The film industry in one place - Articles, Reviews, trailers and hype!

Sunday 31 January 2021

‘The Sparks Brothers’ is an Engrossing Celebration of Unsung Music Icons

“Sparks are a part of the ecosystem of music,” says a fan, who happens to be Beck, on the lasting influence of a band that’s been sowing seeds across the music industry since the late 1960s. Other famous fans of Sparks, including Jason Schwartzman,  Fred Armisen, Weird Al, and Flea, can’t help but sing similar praises of the pop-rock duo in director Edgar Wright‘s documentary debut, The Sparks Brothers.

Comprised of siblings Russell Mael and Ron Mael, Sparks is described by their array of fans as enigmas, true artists, originals. They’ve been prolific and successful yet simultaneously underrated and overlooked. The band has affected such artists as Jack Antonoff, Neil Gaiman, comedian Patton Oswalt, and members of New Order and Duran Duran. Even Paul McCartney once emulated Ron Mael’s striking likeness, complete with his infamous “Adolf Hitler/Charlie Chaplin” mustache, in a music video.

You might hear Sparks’ music in this riveting documentary and feel like you’ve heard it somewhere before but can’t place exactly where, or when, or who was singing it in the first place. They are referred to curiously at one point as a band you can look up on Wikipedia and come away still not really knowing anything about.

That’s what Wright has set out to rectify in The Sparks Brothers (“In lieu of anything better, we hate that name,” Ron Mael proclaims cheekily of the title). The comedy director’s first foray into the world of documentary filmmaking produces a celebratory work of art that is unequivocally original and stylistically all his own, not that dissimilar from the musicians he’s endeavored to spotlight.

Of the plethora of recognizable pop culture icons interviewed for Wright’s documentary, they almost unanimously agree that Sparks has to be one of the most influential music groups of all time, offering disparate hypotheses as to why the Maels’ effect on pop culture has flown so dishearteningly under the radar. As Wright uses humor, engaging anecdotes, and charming animated sequences to chart the course of Sparks’ undeniably powerful presence in the music industry, it becomes clear how a couple of oddball creators subsisting on arthouse films, irony, and their unshakeable sense of humor managed to be everywhere and nowhere at once: through their enduring commitment to each other and their art.

Wright begins by tracing the brothers’ origins in Los Angeles, where they were heavily influenced by their artist father, who died when they were young. Having lived through the rock ‘n’ roll revolution and the golden age of LA’s rock club scene, the brothers eventually took their fervent passion for art, film, and music and turned it into a band of their own, first under the name The Urban Renewal Project and then as Halfnelson, which caught the attention of legendary musician and producer Todd Rundgren.

Although their eponymous debut album did poorly, a change in labels and names — from Halfnelson to “The Sparks Brothers,” inspired by The Marx Brothers, which was then shortened to just Sparks — allowed them to build more momentum. After releasing their follow-up album A Woofer in Tweeter’s Clothing, they traveled to London to tour it, and it was there in the UK where they finally began to build a following — the effects of which are that, to this day, many still think the brothers are British.

But their popularity became something that was unfailingly short-lived, their ups and downs within the industry something of a hallmark of their persona. They were never popular for very long, or in the same place, but perhaps what defined them is that they always, always came back, with a sound unlike anything they’d done before but which was still always wholly theirs.

Over the course of their career, putting out twenty-five albums and nearly five-hundred songs, Sparks’ consistent inconsistency has allowed them to reach a sort of middle ground within the music industry. They’ve never failed to catch the eye of other artists, both big and small, while maintaining a moderate level of success and fanbase that gave them the ability to keep focusing on whatever they wanted to create next.

Marked by their unique visage — Ron Mael a dour-faced, deadpan keyboardist and songwriter with slicked-back hair and that absurd mustache and Russell the eye-catching, dynamic lead vocalist with a mop of Roger Daltrey-inspired hair — and unforgettable album covers and idiosyncratic songs employing the use of bizarre, ironic, and/or comedic lyrics, they became a distinct yet utterly elusive presence.

And all the same, they continued to make music, never concerning themselves with what their fans came to love them for or conceding to what was charting on the Top 40. Instead, they focused on how they next would reinvent themselves and their sound. As one of the many talking heads in The Sparks Brothers suggests regarding why their work hasn’t gone stale (their most recent album having dropped just last year): they have a unilateral distaste for nostalgia. The Maels are only ever looking ahead.

Running well over two hours, the film serves as Wright’s gratuitous love letter to Sparks, Wright has crafted a filmmaking persona that, perhaps most notably with Baby Driver, has sown itself as inseparable from his soundtracks. For fans of Wright who might have been unsure how the successful director of vivid comedies like Scott Pilgrim vs. the World and Hot Fuzz would tackle a documentary, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that The Sparks Brothers is no less dynamic than anything else he has ever made.

Aside from interviews with famous faces and with the brothers themselves, the film depicts annotated memories with a variety of delightful animation, ranging from traditional to stop-motion, with even some original art for hypothesized posters and reenactments from the brothers. Wright does all he can to create a documentary as captivating as its subjects, and the pairing of the filmmaker with the duo for this bewitching biography is nothing short of a match made in heaven.

Longtime fans of Sparks have questioned for years what will finally be the band’s big breakthrough, but the magic of Sparks is that there never will be. With theories running the gamut from their toeing the line of being a “comedy band” and the oftentimes alienatingly ironic nature of their lyrics (“throw her away and get a new one”) to their enduring devotion to doing what their fans didn’t want and disavowing any chance at popularity, it all boils down to a single quote uttered by Ron Mael towards the end of the film: “If you don’t like this, we don’t care.”

Even less notable in the mainstream than a kindred artistic spirit such as David Lynch — whose similar dedication to creating the art that fits his own sensibilities has still granted him an elite status in the filmmaking world — Sparks’ inability to break through in any true sense of the word has afforded them a sort of mythic status, which has only added to their enigmatic, hidden gem persona. Their music is buoyed by love — for one another and for their art. Through countless professional setbacks and backing band reconfigurations, the two brothers have never parted.

Although they’ve managed to appear in the Top 10 in the UK four times, Sparks remains an artists’ band, a constant undercurrent of inspiration and guidance in the music and art world that seems far more affecting than if they’d ever broken into true vogue. “Who wants to be really popular?” comedian Jonathan Ross posits at the end of the film. To their immortalized benefit, certainly not Sparks.

Follow all of our Sundance 2021 coverage!

‘Superior’ is Beautiful and Bland

A film’s style is crucial in establishing its tone and atmosphere, informing the viewer about what to expect, at least aesthetically. It can be a feast for the eyes and can transport the viewer into the film’s world. But unfortunately relying solely on style cannot save a movie. Such is the case with filmmaker Erin Vassilopoulos’ feature debut, Superior. Starring actual twins Alessandra Mesa and Ani Mesa, this drama about identity relishes in its vibe and pushes the story to the side.

On the run from an abusive partner, Marian (Alessandra Mesa) takes refuge with her twin sister, Vivian (Ani Mesa), whom she hasn’t seen or spoken to in six years. Smoking cigarettes and loudly playing guitar, Marian disrupts the monotonous routine of Vivian and her square husband (Jake Hoffman), who collects vintage tobacco cans. Marian is in a band. Vivian’s appointments for sex with her husband are marked on the calendar. Despite their seemingly opposing lifestyles, they begin to bring the best out of each other, creating a balance between Marian’s recklessness and Vivian’s complacency. The twins try to make up for lost time, though Marian never reveals the full truth about why she’s shown up out of the blue.

Marian suffers from intense PTSD flashbacks to the tumultuous and violent relationship with her ex-boyfriend, Robert (Pico Alexander). Everywhere she goes, she worries he’ll appear around the corner or walk into the ice cream shop where she works. In an attempt to protect herself, Marian suggests that she and Vivian switch places under the guise of needing to finish a song. So, as twins are wont to do, they get similar haircuts and swap wardrobes to play-pretend in each other’s lives. It’s all fun and games as Marian learns to garden and Vivian starts smoking weed, but switching places backfires when Robert comes to find Marian.

Shot in 16mm, Supererior has a slightly hazy atmosphere that contrasts with its bright colors and frilled tops. Vassilopoulos is nothing if not dedicated to an immaculate 1980s vibe that captures a very specific moment both in time and in its small-town location. Style is quickly established in the first fifteen minutes with Marian’s glam style consisting of a tasseled white leather jacket, low back leotards, and short skirts, and Vivian’s clean housewife aesthetic made up of kitten heels and white silk blouses complete with ruffles and balloon sleeves. They couldn’t look any more different in their stereotypical representation of twins whose paths have diverged.

Superior’s set design is also so specifically 1980s with its color-blocked rooms, beds covered in crocheted blankets, lamps with large and colorful ceramic vases, and wood paneling. It’s like walking into a parent’s childhood home that’s a warm relic of the past. The details are so meticulous that it feels like a giallo film. Furniture is in just the right spot, the colors complement each other exquisitely, and there’s even the signature giallo red lighting. It’s Dario Argento’s Tenebrae by way of small-town America. 

There are some gorgeous melancholic moments where each sister quietly reflects on their regrets in life. Marian craves stability and safety while Vivian wants freedom and the ability to just interact with other people. In one another, they finally understand what they want in order to be happy. But despite the sweet rekindling of a stagnant relationship between sisters, they are barely characterized outside of aesthetics and opposing lives. There’s no real understanding of their complex relationship and what had led to their estrangement. It’s difficult to connect with them without any real investment in their past.

Superior is a film with so much potential. Unfortunately, it collapses in on itself and becomes a repetitive narrative that loses its thread on talking about trauma, identity, and what it means to be free. Showing their identity-switching routine over and over again becomes tedious, and the only moment of growth is that Vivian starts smoking weed. Only in the film’s final minutes does the action ramp up and take an impressive and unexpectedly violent turn reminiscent of David Lynch’s Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me

Superior began as a short film starring the same sisters, and it shows. Vassilopoulos didn’t build and expand enough material to enrich the story. Instead, her script relied on showing the same repetitive routines without much variation to fill in the middle of the story. Despite these stumbling blocks, Vassilopoulos’ has a very strong aesthetic voice that creates a gorgeous and alluring set design where everything is perfectly in place. She isn’t afraid to embrace her own creative style, which translates into the beauty of Superior. If only she extended that same embrace to the story.

Follow all of our Sundance 2021 coverage!

‘How It Ends’ is a Warm, if Overly Cutesy, Apocalypse Comedy

What if we knew when the world was going to end? How would we spend our last day? These questions are nothing new in terms of hypotheticals, but they’re two of the questions asked in Zoe Lister-Jones and Daryl Wein‘s affable How It Ends, an existential, apocalypse comedy that gives Liza (Lister-Jones) until the end of the day before an asteroid is expected to collide with our planet and destroy Earth.

In the time between waking up and this Melancholia-adjacent obliteration of life, Liza spends her last moments traversing Los Angeles on foot alongside a meta-physical version of her younger self (played by Cailee Spaeny), the eccentric presence of whom is attributed to “everyone operating on a higher frequency” in the face of the final day at hand.

Leading up to the last party she’ll ever attend, Liza and her younger self attempt to make amends with friends, family, and former lovers while encountering a plethora of eclectic strangers (played by a who’s-who of familiar comedic faces) all dealing with the collective, impending doom in their own way.

Shot like a sitcom and nothing if not obvious in its tackling of self-realization, How It Ends is nonetheless comforting in its depiction of an idealized version of the end of the world — a panacea to the worst-case climate change scenarios that now haunt our real-world dreams.

In the face of her inescapable demise, and also that of everyone she knows and loves, Liza and her younger self embark on a days-long journey towards forgiveness and self-acceptance, attempting to right these wrongs. When her initial plan of getting as high as possible is thwarted by a man (Nick Kroll) buying out all the weed at her local dispensary, she spends her last day with an amalgamation of loved ones and strangers.

They include the quirky younger version of an elderly man she meets by chance (Fred Armisen), two feuding neighbors (Rob Huebel and Paul Scheer), her absent father (Bradley Whitford), an estranged friend (Olivia Wilde), and a former lover (Lamorne Morris), all of whom act like spiritual guides leading Liza to the afterlife.

It’s all meant to be a lead-up to the end-of-the-world party being thrown that night by Liza’s friend Mandy (Whitney Cummings) — until it is rumored that Mandy spectacularly overdosed on ketamine and called the party off. Suddenly, Liza is forced to spend her final day with herself. Something utterly unthinkable.

During her quest to make peace with those outside herself, Liza struggles with the concept of being self-actualized before she ever got a chance to. It creates a unique kind of question to ask within the framework of the familiar “end of days” scenario: if given this time to prepare before an exact point at which your life will end, what happens to those of us who never got the chance to grow into ourselves?

If faced with a deadly impending reality that is not quite yet imminent, an opportunity is presented in which we have enough time to reflect on who we became, and yet there is still not enough time to fix all of our mistakes and become a fully realized person before we go.

The narrative wants to literalize this self-realization in the most tangible way possible, which ultimately robs it of depth and leads the story to a bit of a wish-fulfillment conclusion. The final scene is shot and presented in such an ordinary manner that it makes me wonder if they didn’t quite know how to end the film.

How It Ends is also operating on a pseudo-surrealist level that cannot escape the trappings of its own sitcom atmosphere. With its flat, washed-out cinematography reminiscent of something of a lesser streaming series, and its insistence on allowing every big-name actor to get their own five-minute bit whether its funny or not, it’s not difficult to assume where this film might end up in a few months time for general audience consumption.

But there is a tender story underneath the studio comedy trappings and dull atmosphere, and it’s hard not to watch How It Ends and wish this warm, existential tale of learning to love both yourself and being alone could have been executed with a little more tact.

Still, enchanting chemistry between Lister-Jones and Spaeny and the utter delight of the small moments given to actors like Armisen, Bobby Lee, and three It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia actors activates a rush of serotonin to my little monkey brain. And it is even more difficult to ignore the idea that How It Ends acts as a best-case scenario for the end of the world — quick and painless and where we are all given enough time to spend short moments with the people we love, and maybe the ones we didn’t love quite enough.

There is something exceedingly comforting in our time of overwhelming grief and pessimism towards the future about the idea of spending each moment we have left preciously, whether we have many of these moments left or not. How It Ends is not the best film about the end of the world, but it manages to be one of the more reassuring,

Follow all of our Sundance 2021 coverage!

The Ending of ‘The Little Things’ Explained

Ending Explained is a recurring series in which we explore the finales, secrets, and themes of interesting movies and shows, both new and old. This time, we travel back to 1990s Los Angeles to investigate the ending of The Little Things.


Many reviews of John Lee Hancock‘s The Little Things are calling the movie a rip-off of David Fincher’s Se7en (which was written by Andrew Kevin Walker). But is it the other way around? “I wrote it before Se7en,” Hancock told Deadline over a month before the release of The Little Things, which has taken decades to finally come to fruition as a movie. “I came across a draft the other day that said it was first registered with the Writers Guild in spring of 1993.”

The parallels are coincidental? I don’t believe Walker would have been aware of the script and then reworked it for his own. But then why didn’t Hancock just forget about his old script or bother to change the obvious similarities? The Little Things, like Se7en, has an older Black cop working with a young hotshot detective on a case of a serial killer. In the earlier-produced film, the man they’re looking for winds up turning himself in and then takes the duo out to a field in the middle of nowhere to reveal a final victim, but (spoiler alert for the ending of Se7en) it’s all part of his master plan to turn the younger cop into a murderer representing the final deadly sin of wraith. In the new movie, the main suspect taunts the younger cop, luring him out to the middle of nowhere to reveal a final victim, but the young cop similarly murders the suspect in a moment of rage.

The main difference between the two movies’ conclusions is that the suspect in Se7en is indeed the serial killer, but in The Little Things, the suspect (Jared Leto doing his best dramatic-phase Jim Carrey) is never proven to be the guy. I guess that makes The Little Things seem to be influenced by Fincher’s Zodiac, as well. Interestingly enough, the disconnect between Se7en and The Little Things makes the latter a bleaker and possibly more realistic version of the same situation. After the hotshot in Se7en (played by Brad Pitt) shoots the killer John Doe, he’s presumably punished for his crime. After the hotshot in The Little Things (played by Rami Malek) fatally whacks his suspect with a shovel, the act is covered up with the help of the veteran cop (Denzel Washington). And it’s revealed that the elder officer has some experience with such schemes.

There are a few twists at the end that will both satisfy and not satisfy mainstream audiences. First is the death of Leto’s character, which means we’re not going to get a concrete confession or proof of guilt. The second is when Malek’s cop, still in shock and taking a necessary vacation to work out his feelings of guilt, receives an evidence envelope with a red barrette indicating that Leto’s character had killed the last, missing young woman, and Washington’s character had found the item in the guy’s apartment. Finally, at the very end of the film, we see Washington throw away a bunch of barrettes he had bought, with one of them removed, revealing that the “evidence” was part of the cover-up and meant to make the hotshot think he was absolved of wrongdoing. At least, outside the boundaries of morality and justice, that is.

The Little Things was written in the early 1990s and is set in the first year of that decade, prior to the Rodney King beating and failure of justice there. Hancock may have been influenced by what was going on with the LAPD at the time. Perhaps his intent was to show that cops get away with corruption of the sort Washington and Malek’s characters commit. I don’t believe the movie aims to show them in a positive light. But there’s something to the way The Little Things aligns its focus on the cop characters similarly to the way action movies and crime films did back then (Washington’s out-of-town character investigating a case in LA while on “vacation” is very Beverly Hills Cop). When Washington’s character breaks into Leto’s character’s apartment to snoop around rather than search the place via warrant, it becomes one part of the misconduct in retrospect with the climactic context. Yet it’s otherwise a common crime for “hero” cop characters throughout film history.

DEKE

You work the evidence and come up with zeroes. Happens to everybody. Then you draw the black bean. Maybe the victim looks like a kid you picked on in the schoolyard. Maybe their green eyes remind you of your old lady. Or maybe it’s something else. But for some reason they’re your lifelong responsibility. You own ’em. They’re wherever they are and you’re their angel; trying like hell to turn the ledger from red to black… Word to the wise, Jimmy. Stay outta the angel business.

Los Angeles is nicknamed the City of Angels, but that’s anything but true in the hardboiled portrayals of LA in cinema. In the evidence envelope that Washington’s character sends to Malek’s, the elder cop has written “NO ANGELS.” He’s reminding the hotshot of what he’d told him earlier, how they can’t be in the angel business because they aren’t going to save all of the ones who become personal missions. Maybe especially not those. It’s Chinatown, Jake, and it’s every other part of the city. Unfortunately, Hancock doesn’t make it clear whether he is accepting of this or criticizing it. No, he doesn’t have to like his characters or make the audience like them. But does he need to be clearer if what he’s doing is trying to tell us that all cops are wolves in sheep’s clothing? Maybe it’s just an early, less-than-refined script where he was trying to go against the grain.

“Most of the movies about cops on the trail of a killer were really fun for the first two acts,” Hancock says in the Deadline interview when asked about the original script’s inception. “In the third, the cop would find out who was doing the killing, and then it would be by rote. Big face-off, and the cop would seemingly be beaten down and would come back and kill the guy in some morbid fashion. That always disappointed me. I thought: must the third act be just running around shooting at each other when the first two acts with all the clues were so interesting? I was trying to turn away from that and come up with a third act that would be surprising and hopefully still be fulfilling.”

Well, the third act of The Little Thing is certainly different than the expected denouement of the era, and back then, maybe it would have been even more shocking to audiences. While not clever like the twist of Se7en, it’s still fairly original. Thirty years later, it’s still far from conventional, but it also seems outdated at the same time. Whether it’s fulfilling is up for debate or merely up to the viewer, especially given that it’s open to interpretation what point it’s making.

‘Knocking’ Offers a Tense Ride Towards Uncertainty

Gaslighting may not be exclusively directed towards women, but history and society continue to do their part in making them the most likely target. They’re too often not believed in matters both big and small, and while some people point out “truths” with good intentions others do so out of dismissiveness or worse. Knocking offers a short glimpse into one woman’s experience and walks a fine line between drama and genre along the way.

Molly (Cecilia Milocco) is leaving a mental hospital after a year confined within its walls, and she’s feeling okay about it. At least, that’s what she tells her doctor before heading back out into an uncertain world. She moves into a new apartment, meets a few of her neighbors — all men, all tall enough to tower over her diminutive frame — and soon starts to hear a knocking echo through her ceiling. The tenants above and around her claim not to hear the noise, but Molly’s concern grows as the knocking is joined by the soft cries of a woman seemingly in need of help. A local heat wave intensifies matters further, and with both neighbors and the police dismissive of her claims she realizes that the truth is hers and hers alone to discover. Unless, of course, it’s all in her head.

Knocking is a brief slowburn of a tale focused on one woman’s mental breakdown, and while it’s suspenseful at times and inconsistent at others, the one through line is a stellar lead performance by Milocco. Director Frida Kempff keeps her front and center from start to finish, and every emotional turn is evident on Milocco’s round, fragile face. We’re breathing her air and immediately in her corner, but intense heat and an unspoken mental history are strong arguments against what she believes to be real. That in turn leaves viewers on edge and alluringly unsure of our protagonist.

That question — is this real or in Molly’s head — is maintained through to the end (and arguably into the end credits). The film’s final moments attempt a resolution of sorts, but writers Emma Broström and Johan Theorin neglect to confirm the implication to a truly satisfying degree. Potentially worse, and depending on your reading of the film, it’s one that ends without Molly even being necessary at all. The end result would have played out the same without her involvement, and that’s a curious note to end on for a film about a woman not being taken seriously.

Knocking works hard to suggest that Molly’s mental issues remain, issues stemming from a loss hinted at in dreamlike fragments and flashbacks, and the uncertainty is what powers the film to a large degree. We’re shown things that are absolutely imagined including a suicide across the courtyard, and that’s reason enough to suspect the rest is equally false. Milocco’s performance, though, insists that we listen to her, and it’s a compelling line to walk even as common sense really never plays a part. She never thinks to record the knocking and screams on her phone, for example, and when she stumbles across some suggestively damning evidence it simply disappears in the very next scene. She does make an effort to decipher the knocking by studying Morse Code, but the results are as trustworthy as the rest.

While the payoff never quite arrives, despite a slight effort in the most tenuous of ways, Knocking‘s brief running time remains engaging thanks to Milocco and an engrossing production design and style. She’s endlessly sweaty from the heat and her own intensity, a stain on the ceiling seems to grow, and her apartment becomes a claustrophobic environment. Martin Dirkov‘s score ranges from traditional to slightly off, and it’s used smartly to help convey Molly’s state of mind as even the most mundane tasks leave her disturbed. All of it builds leading to a final fifteen minutes that push Molly and viewers up to and over the edge. To where, though, is the question that unfortunately remains.

Knocking presents a troubled woman, still in pain over the person she was unable to save, utterly consumed with helping another woman in need. Does she? I won’t say, I arguably can’t say, but even with its iffy ending the film is a reminder to listen to those around you, whether they’re close or simply sharing your space. It might just save a life.

Follow all of our Sundance 2021 coverage!

Saturday 30 January 2021

‘John and the Hole’ Marks a Tense, Vacant Feature Debut

Never has a movie been so forthcoming as to what it is about without ever revealing what it is actually about.

It is, of course, about John and the Hole. John (Charlie Shotwell) is a spindly boy in late-middle/early-high school with a staple white suburban swoosh of straight dirty blonde hair that hangs dramatically over his right eye. He doesn’t talk much from what we see, except to ask his parents the occasional investigative life question, as children do, or mutter some fuck yous with all the muted excitement of a teenager beating his friend in a game online. But he’s not afraid to talk either. He’s quiet and comfortable with his family and they’re quiet and comfortable with him. That is until they meet the titular hole.

Brad (Michael C. Hall), Anna (Jennifer Ehle), Laurie (Taissa Farmiga), and John are the 2021 version of the picture-perfect nuclear family living out the American Dream: father, mother, daughter, and son undisturbed by the outside world in their modern mini-mansion on their own plot of land, far enough from others for cries to fade before they find ears. John’s parents, like his sister, aren’t fleshed out characters so much as they are stand-ins for any generic wealthy American family. They’re vanilla in a way that seems requested, restrained so as to not let John’s even more restrained performance be overshadowed.

After John discovers an abandoned bunker deep in the ground on their property, he decides, seemingly out of nowhere, to drug the other three members of his family and leave them down there, bringing them food and water occasionally while he has the place to himself. What does John do, you ask? Probably what a lot of people would do at that age: wander without restraint, drink from the carton, eat fast food for every meal, drive a parent’s car, play video games, leave trash on the floor — you know, Home Alone antics. His life hardly changes, but he has a new autonomy.

However, John is the type who seems to live primarily in his own head, emitting radioactive levels of sociopathy in his cold, calculating looks alone. He’s the kind of kid who soaks his wounds in chlorine and uses the family’s working-class gardener like a lab rat. He’s bound to do something crazy until, to oversimplify in lieu of spoiling anything, he doesn’t.

And so, we’ve already come full circle: what is John’s hole experiment really about? It’s not impenetrable. It’s simply, and not so simply at all, a matter of interpretation. One can imagine several angles. As a coming-of-age story, perhaps it’s about the odd ways in which we learn the world and become ourselves, or it’s meant to be a portrait of privileged youth in its detached, manicured nature. Maybe it’s honing in on the idea that the threat against safety comes from within in a situation where the world is kept out, like a look at the souring effect of domesticity. Or it could be an investigation of autonomy, etc. But if you were to ask me, I’d say it’s empty minimalism and formalism masquerading as depth. Where there should be something to grab onto, there is nothing: a hole (and, of course, John).

Yet, for as underwhelming as the whole hole situation ends up being, it’s hard to imagine first-time director and acclaimed visual artist Pascual Sisto not getting a second film financed soon, if not immediately. Sisto molds what is quite literally a story about nothing happening into a genuinely taut thriller. His direction is superb, keeping even the most frustrated viewers on the edge of their seat until the very end. It doesn’t matter if it’s just another shot of John playing video games or eating Popeyes, Paul Ozgur’s gorgeous, clean cinematography combined with Sisto’s deft eye and sense of control make for some fine optics. Sisto proves his mastery in the realm of visual art extends in multiple directions.

There is a strange, underlying sense of intrigue in the subtle oddities of Birdman screenwriter Nicolás Giacobone’s screenplay, as well, like in the way John’s parents talk to him as if he’s four years old despite him clearly being a teen, or in the vile feeling that it evokes when John parrots his parents’ voices, a practice in mimicry that he hopes will allow him to briefly field phone calls.

In the sense that everything at work here is wrapped in an enigma – I haven’t even touched on the debatably intersecting, unrelated plotline – it might be worth investigating what role John and the Hole plays in feeding into the demeaning yet longstanding tradition of vilifying the mentally ill. But it didn’t play that way to me. Whether or not John is on the spectrum remains unseen and is far from a given. As much as one might characterize his actions through that lens, it is just as plausible that he is the bunker-discovering equivalent of a bratty rich kid pyro who, out of sheer boredom and lack of life experience, wants to set things on fire to be entertained by the flames.

Beware of comparisons to Yorgos Lanthimos, a director with a distinctive style defined by bizarro comedy and utter madness, which are in no way, shape, or form present here. The only overlap is in visual formality, and even then, it’s sparse. Unlike a Lanthimos film, John and the Hole inches its way toward the finish, which is to its credit in the way it constructs mood and to its detriment in the way the narrative unfolds. On the bright side, a polarizing work is always preferred to a mediocre one.

Confident Debut ‘On the Count of Three’ is a Flawed, Bittersweet Bromance

Jerrod Carmichael (co-creator of the semi-autobiographical sitcom The Carmichael Show) flexes his directing skills in On the Count of Three, a black comedy debut about death that showcases his promise as a compelling new filmmaker. But the digressive script (written by Ramy co-creators and writers Ryan Welch and Ari Fletcher) does a disservice to the natural chemistry between its two leads, played by Carmichael and Christopher Abbott.

The first time we see childhood friends Val (Carmichael) and Kevin (Abott), they’re pointing a pair of handguns at each other behind a strip club at ten in the morning. The goal? To kill one another, a lifelong objective of mentally ill, suicidal Kevin, who’s been in and out of mental hospitals since his youth when he first began fantasizing about ending it all. Val, on the other hand, never had such ideations, but recent events in his life, including the realization of a directionless relationship and a dead-end job, have given him a new perspective on the matter.

A gun goes off and the screen goes black, and we rewind to earlier that same day when Val is on the cusp of a promotion at Richie’s Feed and Seed, where he sells mulch, and Kevin is in therapy at the mental hospital where he’s been committed. After comically attempting to off himself with his belt in his workplace bathroom, Val bails for good on the job and pays a visit to his troubled pal.

“Quitting’s amazing,” Val tells Kevin, who had also just recently tried to kill himself by overdosing on pills, the act of which landed him in this umpteenth hospital stint. Distressingly, Val admits to having felt no real emotion towards the revelation of his best friend’s attempted suicide upon finding out, used as further reasoning for wanting to die alongside the tirelessly suicidal Kevin, who has tried everything to free himself of this cruel world for years, to no avail.

After Val breaks Kevin out of the hospital, the pair agrees to end it all by the days’ conclusion, embarking on a journey of writing wrongs and exorcising demons. This includes Val confronting his abusive father (J.B. Smoove) and ex-girlfriend Natasha (Tiffany Haddish), all meant to culminate with Kevin murdering the child psychiatrist who sexually abused him (Henry Winkler) and who won’t be back in his office until 5:45 pm.

On the Count of Three succeeds in spurts of vivid energy, the height of which is, perhaps, best exemplified by an unforgettable scene in which Kevin sings impassioned car karaoke along to “Last Resort” by Papa Roach. It’s a somewhat tongue-in-cheek, somewhat earnest use of the early-aughts hard rock band that has mostly become memed in retrospect.

Val had denied Kevin the honor of overseeing the car aux earlier in his first attempt at playing the song for the two of them, insisting that it’s pointless to listen to music that accurately emotes what someone is feeling. But the song becomes affectingly indicative of Kevin’s real pain and, simultaneously, of the stunted emotional state that he has been forced into due to his childhood abuse.

That flippant yet inherently compassionate tone guides On the Count of Three, which is oftentimes laugh-out-loud funny and even more times exceedingly bleak, though these bursts of energy feel too few and far between for a film with such rich character chemistry as there is between Carmichael and Abbott. On the Count of Three is marked by a sluggishness between these visits with the scorned Ghosts of Christmas Past, missing an extra amount of narrative vitality, be it in the amount of dialogue or in the action between scenes — although, maybe this is ironic to purport in a film about a death pact.

But Abbott and Carmichael do carry this film on their backs. The love they feel for one another as they race towards the end of their respective worlds is expressed convincingly both in committed performances and in the sharp dialogue their characters are given. This makes me ache for a version of On the Count of Three that is more dialogue-heavy, less meandering, and slightly longer in runtime, to further flesh out the relationship between the devoted friends.

A scene where Kevin tucks his handgun into the waistband of his sweatpants flirts with romantic undertones between him and Val, as Val glances lovingly at his friend and states that he’s admiring him and how cool he looks. Both actors are grown men in their thirties but evoke the appearance of boys — Val at one point makes an off-hand remark on the juxtaposition between Kevin’s puppy-dog eyes and his bloodlust. This subtly contributes to the idea that neither of them really knows what they’re doing in this world that they’ve only just begun to live in, be it flirting with suicide or otherwise, even more-so in the early revelation that Natasha is pregnant with Val’s baby.

Although uncertain and immature, neither character’s pain is invalidated, culminating in a bloody and quite politically charged climax that settles the dust, if a bit deflatingly, on what it means to want to die and what it means to want to live. On the Count of Three is a confident directorial effort from Carmichael, whose configuration of the scene in which Val and Kevin prepare to shoot one another is as memorably composed as it is achingly, ironically expressive of the affection shared between the two men. He provides the film an initial vigor that ultimately doesn’t last, though portends that which anchors it.

That makes me interested to see what the comedy writer could do with a film guided by a script of his own instead of one written by others. But On the Count of Three still marks an exciting, moving debut from Carmichael for a world currently as fixated by death as are Val and Kevin.

Science Collides With Folk Horror in Ben Wheatley’s ‘In the Earth’

Ben Wheatley has had quite the rollercoaster of a career, oscillating between unique horror films and action-packed crime thrillers. He began with Sightseers and The Kill List, two very different genre films that showcase his versatility with different versions of the horror genre (Sightseers is a horror-comedy and The Kill List is a slow-moving folk horror). Then, there was High Rise and Free Fire. Most recently, there was the stumble of Netflix’s Rebecca. Despite a tumultuous career of ups, downs, and genres, Wheatley has now headed back to his creepy roots with In the Earth.

A pandemic has ravaged the world, causing mass paranoia and extensive decontamination protocols, which feels all too familiar. In the midst of this ongoing global disaster, scientist Dr. Martin Lowry (Joel Fry) embarks on an expedition to a research site, ATU327A, in a remote forest to find missing scientist Dr. Olivia Wendell (Hayley Squires). Led by park ranger Alma (Ellora Torchia), they trudge through gorgeous yet menacing woods, whose trees seem to slowly close in on the duo as they progress. 

An attack leaves them without any food, equipment, or shoes. When they find help from a hermit named Zach (Reece Shearsmith), they are quickly thrown into a world of an old nature god, Parnag Fegg, and ancient rituals used to try and make contact with this figure. While this sounds like the typical folk horror where two unsuspecting people become haunted by a mysterious specter, In the Earth instead melds pseudoscience with Pagan tradition.

The science comes in with Olivia, who has been extensively studying the forest in an attempt to commune with the same deity, but through strobe lights and loud pulsating sounds that supposedly match nature’s frequencies. Olivia and Zach are at odds, trying to see who can make contact first, all while Alma and Martin are thrown into the middle of a hellish maelstrom of old magic colliding with new technology.

This cast of four perform a beautiful and strange dance that teeters, and falls, into madness. The stand-out performance is Torchia as Alma, a force of nature who in the face of hallucinations, head trauma, two delusional people, and one man physically falling apart, never stops fighting. She is the hero who stands in stark contrast to Martin, the scientist who cannot catch a break. Fry looks as if he is truly suffering as Martin is subjected to repulsive injuries centered around some gnarly foot trauma. He is meek, shrinking in the potential presence of Parnag Fegg, rather than trying to face it. 

In contrast to the outsiders are Shearsmith and Squires, playing the obsessed proto-cultists who absolutely lean into madness in two drastically different ways. Shearsmith as Zach takes his need to commune with the god very matter-of-factly, explaining his steps as if it’s a medical procedure. He is so laser-focused on his goal that it manifests as an eerie calm that’s more terrifying than any fanatic. Squires as Olivia, on the other hand, wears a constant look of subtle madness as her wide eyes seem to look beyond what’s in front of her. Instead of ritual, she is focused on solitary experiments, becoming a science DJ of sorts as she plays with a soundboard to speak with the trees.

This is not the flowery and bright folk horror of Midsommar or The Wicker Man. This is a dark, utilitarian folk horror constructed through recycled tarps and old netting. Sticks are used to create sigils, but robes are made from tarps, eye coverings are just pieces of paper, and headdresses are crafted from blue netting. It is the rituals of the old gods meeting a modern world as natural resources blend with recycled manmade materials, which again illustrates the film’s building tension between folk horror and science. Zach captures this melding of old and new through haunting black and white images that illustrate his god-worshipping tableaus.

The cherry on top is impeccable sound design and an enchanting score by Clint Mansell, who has previously worked on such films as Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain, and Moon. Mansell’s minimal synth tones are able to add to the chaos as if it is a strange beating heart that quickens the deeper that Alma and Martin journey into the forest. The score is balanced with discomforting silence that is only punctuated by the sound of creaking branches and raindrops hitting the ground. Then, that silence is sliced through by Olivia’s high-pitched sound machines that invade the natural soundscape with a piercing frequency that brings characters to their knees. 

Wheatley shows audiences that no matter the project, horror will always be his foundation for his more experimental and mind-blowing work. Something ancient is being prodded by science and ritual, creating a cacophony of worship that starts as a rumble and becomes an ear-splitting scream and deluge of dizzying imagery. In the Earth is a disorienting kaleidoscope of folk horror intertwining with science to illustrate the sheer incomprehensibility of the truths offered by connecting to a god-like figure.

How Animators Created the Elaborate “Ave Maria” Sequence for ‘Fantasia’

Welcome to How’d They Do That? — a bi-monthly column that unpacks moments of movie magic and celebrates the technical wizards who pulled them off. This entry explains why the “Ave Maria” sequence in Disney’s Fantasia was one of the most challenging filmmaking moments in animation history.


Fantasia was Walt Disney’s greatest and weirdest experiment. Conceived as a technical playground unfettered from linear narrative, the 1940 film is as much an artifact of Disney’s relentless desire to innovate as it is a glimpse into what feature animation could have looked like had the film been a success. Conceptually, Fantasia was to demonstrate what the studio, and the medium of animation itself, could accomplish. Nearly a century later, Fantasia remains the most surreal, phantasmagoric, and ambitious feature film Disney has ever produced.

Fantasia consists of seven sequences set to classical music arranged by Leopold Stokowski. The lights go down and our master of ceremonies, music critic Deems Taylor, warmly introduces us to the premise of Fantasia itself.

Soon, the concert hall fades away and Stokowski’s famous free-hand conducting takes on a grand and patently cinematic aspect, his fingers arcing with the purpose and power of an especially fearsome magician. And so, by Stokowski’s back-lit machinations, we are transported: to impressionistic miasma, to the dawn of life, to a mythic past, and to a final act that sees life and hope triumph over death and chaos.

Disney Leopold Stokowski

After the most comedic sequence in the film (a ballet parody set to Amilcare Ponchielli’s “Dance of the Hours”), Disney takes us to Hell. Or rather, to Bald Mountain. Directed by studio-mainstay Wilfred Jackson, the sequence begins with an interpretation of a symphonic poem by Modest Mussorgsky. “Night on Bald Mountain” depicts the awakening of a Slavic deity known as Chernobog, whose awful majesty and deliciously articulated hands tear the earth asunder to reveal a Boschian frenzy.

At a fever pitch, dawn breaks. and the dark god recoils. Bells give way to strings as the denizens of Hell return, pallid and compliant, to their graves. In one of Stokowski’s great tricks, the swoop of a harp effortlessly transitions the soundtrack from Mussorgsky to Franz Schubert. “Ave Maria” (D. 839) begins, and Chernabog’s once forbidding mountain fades into the cool, soft fog of daybreak. For the first time in the film’s score, we hear voices. And the blissful choir signals the arrival of a never-ending parade of figures whose orange candles light the way through stained-glass forests towards the warm glow of sunrise.

As a child, a seven-minute pan through a forest never captured my imagination. A spiritually resolute pilgrimage doesn’t hit the same as a gothic bacchanal. Today, as a reformed child, I admit I cannot watch this sequence without tears in my eyes. It is a blissful punctuation mark. A contemplative procession that mirrors (and ideally prompts) that rare euphoric feeling of exiting the dark aisles of a movie theatre, heart in your throat, in awe of what you’ve just witnessed.

As we move from the profane to the sacred, the religious themes are didactic and a rare nonsecular slip on the part of Disney. Fantasia was, after all, the notoriously conservative filmmaker’s most personal project. It only makes sense that “Ave Maria” would be so unflinching in its faith in the power of, amongst other things, art itself.

Naturally, for all its tranquility, this serene vision was one of the most technically challenging and catastrophe-riddled sequences in animation history: a protracted camera movement through two-dimensional animated space that, at the time, was absolutely audacious. So what’s going on here? What makes this sequence so impressive? And what’s all this about catastrophes?


How’d they do that?

Long story short:

The sequence was filmed as one long continuous shot. Animators used a multiplane camera and hundreds of feet of painted glass to accomplish the effect.

Long story long:

The visual direction of the “Ave Maria” segment, per Disney’s instruction, was to bring the background artwork to the forefront. And yet, despite its minimal action, the segment proved to be one of the biggest challenges in the film.

For one thing, the slowness and reduced scale of the foreground figures (the monks/nuns/etc.) actually made them much harder to animate. In animation, slower movement requires more frames per second to achieve persistence of vision and to avoid “strobing”. But the difficulty of animating the subtle movement of the robed pilgrims pales in comparison to the more pressing spatial challenges of the sequence, innovatively filmed as one long continuous take. Namely: (1) the massive lateral scale of the procession; and (2) the simulated depth of field required by the final, protracted zoom.

Now, if you’re more familiar with digital animation or live-action cinematography, you may be wondering what all the fuss is about. After all, what’s so complicated about simulating camera movements in 2-D space? Well, when it comes to traditional hand-drawn animation: everything is more complicated. However, Disney animators had a revolutionary piece of technology at their disposal: the multiplane camera technique.

By moving forward and through the world, objects appear to grow and shrink in size relative to your position. How to animate this traditionally without losing your mind and your budget? The multiplane camera solves the problem by splitting a field of view (a.k.a. the area that is visible through a camera) into different planes for the foreground, middleground, and background. These planes, or levels, are typically layers of painted glass, each with a different element of an animated frame.

The multiplane camera allowed artists to create the illusion of three-dimensional space in a two-dimensional animated setting. This in turn allowed them to simulate tracking shots and zooms by moving the various planes in relation to the camera so as to respect optical principles like parallax. If you’re looking for it, evidence of a multiplane camera is all over Fantasia. But nowhere is the technique more brazenly and simply deployed than in “Ave Maria.”

Disney Ave Maria Sequence

With limited animation in the traditional sense (save the consummate long-shot of the pilgrims) the sequence is predominantly a multiplane effect constituted of long takes and a series of hazy cross-dissolves. Supported by a custom-built crane, the studio’s horizontal multiplane camera was built to photograph 3 x 4-foot planes of painted glass. These were mounted on moveable stands, like Baroque set dressings, and moved as required to produce the illusion of a tracking movement.

The “Ave Maria” sequence concludes with one of the most elaborate single shots in animation history. The final shot of the sequence, and incidentally of the film itself, ran for two-hundred and seventeen feet of film, the longest shot in animation at that time. The single zoom begins in darkness and approaches a sliver of vertical light, which gradually reveals itself as the mouth of a clearing overlooking a wide valley.

Ave Maria Fantasia Disney Sequence Zoom

As John Culhane details in his book Walt Disney’s Fantasia, the scene was filmed continuously by a crew of nine technicians over six full days and nights. A special camera rig was specifically constructed for the final shot and spanned the forty-five-foot wide soundstage.

The sequence had to be shot three times. Not because the animators were exactly satisfied with the final take, but because, quite simply, it was the final take out of necessity. During the first take, the technicians accidentally used an incorrect lens, capturing subjects beyond the glass planes. With limited time left before the premiere, the technicians began working on the second take. Three days into the reshoot, an earthquake hit. Unable to determine if the earthquake misaligned the equipment, the take was scrapped.

The morning after the earthquake, the animators tried again, and the third time proved the charm. On November 13, 1940, an audience at New York City’s Broadway Theatre saw the first-ever screening of Fantasia, unaware of how close they came to not seeing the completed film. The finalized footage only arrived four hours prior to the screening. There’s coming in under the wire, and then there’s Disney frantically processing and couriering a physical print across the continent.

What’s the precedent?

Fantasia is both the artistic and practical extension of the Silly Symphonies, a series of seventy-five animated musical shorts produced by Walt Disney Productions between 1929 to 1939 (animation began on Fantasia early in 1938). Disney (the man) conceived of the Silly Symphonies as a platform for animators to experiment with different processes, characters, and artistic styles. More to the point, the shorts were to pave the way for the studio’s foray into animated feature filmmaking.

Because of the Silly Symphonies, artists at Disney were able to test out a wide array of techniques and technologies. For instance, after securing limited exclusive rights to three-strip Technicolor, 1932’s Flowers and Trees became the first animated film to use a full-color Technicolor process, which proved, to put it mildly, massively successful.

The Silly Symphonies also allowed for the testing of a critical technical innovation that would prove instrumental in Disney’s quest to achieve a more “cinematic” style of animation: the multiplane camera.

Early forms of the multiplane camera had been kicking around since Lotte Reiniger’s The Adventures of Prince Achmed (1926). However, the most famous multiplane camera was created by William Garity for Walt Disney. The camera was specifically created for use in Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. But the technology was first tested in a 1937 Silly Symphony called The Old Mill, which was directed by who else but “Night On Bald Mountain/Ave Maria” director Wilfred Jackson.

Silly Symphonines The Old Mill Disney

The multiplane camera was eventually rendered obsolete by its digital equivalent in the Computer Animation Production System (CAPS) process. But the obsolescence was, poetically, not unrelated to the demise of Fantasia. If not the film, then the ethos behind it. Walt Disney had originally planned to keep Fantasia in a permanent state of release. The idea was that new sequences would intermittently replace old ones, yielding a cinematic experience that would never look or feel the same way twice. Ultimately, the idea was scrapped due to the project’s unwieldy scope and Fantasia’s unreceptive critical response, which admonished the film (among other things) for debasing classical music in an attempt to elevate cartoons.

To boot, screening Fantasia itself was inordinately difficult. The film holds the distinction of being the first commercial motion picture exhibited with stereophonic sound. And while the Disney-patented “Fantasound” was revolutionary, it was also cumbersome, prohibitive, and hilariously expensive. This, coupled with the fact that the film couldn’t premiere overseas because World War II was happening, resulted in disappointing box office numbers. Even after the film found commercial success in its many re-releases, Fantasia’s reputation as a flop persists to this day and haunts all extant (and future) imitators. And so Fantasia remains: utterly alone, a corpulent relic of ambition, and a lonely genre unto itself.

I doubt that Disney will ever attempt anything as creatively ambitious and financially perilous as Fantasia ever again. The cynical, risk-averse approach that now defines the studio seems especially antithetical to the very of-a-time idea Fantasia represents. Namely: to take risks, and in so doing, expand the scope of what animation can do. In a 1940 review, The New York Times described Fantasia as “something which dumps conventional formulas overboard and boldly reveals the scope of films for an imaginative excursion.” It is difficult to reconcile that comment alongside Disney, as it exists today.

‘Censor’ is Unafraid to Ask Difficult Questions

The “video nasty” era in Britain peaked after the Video Recording Act of 1984. This new legislation required that all cinematic and at-home releases be screened and censored. Many people feared that the low-budget horror movies that showed copious amounts of blood and guts would influence citizens, especially children, to imitate the heinous acts.

This fear created a public hysteria, which is the backdrop of Prano Bailey-Bond‘s feature directorial debut, Censor. But the film has little to do with the historical facts, focusing instead on the inner anxieties of its titular main character, Enid (Niamh Algar). Her job is to figure out which of the eye-gouging scenes have to be sacrificed in order to protect the general public. That means sitting around watching horror movie after horror movie and getting paid for it.

That might sound like a dream gig for fans of the macabre, but Enid is numb to what she sees. As her coworkers react to nightmarish rape scenes and excessive displays of mutilation during screenings, Enid’s face stays clear of any emotion. Her disconnect is not only obvious, but it’s what allows her to be good at her work. During a dinner scene with her parents, however, the camera captures a flicker of sadness in her face, showing that there is pain buried deep within.

Details of a traumatic event from her childhood are revealed, giving further insight into Enid’s cold demeanor, which serves as her own censor for her memories. Enid and a co-worker sit and prepare for whatever gory depiction awaits them. It is understood they have been here in similar situations for similar screenings many times before. As the film introduces the two young characters, presumably sisters, running through a mysterious forest, Enid starts to quietly panic. She begins to see herself and her own missing sister instead of the on-screen characters. Is this a memory of the events from when she was a girl, or is it something darker, sinister even?

Bailey-Bond’s detailed direction creates a brilliant tension between the camera and the audience. The lack of emotion on her face is shown through close-ups before cutting to a shot of her hands. Several times this combination of shots and what it is showing contrasts her expression with her true discomfort — the evidence being her unconscious picking at her cuticles. After that screening with the two girls in the woods, the anxiety is not only shown by the discretion of her nail beds but by the all-consuming obsession that can no longer be hidden beneath the surface.

This transition is when Censor becomes jagged, disconnecting the first half with the second. While the beginning works so hard to fully develop the motivation of Enid as a real person with flaws, the second part just doesn’t match. The pace changes and the character’s actions feel wrong. For example, she randomly visits the house of a man she met once in the office. This visit is unnecessary and breaks trust with the viewer as they no longer can understand the motivation behind her actions. Honestly, the desperation and outrageous actions that come from a person who has been refusing to accept a traumatic event for twenty or more years would be even more than what the end of the film gives us.

Towards the beginning of Censor, it is obvious that Enid is haunted by something more than the everyday world around her. Despite this, she is doing the best she can to maintain a decent job, make small talk with her family, and live an average life. When those shallow fronts are broken into pieces, all hell should break loose allowing the audience to cathartically experience what it is like to no longer have to maintain some sort of human disguise or censorship. Instead, we are given an ending that falls flat and does not result in enough of the blood and guts that is so customary to the nasties that inspire Censor.

Even with the lackluster result, the film’s writing cannot be completely discounted. The parallels to common existential questions are laid out, ready to be analyzed and contemplated. For instance: is the societal fear that surrounds cinematic acts of extreme violence a way to avoid the everyday acts of evil, like the one Enid has experienced? What about memory? Can a voyeuristic attitude towards on-screen trauma really ignite ungodly urges or memories our brain has purposely forgotten?

Most importantly, Censor asks the uncomfortable question of what is really inside all of us, commenting on the everyday censorship that occurs in hopes to cover the ugliness that comes with being human. In fact, most of the time the truth about the most damaged parts of our inner self is the hardest thing for us to accept. It is not just an homage to the video nasty era but something rich and unique with multiple layers. Despite its flaws, Censor shows us that Bailey-Bond is an inquisitive filmmaker who is willing to take risks.

Denzel Washington’s Latest Is Missing More Than Just ‘The Little Things’

The vast majority of film scripts written throughout history make it nowhere near the screen, let alone into the hands of filmmakers intent on filming them. That said, quite a few screenplays actually achieve the latter but still don’t ever get made. John Lee Hancock‘s script for The Little Things has been floating around Hollywood since the early 90s and at various times had the likes of Steven Spielberg and Clint Eastwood attached to direct, but nearly three decades later, it’s Hancock himself who’s finally adapted it into an actual movie. The possibilities of what could have been are lost in the ether, but as for what is? Well, the film is missing more than a few of the little things.

A serial killer is targeting women in Los Angeles — he kills them, puts a bag over their heads, and props them into casual positions — and while the case is assigned to a hotshot detective named Jim Baxter (Rami Malek) it also catches the eye of a podunk beat cop from outside of LA county. Joe Deacon (Denzel Washington) was once an LA detective too, but five years ago he was hobbled by a case that left him suspended, divorced, and in need of triple bypass heart surgery. That case was never solved, and as the new details are strikingly familiar the two men decide to work together to catch a killer. But where to start? Maybe with lead suspect Albert Sparma (Jared Leto) and his hyper-curious behavior, psychotic eyes, and neon sign over his head stating “I’m probably the killer!”

The 90s opened and closed with Washington catching killers on screen, but The Little Things lacks both the confidence of The Bone Collector (1991) and the energy of Ricochet (1999). It’s still every bit a 90s thriller, in part because Hancock has kept its original setting in the decade, but even so many years later it also feels like it’s lacking some crucial elements necessary for the genre and satisfying movies in general.

A generic killer plot is easily overcome through engaging characters and direction, but neither is evident here. Deacon and Baxter follow the expected setup of cops with conflicting approaches — think everything from Lethal Weapon (1987) to Seven (1997) — but their arcs unfold with varying degrees of inconsistency. Deacon is something of a sad sack, and Washington plays him with a somewhat compelling pathos as details of what happened five years ago and what exactly it cost him come to light. He’s lost none of his supercop detective skills, though, and is soon back in unofficial control of the investigation, for better and worse.

Baxter, meanwhile, is introduced as a top cop, but he’s almost inexplicably worthless as a detective. Worse, he’s written as a guy already on the verge of cracking for no discernible reason, and Malek portrays him as if he has the most fragile of broomsticks up his behind. More time with the character — or a more measured performance — might have made for a less jarring character, but as it stands Baxter feels half-baked at best.

And then there’s Leto’s Sparma. Sporting both a fake nose and false paunch, Leto limps and drawls his way through the film as the most obvious prime suspect since Charles Manson. Is he guilty? I’ll never tell, but everything Sparma’s doing and saying certainly points that direction. Leto’s performance ends up being the most interesting element of The Little Things, even if it does frequently feel on the nose, but the assuredness of his guilt is one of several things working against any semblance of suspense.

Neither Hancock’s script nor his direction seek out or find any real sense of urgency, and instead the film simply trudges along towards its somewhat underwhelming conclusion. It briefly comes alive with tension during a sequence featuring Malek and Leto in a remote locale, but choices are made redirecting The Little Things back towards its mundane beats and execution. The ending is meant to land with emotion as it drives home its story of obsession and the weight of living with past actions, but unlike something like Sean Penn’s The Pledge (2001), Hancock can’t bring those themes together in a meaningful or affecting way.

The victims who haunt Deacon’s nights are mere window dressing — a problem affecting all of the film’s female characters — and despite Washington’s best efforts, neither the investigation nor the characters’ foibles leave much of a mark. The case itself becomes filler as the two dour leads shuffle from one location to the next, and it leaves viewers struggling to care as ultimately we’re as uninterested in the killer and killings as is the film itself. That’s bad news for a thriller, and it’s something The Little Things is never able to overcome.

Friday 29 January 2021

Dash Shaw’s Sophomore Effort Fascinates on the Surface

From 2016 to 2020 in Richmond, Virginia, writer-director-animator Dash Shaw and animation director Jane Samborski hand drew Cryptozoo with a small team of artists. On the surface, so what? The age-old tradition of meticulously hand-drawn animation isn’t a modern-day spectacle simply because the practice is almost extinct. But the married couple isn’t just bringing hand drawn animation back to cinema. They’re revolutionizing it. Of course, that’s a loaded statement.

The film follows human cryptozookeeper and cryptid (an animal whose existence is disputed or unsubstantiated) rescuer Lauren Gray (Lake Bell) and her new cryptid understudy, Phoebe (the cleverly cast Angeliki Papoulia), a gorgon from Greek mythology (think: Medusa) who must tranquilize her snakes (read: hair) and hide them to fit in. She also has to cover and disguise her eyes to keep from turning others into stone.

Lauren and Phoebe are searching for the ethereal Japanese Baku, a pig-elephant-esque cryptid that emits hundreds of little smoky, pearlescent blue spirals and is known for its omnipotent ability to steal dreams – a truly mindboggling creature. They intend to bring the Baku back to the cryptozoo, where it will be safe from deep state lackeys who want to capture it in order to mine its power for military use against the rising 1960s counterculture.

The stacked cast also features a unicorn-meddling hippie voiced by Michael Cera, a wheeling and dealing dive-bar Mr. Tumnus of sorts voiced by Peter Stormare, and more natural and supernatural oddities voiced by Grace Zabiskie, Jason Schwartzman, Thomas Jay Ryan, and Louisa Krause. They bring to mind acid-induced dream logic adventures like Belladonna of Sadness, Fantastic Planet, Yellow Submarine, and that banned Mormon cartoon from the ’80s.

It’s difficult to land on a lone descriptor that accurately captures the breadth of animated expression in the mythological menagerie that is Cryptozoo. However, any number of words would suffice to describe the experience as a whole: kaleidoscopic, hallucinatory, inventive –words that could also apply to John Carroll Lynch’s terrific score. The animation is, in Shaw’s own words, “exploiting what drawing can do that live-action can’t: depict[ing] what we can’t see.”

With inspiration from early 20th-century cartoonist Winsor McCay and other pioneers in the field, Shaw and Samborski took a new thin-line approach to Cryptozoo. From the first scene’s skinny ribbons of red-blue forestry laid like neon over black slate, the animation of the couple’s second feature is very different from their 2016 debut, My Entire High School Sinking into the Sea, the thick-black-lined subjects of which looked more like newspaper comic strip characters. Here, outlines are hardly traceable and sometimes invisible to the naked eye.

The near-absence of densely lined barriers between different styles of animation creates a flattening effect that miraculously renders everything on the same plane at once. It allows characters and settings to exist in a fluid transition of color from top to bottom and heightens the gorgeous, trippy aesthetic of the film. Rocks are painted like Pollocks, strewn globs of oil protruding from the surface. Cryptids and humans alike are painted with watercolors (almost all of them done by Samborski herself). Settings are comprised of wild patterns, texture swatches, pencil sketches, impressionistic creations, and so much more. It’s insanely impressive, a full-force imagination. But where that nebulous energy thrives in the vast imagination of the animation, it sours in the stale narrative.

Unfortunately, and quite shockingly, another set of less desirable words would also suffice to describe the Cryptozoo experience: tiresome, aimless, strained. I want to be clear: these words do not apply to the animation, which remains wondrous throughout, but to the story at the center. But why? We travel from California to Florida to Kentucky and back with a pursuant sinister military head on our tail and a seemingly infinite cast of newly minted cryptids. On paper, it sounds like a rollercoaster. A seminal tarot card reading sequence stands out as one of the film’s most compelling. Yet, it’s those few compelling moments down the road that awaken the realization that, while transfixed with the morphing of colors and unfolding of textures that define Shaw’s idiosyncratic direction, the story is missing an emotional core.

Racism is paralleled through the tangled relationship between humans and cryptids. The sickening effects of capitalism on non-profit-pursuits-turned-profitable sit center stage thematically as Lauren begins to question the function of the cryptozoo/sanctuary/theme park and its effect on the cryptids on display after Phoebe expresses concerns. There’s no shortage of ambition in what Shaw tries to address in the story, but it feels inert and lacks a sense of navigation when it comes to tackling, or even just touching on, themes like racism, capitalism, and captivity. They fall woefully short of the gripping standard set by the animation.

The spoon-fed themes and narrative predictability can be summed up in an interaction between the naked free spirits that stumble onto the cryptozoo in the opening sequence. “There could be magic here, or a utopia,” the man says, already scaling the fence to see what’s behind it. “Utopias never work out,” the woman replies in an all too heavy-handed, foreshadowing tone.

Films aren’t often fascinating and tedious at the same time, but consider the nature of the work, which feels more like wandering through a great museum than watching a movie at times. How often do you stare at your favorite artworks for ninety-five minutes uninterrupted? Or even thirty minutes? Barring outright obsession or a research initiative, it sounds a bit dull, no?

However, it would be ridiculous of me not to recommend it. At the end of the day, it’s a fever dream unlike any you’ve seen. It makes Fantastic Planet look tame. And in 2021, dreams are more important than ever. They form the collective imagination that drives us toward change. It is a singular vision such as this – even if that singularity only occupies certain aspects of the film – that draws out the real-world meaning at Cryptozoo’s core: “Without dreams, there can be no future.” And that is a nightmare.

‘WandaVision’ Episode 4 Positions Wanda as the Villain of Her Story

WandaVision Explained is our ongoing series that keeps tabs on Marvel Studios’ sitcom saga about TV’s happiest tragic couple. In this entry, we turn our channel to WandaVision Episode 4 and contemplate the tragedy that links Wanda’s fantasy to the MCU’s reality. Yes, prepare for SPOILERS.


Is Vision alive? FBI Agent Jimmy Woo (Randall Park) scrawls the question on a whiteboard within the S.W.O.R.D. compound outside Westview, New Jersey, asking what we’ve all been wondering for the past three weeks. The answer is not definite, but WandaVision Episode 4 brings us the closest we’ve come to the truth. Whatever Paul Bettany is portraying inside the sitcom bubble that imprisons Westview should not be. You know it, I know it, the world knows it, and most importantly, Wanda (Elizabeth Olsen) knows it.

WandaVision Episode 4 exemplifies its title, “We Interrupt This Program.” Refusing to pick up immediately after the events of Episode 3, this one jumps us back to the unimaginable madness that occurred on Earth after Tony Stark snapped Thanos away and brought the vanished home. We see Monica Rambeau (Teyonah Parris) reform in a chair next to an empty hospital bed. She stumbles into the hallway and is greeted by chaos—doctors, nurses, patients frantically scrambling.

Monica recognizes the doctor in charge of her mother’s care. She grabs hold of her, but the doc is aghast. Maria Rambeau (last seen in Captain Marvel) died three years ago, which was two years after Monica dusted into an ash puff.

Here is the agonizing portrait of what went down when Thanos achieved his mission in Wakanda during the Avengers: Infinity War climax. Spider-Man: Far From Home played the horror for weird laughs, but WandaVision sells the grotesque reality and the mundane lives forever shattered. Monica was robbed of the last moments with her mother. She awakens in a world rearranged by cosmic shenanigans.

As a lowly human without special abilities, the resulting epiphany is one generated from tremendous fear. How can she prevent such horror from occurring again? A diety with the power to shape existence to their will is a catastrophic threat. Gods must be stopped.

WandaVision Episode 4 reveals that Maria Rambeau formed S.W.O.R.D. sometime after Carol Danvers freed the Skrulls from their Kree shackles. We also get confirmation that the S.W.O.R.D. acronym differs slightly from the one in the comics — here, it’s Sentient Weapon Observation and Response Department. Although, before Monica got dusted, they were heavily involved in cosmic threats similar to their comic book counterparts.

Monica wants back into space, but the newly appointed Director Hayward (Josh Stamberg) is not ready for her to take such large leaps. Instead, he tasks her with answering Agent Woo’s plea for help. He has a problem. Westview, the New Jersey town, has disappeared, not only from our reality but from the memory of anybody who once had a connection to it. What was meant to be a menial job designed to ease Monica back into S.W.O.R.D. quickly transforms into one with global significance.

Local law enforcement attempts to assure Woo and Monica that Westview doesn’t exist while they’re staring down its main street. When Monica asks Woo why he hasn’t investigated further, he states that the town itself is somehow psychically pushing him away. Monica doesn’t fear such absurdity and pilots a helicopter drone into the danger zone, which promptly disappears. Unphased, Monica steps forth, and we see how Episode 2 and Episode 3’s “Geraldine” came into being.

Space suddenly doesn’t seem that interesting. S.W.O.R.D. erects a massive observation facility outside Westview, recruiting the country’s top scientists to aid their investigation. Amongst these bright minds is Thor‘s Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings), who uncovers a broadcast signal beneath the “Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation” emanating from the Westview bubble. She connects the signal to some old school Cathode-ray tube television sets, and S.W.O.R.D. can now observe what we observed in WandaVision‘s first three episodes.

They start to ask the questions we’ve been asking: Why the repeating hexagonal shape? Why sitcoms? Same time and space? Is Vision alive?

As they evaluate the situation, we witness how Monica’s drone was translated into the red toy helicopter of Episode 2 and how a hazmat S.W.O.R.D. agent attempting to sneak into Westview via its sewer system transformed into the same episode’s creepy beekeeper. Wanda captures these invaders and reinterprets them to fit the fantasy she’s so desperate to hold onto. The same goes for Monica.

While inside, Monica struggled to hold onto her identity. The sitcom veil made her Geraldine, but even as the friendly next-door neighbor, pieces of Monica fought through her programming. As we saw in Episode 3, she managed to confront Wanda regarding Ultron’s attack on her brother Pietro. The violation of real-world trivia stung Wanda, and she reacted against Monica in anger.

WandaVision Episode 4 presents the final scene from Episode 3 in a much different light and aspect ratio. Gone is the 4:3 box. We now experience the Wanda and Monica clash in the glorious Marvel Cinematic Universe 2.39:1 widescreen standard. We also see exactly how Wanda booted Monica from her realm — and yeah, it’s HER realm.

“How could you know about Ultron,” asks Wanda. Monica can’t come up with a good answer. “You’re not my neighbor, and you’re definitely not my friend. You are a stranger and an outsider…you’re trespassing here, and I want you to leave.”

Wanda viciously expels Monica from her sitcom bubble, flinging the S.W.O.R.D. agent through her living room wall, across the fields of Westview, and outside the energy field where it’s dark, gloomy, and infested with confused G-men. Wanda dusts her hands from the dirty business and gets back to the blissful escape of raising two twins with her sweetheart Vision.

Except…

Vision’s dead. When he wanders into his home and asks his wife if everything is alright, Wanda sees him as we know him. She recoils as we do. Vision’s radiant fuchsia hue is gone; his skull is a crumpled gray zombie head missing the mind stone that birthed him. The sight is incredibly upsetting but brief.

Outside, Agent Woo and Darcy come rushing to Monica’s side. “Are you okay,” they ask. She responds, “It’s Wanda. It’s all Wanda.” She’s formulating Wanda as the season’s big bad.

Inside, Wanda gets ahold of herself. Vision looks concerned, but through her positivity, he straps on a smile. Jimmy Hendrix’s “Voodoo Child” trickles over the airwaves, and the 2.39:1 widescreen ratio shrinks into the 4:3 box, and we discern Wanda’s fantasy as a prison of her own making.

WandaVision Episode 4 reveals the darkness we sensed in the previous chapters. Wanda is in distress, and she seems responsible for the sitcom universe. She needs rescue. She needs a hero. She needs Monica Rambeau.

Given her run-ins with god-like powers, Monica may not initially have sympathy for Wanda’s plight. She’ll want to stop the witch Avenger from causing any more disturbance, but the more she explores the trauma fueling the sorcery, the more Monica will come to relate to Wanda’s pain. They’ve both lost someone dear to them. They’ll see each other through their grief.

There are still many more questions stewing on Agent Woo’s whiteboard. Why the hexagonal shape? Are the recurring formations merely a natural manifestation of Wanda’s hex powers? Or is there another force guiding Wanda’s actions?

We didn’t see anything of Agnes this week. What’s she and her unseen husband Ralph up to? While Woo managed to place names and drivers’ licenses next to most neighborhood guest-stars on his conspiracy board, he has yet to identify Agnes. Pinning down her person will prove most difficult. In her origins, we’ll discover another dark hand channeling Wanda’s remote.

WandaVision Episode 4 interrupts the charm that colors the premise. It’s heartbreaking to see Wanda so clearly troubled. She’s being positioned as a villain, or at the very least, culpable to the madness erasing Westview from the map, but don’t be fooled by her tremendous power. Wanda is not in control. There is another puppet master at work.

How Quentin Tarantino Shoots a Car Scene

Welcome to The Queue — your daily distraction of curated video content sourced from across the web. Today, we’re watching a video essay about how Quentin Tarantino shoots car scenes.


There’s nothing more common in movies than two people sitting down and having a conversation. And these kind of scenes—whether they’re in diners, bars, or cars— put directors in an interesting position: how do you make sitting and talking feel cinematic? How do you harness visual storytelling and keep things interesting while your characters are limited, physically, in what they can do?

Today we’re going to be focusing on car scenes. And more specifically, we’ll be looking at how a style-heavy filmmaker like Quentin Tarantino tackles them. Because lord knows, the only thing that man loves more than a needle drop or a scandalously exposed foot is a good car scene: be it the gripping stunts of Death Proof or the more dialogue-driven character moments of Pulp Fiction.

If you’ve had the pleasure of being in a car before, you know that where you sit in the car matters. So one piece of the visual storytelling puzzle is staging. Where are characters physically placed and what does that placement say about their relationship to one another? Another important factor is knowing what shots you want. If you want full, interesting, or meaningful coverage, you have to plan ahead. Especially if you don’t want camera equipment showing up in your shot or if you want to use a camera lens that doesn’t shrink your already limited field of vision.

That’s just a taste. For a more fulsome account, press on to today’s video:

Watch “How to Film a Scene in a Car like Tarantino“:

Who made this?

Wolfcrow is an online film school. Their YouTube channel focuses on educating their audience on the ins and outs of cinematography. You can subscribe to them on YouTube here. And you can check out their website here.

More Videos Like This

Copyright © Cinenus | Powered by Blogger

Design by Anders Noren | Blogger Theme by NewBloggerThemes.com