Categories
Reviews

Little Women – Review

How lucky we are to be alive at the same time as Greta Gerwig, who, only two feature films in, has established herself one of our best directors! I wondered how she’d possibly follow Lady Bird, her directorial debut, a knockout combination of sorrow, humor, and pathos. I shouldn’t have worried. Little Women is a stunning achievement, one of the finest movies I’ve ever seen in theaters, narratively expansive and yet sacrificing none of its intimacy or precision.


For those of you that didn’t do the assigned reading in middle school, Little Women is a novel written by Louisa May Alcott, centered on the March family, four sisters and their mother living in Massachusetts during the Civil War. It’s endured the century and a half since its publication, because it’s a great read that you should have done in the first place instead of watching TV, you dang kids, and also because it’s one of the first major English-language novels to seriously posit options for women’s careers besides marriage or madness. Every one of its major players is given a great deal of agency in the world around them, and the romance that is present is never one-sided; proposals of love, and any other event, are all treated as serious decisions made between complex human beings. I know even less about historical literature criticism than I do about movies, though, so suffice it to say if you haven’t read it, you should, and either way, you’ll love the 2019 film adaptation.


The whole package is lovely, but its boldest aspect is the script, an innovative, Jo-rooted, non-chronological rearrangement of major scenes from the novel. In any lesser circles this might have felt desperate or empty, but Gerwig’s guidance, in concert with Nick Houy’s assured editing, helps every scene lend new meaning to every other. The young girls squabbling on Christmas give us insight into the women they eventually become; the women reconvening on their old house let us long for what we’ve seen them leave behind. In one masterful sequence, Gerwig conjures an agonizing gap of time from two companion shots of Jo descending the stairs. It’s clever, but it never becomes preoccupied with its own cleverness, instead showing us the family in its totality. The script also features what potentially my favorite dialogue of any period piece; it employs archaic words and phrasing–many lines are direct quotes from Alcott’s original novel–but allows them deeply modern cadences, and the result is electrifying. Watch the Marches struggle to talk over each other about a neighbor’s party or discuss what to do with an old house, and they’re instantly recognizable as both characters from a past time and as a family you might overhear on the street. This alone would make Little Women a joy to watch; it is far from the only exemplary thing about it.

Florence Pugh as Amy, Saoirse Ronan as Jo, and Emma Watson as Meg.

Adaptations of Little Women have long served as lightning rods for talented actors, as far back as Katharine Hepburn and Elizabeth Taylor, and the 2019 version is no different. Saoirse Ronan, as per usual, towers over the proceedings, her Jo March slipping from mood to mood but never losing her heart or her unstoppable drive–even when Jo is at her most abject and directionless, you can hear the gears spinning behind her eyes. When she tells a bedridden Beth that God’s will hasn’t met hers, you believe it. Florence Pugh deserves particular praise, too, for lending fan unfavorite Amy a tremendous amount of sympathy, painting her as a young woman less spiteful than she is acutely aware of herself and what it will take for her to advance herself. Even Timothée Chalamet, an actor I’m rarely completely sold on, is well-positioned as Laurie, a young man who has never wanted for anything and is completely unprepared when he does. Every actor, featured or not, lends a striking humanity–Laura Dern’s Marmee laughs through sentences to her daughters, Tracy Letts’ Dashwood has a habit of slamming down pages he’s done reading. Nobody falls into any easy period drama traps; nobody feels like an icon of a bygone era. They may be wearing frocks and waistcoats, but throughout the near-decade sprawl of the story these characters remain immediate and achingly human.


It’s impossible to catalog the full range of excellence on display here, but I’m going to list a few standouts. Yorick Le Saux’s elegant cinematography knows exactly where to place the camera, letting us trace every ill-concealed thought that flickers across Jo’s face, zooming out to let her face down the Massachusetts countryside alone. Alexandre Desplat’s score is pitch-perfect, planting us squarely in the post-war North without feeling antiquated. And most notably, Little Women‘s feminist sensibilities are simultaneously barely spoken and ever-present. The movie is not, textually speaking, about women’s rights, any more than it is about the Civil War, Massachusetts, or painting. There are few lines that read explicitly as rallying cries, and even then, their purpose is generally narrative. Yet we are never let off the hook, never allowed to forget the full scope of the March family’s situation. You can practically feel everything Marmee chokes down as she says “I am angry nearly every day of my life.” Little Women doesn’t want us to forget she’s got every reason to be. (The movie arguably does Alcott’s original ending justice as well, with a brilliant ending device that I won’t spoil here, but allows both Jo and Gerwig to have their cake and eat it too.)


As good as it is, Little Women barely misses perfection. Emma Watson’s valiant efforts do little to lift Meg from her fate as the least interesting March sister, and a handful of moments from the flashback scenes, despite the makeup department’s stellar use of bangs, can still feel like older actors stooping to play younger. These spots are few and far in between, though, and not dealbreakers even when they present themselves; they do little to diminish the breathtaking quality of the film. Much like Lady Bird, every inch of this piece is suffused with emotion in a way that’s easy to miss until it knocks you flat. Little Women is sweeping and accessible, grounded and skybound, and above all an absolute delight to watch. Movies don’t often come this exquisite. 

Categories
Reviews

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker – Review

I’ve never really gotten Star Wars. 

I’ve watched every main series movie and some of the various shows, but the property’s never gelled with me the way that it’s seemed to for so many of my contemporaries. This, obviously, isn’t a value judgement, but I do think it’s worth noting, because I’m not approaching this as a fan. I’m not here read up or, frankly, particularly interested in the lore; I don’t care if my favorite character shows up and says a cool line or not; I’m here to watch a movie, the final in a trilogy, and on that particular baseline, I found myself surprisingly and immensely let down by The Rise of Skywalker

Like I said, Star Wars was never really my thing, I suspect in part thanks to its obsessive backstorying. The stormtrooper that Luke stole the armor from? His name is TK-422, and he’s in multiple comic books. The droid that malfunctions just before the Skywalker family purchases it? That’s R5-D4, obviously, a secret rebel agent who self-destructed on purpose to keep R2-D2 and C3PO together. The extra that appears in one shot, running through Bespin with what’s clearly a hastily painted ice cream maker the prop department handed out? You idiot, that’s Willrow Hood, who just three years ago had to flee a hijiacked Star Destroyer in fear of an overloaded reactor, and his ice cream maker is actually a secure storage device you’ll see in multiple episodes of The Mandalorian

Again, none of this is bad, per se—but it does assume, in any willing participant in Star Wars media, the desire to seek out this kind of extraneous information, to enhance our understanding of a piece of narrative we assumed was whole and self-contained. I’m not here to badmouth that urge; it’s clearly worked for millions of people, but personally, I find this exhausting. I’ve little interest in appendices and auxiliaries, which is partially why I, not really a fan, was absolutely enchanted with The Last Jedi, a breath of fresh air in a crowded genre universe. 

With this obsessive chronicling, the Star Wars universe places an immense importance on the power of inheritance and bloodline, whether figuratively (the now-titular Skywalker dynasty) or literally (the somehow still-canonical midichlorians). But I loved TLJ’s disavowal of nostalgia, its open refusal to define itself by what came before. Its characters were troubled, difficult people who had flaws, and more importantly, whose flaws couldn’t be explained or whose power couldn’t be foreshadowed by their parents. Daisy Ridley’s compelling and vulnerable Rey is not interesting because of her dad; she is interesting because of who she is, and TLJ takes away any easy answers and makes her find her place in the universe on her own. It sees its characters as capable of making mistakes—not miscalculations, not accidents, but genuine mistakes—and this, consequently, allows these characters to grow and the world they inhabit to expand, without relying on any visual dictionaries or spinoff TV shows. Poe’s refusal to follow the orders of a commanding officer that clearly knows more than he does result in blood of his fellow soldiers on his hands, and this lets him—and us—realize the cost of war. Finn wants to be a Resistance hero, but his cowardice and uncertainty mean that he has to learn what that means through the efforts of a character clearly better suited for the job. And most strikingly, the Jedi Master Luke Skywalker himself is not the hero that Rey and the audience want him to be, he’s the last of a dying order who’s cracking under the weight of the world around him. No character is perfect, and this lends their failures weight and their successes approaching something like majesty. 

In contrast, these same characters in TRoS are incapable of making any wrong choices, and it drains the narrative of uncertainty or impact. Finn orders a bizarre tactic because he has an “instinct,” and it’s completely correct and wins the battle. Poe escapes the First Order by using a flight path we’re told is dangerous, but absolutely nothing goes wrong and they arrive safely at base. And in one of the movie’s most frustrating moments, as if taunting a better plot, after Rey’s anger and fear lead her to unleash a power that kills Chewbacca, it’s revealed to be a fakeout in under five minutes. Nobody gets hurt, nobody learns anything, and we never doubt that our heroes will do exactly what they say they will. The complete lack of tension would be frustrating in any movie, but it’s especially challenging in one that wants us to accept Rey’s alleged moral uncertainty is a major plot point. Will Rey fall to the dark side? No, obviously, she won’t, because in TRoS she never does anything to indicate that she’s even remotely susceptible. Sure, she has visions of herself taking Palpatine’s place, but she says that she won’t, and we’re (correctly) given no reason to doubt her. If TRoS truly wanted to expand on this plot thread, it would have done well to pick up from where TLJ left off, the memorable throne room fight scene, but this, like every good idea TLJ had, is retconned, apologized for, or straight-up ignored. Luke catches the lightsaber, Kylo’s mask is reforged—what was the point of making a sequel if the first hour of the next movie would be spent saying “just kidding?”

Left to right: Joonas Suatomo as Chewbacca, BB-8 and D-0 as themselves, Anthony Daniels as C-3PO, Daisy Ridley as Rey, and Oscar Isaac as Poe Dameron.

In Abrams’ defense, he can’t have had an easy go plotting this movie—he’s a talented craftsman, but originality has never been his strongest suit.  Bafflingly, despite having more money than we’ll ever understand and command of one of the most popular media franchises of all time, Disney didn’t have a post-it wall or something detailing the plot arc of its massive reboot, and Abrams was forced to follow a controversial film from a director known for trope-breaking with one of his principal players, the late great Carrie Fisher, gone from the picture. 

In Abrams’ attack, however, he and screenwriter Chris Terrio have created a final film in a trilogy that point-blank refuses to “yes, and” any of the movies before it, creating a bizarre sense of both over-familiarity and discontinuity.  In a move that not only has no precedent in the earlier movies but completely devalues Vader’s sacrifice at Return of the Jedi, Palpatine has somehow returned from the dead (a plot element hand-waved away with “the dark side of the Force” and an impressive piece of set-dressing), but we don’t even get to see this critical inciting event because it happened, of all places, in Fortnite. This sets the tone for a movie that feels like it was written round-robin: Rey shouts “never doubt a droid” literal seconds after we watched her doubt a droid. First Order ships explode over Endor and Jakku, somehow, and we’re never shown why. Kylo kills some people at the beginning, I guess, presumably because they needed a combat shot for the trailer. Consequently, the end to this series forty years in the making feels weightless, because it turns down the force of any prior films and relies on its own dribbling impact. 

This is doubly frustrating because across this new trilogy, the central cast has uniformly held their own. Ridley, Boyega, Isaac, and Driver are gifted actors that, despite being ping-ponged from director to director, have still given their choices power and meaning, a challenge that they meet with aplomb, but still means nothing alongside the script’s total lack of drive. 

Some questions, in no particular order:

-What purpose does Zorii serve, if not Disney feebly hanging a massive “no homo” sign over Poe? I’m aware she gives him some macguffin or other, but he could have tripped over it with exactly the same plot consequence, so why waste my time, and more importantly, Keri Russell’s time?

-What in the world is a force dyad? Did I hear that correctly, and is it as inane as it sounds, and did we really need a whole new concept to explain why Palpatine is draining them both? Couldn’t we have just assumed it was because they’re both powerful Force users?

-Why does Finn not tell Rey whatever he was going to, and why did Abrams wait until after the movie to say it was “I’m force-sensitive?” Was he just leaving an open slot in the script to cover himself in case of poor reception emergency? 

-Why in God’s name do Rey and Kylo kiss? What possible point does that serve? Who thought any of their interactions in any movie, including this one, indicated romantic or sexual feelings for each other, and has that person ever had romance and/or sex?

-Why does Dominic Monaghan have a role that transparently was once Kelly Marie Tran’s? What cruelty prompted the team to make her stand directly next to him in every shot and watch as he says her lines?

I don’t mean to harp, much as I love harping. I can understand a part of the negative response to TLJ, and I understand why this movie was intended as a course correction. I walked in knowing I wouldn’t love it. But I expected a certain degree of technical competence, of plot logic, of whizz-bang-pow, and every part of this is all but absent. The Rise of Skywalker has been smoothed to avoid criticism, but in this smoothing, every possible edge has been filed off, and it leaves us with almost three hours sanded down to nothing. 

Categories
Reviews

CATS – Review

First, a disclaimer: CATS is rough.

I do not open with this fact as a revelation; we all know it’s rough, and you didn’t open a review of CATS expecting to hear anything else. I’m telling you CATS is rough up top because I’m about to say some very charitable things about CATS, and I don’t want them to be mistaken for endorsement. Make no mistake, CATS is, with all due love and respect, an absolute mess, a lurching, neurotic beast that stubbornly refuses to become fun, cute, accessible, or entertaining. 

But! Stay with me here.

I knew I’d be approaching this with a more generous mien than most reviewers; many complaints seem to be lodged by people who’ve never seen a musical. A lot, if not most, of general confusion and revulsion might confuse, but likely not appall any audience that’s been to the theatre in the last month. The unnerving movements of the actors? The plot absentia? The creeping unsurety that any given cat may be about to have sex with any given cat? That’s just CATS, baby! It’s not my bag, but the musical’s got enough prestige that it’s clearly at least some people’s bags, and as an actor myself, it feels untoward to mark these points down against it. Kudos to the rest of the world for noticing that those theatre folk can be awful uncomfortable to be around, but we’ve known that for centuries now—so yes, it’s never made certain, but I can’t consider “what even are Jellicles, even??” a legitimate avenue of criticism of CATS, especially when there are so, so many more interesting avenues of criticism worth taking. (Not to mention, you ungrateful jerks, there’s a song right up front listing multiple defining characteristics of Jellicles!) 

In fact, CATS, at times, feels oddly beholden to its stage roots, not in its sets or in the bizarrely exemplary Sir Ian McKellan’s Gus the Theatre Cat, but in its intoxicating community theatre energy. The cast is stuffed with actors, dancers, and performers of varying levels of fame and talent, but they all seem earnestly and uniformly convinced of the work’s quality, barely able to contain their pride at their monumental performance, and if you just breathe in this energy, it’ll–well, not sweep you away, exactly, but certainly pass your evening, watching Jason Derulo in a genuinely impressive percentage of the film beyond the number where he yells “MILK!” Every actor, dancer, singer, or just…kinda…famous person is really, really, really trying here, and while there are more misses than hits, it can slip through the cracks and entertain you if you let it. Nothing is phoned in or half-assed; Academy Award winner Jennifer Hudson would be well within her rights to roll her eyes through “Memory” and her terrible makeup, but she absolutely doesn’t, and it saves about as much as can be saved. Even much (justly) maligned Rebel Wilson doesn’t shy away from the bonkers scene she’s given, and it results in, sans the cringing one-liners, one of my favorite scenes in the movie. 

Francesca Hayward as Victoria and Robbie Fairchild as Munkustrap.

I’m going to say more good things about CATS in a minute, but just so I can get them out of my system first, let me rattle off some of its more noxious failings. 

Director Tom Hooper, he of the undercooked and overwrought Les Mis, has turned his baleful gaze upon another musical, with some similarly useless results–his close-up camera is a repellant match with the CGI cat disguises. Worse, and damningly, CATS is a musical dominated by dance and movement, and Hooper has no idea how to film either, forcing us to watch world-class dancers through a shaky-cam behind a trash can, hiding underneath a table, or on one particularly taunting occasion, a snap zoom out across the Thames. To be fair to Hooper, this might be intended as somewhat of a mercy; if you’ve seen any promotional photos or the trailer and thought “that must get easier to look at,” you’re an optimist. The cats are, in a word, horrid, and never become less horrid as the movie goes on. The eldritch fur, the way the actors’ faces are stapled on to their bodies, the incomplete CGI that will intermittently cause parts living and otherwise to phase through each other–every part of the the visual design is both poorly conceived and executed. The movie understands this on some level and cloaks many of its larger players in some kind of costume, but this only makes the reveal all the more upsetting: just as you think Cat Idris Elba is acquitting himself reasonably well in this horrorshow, he’s shown without his coat and somehow Cat Idris looks more naked than a regular naked Idris might.

But let me pose you a question: what was the last AAA, big-budget movie you saw that approached this level of catastrophic unpleasantness? Not in a sleazy or lazy way–we get a J-horror remake or family animated based on an old board game once a month–but a manner this genuinely mystifying? What was the last movie you saw with this kind of pedigree, this kind of talent and money and cultural recognition and history, and yet still feels like you’ve lost your place in a Catholic mass? What was the last movie you saw at your local Regal or AMC that sat you down, powered through your japes and jeers, and made you ask, out loud, to your friends sitting next to you and the folks behind you, now bonded in your common experience: “what the hell was that?”

For this, I think I loved CATS. Don’t get it twisted, I assuredly didn’t like it, and would think twice a half-dozen times before recommending it to anybody without (to borrow a phrase from another sadomasochistic film) unconventional desires. But in today’s film market, there’s something almost refreshing about the hideousness of CATS, a movie made by hundreds of talented and experienced professionals that still somehow looks like this,and for that, it has my admiration, if not my respect. Towards the end of my screening, somewhere around the fourth or fifth time a heavily costumed Dame Judi Dench turns to camera, she intones with solemnity and a twinkle of joy, “a cat is not a dog,” and I heard someone a few rows back sincerely say, “fuck, it sure isn’t!” And that, perhaps, is a perfect microcosm of CATS. Will you find it great, enduring cinema? Probably not, but it’s your own fault for coming here in search of it. You want good art, go see Parasite or Little Women. You want to spend an unfathomably long hour and a half learning some names of some cats, and what their whole deal is? CATS has you covered, and if you meet it on those terms, you just might enjoy it. 

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started