"Hopper/Welles" -- Movie Review

 

This week at the Virtual 58^th New York Film Festival, I streamed “Hopper/Welles”, a documentary directed by Orson Welles and starring both Welles and Dennis Hopper. 

Synopsis

Orson Welles directs an extended conversation with actor/director Dennis Hopper 

Story

In 1970, actor/director Dennis Hopper and actor/director Orson Welles were at vastly different points in their respective career.  Hopper had just come off his phenomenally successful directorial debut “Easy Rider”, while Welles was several decades removed from his hit, “Citizen Kane”.  “Easy Rider” was praised as the voice of a new generation of filmmakers; “Citizen Kane” became a classic because it was believed to have changed the vocabulary of filmmaking.  Welles, fascinated having heard about this up-and-coming cinematic genius, wanted to meet him in person.

By now, Hopper was well under way working on what would be his next effort, “The Last Movie”.  Nevertheless, he was summoned by Welles to fly to Los Angeles and visit Welles at his home.  Following their dinner, Welles has some of the other guests set up cameras and lights around Hopper and he begins filming the conversation between the two notables.  What at times seems like a chat between a pair of long-time friends occasionally comes off as more of an interrogation of Hopper by Welles.  Perhaps a ploy to see if the legend could intimidate the neophyte.

Hopper admits that regardless of any film’s outcome, just having made one is in itself an astounding accomplishment, given all of the obstacles facing filmmakers.  But the two men do not only talk about filmmaking.  Welles changes up the topics frequently, as if trying to see whether or not Hopper would swing and miss at a curveball.  Together, they cover politics, magic, popular culture and many other subjects.  Hopper consistently fascinates and even infuriates Welles with a number of his viewpoints.  These two apparently find each other to be very entertaining.   

Review

If you are a true film buff – here, defined as someone who not only watches a wide variety of movies but also appreciates film history and its place within the context of societal history – then “Hopper/Welles” is a no-brainer must-see.  Both of these icons are seen having a wide-ranging (or what some might less generously describe as rambling) conversation over the course of an evening.  That they touch on so many different subjects – one organically flowing into another – is a tribute to their awe-inspiring intellect.  It is a blessing to cinephiles that this was recorded for posterity.

Technically speaking, the film is shot in black-and-white in a standard 4:3 aspect ratio, appropriate for the time; the producers who restored this recording chose (appropriately) not to try to stretch it into a 16:9 widescreen aspect ratio.  The lighting is as unembellished as you can possibly get:  Welles uses a combination of the natural light from a nearby fireplace along with lanterns that are strategically positioned throughout Welles’ living-room.  As far as the sound is concerned, it is varied and inconsistent; despite the fact that Hopper is heard quite clearly, one must occasionally strain to hear Welles’ end of the conversation as he is not always near a microphone, apparently. 

Parts of this documentary have a somewhat prescient quality.  For example, at one point, Hopper happens to mention that he has a love of politics and current events, adding that he loves watching the news on television so much, he wishes there was a television network that was all-news 24/7.  A decade later, he would get his wish when CNN went on the air.  Later, Welles asks Hopper if, as a filmmaker, he could have the power to change society to the point that he could start a revolution.  Hopper seems to think of it in terms of a military revolution, but Welles appears to correct him by saying he meant a political revolution, adding that the revolutions are not carried out by the military but by the poor and working class.    

"Nomadland" -- Movie Review

On the second weekend of the 58^th Virtual New York Film Festival, I streamed the new drama by Chloé Zhao, “Nomadland” – the festival’s Centerpiece screening, starring Frances McDormand.

Synopsis

After losing everything late in life, a woman sets out on a nomadic existence throughout America’s southwest. 

Story

In 2011, Empire, Nevada suffered a devastating loss from which it never quite recovered.  Empire was a company town – the sheetrock company employed almost all of its residents.  Eventually, however, it became a victim of the recession and the company went out of business.  As a result, most of the town found themselves unemployed; with no local prospects for new employment opportunities, they abandoned the town in droves – even the United States Post Office gave up on Empire when it dropped the town’s ZIP code.  Empire effectively fell off the map as its population scattered to the four winds. 

Fern (McDormand) was one of those who felt the impact the hardest.  She had spent a number of years employed by this now-defunct company – so was her husband, until his death.  With no job and no husband, there was no reason left for her to stick around Empire, so she modified her modest van – which would now serve as not only her transportation, but also her home – and set out to see if she could start a new life all by herself.  Taking part-time or temporary jobs – many of which were seasonal in nature – was how she scraped out a subsistence. 

Working at an Amazon fulfillment center during the holidays was the best paying job she would get over the course of the year.  Eventually, Fern discovered that there were other people like her in similarly dire situations in their life.  Realizing there was strength in numbers, she would join these people – a tribe who considered themselves nomads because they lived in either vans or Recreational Vehicles and had no fixed address because they were constantly moving around the country.  One of these people was Dave (David Strathairn), whose adult son invited him to live with his own family.  When Dave reluctantly agrees, he invites Fern to join him.  Would Fern be willing to return to a life of somewhat normalcy or would she prefer instead to remain a nomad?

Review

In the nearly two hours of “Nomadland”, writer/director Chloé Zhao does a heroic job of filling every moment of her movie with more heart and humanity than one might think imaginable.  Assisting her in this endeavor is the film’s star, Frances McDormand, who also served as producer.  In this understated performance, McDormand is likely headed towards another nomination for her acting – and she may very well win.  “Nomadland” is an extraordinary story about America in the era of The Great Recession and how this country let down its most loyal and hardest workers. 

In the post-World War II era, Italian filmmakers like Luchino Visconti made popular what was then a new genre of film called neorealism.  A salient argument could be made that “Nomadland” is an American form of neorealism, not only because it is about the country’s poor and working class but also because many in the cast (aside from McDormand and Strathairn, of course) are not professional actors.  With the deeply personal stories that are told in this motion picture, at times it feels like a road picture as documentary; this movie reminds us of the many unseen in America who have fallen through the holes of a social safety net that have always been illusory. 

Like any good director, Zhao has an amazing eye for visual imagery – whether still or moving.  “Nomadland” has sharply contrasting shots that are at times stark and at other times rich and full of life.  While there are some that have maintained that the movie is life-affirming, perhaps a more accurate description might be that it is in fact existentialist in nature.  By its end, one is left heartbroken and devastated, left to wonder what the point of it all is when a lifetime of positive social contributions goes without thanks or reward.      

"On The Rocks" -- Movie Review

 

This week at the Virtual 58th New York Film Festival, I streamed the comedy, “On The Rocks”, written and directed by Sofia Coppola and starring Bill Murray.

Synopsis

Is Laura’s husband having an affair?  No worries!  Her father Felix is here to play detective with her.

Story

With her 40th birthday soon approaching,  Laura (Rashida Jones) is starting to suspect that her husband of a decade, Dean (Marlon Wayans), is cheating on her.  He is frequently out of town on business trips accompanied by people from his office.  At a corporate function, she meets one of his co-workers – Fiona (Jessica Henwick), a beautiful young woman who Laura soon learns accompanies Dean on all of his business trips.  Immediately upon meeting Fiona, Laura is convinced that Dean is having an affair with her. 

Distraught over her marriage potentially being over, Laura can’t even continue writing her book.  Just when she feels she’s at the end of her rope, her gadabout playboy father Felix (Murray) returns into her life.  Despite conflicted feelings, Laura welcomes Felix back and confides in him about her concerns.  Based on everything she tells Felix, he suspects her worst fears are true – and he would know since Laura’s parents divorced long ago because Felix was having an affair.  Felix decides he’ll save the day and assists Laura in tailing Dean while he’s in town so they can catch him in the act.

When Dean goes on a business trip and misses Laura’s birthday, she informs Felix, who nevertheless tries to help her celebrate.  Suddenly, Dean has to go on a trip to Mexico (with Fiona, of course); once Felix learns of this, he arranges to go to Mexico with Laura so they can keep tabs on Dean.  But when things don’t work out as planned, Laura confronts Felix and returns home by herself.  She and Dean have a talk where she informs him that she has suspected him of cheating on her with Fiona.  Will this be the end of their marriage or can they work things out?       

Review

“On The Rocks” is pleasant, entertaining and amusing – thematically and somewhat tonally, it is sometimes reminiscent of an old Woody Allen film (“Manhattan Murder Mystery” is the one that comes immediately to mind).  But it’s not really all that funny.  Even Bill Murray seems to have occasionally taken it down a notch or two – although he does have his moments where you see the happy-go-lucky character at which he excels.  Arguably, Jenny Slate – who has a small role as one of Laura’s friends – is funnier than Murray.  Although it can be a fun movie, don't expect a raucous laugh riot. 

One of the major issues with the film is the fact that at the outset, you never quite believe that Dean is actually cheating on Laura.  This is important because without sharing Laura’s suspicions, the audience is left to just go along for the ride and hope that Murray can somehow manage to salvage things by being his typical crazy self.  If this was an acting choice by Murray, it didn’t serve the movie well; on the other hand, if this was direction from Coppola, then she’s guilty of sabotaging her own motion picture. 

When you’re in the mood for a light movie that’s not too demanding, “On The Rocks” would be a fine choice.  Just be sure to manage your expectations.  Forty-somethings might be able to relate to the angst of marriage-career-parenthood overwhelming you and arousing your deepest insecurities.  Another aspect that the film touches on is the struggle of an adult offspring trying to reconcile with a parent, especially when there are many unresolved issues from the past.  It’s just that with a cast as good as this, there is a continual yearning for something better.      

"MLK/FBI" -- Movie Review

 

During the first full week of The 58th New York FilmFestival, I streamed the documentary MLK/FBI.

Synopsis

How did the FBI – and in particular, J. Edgar Hoover -- try to destroy the pacifist work of social activist Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.?

Story

Exactly who was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.?  Was he a threat to the security of The United States of America?  Or was he simply a civil rights leader and pacifist who merely advocated for the freedom and equality of his fellow African-Americans in the United States?  Perhaps the answer to that question may lie in where your political preferences reside.  In the 1950’s and 1960’s, many white Americans saw him as a threat who showed little (if any) respect to America for what it had given his people up until that point. 

Rev. King began as a civil rights leader in 1955, as a 27 year old man.  By 1964, he had won The Nobel Peace Prize  In between, the FBI saw him as a threat to American security because they believed him to be a communist.  Why was Rev. King a communist?  Apparently, it was because he believed that he and his fellow African-Americans deserving of equality in this country.  During the 1950’s, The Communist Party was also advocating for racial equality; as a result, many Americans saw that as a threat. 

Hoover, despite his own personal indiscretions, was far from done with King.  He had the FBI wiretap Rev. King and many of his associates.  By doing so, he managed to discover that King had been disloyal to his wife; Hoover’s goal was then to prove that through these recordings, Dr. King had no business being the moral leader of the Black people of this country.  King proved to be an even greater threat to this country in 1967 when he finally started to speak out against the war in Vietnam.  By 1968, he had been assassinated.  Did the FBI have a role in this?     

Review

If you are able to watch MLK/FBI and not feel a distinct sense of outrage, then you are without a doubt a better person than most of us.  Dr. Martin Luther King was a human being.  He was not a saint.  He was not a god.  He was a human being like the rest of us – and like the rest of us human beings, he was flawed.  Despite that, however, J. Edgar Hoover, the head of the FBI and (like the rest of us, a flawed human being) targeted him in the 1960’s as a danger to the rest of the United States of America simply because he was a human being who happened to make the egregious mistake of having been born with a black skin. 

MLK/FBI is a documentary that gives no quarter to either side – although it does concede to the fact that some of the FBI files are not yet available to the general public (nor will they be until the year 2027).  Whether these files will reveal anything new or not can only be a matter of mere speculation at this point.  However, what is clear is that the FBI sought to criminalize MLK as soon as possible; starting in 1955, Hoover experienced him as a threat to American security simply because King advocated equality for the African American community.

What makes MLK/FBI an important and necessary documentary is the fact that it is a historical document of how villainized an American hero was simply because he advocated for equality.  That’s it.  That’s the reason why it deserves to be watched.  Is it really all that remarkable that Dr. King was made out to be a villain because he was a pacifist?  Consider the execution of George Floyd.  Was his murder much different from the assassination of Dr. King?  The filmmakers make it crystal clear:  in a certain segment of America, African-Americans are undeserving of fairness.  And that is why you need to watch this film.     

 

 

"All In" -- Movie Review

 

On the opening weekend of The 58^th New York Film Festival, I streamed the new Amazon documentary, “All In: The Fight for Democracy”, featuring Stacey Abrams.

Synopsis

Stacey Abrams chronicles her campaign for Georgia Governor and illustrates how her loss follows a pattern of voter suppression.

Story

In 2018, Democrat Stacey Abrams declared her candidacy for Governor of the state of Georgia.  Previously, she had served in the state’s House Of Representatives, eventually becoming the House minority leader.  Her opponent was Republican Brian Kemp, the Georgia Secretary Of State, who was in charge of all elections that took place throughout the state.  As it became clear through the campaign that Abrams was earning a huge following, it is believed Kemp grew so concerned he might lose that he may have used his influence to interfere with the election.

Manipulation of elections and preventing prospective voters from casting a ballot is nothing new in elections – especially in the United States.  Once slavery ended, southern states looked for ways to keep African Americans from voting; one way was via a poll tax in order to discourage the Black vote.  Since may of them lived in poverty, they would be forced to make a choice:  either pay money to vote or use that money to buy food.  It was not until the 1960's that President Johnson -- with the help of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. -- that the Voting Rights Act was made law.    

Years later, this bigotry remained intact but more insidious.  Nothing set this off more than the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States.  Seeing how the demographics of the nation was changing, local governments gerrymandered their congressional districts in such a way that Democrats – and especially minorities – would be under-represented.  This was exacerbated when the Supreme Court effectively blew up the Voting Rights Act, which allowed many states – including a number of northern states – to conduct similar re-districting.    

Review

Watching “All In:  The Fight For Democracy” is infuriating, disquieting and depressing.  It’s infuriating because it makes painfully clear Abrams had the election stolen from her.  Disquieting because the voter suppression prevalent during the Jim Crow era was not only alive and well but also expanding in its geography and sophistication.  It’s ultimately depressing because on the weekend of Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s death, it reminds us how the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act, setting the stage for the gerrymandering in the United States. 

Ultimately, you feel pride and immense inspiration to vote.  It’s hard to watch this documentary dispassionately; as an American, it stirs up so many emotions simultaneously – and that’s part of what makes “All In” so effective.  What’s alarming is how ill prepared our nation is if there’s a large voter turnout; we see both Abrams and Kemp (who eventually went on to win) encounter difficulties when trying to vote.  Many Georgia residents had to wait in line for hours to vote because of a combination of high volume and defective voting machines. 

As to the documentary itself, it is well structured; it lays out a clear story and tells it in a compelling fashion, resulting in a resolution.  The filmmakers did an outstanding job of telling multiple tales concurrently:  that of Abrams herself intertwined with racism, sexism and an explanation of how elections are stolen – in ways both obvious and subtle.  Both stories are so layered and complex, it is a tribute to the movie’s directors, Liz Garbus and Lisa Cortés.  By the end of the film, if you don’t feel moved to vote, then what will it take?   

"Lovers Rock" -- Movie Review

 

On the opening night of The 58^th New York Film Festival, I streamed the World Premiere of director Steve McQueen’s latest, “Lovers Rock”.

Synopsis

A glimpse into life of West Indian culture in London of the 1980’s.

Story

Excitement is in the air for the young West Indian people of London.  On this Saturday night, word of a house party has been circulating.  The crowd gathers to dance, to show off their new outfits and – with any luck – maybe even find a little romance.  Everyone shows up dressed to impress – if not, you won’t get passed the imposing bouncer at the front door.  With this crowd’s wardrobe, it’s going to be quite the challenge to get the attention of that special someone if you arrived alone and seeking out your next lover.  But a little thing like that won’t put a damper on this evening.

Needless to say, the dancers match the music the DJ’s play on this evening:  some are slow and sensual, others are quite energetic.  The highlights include the classic “Kung-Fu Fighting” and then everyone participates in a sing-along with “Silly Games”.  This will be a night of many memories for all attendees – not necessarily all of which may be pleasant, however.  Some of the men come on a bit too strong for the women there and pretty much ruin their opportunity for the night. But when Franklyn (Micheal Ward) presents himself as a gentleman, Martha (Amarah-Jae St. Aubyn) finds him appealing. 

By now, however, it’s getting quite late.  Before too long, Saturday night morphs into Sunday morning.  In a few hours, it’ll be time for many of these folks to go to church with their family.  But will they be in any shape to do so without much (if any) sleep?  With all of the sensuous undulations and dirty dancing that has occurred over the past few hours, this isn’t even a thought that most would entertain at this point.  Franklyn and Martha leave the party together.  While everyone else is prolonging their party, the sun is starting to rise.  Has this been a one-night fling or will this couple have a future together?  

Review

“Lovers Rock” is part of McQueen’s anthology called “Small Axe”, which he has dedicated to the late George Floyd.  “Small Axe” consists a several stories that spans decades; “Lovers Rock” is one of three from the anthology that are appearing at this year’s film festival.  It’s short – barely over an hour long – but its brevity does not belie its emotiveness.  If you are a fan of reggae style music from that era, this will be a fun watch.  Where it staggers a bit is when trying to understand the characters.  The accents are so thick that it is at times difficult to make out what they are saying; occasionally, it seems like they are speaking patois. 

As a short story that takes place over the course of a night at a West London house party, it is episodic and character-driven rather than plot driven.  Observational in nature, the audience is drawn in by the film’s mood and atmosphere and to a lesser extent, the characters; since “Lovers Rock” (which takes its name from a style of music) is only an hour in length, we don’t get to spend too much time with any one character.  Basically, this is a buffet where you get many small bites which on some level may be satisfying, but never quite filling.  If it was the filmmakers’ goal to leave the audience wanting more, then they have succeeded.    

One note about the experience of streaming this movie.  As someone who has spent many nights over the years attending screenings at The New York Film Festival, this was a weird night in an extremely strange year.  Very often, opening night of the festival has something of an electrical energy; when you are streaming the motion picture through Lincoln Center’s Virtual Cinema, that electricity is noticeably missing – especially when you’re watching the film on your couch while you’re wearing your robe.  It’s not uncommon for the festival’s opening night screening to be picked to set the tone of the coming weeks; as upbeat as “Lovers Rock” may be, none of us can be blamed for feeling a bit off-balance throughout the remainder of the festival.     

Film at Lincoln Center Podcast · #284 - Steve McQueen on Lovers Rock

An Introduction To The 58th New York Film Festival

  

OK, vacation’s over (thanks, pandemic)!  The 58^th New York Film Festival is upon us and even though we can’t attend screenings in theaters this year (thanks again, pandemic!), we can still watch the films from Lincoln Center’s newly-created Virtual Cinema.  Thanks to this Virtual Cinema, anyone in the United States can view the movies at the Festival, even if you’re not here in New York City.  If you’re so inclined, feel free to click on that Virtual Cinema link and join me at this year’s festival, even if you’re not watching the same motion pictures I’m viewing.  

At the time of this writing, I’m currently scheduled to see a total of seven films in this year’s extended festival (roughly three weeks – woo-hoo!).  However, that may change if any special screenings are added during the festival (which is not uncommon, based on how festivals have gone in previous years).   Here’s what’s presently on my schedule:

Remember, if you can’t be at the festival, I’ll be posting reviews of the featured films in the coming weeks.  See you at the festival (virtually)!