performance” did you learn you were doing it? 
    I just received an email from Touchwood PR, which is a Toronto based PR company that we work with often because they don’t have a base in Quebec. Whenever they need something that’s Quebec specific, they’ll contact us. Honestly, in our office there are only women and I’m the only guy. One of the partners is a man, but he was on vacation for the period that Megalopolis was coming out. They said, it needs to be a man because the recording is a man’s voice, otherwise, anyone could do it. I had heard about it from Cannes and I was like, “For sure, I want to do it because it sounds like a unique experience.” I got the PDF and all the instructions, maybe a week before the first showing.

    What was included in the PDF?
    It was pretty specific instructions. They were specifically for last Monday’s screening, which was the simultaneous event that had the Q&A from the New York Film Festival. It was all the timings and stuff were queued to that. I think everyone got that same PDF that said, like “at 8:00, there’s going to be the Q & A and the movie should start around 8:30.” For those who’ve seen what happens, it was pretty down to the second of everything that we had to do. You know, walk from your seat to the microphone and put your hand on the microphone when there’s a feedback sound and, mime along to the dialogue, take notes and then go back and sit down. It had the entire thing mapped out. There was also a link to a video. I think it might have just been a test video. It doesn’t look like there’s anyone in the theatre watching it. But, there was a video of someone doing it, so then I just based myself mostly on that.

    Who was the person in the video? 
    I have no idea who the person was, a guy with a beard and glasses. It’s filmed from quite far away, there is not much to see.

    Have you ever wanted to be an actor? Are you being paid for this gig?
    I’m not an aspiring actor, I’m a publicist. I didn’t get paid specifically for this. I imagine it falls under the wages that I already get paid to do my job from 9 to 5 on Monday to Friday. I didn’t get any extra.

    Do you get an IMDB credit? Is this a union gig?
    I hadn’t thought about that. I don’t think so, but it’s hard to say. I don’t know how many people across the world are [doing it]. As I understand it, in Montreal at least, there were three screenings with the interactive element to it. The last one is tonight when we’re recording this but I can’t make it tonight, so someone else is going to do it. I don’t even know who that is. I don’t think that I get any credit, although it would be cool.

    What is your understanding of how other live participants in other cities are being chosen or recruited? Have you spoken to anybody else who’s done it?
    My understanding of it is entirely based on Twitter and people who are speculating on it. So I’m in the same position as everyone else. As I understand it, at Cannes, the actor spoke. It wasn’t a pre-recorded line, or at least that’s how it was reported. But, having done it a couple times now, I don’t know how that would work or be more effective, you know? Even though I’ve done it, I’m about as in the dark as anyone else about how everyone else.

    You kind of fell into the role because there was really no one else in the office who could do it. But imagine there were more people. Do you think that there would have been an audition process?
    I doubt it. I think it would have just really been like, “Who wants to do this?” I imagine in some contexts there’s people who want to do it more than I wanted to do it. I don’t think I would have fought in the arena for this opportunity. I thought it was cool to get it, it was a fun thing. But, as an opportunity, I don’t know how much of an impact it makes.

    On Monday, the first time, there was a lot of press in the audience, and so there were a lot of people that I knew who were watching the film. I was sitting all the way at the front, far away from everyone else. Most people didn’t even know that I was there. It’s only afterwards that people wrote to me, I surprised them. They were like, “Was that you at the screening?” And I was like, “Yeah, it was.” There was that element of surprise that I think would have been harder to manufacture if someone was really gung-ho about wanting it.

    How does coordinating with the theater work? Especially last night, which was a more public screening.
    It was pretty simple. I just had to show up at the movie theater and find a staff member and say, “Hey, I need the manager to give me the microphone.” Then the manager gave me a microphone. They were pretty hands off about it. I think most people who work in the theater had no idea that there was even this thing in the movie. They weren’t briefed beforehand because most of the staff that I spoke to thought I was presenting the movie when I asked for a microphone.

    Were you given any specific instructions, for example, on how to move or stand or gesticulate at all? 
    Not at all. I did it differently both times because I didn’t really know how I was gonna do it. I was kind of in the dark. The second time I leaned into it a little more. It goes by pretty fast, the line is spoken quite quickly and then there’s a lot of reacting to Adam Driver that you need to do in the scene. That’s where you can improv, so to speak.

    Are you also lip syncing? And did you memorize the line?
    I wrote down the lines on my pad because much of the line is the journalist quoting something back at Adam Driver that Adam Driver said. I wrote it down on my little pad that was like my prop. I looked at it when I had to quote it back. I learned the intro to it and then the rest of it I read off the pad because it had to look like I was quoting it to him.

    The way you’re angled from the audience, I don’t think they can really see your mouth. I just had to go with the spirit of it. At least that’s the way it was at the Imax theater in Montreal. I don’t know that it’s like that everywhere else. A lot of the instructions in the video talk about crossing the stage but Imax has sort of like an orchestra pit and you can’t go all the way up to the front of the screen. I had to work around it a little bit. I don’t know if that’s the way for every theater but ours, at the Scotiabank Theater, the closest you could get to the screen is about 40 feet away on a sort of balcony. I had to improv that a little bit. The important part is just being in the right eyeline for the character. In the crowd, it’s pretty hard to see if the person speaking is actually speaking.

    So that was part of the instructions that you’d have to have like a journalist pad?
    Exactly. That was part of the instructions.

    Did you have to buy your own notepad?
    Yes.

    Did you rehearse at all beforehand? 
    Not really. I watched the video a few dozen times or so, just to get the rhythm right but I didn’t really rehearse.

    How long is the video?
    A minute and a half. It shows you the scene right before, like maybe 30 seconds of the preceding scene before the fade to black, then the whole journalist thing and then it ends.

    Did you create a backstory for your character?
    I did not.

    Was the microphone connected to anything? Could you speak into it if you wanted to?
    It’s a real wireless mic, but it’s not connected to anything. It’s off.

    Are you required to sit in the theater until that point in the film? And do you just leave after, or do you stay?

    I don’t think you’re required to be there beforehand. Yesterday, at least, I left after my scene because I had just seen the movie. I didn’t really feel like watching the whole thing again. I kind of regretted not seeing the other half a second time but I had somewhere to go. Before I sat down and watched it, it seemed like a daunting task to watch Megalopolis twice in a week. But turns out it wasn’t that bad.

    So you’ve seen the film twice then?
    One and a half times.

    What do you think of the movie?
    It’s hard to say. It’s really ambitious, and it’s wild. I don’t think that it’s nearly as bad as some of the detractors are saying, even though I understand where they’re coming from, because it is like a huge swing. I don’t know if I would say I think it’s great or important or really successful at what it tries to do. But it tries so many things that it’s really hard not to get anything out of it. I got different things out of it the second time. It’s fairly dense and off-putting in some ways. There’s a lot of very broad performances and flowery dialogue and that is maybe off putting, especially if you think you’re going to see a blockbuster in Imax. It’s a gamble in being the world’s biggest, most like outlandish arthouse sci-fi whatevers and I think it succeeds mostly in that sense.

    What do you think the live segment contributes to the film? 
    The thing is, living it and being in it, I don’t know what effect it has on the actual audience, right? I can only see it from my perspective, which is I’m doing the thing. I’d be curious what other people took from it honestly, because for me, it’s really hard to zoom out and see it from any other perspective. It’s a daring idea. Ultimately, it’s a very small and somewhat inconsequential part of the movie. Once there’s no interactive segment, you’re not missing much. But when you see that, it’s a bit of a shock, even if it’s a silly William Castle type of stunt in a way. It’s very old-timey. It harkens back to the ’50s. I think it fits thematically in the movie, and especially in the tone.

    Were you nervous at all?
    I was more nervous before I’d seen the movie. Once I was sitting down and I started to see what the whole thing turned out to be, I was a lot less nervous. I was just kind of like, “oh, okay, I’m part of this.” I’m just a very small part of this huge tapestry of excess and exuberance. I was more stressed out in the days leading up to it.

    How did people react in last night’s screening?
    People kind of laughed. Both times there were, like, incredulous reactions. The movie provokes a lot of that reaction from audiences, sometimes intentional, sometimes maybe not as much. Although my feeling is that a lot of it is much more intentional than people seem to think it is. It was hard for me to gauge. I would say they seemed surprised. I don’t know if it was a good surprise or a bad surprise.


    See All



    [ad_2]

    Justine Smith

    Source link

  • No One Sees the World Like RaMell Ross

    No One Sees the World Like RaMell Ross

    [ad_1]

    Photo: Kasimu Harris/MGM/Courtesy Everett Collection

    Fans of RaMell Ross’s Oscar-nominated 2018 documentary Hale County This Morning, This Evening might have felt some understandable trepidation about his decision to tackle a literary adaptation for his next feature. Ross’s new film, Nickel Boys, based on Colson Whitehead’s Pulitzer Prize-winning 2019 novel, opens the New York Film Festival tonight, after premiering at the Telluride Film Festival last month. How would Ross’s unique filmmaking style — built around montages of evocatively filmed, everyday details — translate into the high-stakes world of prestige studio movies? Surely, he’d have to water down his distinctive approach to deal with producers, actors, period atmosphere, narrative needs, dramatic arcs? Shockingly, he did not. If anything, Nickel Boys is an even bolder work than Hale County, utilizing point-of-view cameras and fusing them with the delicate lyricism of that earlier movie. It’s a staggering achievement — one that’s likely to be talked about for years to come.

    Nickel Boys is your first feature-length picture in six years. You worked on Hale County This Morning, This Evening for quite a few years — shooting it over four and laying the groundwork for it in the years preceding. You make that movie, it premieres, it’s acclaimed, it comes out, wins awards, gets nominated for an Oscar. So, what happens the day after? After spending so many years focused on one project, how do you start a new one?
    Well, personally, it’s a depressing state, because somewhere in the making of Hale County, it started to feel revelatory. The process of documenting, of participating in these lives, and making these associations, it was almost like a drug — an insight drug, where I was constantly able to see the world anew, and see my people and my race in a way in which I hadn’t encountered yet, specifically in cinema. And it culminated with the release of the film. Then, it goes out in the world, and then I start to talk about it, and I inevitably end up saying the same things at some point. I was like, I can keep it fresh, of course. The work is poetry. I’ll just use poetry. And I just ran out of poetry! As everyone knows, whenever you achieve something, or get some material item, you’re the same person you were before you had it. You’re not going to wake up and be different. So, it was quite depressing, because I no longer had that drug.

    But that’s just the personal side. Art-wise, it was the same because I was already making photos and writing. But about four and a half years ago, producers Dede Gardner and Jeremy Kleiner reached out to [Hale County producer] Joslyn Barnes to get in contact with me. As a person who works at my own pace, super slow, I don’t like to answer emails, and I was not interested in making a fiction film. I teach, I’m good, I’m really happy. But Dede made The Tree of Life! And I thought, If I’m going to meet someone, I’ll meet her. Literally the only producer I’ve ever met to make a film, and I get asked all the time. I was hesitant at first, and I expressed my concerns that if we moved into the project, I’d have creative freedom, and Dede and Jeremy were down.

    Watching the film, it feels like such a natural outgrowth and continuation of your formal approach on Hale County. When you decided to do the book, did you have an idea in your head already of how you’d go about adapting it?
    I hate to sound precious, but once I read the book, I thought POV. I thought poetry. I thought archival. It came pretty fast, because the way I entered the book aligned so much with my aesthetic values. That time period is saturated with archival images that aren’t from our point of view. Generally speaking, they lack the poetry. They lack the interstitialness, the lyricism. How does that affect today’s quotidian? So, if you repopulate that to make a film that’s only poetic in this deep narrative that’s ready-made, it seemed to me not only a radical act, but an actual intervention into visual aesthetics.

    It’s fascinating, because when the film first starts, and we get this fragmented, point-of-view style, it feels like maybe we’re watching an aesthetic overture. And we assume it’ll settle into something more conventional eventually. And it absolutely doesn’t! Which then forces us to think about how we process images, and narrative.
    It kind of feels like you have a friend that you meet and this friend, and you guys, you’re going to spend an hour together. And in the first 20 minutes they’re the exact same person you knew forever. And then all of a sudden, they start singing opera, and they start doing all these wild things. And they’re just giving you another world of experience with them, which you know because you know them, but also they’re sort of performing in a way that’s very different.

    What were your conversations with Colson Whitehead like?
    I’d say they were non-existent. It was funny. He and Dede and Jeremy “chose me,” whatever that means. As we finished the script and were going into production, I wrote him an email and was like, “Hey, I always wanted to be a writer,” all this stuff. “Really appreciate it.” And he wrote back, “Thanks for your note. Good luck.” And that was it! At first, I was… not hurt, but I was like, “Oh, man.” Then I realized, “Wait, that’s the best. He’s actually giving me freedom to do my thing.” So, I’m not beholden to him in any way. I am, but not really.

    Has he seen the movie?
    I think so. Apparently, he’s writing a book right now and he’s hard at work. I’m not complaining.

    Almost everyone I’ve talked to about Nickel Boys thought the film was extraordinary, but I’ve spoken to a couple of people who said that they might have found the film more moving if it was more conventional. But that seems to me to be partly the point: When we see ostensibly objective, or conventional depictions of suffering, it can be moving, but there’s also a voyeuristic quality to it. When we’re embedded in the perspective of a person, we start to experience it differently.
    I’ve thought about these things so much. One thing in the Zeitgeist that people can understand — though it’s not the exact same thing — is double consciousness. It doesn’t give you the Black double consciousness, but it gives you a type of psychological double consciousness, where you’re both in it and on the outside of it. Traditional cinema is the person that’s walking by the homeless person on the street and being like, “Oh, my god, that’s so horrible.” But then being the homeless person on the street and seeing the people walk by is a different type of filmic experience.

    In the past, when filmmakers have tried to shoot an entire film in point-of-view style, it’s tended to be a disaster. I think maybe the only other time it’s worked was a movie that’s about as different as one can imagine from Nickel Boys: Gaspar Noé’s Enter the Void.
    Oh, I love that film.

    I think the problem is that all too often the point of view is combined with a certain fluidity, so suddenly the camera is moving all over the place, which can feel artificial and awkward. Watching your use of point of view here, as you meld it with the impressionistic, fragmented style of Hale County, I realized, Oh, this is how point of view could work. Because this is closer to how we actually experience the world.
    To give you a long answer, in the history of Southern photography — large format, eight-by-ten cameras — Walker Evans and William Christenberry are doing things in full focus. F22, you can see everything super-clear, and it’s all super-formal. Then you think about the way that Black musicians have changed the use of instruments just based on their needs and the soul. They’re not using the instruments formally and classically. I don’t use the eight-by-ten camera formally and classically. I use it to express something deep that has to do with my experience in the world. Not a picture of the world, but my experience of it.

    My proof of concept for Nickel Boys was Hale County. I used three scenes, and I said, “It’s going to be exactly like this, which is a long lens and shallow focus.” Because you use the language of documentary and the language of cinema, because people think that shaky, moving camera is a person; that’s sort of been its code. So, to have a full-frame, 24mm frame, and you can see everything, we’re trying to replicate the purview of human vision. But like you said, human vision is attention-oriented. It’s not scaled. You can be looking at the entire coast of a place and one little fly can be in your face, and you don’t see anything else. If you can do that with the camera, then you can control someone’s attention in the frame, and not just give them what it is to see from the eyes.

    Director RaMell Ross on the set of Nickel Boys.
    Photo: Kasimu Harris/MGM/Everett Collection

    When I watch the film, and when I watch Hale County, it feels more like how my mind works than not. It’s not linear, it’s not straight. It’s not a normal film. It’s jumping time, and jumping textures, and jumping images, and points of view, and focal lengths, and sounds, but also it’s coherent. I think this is actually the way that the brain wants to work. It wants to let us have access to this wide range of associations. But because we’re so utilitarian-oriented, we’re on these one-track minds, reading things in specific ways. We’re just not allowed to let our unconscious flow into our consciousness and be within the image of the world, and the image of ourselves. Images are reductive intentionally for legibility — but they’re also complex, unconsciously, unknowingly. I think that photography, one, rewires our senses. And it’s also produced a language that has to catch up with our brains.

    How did you build up and collect all these images initially? Some of them are from the book, obviously. But a lot of it is just life.
    That’s where it came from. Life. I just made it up. The beautiful thing about the story is that I can just think about everything I’ve seen. I’m Elwood. I had a childhood, and I love images. And so I can think in images quite well. The original script was images and camera movement. That was it. The hard part is shaping it. We had hundreds of images. And so many that we didn’t shoot that I’m really excited to put in something else, because they’re quite beautiful, and ambiguous, and innocent, and visceral.

    I remember when we discussed Hale County a few years ago, you talked about how your still photography had prepared you for that film, in the way that you’d establish the frame and then have the patience to wait for something to happen — for a revelation to happen. When you’re working with something scripted, does that process of discovery change?
    It does completely. Especially when you have 33 days. And then you lose 5 days because of COVID. A person gets COVID and has to go, and you lose a scene. But we realized really early, Jomo Fray and I, that you have to miss things. You don’t want to hit every mark. If you hit the marks, then you’re producing it. But if you’re catching up to the world, then you’re in the world. Because the world is separate from your experience of engaging with it. We called it single-point perspective. The camera is situated in a way that it moves a bit like the human neck. So, just being responsive to the environment, but not trying to synchronize with it.

    When we talk about the theories behind images, and we talk about things like representation, or challenging convention, it can sound like we’re talking about spinach, or broccoli — like it’s all just stuff that’s “good for you.” But what you create is also beautiful. 
    One of the reasons why this approach got pushed through is because I’ve thought so much about my own work. I can talk about my work and my sensibility very clearly. So, it’s convincing! Before we made the script, I had a vision for the film. And I would’ve shot the thing on DSLRs, no problem, and would’ve been completely happy with it, because I’d have control. But I don’t have the technical expertise to make the image as beautiful as you saw it, the way that Jomo, and Nora Mendis, and all of the other production heads, did. Jomo comes in, and he’s a master. And then the concept is capable of developing: “Oh, we can shoot the film as if Elwood and Turner had their own Hale County cameras. We can make it feel like they’re documenting a time period they would not have been capable of documenting, with a poetry that didn’t exist. At 6K with a Sony VENICE on Rialto mode. Have it be a 4:3 aspect ratio.” I can really start to use all the resources from people who are masters of craft and artists in themselves.

    Because of the point-of-view approach, your two leads, Ethan Herisse and Brandon Wilson, are often not onscreen, even when their characters are. How do you get them to inhabit their characters in a situation like that?
    Well, they came 80 percent ready, so it wasn’t like we needed to retrain them. They’ve been acting since they were kids, but they’re not superstars, and they don’t have long IMDB pages. We did have to set their expectations that they weren’t going to be on camera the entire time. But we still needed them to be present: There’s a lot of hand acting and voice acting, and a lot goes into that. When Elwood’s tying the things over his finger, it’s quite easy to record someone doing that in the real world. But then to have it feel right, that takes direction. They were so open and wanted to genuinely play that. And they were, I think, deeply enthusiastic to be part of a production that was predominantly Black. As a director, I would say I’m kind of fun. I’m not screaming at them. I don’t have rules. They can do anything that they want, and then we’ll go from there and start molding. We went through hundreds to find them, as I’m sure you can imagine. I’d never seen casting tapes directed at me to evaluate, right? That was new.

    Good day, Mr. Kubrick.” That famous video, right?
    So good! So good! I actually have a copy of that on my computer. Editor Nick Monsour introduced me to that hilarious tape.

    If you look at any period film that involves Black people, actors are embodying characters from that time period. They have an accent, and they’re doing something of what they’ve seen the past is, or they’ve read the past is, or they know the director wants — something like that. So, we got tapes like that. Like a guy had a straw hat on, with a straw thing in his mouth. But this is what Hollywood encourages! Also, if we think about what masculinity looks like in Black culture right now, there were a lot of GQ looks, a lot of chiseled faces, the types of actors that could be in a superhero film and do really well. But it wasn’t someone who conveys the individuality and optimism that an Elwood has, or the cynicism that a Turner has.

    When I saw Brandon, he was just leaning against the window — just the Brandon that you see, running Turner’s lines. He was so flexible and confident in himself. And I thought, Oh, man, that feels like that could be Turner. That’s Turner. Then Ethan, he was a version of that, but he had this optimism. It was early in the process, but I think that was the first time that, visually, the Nickel Boys narrative came alive — because he felt exactly like the Elwood in my head, with his joy of life.

    Photo: Amazon MGM Studios

    At a certain point in the film, a switch in perspective happens between Elwood and Turner. We’re watching the world through Elwood’s eyes, and then suddenly we’re seeing it through Turner’s eyes as well. How did you decide on this?
    That’s something that happened over the writing process with Joslyn. Once we decided that POV is not going to go to everyone — because if you’re going to give POV, then why does everyone not have POV? — then we thought, “Oh, what if we gave it to Turner? What if only Turner could see Elwood? What if only Elwood could see Turner?” The switch, the swap. It becomes more than a camera technique. It becomes a way in which these people are exchanging vitality.

    Later, you start to incorporate what seem like archival elements. So, the texture changes again, and another formal element comes in. 
    That was scripted the way it’s in there — because that smash of dramatic narrative, that beautiful cinema, with that archival image is a collapse that I think is just necessary and real. You feel that.

    Again, it seems like another way in which we experience the story even as we start to reflect on how we experience stories. 
    Which is the most human thing ever! We have a whisper in our head, we watch ourselves. Interestingly, I’ve found one place where you can get that duality is the audiobook. Because you’re not using your eyes in that way. You can have that visual input, and the audio input, and the input of the world and have that complex experience. I do this in my class, I call them “Order of Time Walks.” Do you know Carlo Rovelli’s Order of Time? It’s read by Benedict Cumberbatch. So, you have Benedict Cumberbatch’s smooth silky voice, while Carlo Rovelli is talking about what time means and doesn’t mean, in profound yet accessible language, and you’re out in the world and seeing things move. It’s mind blowing. It changes your relationship to time and space, because you’re in the world experiencing what he’s talking about.

    Tell me about your project Return to Origin, for which, as I understand, you shipped yourself from Rhode Island to Alabama?
    Basically, I shipped myself from Rhode Island to Alabama as some sort of homage to Henry Box Brown. But more to put myself in a really precarious situation, to approximate what it felt like to be terrified in that way. But I was super-safe. No one could get in the box. I could get out. Only two people knew I was in there. But the journey itself was so visceral. The experience gave me something about what’s at risk as an artist trying to say things that are meaningful — if that leap of logic is possible.

    Our first idea was FedEx. Did research with my studio manager for a year. We were tracing trucks, we’re talking to FedEx. Turns out, with something that big, if they’re going to go cross-country, you’re going to be put into a warehouse for two or three days. I’m like, “Oh, do they have good airflow in there?” They’re like, “Why do you care about airflow?” I’m like, “Oh, just wondering.” So, way too dangerous. Also, they’re putting forks through the boxes sometimes if they fall. And we need an oxygen tank. So, then we decided, “All right, got to do open air goose-neck trailer, have air flow, have it strapped down. And we’ll just use U-ship.” That thing where you can just have a random person who has a CLL or one of those licenses drive you. So we built the box out of Outlander railroad ties. Get my food, get everything organized, have someone set to come pick me up, get ready to do it. The person never shows up the first time, which no one knows. So, then we bail on that one. And then two months later we fully accomplished it. Basically, I just lived in this box for three days. Should have only been one and a half, because we were supposed to go straight there — but the driver had overdriven his hours, so he stopped at a rest stop in Pennsylvania for 15 hours. Obviously, he didn’t know I was in there, because we didn’t tell them. I’m just sitting there, like, “Why aren’t we moving? This is crazy.” But also, I filmed it. I had two GoPros, 100 batteries, an alarm set. Every hour I changed the battery. I have 59 straight hours of the entire journey that I’m going to make into a 59-hour film. But the coolest part about that is I started this project that I’ve wanted to start for a while called the Black Dictionary, which is me writing the word “black” before every word in the dictionary that I had as a child, to speak to the absurdity of someone being called Black, and also to get through it, if that’s even possible. So, on the inside is all text from the Black Dictionary.

    This also was the inspiration behind the boxcar scene in Nickel Boys. My studio manager and I built that, and then after we finished production, we drove cross-country and filmed me in it. And then we put it in the film. I imagined it because I was in a box going cross-country already, so I wanted to put Turner in a boxcar. I thought, I’ve never seen a time-lapse out of a boxcar. How amazing would that be?

    [ad_2]

    Bilge Ebiri

    Source link

  • Why Was the Miami Vice Pilot So Good?

    Why Was the Miami Vice Pilot So Good?

    [ad_1]

    Photo: Frank Carroll/NBC Universal/Getty

    Cinematic television didn’t begin with Game of Thrones or True Detective or Mad Men or The Sopranos or even Twin Peaks. It began in September 1984 with the premiere of Miami Vice. The NBC show about a salt-and-pepper cop team was so immediately seductive and addictive that rival networks were burning money trying to develop Vice clones and keep up with the show’s awesome weekly displays of designer looks, hot cars, and hotter boats. Men around the world imitated Sonny Crockett’s (Don Johnson) go-to look: Ray-Ban Wayfarer sunglasses, a sports coat over a pastel T-shirt, slip-on shoes without socks, and stubble. The look became so popular that in 1986, the home-grooming manufacturer Wahl introduced the Stubble Device, an electric clipper that only shaved whiskers a little. Its original name, the Miami De-Vice, was changed to avoid a lawsuit.

    Created by writer Anthony Yerkovich, helmed by filmmaker Thomas Carter, and guided by executive producer Michael Mann, Vice was ostensibly a police procedural: Crockett is a deep-cover operative based in Miami who partners with Ricardo Tubbs (Philip Michael Thomas), a New York detective who came to the Gold Coast to bust the Colombian drug lord who killed his brother. But it was more than the sum of its plot points. It was a Reagan-era update of hard-boiled crime fiction, about fallen characters who were cynical about life (Crockett smoked like a Bogart hero) but also looking for innocents to defend (and often watching in horror as they died anyway). It was a down-and-dirty portrait of the War on Drugs, and a critique of domestic and foreign policies that fed it, based on events that were really happening in the 1980s worlds of arms dealing and trafficking. Most of all, though, Vice was stylish.

    The 97-minute Miami Vice pilot (two hours with ad breaks) aired on commercial TV but felt like it should’ve been in a theater. It was a shimmering postmodern neo-noir in the vein of movies like Paul Schrader’s American Gigolo, Mann’s Thief, and Brian DePalma’s Miami-based remake of Scarface (to which Vice would often be compared). It also owed a lot to the sexy-bloody-glossy Hollywood features directed by English TV-commercial wizards who had crossed the pond in the late 1970s and early ’80s, including Alan Parker (Midnight Express), Ridley Scott (Blade Runner), Tony Scott (The Hunger), and Adrian Lyne (Flashdance). Another element in the mix was MTV, which debuted in 1981 and normalized a music-video aesthetic that was more about highlights and moments than literary concepts of conventional storytelling.

    These influences came together in an aesthetic that would later be called “cocaine chic” and in images that seemed to have been imagined not just as cinema frames but freestanding graphic photos that could hang alongside Patrick Nagel prints in a gallery. Each one provided a perverse kind of escapism: a dark fantasy depicting Miami as a dreamy, sensuous war zone dotted with glass skyscrapers, cobalt swimming pools, and pastels. Bad guys got away with murder sometimes. Innocent people were killed for no good reason. There seemed to be more ex-lovers than lovers. Vice’s Miami had torrential rain, deafening gunfire, languorous sex, and the most beautiful, broken people staring into space.

    “But here’s a thing that’s hard for people who aren’t in this business to understand,” says Carter (another Hill Street Blues alumnus). ”Before a show is made, it doesn’t exist. It seems so obvious to us now that Don Johnson was the perfect guy to play Crockett and Philip Michael Thomas was the perfect guy to play Tubbs, just like it seems obvious that Miami Vice was this groundbreaking show that had all these great ideas. But the Miami Vice that we now know, with Don Johnson and Philip Michael Thomas in their cool suits and all the cars and the colors and the music, didn’t exist until it was created.”

    Photo: Universal

    If Vice felt cinematic, it’s because Tony Yerkovich, then 32, originally conceived the story as a theatrical feature (under working titles like Dade County and Gold Coast). It was one of the properties he was developing in 1983 as part of a deal he’d signed with MCA/Universal. His main creative partner there was Kerry McCluggage, senior vice-president of creative affairs for the company’s TV division, Universal Television. McCluggage, then 28, was a wunderkind who had overseen the development of Magnum, P.I., Murder, She Wrote, and The A-Team; he “recruited” Yerkovich based on his writing for Hill Street Blues. McCluggage says the Miami Vice script was discussed as a possible feature until the president of Universal’s film division, Frank Price, gave a green light to DePalma’s Scarface remake. This was deemed “a potential conflict” with Miami Vice because Scarface was also a Miami neo-noir crime drama with Latin characters at its center.

    “We sent Tony to Miami to do some on-site research,” McCluggage says, “and he came back enthused about doing it as a series.” Yerkovich says the idea of Miami Vice as a TV show snapped into place when he was sailing into Miami on a boat owned by marijuana smugglers “possibly after ingesting hallucinogens. As we were coming into Miami, the city was vibrating, like on a molecular level. Like, where you can look at a leaf and sense the molecules vibrating with life in the leaf: I saw Miami like that. As vibrating pastels, right?” In July of ’83, with the backing of McCluggage and MCA/Universal president Robert Harris, Yerkovich sold the project as a weekly cop drama and was off writing a pilot script.

    (Contrary to legend, NBC executive Brandon Tartikoff, who died in 1997, did not suggest Miami Vice to Yerkovich by writing “MTV cops” on a napkin, and Yerkovich, Mann, McCluggage, and Carter are all still irritated that he tried to claim credit. “Brandon didn’t start telling people that ridiculous story of writing ‘MTV cops’ on a napkin until at least 14 months after the pitch meeting,” Yerkovich says.)

    Mann was focused on making theatrical films at the time (and would start drifting away in season two of Miami Vice to write, direct, and produce 1986’s Manhunter, a.k.a. Hannibal Lector’s screen debut), but Harris sent him the script anyway, and Mann agreed to sign on as producer because “the content was so good, it was so current.” He and Yerkovich shared an obsession with undercover officers devising “criminal” identities and using asset forfeiture to sell the lie by showing off seized cash, drugs, cars, boats, houses, and the like. Mann’s fixation stemmed from his muckraking journalist’s impulses; he’d traveled to research smugglers and dealers for unrealized projects that ended up being cannibalized for Vice plots.

    “I was fascinated by undercover wealth, and I still am,” Mann says. “At the time, Miami was the northern banking capital for the money being made in the drug trade, and it was the kind of place I’m really attracted to, which is a twilight zone, be it Las Vegas or Miami, where life kind of exists in this liminal space between a very hard reality and a kind of momentary, transient experience. That’s Miami Vice, right? It’s the weather, it’s the sexuality, it’s the visuals, it’s the light, you know? All of it.”

    Mann’s contribution to the aesthetic of the show was “huge,” Yerkovich says, from bringing in Mel Bourne — production designer of some of the most visually distinctive American films of the ’70s and ’80s, including Manhattan, Cocktail, Fatal Attraction, and Mann’s Thief and Manhunter — to consult on Vice’s look, to hiring Jan Hammer, a Czech fusion-jazz keyboardist, to compose all-new synth-driven instrumental music for each episode. “Michael was totally confident that the pilot would get picked up as a series,” says Hammer.

    Photo: Universal

    Philip Michael Thomas says that upon reading Yerkovich’s script, he knew he’d been cast in something groundbreaking (“The TV equivalent of the great pyramids of Egypt — a thing that will last forever”), and that the sensation only became more pronounced as the show began production in Miami in the spring of 1984. Nobody questioned the casting of Thomas; he was immediately accepted as the ideal Ricardo Tubbs. But the casting of Johnson as Crockett was a hard sell because he’d starred in multiple pilots that hadn’t gotten picked up. NBC worried he was a bad-luck charm. “There wasn’t a lot of enthusiasm from the network to hire him,” says Carter. “So we read other people. But we ended up casting Don.” (Johnson was the only major participant not interviewed for this piece; his publicist explained, “Don politely declines all these interviews as he just won’t go backward, only forward.”)

    McCluggage says the only hiccup in Johnson’s performance came early in production of the pilot, when he and Yerkovich watched dailies and realized that during the first few days he was “kind of doing a bad Nick Nolte impression from 48 HRS.,” a buddy movie that had been a hit a few months earlier. The two flew to Miami to confer with Johnson and ask him to try a different approach. It was an awkward conversation, but “Don was grateful and really wanted this role to work. And he kind of acknowledged that he was channeling Nick Nolte in his performance and it just seemed a little forced for him, but he had the ability to just make a quick turn, and everybody was happy from there on out.”

    Once on set, Mann and cinematographer Robert E. Collins tried to make Vice’s style as bold as possible, drastically varying the length of lenses; staging lengthy, complex crane shots in the manner of big Hollywood movies; and lighting night scenes with hard, bright lights that cast sharp shadows. “The rigor of doing 22 hours a season instead of six or eight or nine or ten was a challenge and a thrill,” Mann says. “I mean from the standpoint of both the writing of the episodes and the actual production: shooting each of the hours in seven days.” The key to staying on track, Mann says, was “inventing systems” that amounted to visually daring moments onscreen, but that were, at the same time, “very economical. We tended to, for example, light things with very large lamps that threw very dark shadows and not worry about the fill light. The effect was described as chiaroscuro. It also took 15 minutes to set up the light!”

    Mann and his crew also committed to filling every frame with color. It wasn’t as easy as you might think. “When I first went to Miami, I took a close look at it, and it was almost as if there had been this massive mountain of tan paint left over from World War II and somebody had bought it all in surplus and sprayed the whole city with tan!” Mann says. “And then, when we did the research, it turned out that, no, those are not the colors that were used during the streamlined Art Deco period of Miami in the 1920s and 1930s that we were wanting to use; they were using pastels! Then I became interested in how you can combine different colors to generate a sense of heat. And that was when we started to have these subtle chromatic collisions, like having a very faint yellow against a pale blue, or turquoise against pink. What we basically did was return Miami to Miami.”

    The result of all this imaginative labor was one of the most innovative pilots ever made for commercial TV. It created a stylebook that not only defined the rest of Vice (which aired 111 episodes) but drew praise as a beautiful object in itself. Hammer says that when he watched the first cut of the pilot, he was unprepared “for how beautiful it was. I thought, Wow — this is actually like something that I would watch.”

    Photo: Universal

    From the black-and-white expressionism of The Twilight Zone, to the Pop Art splendors of the original Batman and Star Trek, through the grubby naturalism approximated on MASH and Hill Street Blues, stylistically distinctive TV shows had existed prior to the 1980s. But Vice made them all seem like relics. It seized the prerogatives of formally adventurous international and art-house cinema from the 1960s through the mid-’80s and applied them to a TV show. It created not just a world but a mood — and sometimes let the mood be the world. The creative triumvirate of Yerkovich, Mann, and Carter and the rapport of Johnson, Thomas, and their co-stars — Saundra Santiago as Gina, Olivia Brown as Trudy, Michael Talbott as Switek, and John Diehl as Zito — proved alchemically perfect. The show had a pulse, a personality, a signature.

    This all comes through in the extended (by network-TV standards) “cold open” of the pilot, which kicked off with Tubbs (not yet identified as a police officer) following Esteban Calderone around New York and failing to bust him at a nightclub. The sequence freeze-frames on the thwarted Tubbs standing alone in a dark alley, then hard-cuts to the credits, a feature-film-like opener that matches documentary-like footage of circa-1984 Miami to Hammer’s buzzy, pounding theme and lists Vice’s main actors without showing their faces (TV’s norm at the time). A graphic at the bottom of the screen boasted “In Stereo.”

    Vice’s aesthetic comes through even more strongly in the climax of the pilot when Crockett and Tubbs drive to the docks to confront Calderone and his minions while Phil Collins’s “In the Air Tonight” blasts on the soundtrack at length. The sublimated sorrow of the brotherless Tubbs merges with the self-immolating despair of Crockett, who has just learned that a fellow cop who was like a brother to him is on Calderone’s payroll. Nobody had seen anything on network TV like this hypnotic, ominous sequence, which begins with the cops riding mostly in silence, save for a few terse lines and the sound of Tubbs loading his shotgun. It continues with Crockett’s convertible pulling up to what is apparently a French bistro at the edge of the harbor to walk to a glass phone booth and call his estranged wife, Caroline (Belinda Montgomery), and ask, “The way we used to be together … It was real … Wasn’t it?” Then Crockett gets back in the car and peels out, and the sequence returns to Crockett and Tubbs driving toward the docks. The cut from the phone-booth scene to the cops returning to the road falls precisely where the cosmos demands that it should: a split second after Collins’s timelessly badass drum fill.

    “In the Air Tonight” had been a needle drop before (in 1983’s Risky Business during a sex scene). But it fit so well in the Miami Vice pilot — “It was a little bit recessed, those drums and those voices, and there was a little bit of echo, so that listening to it, you felt like they were in some hollow space,” Carter says — that some fans of the show wrongly assumed it had been written and recorded for use in that sequence. In future years, “In the Air Tonight” would become inextricably linked to Miami Vice, even though it had been released as a single in 1981 and was subsequently used in other movies and series (including the pilot of FX’s The Americans). “Two days after the pilot aired,” Carter says, “I’m listening to the radio, and the DJ says, ‘And now, from Miami Vice, here’s “In the Air Tonight,”’ and he plays the song. And I’m like, Whoa. Oh my God. The show had immediately taken ownership of the song.”

    Mann describes the “In the Air Tonight” sequence as an experiment in form that aimed to pull viewers into a character’s subjective emotional state: “I wanted the show to drop you into … a crisis,” when “time slows and visuals ignite almost psychedelically.” Yerkovich describes the sequence as a tribute to Edward Hopper’s painting Nighthawks. Carter — who says the phone call was not in Yerkovich’s script until he suggested it, while Yerkovich insists it’s “scene 210 on page 104” — talks about creating a geographically nonexistent bistro in Bal Harbour by having a phone booth placed at the water’s edge, then instructing the art department to make a neon “Bernay’s Café” sign and hang it in the foreground. “You don’t see the café,” Carter says. “It’s almost like haiku or something, what we did there. It’s suggestions of what is. And as a viewer, you just go with it, right? You go, Yeah — they just pulled the car over at a bistro so this guy can call his wife.”

    Carter also points out a detail that might not register on first viewing if viewers are immersed in the story: You don’t hear the sounds of revving engines or the whoosh of storefronts as Crockett and Tubbs ride through the city. Much of the sequence is unnervingly quiet, save for a few lines and specific sonic elements and, of course, Collins’s song. “There is power in taking things away,” Carter says. “It creates a mood. It focuses you. When you watch this sequence, you don’t go, Why am I not hearing the sound of the engines? You feel like you’re being pulled into something, even without knowing why. And at the end, you wake up and go, How much time just passed? Was it a minute? Was it 30 seconds? Was it two minutes?

    Photo: Universal

    But it wasn’t just the pilot. Miami Vice season one was one of the best freshman seasons of that decade. It churned out one knockout hour after another (including the gemlike perfection of “Evan,” starring a then-baby-faced William Russ as a closeted gay cop). It sparked depiction-vs.-endorsement arguments about its presentation of sex, violence, and drug use. It soon became one of the hippest series in TV history to guest-star on, especially if you were a musician or a real-life political figure. Miles Davis, Frank Zappa, G. Gordon Liddy, Sheena Easton, Vanity, Captain Lou Albano, Chrysler boss Lee Iacocca, Leonard Cohen, and Thief co-star Willie Nelson all took turns charming, tormenting, or baffling Crockett and Tubbs. And it became a finishing school for future stars, including Liam Neeson (as an IRA terrorist) and Bruce Willis (as a wife-beating arms dealer). Luis Guzman was one of countless, now-ubiquitous character actors who got their big break on Vice. The show caught lightning in a turquoise bottle, electrifying every career it touched.

    Miami Vice ended up receiving 15 Emmy nominations, more than Hill Street Blues. In a 1985 Time cover story titled “Cool Cops, Hot Show,” future Northern Exposure showrunner Joshua Brand, then a producer of Steven Spielberg’s anthology series Amazing Stories, said, “The success of Miami Vice shows that people do notice production values, lighting, and what comes out of those little television speakers.” But in a Rolling Stone interview from that same year, Mann pushed back against the praise heaped on the show: Vice seemed radical because TV had been so conservative for so long. “We haven’t invented the Hula-Hoop or anything,” he said. “We’re only contemporary. And if we’re different from the rest of TV, it’s because the rest of TV isn’t even contemporary.”

    Mann, Carter, and Yerkovich are all generous in crediting colleagues with helping define the show’s overall artistic identity, which proved sturdy enough to remain consistent-ish over five seasons and several changes in management. (Yerkovich compares the core creative team to Aspen trees, which “seem like individual trees but are actually connected through a single root system, and can probably communicate.”) Toward the end of the show’s run, future Law & Order franchise mogul Dick Wolf took over producing, but Vice continued to look and sound amazing, even though Wolf has never, in 40-plus years of making television, been praised for his sense of style. Mann was careful to note in this interview that he only extrapolated what was suggested in Yerkovich’s script, amplified it, then took it over when Yerkovich left the show to create another NBC neo-noir, Private Eye (which co-starred Michael Woods and a young Josh Brolin). “Michael Mann did not create Miami Vice,” Mann says. “Tony did.” Carter is likewise effusive about the vision sketched in Yerkovich’s script, while Yerkovich reminds this reporter on four separate occasions that it was Carter who directed the “In the Air Tonight” sequence and chose the song. (“It’s true,” Carter says.)

    In retrospect, the “In the Air Tonight” sequence is a before-and-after moment for TV, comparable in force to the effect on cinema of the Stargate sequence at the end of 2001: A Space Odyssey. I vividly recall reading a critic’s description of the phone-booth shot in his review of the pilot, back when TV critics rarely talked about how TV shows looked. This one described the composition of the phone-booth shot in detail and said it evoked Jean-Luc Godard’s Alphaville. At the time, I was a 15-year-old high-schooler in Dallas who had no idea who Godard was, much less what Alphaville was, and I’d bet Crockett’s black 1972 Ferrari Daytona Spyder that neither had ever been previously mentioned in relation to a cop show.

    Vice inspired that kind of analysis because it was made by people who were legitimately, enthusiastically, publicly cinephiles. My first conversation with Mann, over 30 years ago, was about how the simple, repetitious music and oddly timed cuts in the final action sequence of The Last of the Mohicans were part of a conscious strategy to distort the audience’s perception of time and make five minutes of action feel like an endless nightmare — an effect that recurs throughout Vice’s run, no matter who an episode’s director happens to be. The mathematician-showman-philosopher aspect of Mann shapes even episodes of Vice that were made long after he’d left the series. Carter was a self-taught moviemaker whose film school was Los Angeles–area art-house theaters, where he sought out works by postwar European cinema legends, the American New Wave directors who worshiped them, and the aforementioned ad-trained Brits. Yerkovich says that although he considers the Godard-Alphaville comparison “flattering,” he was a bigger fan of two other French New Wave figureheads, Jean-Pierre Melville (Le Samourai, Le Cercle Rouge) and Claude Chabrol (Web of Passion, Les Boucher). As Yerkovich speaks of wanting “to place an existential hero in a city in which the American dream had been distilled into something perverse, a city whose moral base was as shifting and insubstantial as the sands on which it was built,” he cites William Butler Yeats, Raymond Chandler, and Dashiell Hammett.

    But by the time the season-two premiere, “Prodigal Son,” aired in the fall of 1985 — another movie-length episode, this time sending Crockett and Tubbs to New York on assignment and having Tubbs reconnect with an ex-lover, played by none other than blaxploitation goddess Pam Grier — there were signs that Vice was leaning too hard into its Vice-ness, especially in its use of music to summon an epic feeling when the storytelling had gone slack. (The episode made a newly minted hit of Glenn Frey’s “You Belong to the City,” which played at length while Crockett strolled around Manhattan — far from the only time Vice padded its run time with a needle drop.) “You have to be careful to not allow the style of a thing to become the substance,” warns Carter. “That’s the thing, because style is not substance. Style is there to enhance the substance, to deepen it. If it’s there for its own sake, it quickly becomes hollow.”

    Detours and misfires aside, Vice’s constellation of talent was such that the show continued to produce memorable episodes into its fourth and fifth seasons, when it became more slack and cartoonish and tried to jazz things up by giving Crockett amnesia that leads him to believe he’s his drug-dealing alter ego, Sonny Burnett. (My own Hall of Fame includes multiple episodes from seasons two through five, including “Out Where the Buses Don’t Run,” which has an all-timer sicko punch line; “Bushido,” which climaxes with Castillo using a samurai sword against gun-toting assassins; “Forgive Us Our Debts,” in which Crockett becomes convinced that a man he sent to prison for murder is innocent of the crime; and “Down for the Count,” in which Zito goes undercover as a boxing manager to bust a corrupt bookie.) “Tony left the show after 16 episodes, and I left the show to do Manhunter in ’86 and Crime Story after that,” Mann says. “But the established aesthetic and the writing of Tony’s pilot and the casting of Don Johnson and Philip Michael Thomas had so defined Crockett and Tubbs and that world that it made it very difficult to deform the show and get kind of average about it.”

    “All the way through, there was always a lot to appreciate,” says Carter, who kept watching Miami Vice even though he never directed another episode after the pilot (by choice, he says; he’s more interested in the beginning, when he can have a hand in creating a style). “There were pros and cons, always. The pros: They brought in all these people, a lot of people, who you never saw on TV. So the show was really about opening a window to a lot of other faces and ideas. The cons: Sometimes, the faces and ideas worked, and sometimes they didn’t. But even so — even so! — there would be occasions where the story and the use of music and image on Miami Vice would marry in a way that would be really compelling. And when it did, it was unlike anything else on TV.”

    Tubbs was half Jamaican, half Puerto Rican, while his and Crockett’s Miami PD colleague Gina Navarro Calabrese, played by Saundra Santiago, was Cuban American. The ranks of both the cops and criminal populations boasted lots of Latin names, including Lou Rodriguez (Gregory Sierra), chief of the Metro-Dade Organized Crime Bureau-Vice Division, and Lieutenant Castillo (Edward James Olmos), who replaced Rodriguez after Sierra asked to be written out of the show because he didn’t want to have to live in Miami full-time. Sierra was killed off in the fourth episode, “Calderone’s Return, Part 1,” taking an assassin’s bullet meant for Crockett.

    No, readers, this is not a typo. The cannibal’s name is spelled with an o in Mann’s film.

    Additional lights that cinematographers use to “fill” dark pools of an image.

    Mann would go on to work on TV shows like Crime Story, Robbery Homicide Division, Luck, and Tokyo Vice.

    Yerkovich eventually left TV and became a successful restaurateur, co-founding Santa Monica’s now-33-year-old “American regional cuisine” eatery the Buffalo Club. Of course, the architecture is Art Deco.

    [ad_2]

    Matt Zoller Seitz

    Source link

  • Hurley and the Hot Pocket Outlived Lost’s Wildest Lore

    Hurley and the Hot Pocket Outlived Lost’s Wildest Lore

    [ad_1]

    It was always refreshing to get a lighthearted break from the insanity and lore on Lost. That was particularly true by season five, when you also had to keep track of who was where, when, how, and why — not to mention who was who (any character could be possessed, dead, or a hallucination). In episode two of its fifth year, Lost gave us less than 15 seconds of comedy gold in the form of Hurley throwing a microwave-fresh Hot Pocket at Ben Linus and missing wide right.

    Real-time screenshotting and GIF-ing TV scenes on Twitter hadn’t yet become the norm, so the moment wasn’t memed into virality back when it aired in 2009. But the assorted fandom sites dedicated solely to Lost ate it up, with one Television Without Pity commenter summing up the general feeling: “All the crazy things in this show, I focus on the hot pocket, lol.”

    The show’s marketers knew there was something special about this seemingly random scene — the season-five DVD menu background on disc one plays a shot of Hurley putting the Hot Pocket in the microwave. If you idle there long enough, he comes back to get his snack.

    But while that savory, sauce-filled pastry splattering against a kitchen wall holds a special place in the hearts of many fans, the cast and crew had no idea the random gag would have such staying power. When Vulture tracked down several of the people responsible for Hurley’s inept Hot Pocket defense — co-writers Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz, director Jack Bender, editor Mark Goldman, sound designer Paula Fairfield, and Hugo “Hurley” Reyes himself, Jorge Garcia — they had, at best, fuzzy-yet-fond memories of its creation and filming.

    “I said, ‘I think they’ve got the wrong writers. We never had Hurley throw a Hot Pocket,’” Kitsis recalls. “And Adam goes, ‘We did, and that was your idea.’”

    First, though, let’s back up for a refresher on what’s happening in this episode, “The Lie,” which was the second half of the season’s two-hour premiere. At this point in the series, the castaways on the island are stuck jumping through time against their will for reasons too complicated to recap here. (We’re deep in mythology,” as Garcia puts it.) Off the island, in 2007, the Oceanic Six — Hurley, Jack, Kate, Sayid, Sun, and Claire’s baby, Aaron, who returned to the mainland at the end of the prior season — are explaining away their miraculous survival with a bullshit story that prevents villain Charles Widmore and his henchmen from learning the island’s real location. That’s just the setup for this episode, which centers on Hurley and his struggles to maintain the titular fib.

    Hurley is hiding out in his mansion when he’s approached by Michael Emerson’s Ben Linus — who, the audience knows, is actually on the Oceanic Six’s side, working with Jack to get them back to the island because the mystical powers that be demand it. Ben sneaks around back into the kitchen, startling our hero into throwing his hotly anticipated snack at the intruder. Like many things Lost, the Hot Pocket had a deeper meaning beyond the bit.

    In an earlier version of Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz’s script, the snack symbolized the bond between Hurley and his mother. “We wanted something that would evoke Hurley growing up with his mom, like he would come home after school and she would make him a Hot Pocket,” Kitsis says. “Each character dictated the tone of their own episode, and Hurley episodes were best when they had a great dose of humor plus heavy emotion. Adam and I, at that time, really found it funny, the name ‘Hot Pocket’ — it was an inside joke and it worked perfectly with the emotion.”

    The Hot Pocket’s connection to Hurley’s mom got cut in rewrites but the duo were able to deploy the snack when they needed an amusing way for Hurley to react to Ben’s intrusion. “He’s not a character who’s ever going to hurt someone. Even if he hit Ben it still wouldn’t have hurt him,” says Horowitz. “It was always about finding that line — funny enough without crossing into the too-absurd.”

    Why choose a Hot Pocket over, say, a generic frozen burrito? “They’re just inherently funny,” he says. “They’re sleepover foods when you’re a kid. They’re stoner foods when you’re in college, or now. Hot Pockets are like a Swiss Army Knife of snacks.”

    On Zoom, director Jack Bender rewatches the scene on YouTube to refresh his memory. “There’s the Hot Pocket! I totally remember it!” he exclaims. “What’s great is the juxtaposition of using a Hot Pocket as a weapon — it’s very Lost-ian. As much as we dug deep emotionally, suspensefully, and philosophically, there was also that left-of-center humor. And using a Hot Pocket as a weapon is something Hurley definitely would have done.”

    Bender immediately recalls wanting to open the scene — which follows Jack reviving Sayid from being shot with a dart full of sedatives — with a transition to a POV shot from the microwave’s interior. “Look, it’s not reinventing cinema. Over the years, I and other directors have shot inside the refrigerator. I wanted to be inside on a wider angle, see that stupid Hot Pocket going around, see Hurley’s face come in because I knew that would be a great way to start it.”

    To accomplish this, the props team removed the back of a working microwave and its heating element, allowing the camera to shoot through while the carousel and other electronics functioned normally. “It lights like it would, which makes it even goofier,” Bender says. “We made sure it wasn’t going to be a steaming-hot Hot Pocket.”

    Bender and Garcia remember filming that day had an upbeat, lighthearted atmosphere — and not only because Garcia got to wear his “regular clothes instead of island clothes.” Given a fake pastry made by prop master Rob Kyker, they did take after take, with resets to wipe down sauce from the wall or wherever the Pocket landed when Garcia missed.

    “It was so silly, throwing that rubber Hot Pocket. I had to do it a lot,” says Garcia. “Fake food is always entertaining to look at and play with. I didn’t really have Hot Pocket experience, but it had a decent enough heft. It had a little bounce to it, so sometimes where it would go after it hit the wall was pretty funny. Trying to get the precision on that, when you hit it, you’re really proud of the smear — ‘Oh, that’s the one!’ That was fun.”

    There was one drawback to using a Hot Pocket as Hurley’s weapon of choice: Without a product-placement deal set up, the Lost team wasn’t allowed to mention its brand name. “There was a great line — as it slides down the wall, Ben turns to Hurley and goes, ‘Well, that’s just a waste of a Hot Pocket.’ Michael took this line and hit it like a home run,” Kitsis says. “We had to cut it in editing because it’s like a free commercial.”

    After the splat, Emerson’s unnerving, unflappable gaze switches the atmosphere from comic relief to white-knuckle suspense. But it’s not just the acting — a lot of credit for keeping viewers uneasy goes to the pacing and shot selections by editor Mark Goldman.

    “It’s Hurley’s scene, so by keeping the cutting simple and using the camera angles that move with him, you’re thinking it’s a domestic scene. Ben entering throws it off,” he says. “If we played it as strictly a scare moment and had the music go ‘dun dun dun,’ some of the humor of the Hot Pocket would have gotten stepped on. I’m a firm believer that a show is more engaging when the tone shifts, and Michael is so compelling that cutting to a medium-close shot of him shifts the tone right away. He’s Mr. Cool, the calmest person around, whereas Hurley is throwing Hot Pockets.”

    The microwave-to-countertop segment plays out realistically, calming the viewer with its sense of familiarity. On Lost, the scripts, performances, editing, visuals, and audio were all executed with the idea that the show had to feel real so audiences would put themselves in the castaways’ shoes, or lack thereof.

    “We tried to make the show about real people living through confusion, fear, and, Where the fuck are we? How did we get here? Monsters are chasing us!” says Bender. “What I always pushed for — and the actors’ instincts were the same — was ‘Let’s make this real so that no matter how preposterous it goes, people relate and care.’”

    In this instance, you’re meant to wonder how you’d react if you were in Hurley’s position — and you wouldn’t be doing that if the little details didn’t add up. For Paula Fairfield, the episode’s sound designer, that meant making sure elements like the Pocket cooking were realistic to the ears. After all, if it sounded like the pastry was being grilled over coals, the viewer might get stuck on that incongruity and miss the action.

    “Sizzle, ding, open the door, close the door, and then bam — it’s got to be very naturalistic, kind of understated but very specific,” she says. “I think I recorded the ding but the other stuff I had in my sound library. The sizzle was a tamped-down bacon sizzle. The Hot Pocket hitting the wall has a little bit of a slap, slightly wet, a little crunch, and a little weight to it. It can’t sound too hard. You don’t want to push something too much because it’ll pull the viewer out.”

    Clearly, the moment landed as intended, then and now — it still pops up in tweets and gets thoroughly discussed on Reddit threads. “We never thought that in a show that won an Emmy for very great drama, the Hot Pocket would rise to meet Locke in a wheelchair, no,” Kitsis says, laughing.

    “We knew the weight of ‘not Penny’s boat’ and ‘The Constant,’” adds Garcia. “The show is surrounded with so much intensity, the moments of levity become very appreciated by the audience. It’s like when Hurley makes a golf course. People responded to it and talked about it as the ‘Hurley makes the golf course’ episode. But I’m like, ‘No, that’s the Sayid gets captured and held hostage episode! I’m the B story!’”

    [ad_2]

    Dan Reilly

    Source link

  • No One Yelled Like Fatman Scoop

    No One Yelled Like Fatman Scoop

    [ad_1]

    Photo: Johnny Nunez/WireImage

    When they weren’t shooting the shit between songs or screaming over records, overnight DJs for New York’s landmark rap station Hot 97 would find themselves with brief pockets of downtime. Isaac Freeman III, known to fans as Fatman Scoop, used these rare quiet moments to write, frequently calling DJ Riz, his partner in the rap duo Crooklyn Clan, to run through potential lyrics for their club anthems. Scoop was once a rapper, but the lines he’d workshop for Riz, on club classics like “Where U @?” and “Be Faithful,” weren’t exactly rap. They were closer to stage directions, the kind of guidance you might find if parties came with instruction manuals. It’s amusing to picture Scoop in pained concentration, scribbling rudimentary commands to women to put their hands up, to throw different denominations of legal tender in the air, to make noise or shut up.

    For three decades, Fatman Scoop, who passed away on August 30 at the age of 56, was rap’s preeminent hype man. In a way that is true for few other recorded artists, his art didn’t thrive in his lyrical content — on his biggest hit, “Be Faithful,” his most memorable line is commanding “all the chickenheads, be quiet!” three times in a row — but the quality of his voice. Scoop didn’t invent this approach as much as he remixed it. “Hands Up,” his first collaboration with Crooklyn Clan, is a mix of popular instrumentals stitched together with Scoop’s battle-worn voice issuing the same proclamations DJs have been shouting at partygoers for generations. He wasn’t like Red Alert or Funkmaster Flex — radio DJs yelling over records live on the air (though he did that, too) — nor was he Ol Dirty Bastard, deliriously screaming over the intros, outros, and choruses of his own songs. Like DJ Kool before him, Scoop reclaimed and recontextualized existing songs with records built around his shouting.  

    A former member of the DJ collective the X-Men (now known as the X-Ecutioners), Scoop got his start doing promo for the label Tommy Boy, which he later parlayed into the job at Hot 97. As his own records blew up, the larger entertainment industry came calling. For a time in the 2000s he was in high demand, lending that voice and spontaneous kineticism to what might otherwise have been disposable pop standards from Timbaland (“Drop”), Janet Jackson (“So Excited (Remix)”), Missy (“Lose Control”; this wonderful video captures Scoop performing his up-close magic), and Mariah Carey (“It’s Like That”).

    There’s a school of thought that hip-hop’s origins go back much further than its supposed 1973 birth, to Black southern DJs in the ’30s and ’40s who smuggled African oral traditions into their introductions to the Black pop of their day. They talked their shit with style, verve, and musicality. They rhymed, they spit, they yelled at their listeners. Fatman Scoop — who was born two years before Herc hosted his ‘73 Back to School Jam in the Bronx — descended from this tradition, transfusing recorded music with the spontaneous energy of the impromptu shows and parties that molded the early days of the genre. He soon became a tour guide, a cultural commentator, a Simon Says host. But above all, he was just a familiar type of New York character: a loud man who lights up any room he walks into, making strangers take shots at a cookout while charming everyone with his goofy, profane limericks. In his abrasive, gravel-filled uncle’s bark — one that sounded like every cigarette he ever smoked — he emanated an endearing knowability.

    Fifty-three years does not make what many consider a full life, but in a tragic recurring narrative we’ve seen in hip-hop entirely too frequently, it was all that was afforded to a kid from Harlem whose artist name was inspired by his love of ice cream. And yet, there is an aspirational quality to the way Fatman Scoop passed on Friday night in Connecticut. He died doing what he lived for: shirtless on a stage in the tristate area, literally screaming his heart out at a crowd of revelers. In an epitaph a judicious editor would never print for its graceless obviousness, his final recorded words before collapsing were “Make some noise.”

    [ad_2]

    Abe Beame

    Source link