Bijou and Arclight – A Requiem for the Movie Theaters, Big and Small, that Didn’t Survive 2020

The 2020 pandemic left a devastating impact on all sectors of the culture, with a particular razor’s edge situation that nearly brought down the whole theatrical industry that has been a staple of entertainment for a century now.  Movie theaters across the world barely held out being shut for months, and in some cases for over a year, but the tide is turning and the industry is getting the chance now to finally welcome guests back in.  Whether or not audiences return to the numbers they used to is another question, but the doors are finally open again.  Or, at least some are.  The biggest chains, AMC, Real, and Cinemark have gotten all their nationwide locations back open, but the situation for the smaller theaters and chains has been very different.  For them, reopening has been more of a struggle, due to unpaid rent and broken leases that has forced contentious relationships between the theaters and their landlords.  Some can argue the case that the pandemic left them without any source of income during all this time and they can renegotiate a new lease if the property owner sees the value in having them continue to operate on their land above all other options.  But the case needs to be made by the theater that a recovery is inevitable and good for long term success in those particular locations, and this is a case that’s a lot harder to make.  We at this moment don’t know if the movie theater industry can recover quickly enough to reach those pre-pandemic levels.  It certainly won’t happen by the end of this year.  So, at this point, it’s a case of who will blink first, the theaters or the landlords.  In most cases, some smaller theaters don’t have the capital available to mount a fight for continuing to operate, and that sadly has left many of them with  no other choice than to close their doors for good.  2021, and for the next couple years, we are going to see a contraction of the movie theater industry as a whole as many of these independent theaters cease operations and fade away, and that in itself is one of the most devastating outcomes of this pandemic on our culture as a whole.

What is particularly devastating about so many smaller theaters closing like this is that it reduces the outreach of cinema as a whole.  One of the great things about independent cinema is that it brings the movies to communities that otherwise couldn’t support the movies before.  Small town America usually falls outside of the gaze of the bigger chains, who target larger communities where more movie going audiences typically live.  But, because demand is there for watching movies as a communal experience in all corners of the globe, people in these smaller communities also want that as well.  My own father, who grew up in a small town on the Oregon coast, told me that he often had to drive 20 miles or more out of town to go to the nearest theater when he was growing up, because his tiny hometown wasn’t big enough to support one.  This was also at a time when movies were run out of single screen venues that depended on hundreds of people at a time watching a movie in order to survive.  But, as the business expanded to favor multiplexes, the ability to reach out to smaller communities also changed.  Independent cinema rose to an increased level thanks to the era of blockbusters, as the big studios expanded their four walling outreach, allowing smaller exhibitors easier access to their catalog of films.  This further led to an increase in specialized cinema, which gave rise to the art houses, which heavily relied on independent exhibitors.  And with theaters converting to digital in the new millennium, it streamlined the industry even further.  Now it was possible for even a tiny one screen venue in a middle of nowhere town to have the ability to present the next Marvel or Star Wars movie on their screen.  And competition from smaller venues also put the bigger chains in a position where they had to increase their outreach as well, which made the last decade or so one of the most prolific in the history of cinema.  But, with the pandemic, that growth came to a crashing halt, and it’s one that affected the independents far more harshly than the bigger chains.

With the pandemic finally, hopefully, reaching it’s end, the movie theater chains are trying every trick they can to remind people of the value of their existence.  While it hit their finances hard, chains like AMC and Regal are likely to live on, even as a shell of their former selves.  Independents on the other hand are facing a more existential crises.  For some, many of their owners are contemplating what their future might entail, and wondering if there even is a future.  The pandemic has left many of them deep in debt, and far too many theaters are choosing bankruptcy over gambling on future financial loss.  And so, that’s why we are seeing so many headlines recently of movie theaters calling it quits for good.  In particular, this has been the case for movie theater chains that exist in that middle area.  The COVID relief bills that passed through congress in previous months had financial assistance available for the smallest of theaters; the ones that operated in small towns like the one that my Dad grew up in, although even that was too little too late for many venues.  Still, it gave these tiny theaters a chance to survive, because they fell under the small business loan obligations that were crucial to meet under the directions of the government.  If you were a larger chain, you often fell outside of those qualifications, and had to find a way on your own to secure your financial future.  While the big chains did face financial hardship they did at least have the benefit of public and private investment to keep them solvent through stock trading.  Privately own chains that don’t have the benefit of Wall Street behind their back, unfortunately were the odd ones out in this; too small to be publicly traded, too big to receive government assistance.  These are the businesses most desperately in need of a full recovery for the industry, and it’s sadly looking like most of them are not going to make it, even into next year.

One of the clearest examples of this is the recent news of Arclight Theaters closing shop for good.  Most people around the country probably are unaware of what Arclight was and were confused even more why so many people were mourning it’s loss.  For some background, Arclight was a theater chain branched off of the Pacific Theaters brand.  The California theater chain created Arclight as a prestige brand that focused on elevating the theatrical experience through top notch presentation standards as well as through high class ambience.  If you ever watched a movie at an Arclight theater, you felt like you were entering a cathedral to the art of cinema, with beautiful art deco style lobbies and pristine amenities throughout.  Even their bathrooms were exquisitely designed.  And this level of high quality even extended to the staff, all of whom were knowledgeable and well trained, and who even introduced each film personally before it started.  Arclight just became synonymous with the idea of the best that cinema can offer, and the reason why you’ve heard of it far outside it’s small reach is because it was the preferred movie destination for Hollywood itself.  The first Arclight theater opened in 2002 on the prime location of Sunset and Vine in the heart of Hollywood, behind the pre-existing and iconic Cinerama Dome, which was incorporated into the venue itself.  Because of it’s central location, and it’s reputation for quality presentation, it became a favorite haunt of movie stars and film directors working in Hollywood.  Filmmakers like Christopher Nolan, Quentin Tarantino, and Edgar Wright were all frequent patrons of the Arclight in Hollywood and were especially mournful of it’s closure.  Being a resident of Los Angeles myself, this too affected me, because I was a frequent visitor to the Arclight in Hollywood too.  I even made it a Christmas tradition to visit it so I could watch the newest releases that were only available there before the rest of the country got them weeks later.  The Arclight was a cherished institution here in Los Angeles, and a surprisingly egalitarian one, where Hollywood elites and the average joe could all enjoy the movies in the same place.  But, it was one of those businesses hit hard by the pandemic and was left with little to no options for it’s continued future.  So, in April of this year, the devastating news broke that Arclight Hollywood and all the other locations scattered across the Southland and the country at large would not be returning post pandemic.

This was devastating in many ways to patrons of Arclight, famous and non famous, but it’s one of the bigger stories that has defined a epidemic of theater closures across the country.  And one such example is a little closer to home to someone like me, because it’s an independent, art house cinema in my hometown.  Most people outside of the community of Eugene, Oregon know nothing about a little movie theater called the Bijou Arts Cinema, but to the people of Eugene, the Bijou was an important fixture in the their town.  Located a few blocks from the University of Oregon campus, the Bijou was a genuine one of a kind movie theater.  Built into what was once a Presbyterian church and later a mortuary, the Bijou began playing movies in 1981 to a decidedly alternative, artistically minded crowd.  The ambiance of the old church setting, complete with the buttressed ceiling and high, windowed walls, really reinforced a different kind of movie experience than what you would get in a multiplex.  Year later, they added a second, smaller screening room in what I presume was either an unused office space or even more morbidly, the old crematorium.  Despite not looking like your average movie theater, the Bijou served an important function in the Eugene community because it offered up movies that otherwise would not have played in the multiplexes.  While the big theaters played action movies, they played costume dramas.  Instead of Disney movies, they played anime imports.  All those movies that were too weird or too obscure to find in the big chains, the Bijou would have it, and that’s what made it so valuable.  I credit it for expanding my perception of cinematic art, because no where else would I find a place that played movies in other languages, that were made outside of the Hollywood system, that were documentaries or provocative art pieces, or any other miscellaneous form of cinema.  And sadly, the Bijou too announced, almost at the same time as Arclight did, that they were not going to reopen post-pandemic as well.  The situation for them is different in a way because their previous owners decided they wanted out of the movie theater experience and just handed the keys back over to the landlord.  The owners deciding the future of movie going is not one they see growth in is a devastating sign for independent cinemas, and one that more than anything impacts the people who have depended on the Bijou being there as a part of the community all these years.

That’s the harsh reality of the pandemic’s affect on the theater industry as a whole.  The movie theaters that made the theatrical experience especially worthwhile are sadly the ones that are not able to survive.  And in post-COVID era where streaming has staked a stronger foothold in the industry, hopes for a recovery are pretty dim.  I was especially shocked when I learned of the Bijou’s closing.  It opened in 1981, and I was born in 1982.  For me, it has always been there, and now it is gone.  Now, before I get too fatalist about movie theaters in general, I want to point out that Bijou and Arclight have at this point merely locked it’s doors with no foreseeable reopening date in sight.  The structures are still there, unchanged in all this time.  You go to Sunset and Vine and peer through the glass doors of the Arclight theater and you’ll see it’s pretty much intact exactly as we left it a year ago; just collecting dust.  The same holds true for the Bijou.  It’s just that now the fate of these venues are no longer in the hands of the people who used to run them, but rather in rather in those of the people who own the buildings they were housed in.  One thing that people have speculated with Arclight is that they are trying to use the closing as a negotiating tool in setting up new leases with the landlords that can help them remove the unpaid rent off their books and start anew.  To do that, they have to convince the landlords that their use of the space is better than say converting the venue into retail.  Movie theaters take up a lot of real estate, and it’s increasingly harder to find another kind of business to fill that hole.  Arclight is hoping to convince their landlords that they are the better investment for long-term, and the outpouring of support from Hollywood is also helping their case as well, at least for the Sunset and Vine location.  In many ways, for Arclight to make a return, it’s going to be on a venue by venue basis, and I don’t think we’ll see a full recovery.  The Arclight location in Santa Monica is already in danger because it’s landlord is already moving to evict.  For the Bijou, it all depends if there is an investor out there that has the money and willingness to fund a small town independent cinema that brings in far less money than the bigger screens do.  It’s all dependent on if people with deep pockets believe there is a future for the theatrical industry worth investing in, and that right now is unclear and risky.

But one thing that could be a devastating loss for movie theaters like the Arclight and the Bijou if they do manage to reopen is that the culture surrounding them will forever be changed.  New ownership means new management, and what defined these theaters before may not survive in this new culture.  It all depends on who ends up buying these leases and properties.  Will Arclight 2.0 have the same high quality standards of presentation that the theater used to pride itself on giving to it’s customers.  Though it’s unlikely given their own economic woes, but imagine if Arclight was bought out by a bigger chain like AMC.  The standard of presentation would follow that particular chain and most likely would feel more restrained and corporatized; far less concerned with personal touch that Arclight gave to every customer.  No more in person introductions, no more caramel corn, no more special events.  Just no frills movies, which goes against what Arclight originally stood for.  And imagine if big tech companies like Netflix and Amazon decided to invest in Arclight, and what that would end up doing to their independence.  Suffice to say, there is a lot of worry that what made Arclight special would be lost in the shuffle to get it reopened.  For the Bijou, the character that defined it was due to the fact that it was an alternative to the big chains.  But because the movie market has so dramatically shifted, the smaller movies are not enough to save it’s business, so does Bijou change it’s character and start showing blockbusters as a means for survival.  To find a new owner, the management of the Bijou needs to get investors to see the value of independent cinema, and why the quirkiness of it’s small operation needs to survive.  Sure, the Bijou doesn’t have the polish of an Arclight, but it’s DIY movie theater feel was something that people in the community found irresistible.  They loved that the staff of these theaters were jack of all trades, whose function was to sell you a ticket, serve up your snacks, and start the projector all by themselves.  It takes a special kind of dedication to the profession of cinema to pull off a workday like that, and that’s what made the Bijou so endearing to people.  The people who worked for the Bijou as well as those who were patrons to it, were both equally in love with cinema, and it’s that culture that sadly dies along with the theaters that have closed.

One hopes that those who invest in the future of movie theaters carry over that some love for the movies that existed before.  The Arclight in Hollywood is one that I imagine will indeed reopen it’s doors one day.  The Cinerama Dome is already a protected monument, and I can’t see anyone being foolish enough to convert it into an Old Navy or a Target.  The question is, will the same Arclight atmosphere return when it does reopen.  That is the question raised by fans of the beloved chain, as well as those who were patrons all the now closed theaters across the country.  Arclight and those like it raised the standard of the theater experience, and set a good example for the industry as a whole.  But with only the big chains being the ones able to come back at the moment, their less personal movie culture is following with them, and it is sadly leaving the middle guys who tried to be more bold without a clear future.  The one thing that does give me hope is that people who do care about the movie going experience are making their voices heard.  Fans of the Arclight theaters are showing their support, and there are interested parties already listening.  If those Arclight backers also insist on a return to the same standard of quality as well, there is a chance for Arclight to return back to normal even under new ownership.  It all depends on what these future leases on the properties look like. The same applies to a small place like the Bijou.  If the fanbase makes their voices heard and convince the landlords to sell to another interested party willing to preserve the space as a theater venue, then it may just well happen, but it is a risk.  The fact that the Bijou had forty years of operation to endear itself to a community helps to keep hope for it’s future alive, but in the end, it will all depend on if there is a bright future for the theater industry.  We owe it to ourselves to demand more out of our movie theaters, and given the precarious year that the industry has just had, they are more inclined to listen than ever before.  If we want more Arclights and Bijous in the world, we need to show our support, both in our social media postings and also in our patronage.  Independent cinema had more of an impact in making the movie-going experience ideal than we previously realized; one that could be key to the future of cinema because of the way it elevated the experience.  They were the ones that made going to the movies special, and worth the effort of leaving the TV behind.  For now, I am saddened by the loss of two great theaters in this world, but my hope is that they are not eternally gone.  A positive sign is that Google still lists them as temporarily closed, rather than permanently.  It shows that this is not a finite moment for these theaters, and that a glorious resurrection may hopefully be on the horizon.

The Movies of Summer 2021

It’s been quite a year. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States from March of last year, the future of theatrical releases remained seriously in doubt.  Theater closures moved release dates for nearly every film on the horizon, and that in turn made the return to normal business for the theatrical industry extremely dire.  Even the biggest chains were facing down the possibility of bankruptcy by year’s end, and for some others (like the beloved Arclight chain in Hollywood) the end did come.  But, as the tide of the pandemic is finally starting to recede, things are slowly beginning to settle in the world of film.  Release dates are no longer being pushed back; theaters that have been closed for close to or over a year are finally opening the doors; and most importantly people are making the return to movie theaters in big numbers as well.  Recovery will still take a long time to reach pre-pandemic levels, but the early signs are positive, and as more and more people get vaccinated and more restrictions begin to be loosened, the back end of 2021 could be very good for Hollywood.  Thanks to all the maneuvers and business deals made between the studios and the movie theater chains, we finally seem to be having a Summer movie season that looks as close to normal as we it can be.  Because of this, I  can finally return to my usual movie season previews that I have done for years prior, without the added “hopefully” title on top of it.  Quite a few of this summer’s movies were ones that were supposed to be released last year, but were pushed back to now, but things are now finally set in stone, so we will be seeing all the movies I spotlight here this Summer.  Like years before, I will be splitting the movies here into the ones that I believe are the must sees, the ones that have me worried, and the ones that I believe are worth skipping.  And even on the lower end, it may be a soft dismissal of the movies to skip, because in general I want to encourage people to go back to the movies, even if the movie in question is not a good one.  So, I am excited to finally bring back my full look at the movies of the Summer in this year of 2021.

MUST SEES: 

THE SUICIDE SQUAD (AUGUST 6)

Let’s start off with what for me is the most anticipated movie of the Summer.  Thanks to Warner Brothers’ controversial plan for simultaneous releases in theaters and on the HBO Max app, this is also one of the rare 2021 movies that is actually meeting it’s original release date as scheduled.  And as Godzilla vs. Kong has shown us, the split availability is not hurting box office one bit, so the future is bright for this film.  The circumstances that led to this movie are also fascinating, as it became possible after writer/director James Gunn was briefly let go by Marvel over some dug up offensive tweets he made in the past.  Not wanting to waste an opportunity, WB picked Gunn up and granted him the chance to play in the DC comics sandbox instead.  Gunn of course was delighted to jump on board and he immediately found the ideal franchise to bring his unique filmmaking style to; that of the Suicide Squad.  After the mixed reception of David Ayer’s 2016 film, Suicide Squad was in desperate need of a refresh, and there is no better fit for this franchise than James Gunn, who already has plenty of experience bringing a team of quirky misfits to the big screen in Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy movies.  With his unique blend of humor and action, I am especially excited to see what James Gunn has in store for us with this rag tag team of DC rogues.  I’m especially happy that Gunn still brought along the best cast members from the first movie, including Margot Robbie’s Harley Quinn and Viola Davis’ Amanda Waller, including introducing a whole bunch of new ones.  I guarantee that King Shark (voiced by Sylvester Stallone) will be to this movie what Groot was to Guardians, and will become the breakout star character.  You’ve got to love the fact that the movie advertises itself as being from the horribly beautiful mind of James Gunn.  He will return to Marvel soon after to make a third Guardians movie, but for this brief moment in time, let’s all be grateful that he had the time to deliver the Suicide Squad movie that we all deserve.

BLACK WIDOW (JULY 9)

Now we have a film that has not met it’s release date multiple times.  With it’s original release set so close to the outbreak of the pandemic last year, this one has been moved around three times on the calendar since, moving to November 2020 initially, then again to May 2021, before finally landing on July 9, 2021.  But, with things the way they are now, Black Widow is unlikely to be moved any more.  As an extra insurance, Disney is also making this a premium access title on Disney+, so that they can still make the movie available to view just in case the movie theaters are not back to normal business by July.  For the movie itself, this reshuffle in the schedule has greatly changed it’s important role in the ongoing Marvel Cinematic Universe.  This was originally supposed to be the movie that was going to launch Phase Four of the MCU, but as a result of the pandemic, that new launch point went to the Wandavision mini-series on Disney+ instead.  Hopefully that doesn’t change the viewing experience of this film too much.  It will be nice to see a Marvel title back on the big screen again, and with a movie devoted to one of the beloved original members of the Avengers team, who was long overdue for a film of her own.  I am interested in seeing how this movie works it’s way into the Marvel timeline, given what we know from the last Avengers’ film, and what it will add to the franchise as a whole.  This will be a nice showcase for Scarlett Johansson, who has been exceptional in the part for over a decade.  And the spy thriller style of filmmaking is another flavor of genre that will be interesting to see play out in the Marvel Universe.  I’m also interested in seeing the way that the new villain, Taskmaster, fits within this narrative.  Of all the pandemic effected movies, this is one that has been among the most eagerly anticipated, and now we finally will have our opportunity, with no more delays from now on.

LUCA (JUNE 18)

Unlike the other movies I mentioned, this one rather shockingly is not getting a theatrical release.  Disney is giving the other movies on it’s summer calendar the hybrid theatrical/streaming release, but not this one from their usually reliable Pixar Animation studio.  This one is going to stream on Disney+ for no extra fee.  It’s an odd choice, and one that already is understandably upsetting people within the Pixar ranks.  Pixar’s most recent movie, Soul (2020) also premiered solely on Disney+ without a theatrical release, but that choice was understandable given that America was hitting it’s deadly second wave of the pandemic during the holidays.  But with theaters reopening and performing better now, it’s a shame that they are not allowing a new film from Pixar to make it to the big screen.  I was saddened by the fact that I wasn’t able to see a movie like Soul the way it was made to be seen, on the big screen, and the same applies to Luca as well.  This movie, with it’s colorful palette and imaginatively designed characters, should be experienced in a theatrical setting to really fully appreciate.  Perhaps, based on Soul’s performance on Disney+ was strong enough to make the company feel like streaming was a better option (Soul did go on to win the Animated Feature Oscar this last week).  I just hope this is not the start of a trend.  Luca, like Soul, is a movie that deserves a theatrical release, and I hope Disney changes it’s mind in the coming months.  Even still, I’ll be watching it, because it does look like the usual appealing experience that Pixar delivers with every movie they make.  I just hope that Disney hears from the fans and the people at Pixar who are passionate about these movies and want to see them in a venue that captures to the true grandeur of these films, which honestly feels quite small when shown on a TV or laptop screen.

IN THE HEIGHTS (JUNE 11)

Another exile from 2020 making it’s new home in Summer 2021.  Originally slated for release last Summer, this movie may be one of the few films that benefitted from the circumstances that saw it moved into this year.  One, 2021 in general is a less crowded year at the box office, which is going to help this movie gain a spotlight it otherwise wouldn’t have had in 2020.  And second, this movie also is given a little extra assist in it’s premiere by a little thing called Hamilton.  This movie musical is based on the original Broadway production that had music written by an up-and-comer named Lin-Manuel Miranda.  The Broadway production became a huge, Tony-winning success, but a couple years later, Miranda would top himself with his career defining blockbuster, Hamilton, which turned him into an instant legend of the Broadway stage.  When the pandemic hit, and Broadway shut down at the same time as movie theaters, the world desperately needed something to fill that void.  Disney, who have been collaborating with Lin-Manuel on numerous projects, decided to move up a release of a taped version of Hamilton that they were saving for theaters later on and put it out on Disney+ to resounding success.  Because of that surprise early release, Lin-Manuel and company were suddenly able to have their work seen by an even wider audience, and that in turn has increased renewed interest in Lin-Manuel’s other work.  Being delayed an entire year actually benefits In the Heights now because so many more people are familiar with Miranda’s work and are more interested in seeing how this will translate to the silver screen.  From the looks of it, director Jon M. Chu appears to be bringing the an incredible visual flair to the musical, making the movie appear like a modern day West Side Story (1961).   We’ll see how well it manages to achieve it’s goal, but the circumstances couldn’t be better for it this year, because if there is one thing that the culture needs right now, it’s an uplifting musical extravaganza, just like what Hollywood used to make in better times.

THE GREEN KNIGHT (JULY 30)

In addition to the big summer tentpoles returning to the schedule, it’s also a time for some of the individual indie movies to also make a return to the big screen.  After a year of modest releases either on demand through digital retailers or in a handful of Drive-In theaters across the country, some of the mid-level movies that used to provide counter-programming to the bigger titles are finally returning as well.  Of course, some of the most eagerly anticipated ones are coming from a reliable independent studio like A24, which has one of the industry’s strongest track records at the moment.  One of the movies that they held onto in the pandemic shuffle that I have been eagerly anticipating, and one that I hoped at the time could have been an early contender in a reopened box office last year, is this weird little twist on Arthurian knights tales from auteur filmmaker David Lowery.  Lowery has been one of the most interesting artistic filmmakers of recent years, working in a multitude of different genres, including most surprisingly a remake of Disney’s Pete’s Dragon (2016).  Making a movie like this definitely still seems within character for the non-archetypal director, and I am very much interested in seeing what he does with the medieval setting and the classic story that has it’s roots in early English folklore.  It will definitely not be a movie for everyone, but even still A24 opted to not drop this movie onto streaming or premium on demand like they did with some of their other titles this last year.  They held onto this one, waiting to have it shown in theaters, which is a great sign of their confidence in how this movie will play.  It’s a movie that I’m guessing from this delay demands a big screen presentation, and that is why I am hopeful it will stand out as a must see movie for those of us who are eager to see something weird and unique on the big screen again.

MOVIES THAT HAVE ME WORRIED:

CRUELLA (MAY 28)

This one is a mixed bag in many ways.  Disney’s track record with live action remakes of their animated classics is not very good.  And the last time they attempted to tell a back story for one of their famous villainous characters (with a sympathetic eye no less) it resulted in Maleficent (2014), which was a creative misfire.  I’m especially worried about this one, because 101 Dalmatians is an all time favorite of mine in the Disney canon, and Cruella De Vil stands as one of the greatest baddies they’ve ever committed to the big screen.  I don’t want to see that legacy tarnished by a misguided cash grab.  101 Dalmatians has been turned into a live action film before, but it was one that skewed close to the formula, made changes when need, and featured an incredible star performance from a perfectly cast Glenn Close as Cruella.  It was also made at a time in the late 90’s when there wasn’t a remake craze at the Disney company like there is now, so it manages to stand alone perfectly fine.  This one, however, is following a trend and that’s what worries me about it.  So many of the recent Disney remakes completely forget what made the others so great and they instead just feel like mediocre re-treads that pale compared to the originals.  The things that do work in this movie’s favor is the fact that it is going way off book and is trying to tell it’s own story, divorced from the original.  The choice of director, Craig Gillespie, is an interesting one, as he previously brought the story of Tonya Harding to the big screen in the Oscar-winning I, Tonya (2017).  And it does seem like Emma Stone is putting her all into the role as well, which is a good sign.  I just hope that they don’t do any injustice to the legacy of the character and make her too sympathetic.  This is a villainess famous for wanting to make dog skin coats after all.  If it sticks to the depraved individual dueling against even more depraved individuals plotting that the trailer suggests, than it might work, but then again I’ve been tricked by Disney before.

JUNGLE CRUISE (JULY 30)

One other avenue that Disney has a spotty record with on the big screen is movies based on theme park attractions.  It did strike gold with Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, but it also misfired with The Haunted Mansion (2003), and even Pirates ran out of steam eventually.  So it seems weird that Disney is choosing to tap this mine again with a movie based on their Jungle Cruise attraction.  For anyone that has been to a Disney park, you’ll know that Jungle Cruise is one of the more leisurely rides in the park, without a whole lot of thrills to drive a movie plot from.  And yet, that’s just what they did.  In many ways, this movie appears like a reskinned version of their Pirates movies, with weird CGI monsters doing battle with the heroes.  The movie also seems like another Indiana Jones knock off, where the characters are travelling into more and more perilous situations in search for a mystical treasure.  So far, from the clips we’ve seen, Jungle Cruise just seems like too many other movies we’ve seen before.  And in the time that it was delayed from release last year to now, there has been almost no hype built for it, which is not a good sign.  The one thing that may turn into a positive for this movie is the chemistry between the two leads, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson and Emily Blunt.  These are two of the most charismatic movie stars working today, and their on screen interactions could be the movie’s saving grace in the long run.  I just hope that not too much is going to be resting on their shoulders as the movie seems to lack a lot of originality.  I’m sure that Disney is hoping some of that star power translates to a strong box office, because with a pandemic driven delay leading to many people already forgetting that this movie exist before it comes out, it’s already got a lot of trouble up ahead.

OLD (JULY 23)

This one has me worried more based on the overall track record that director M. Night Shyamalan has had over his entire career.  When he’s doing well, Shyamalan can deliver some of the most taught and original thrillers, like The Sixth Sense (1999), Unbreakable (2000) and Split (2016).  But when he’s not, he can make some of the most laughably awful ones as well like Lady in the Water (2006) and The Happening (2008).  More recently, he’s been doing much better both critically and at the box office, with the movies Split and Glass (2019) both performing well.  With this new film, he’s delivering another Twilight Zone style scenario that seems to be within his wheelhouse, with characters mysteriously aging rapidly on a secluded beach with no clear explanation.  My hope is that this movie brings out the best in Shyamalan’s instincts and not the worst.  It’s hard to tell from this brief preview, and already I have my worries.  The performances for one thing seem a little off, which to be honest has always been one of Shyamalan’s weakest aspects as a filmmaker.  You can only rely on professionals like Samuel L. Jackson, Joaquin Phoenix, or James McAvoy to carry the clunky dialogue so much.  This could indeed be another movie that falls under the weight of it’s own self-indulgence, but then again, M. Night has been doing a better job recently of keeping that under check.  My hope is that the intriguing premise is executed well enough that it helps lift the movie above Shyamalan’s shortcomings as a writer and director, because he still is a filmmaker with a lot of neat ideas that can still work if executed well.

FAST & FURIOUS 9 (JUNE 25)

For nearly 20 years now, I have tried my best to get into the Fast & Furious  movie franchise, and every time I just end up leaving underwhelmed by it all.  Maybe I am just not a car person.  The films in general are just a whole lot of noise and mayhem to me, with none of the emotional connection that would normally hook me in.  I’ll take the likes of Mission: Impossible and John Wick to satisfy me with over-the-top action.  What will be interesting to see is how this movie is going to perform at the box office.  I hate to say this about a movie franchise that I honestly don’t care for that much, but if there was any movie that will save the Summer box office this year, it’s probably going to be this one.  The fanbase for this franchise is loyal, and they are still very much eager to see it in theaters as well.  If I were to bet on the box office this year, either Fast & Furious or Black Widow will be the first movie to cross the $200 million mark in domestic box office since the start of the pandemic.  And if that happens, it will be a great moral booster for the theatrical industry as well as give movie studios confidence in the recovery of the market overall.  I’ll be grateful to the movie if it manages to do that, and even excel past expectations if possible.  But I’m also sure that I won’t have the same love for it that other people do.  Still, I am impressed with how well excitement for this movie has not waned in the last year, and that unlike Disney’s Jungle Cruise, people are still talking about it.  The addition of John Cena to the mix will be interesting, but they’ve put a lot of other actors that I admire into this franchise like Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham, and it still didn’t grab me.  So, I am hopeful that this movie will be a boost of adrenaline to a desperate theatrical market in need of a hit, but I’m probably going to be underwhelmed by it just like all the ones that came before.

MOVIES TO SKIP:

SPACE JAM: A NEW LEGACY (JULY 16)

I’ve made my disdain for the original Space Jam (1996) very apparent on this blog before.  But, I did hold out for some positive signs about the up-coming sequel.  Honestly, they couldn’t do any worse than the original.  But, seeing this trailer, it’s presenting a whole bunch of other concerns that really have me worried again.  First of all, it just looks like a shameless cross promotion tool on Warner Brothers’ part to showcase all the different IP they have in their library.  Did I also mention that this movie is also premiering day and date on HBO Max, where a lot of the pop cultural references shown in the movie also can be seen on.  I do like some Iron Giant love, but it just seems like Space Jam went from shamelessly shilling Nike footwear to shamelessly shilling everything under the WB tent.  I was also hopeful for LeBron James, who has a better cinematic track record than his predecessor Michael Jordan does, whose still awkward and bland performance in the original movie is his one and only movie role.   But, LeBron so far is coming off just as flat as MJ.  And the CGI enhanced Looney Tunes are also not giving me much hope overall.  It remains to be seen if I dislike this movie as much as the original.  The first Space Jam is a monumentally flawed movie with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.  This one may be bad, but it could be so in a boring way, which would put it ahead of it’s predecessor, but we’ll just see.  Safe to say, I’m not holding too much hope for this to be a turn around for the series.  They should’ve just left it as a commercial for sneakers like it originally was.  I just hope Bill Murray had the common sense to say no this time.

THE HITMAN’S WIFE’S BODYGUARD (JUNE 16)

How this became a franchise I will never know.  The original movie wasted the talents of two usually great movie stars, Ryan Reynolds and Samuel L. Jackson with an unfunny script and mediocre action.  And somehow it did well enough to warrant a sequel?  In this one they expand Salma Hayek’s cameo role from the original to a third lead, and add Antonio Banderas and Morgan Freeman to the mix.  I was underwhelmed by the original, and I have a feeling that the same will happen with this movie as well.  What really depresses me is that the movie has both Reynolds and Jackson in the leads, a combo that should’ve been ideal for some hilarious back and forth banter.  Instead, the original movie was about as stock as any other bland action movie.  If this movie wants to redeem this franchise, set these two loose, and Salma Hayek as well.  We know how great they can be off the cuff.  Sure, they shouldn’t have to carry a movie on their shoulders, but when you give them nothing to work with, just at least let them look like they’re having fun and allow them to use their instincts in a creative way.  Overall, I expect this movie to be just another average action flick that wastes it’s opportunity to be a comedic powerhouse.

SPIRIT UNTAMED (JUNE 4)

Once upon a time, when competing against their rival Disney, Dreamworks Animation did dabble briefly in the medium of traditional, hand-drawn animation.  They only made 4 films in that format, The Prince of Egypt (1998), The Road to El Dorado (2000), Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron (2002), and Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas (2003), before abandoning it after the success of Shrek (2001).  Of those four, I would argue that the most successful dramatically and artistically was Spirt, a beautiful Western themed adventure that took full advantage of the hand drawn format.  In the years since, the movie has gained a cult following, and even spawned a Netflix series.  This new film, however, comes from the main studio, which seems to be taking the story in a far more sanitized direction, geared solely towards younger audiences.  It’s a shame to see Dreamworks Animation move into a more pandering sensibility, and with a character from one of it’s most dramatic films in general.  The movie did retain the titular character’s original design, but it just looks weird in CGI form, and he fares better than the rest of the cast of characters.  If they wanted to sequelize the original, they should’ve stayed true to the grit of the original, which was a strong parable about the loss of the wilderness in America’s westward expansion.  This movie just seems to be hand waving all that off and just makes it a horse movie for kiddies.  Do yourself a favor, seek out the original (especially if it’s widescreen) and watch that instead.  It will remind you of a time when Dreamworks was really trying to prove something, instead of just resting on their laurels.

So, there you have it, a Summer movie preview that will hopefully, finally pan out for real.  Now I can finally talk about these movies with certainty about when they are going to be released.  The question marks about when and if these movies will see the light of day are no longer a problem.  I’m just hoping that the movie theater industry is able to return to normal business soon, so that all these movies can thrive and bring back confidence in the market again.  Sadly, we are going to likely see compromises made for the rest of the year, like the hybrid releases that the movie studios are using as an insurance policy.  I also highly doubt that we’ll reach the record breaking numbers like the ones that we saw throughout 2019, before the pandemic was even on the horizon.  I hope that the studios in the long term look at the theatrical industry as a worthwhile market to continue investing in.  I would especially like it if some of the upcoming movies do well enough that it will enable some of the fence-sitters to reconsider their release plans and move more movies to the big screen.  It will be a short window for something like Luca, but I am praying that Disney has a change of heart.  Thus far, from the few movies that have released in the Spring, there are a lot positive signs that point to a recovery.  Warner Brothers’ HBO Max gamble has not harmed box office one bit, and every major studio has stopped shuffling things around and in some cases are moving movies forward instead of backward.  Normal may still be a ways off, but we are going back to the movies finally, and people are realizing just how much they have missed.  Absence makes the heart grow fonder, and that’s what I think will help lead people back to the movie theaters.  There really is no substitute for the theatrical experience, and it’s an experience that is right now reminding people of better times.  It’s that allure that could indeed give movie theaters the bright future that it needs.

The 2021 Oscars – Picks and Thoughts

A most unusual year for movies deserves a most unusual awards season as well.  Like everything else we have done to help us weather the COVID-19 pandemic, the lead up to this year’s Oscars have been conducted remotely in an unprecedented combination of livestreams and health conscious ceremonies.  Thanks to online meeting apps like Zoom, most of the acceptance speeches of all the awards so far have been given from the respective winners’ living room rather than on a stage in front of peers.  Not ideal for anyone, but it’s allowed the awards this year to be delivered in a safe manner that helps protect all involved and helps to stem the spread of the deadly disease that we are still battling.  However, it does appear that the Oscars is still opting for an in person event rather than the Zoom enabled presentations that we’ve seen from the likes of the Emmys and the Golden Globes.  The way they are doing it, while still staying within the California state health guidelines is that they are conducting this year’s Academy Awards from two separate venues, allowing for enough social distance for the attendees.  One such place will be the traditional Dolby Theater which is the Oscars’ permanent home, and the other will be the historic Union Station in Downtown LA (a first for that location as an Oscar host).  Needless to say, this will be a very different Oscars than the one we are used to.  This is reflected in the nominated movies as well.  Because of the closure of movie theater for the majority of 2020, the field of nominated movies represents a more select group of indie and streaming titles.  One particularly positive result of this is that this is one of the most diverse group of nominees that the Oscars have ever seen, representing many underrepresented groups that otherwise are overlooked in more competitive years.

What follows is my usual picks and thoughts for each of the top categories at the Academy Awards.  In addition to breaking down each category, I also will include my choices for who I think will win, and who I think should win, because oftentimes my choices differ from the likely outcome.  These are for the leading categories of Best Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress and Screenplay (Adapted and Original).  Keep in mind, these are just my own opinions, and I could end up being way off in my picks come Oscar night (it happened last year).  So, let’s take a look at this exciting, and quite out of the ordinary group of nominees at this year’s Oscars.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Nominees: Sacha Baron Cohen, Anthony Hines, Dan Swimer, Peter Baynham, Erica Rivinoja, Dan Mazer, Jena Friedman, Lee Kern, & Nina Pedrad, Borat Subsequent Moviefilm; Christopher Hampton & Florian Zeller, The Father; Chloe Zhao, Nomadland; Kemp Powers, One Night in Miami; Ramin Bahrani, The White Tiger

One thing that stands out is how Borat Subsequent Moviefilm, a film that is largely improvised, managed to sneak into an adapted screenplay nomination.  I’m not complaining, I just find it very interesting, and yes, appropriately funny.  Sacha Baron Cohen managed to pull of a miracle last year by not only making a sequel to his iconic breakout movie, but managing to make it just as big of a success, including more nominations than it’s predecessor.  And all the while shooting the film during a pandemic.  His near catastrophic stunts in the film are enough to earn this movie a special place in originality, but given that it’s a comedy and mostly improvised, it’s chances here are slim.  I haven’t seen White Tiger, and given the small amount of buzz around the film, a nomination seems to be it’s ultimate reward and nothing more.  What this category comes down to are two screenplays adapted from plays by their original scribes, and one literary adaptation by the director of the year’s biggest frontrunner.  Both One Night in Miami and The Father were late comers to this Oscar race, released at the tail end of the extended February deadline.  While Kemp Powers is getting deserved acclaim for his adaptation of his own play, his likely win as a co-director of the movie Soul in the animation category probably minimizes his chances here.  If Chloe Zhao has a big night with her likley front-runner status with Nomadland in multiple categories, it could give her momentum here.  But, I feel like the intricately plotted and experimental The Father is going to win here, as Florian Zeller deftly took his play off the stage and onto the screen with a flair that actually elevates the material for cinema.  Out of all these, my own personal favorite is the unconventional Borat Subsequent Moviefilm, because I feel like it’s the one whose best lines I’ll be remembering for many years to come, but for the sake of tradition, expect The Father to come away the likely winner her, unless Nomadland takes it in a sweep.

WHO WILL WIN:   Christopher Hampton & Florian Zeller, The Father

WHO SHOULD WIN: Sacha Baron Cohen, Anthony Hines, Dan Swimer, Peter Baynham, Erica Rivinoja, Dan Mazer, Jena Friedman, Lee Kern, & Nina Pedrad, Borat Subsequent Moviefilm

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Nominees: Shaka King, Will Berson, and Kenny & Keith Lucas, Judas and the Black Messiah; Lee Isaac Chung, Minari, Emerald Fennell, Promisng Young Woman; Darius Marder, Abraham Marder, and Derek Cianfrance, Sound of Metal; Aaron Sorkin, The Trial of the Chicago 7

This category really shows just how strong of a year this was for screenwriting.  In particular, all these movies touched upon some very relevant issues in their stories that no doubt resonated with Academy voters, whether it’s immigration, sexual assault, living with a disability, or just the fight against injustice.  I respect every one of the nominees here, but one stands out more than the rest.  It’s hard to cast aside the first time nominees in order to heap more praise on someone who has won an Oscar before, but this is about the screenplay itself and not the one who wrote it.  And my favorite screenplay for the entire year was The Trial of the Chicago 7 by Aaron Sorkin.  Yes, he already has one of the most stacked resumes in the business and already has won before (Adapted Screenplay for The Social Network in 2010).  But that Chicago 7 script just sings like no other I experienced last year.  The man just knows how to make captivating arguments flow off the page, and given how long he had this one gestating in development for over a decade, it’s probably his most polished script yet, and that’s saying a lot.  If the rest of the Academy doesn’t feel that way, I can see Emerald Fennell’s very provocative Promising Young Woman coming away with a win here.  It helps that she is also a directing nominee (one of two in this category, along with Lee Isaac Chung) and she already has a WGA win to back her up.  What could also work against Sorkin here is that Judas and the Black Messiah touches some of the same ground as it’s story does, with the trial being a backdrop element in it’s own story.  Whether or not Messiah splits some of the vote remains to be seen in relation to Chicago 7’s chances.  I still see Aaron Sorkin collecting a second Oscar here for his labor of love, but it’s a category that could end up favoring a new voice like the one Promising Young Woman offers and see an upset play out, depending on how the night goes.

WHO WILL WIN: Aaron Sorkin, The Trial of the Chicago 7

WHO SHOULD WIN: Aaron Sorkin, The Trial of the Chicago 7

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Nominees: Sacha Baron Cohen, The Trial of the Chicago 7; Daniel Kaluuya, Judas and the Black Messiah; Leslie Odom, Jr, One Night in Miami; Paul Raci, Sound of Metal; Lakeith Stanfield, Judas and the Black Messiah

Sacha Baron Cohen hitched his wagon onto Chicago 7 all the way back when it was going to be a Spielberg film over a decade ago, always with the intent of playing notorious radical Abbie Hoffman.  The long wait paid off and he’s been recognized for his efforts here in this category.  However, a clear front-runner has emerged in this category and it’s Daniel Kaluuya for his stellar turn as Black Panther leader Fred Hampton in Judas and the Black Messiah.  Kaluuya, fresh off his star-making turn in Get Out (2017), has dominated the Awards season so far, picking up a Golden Globe, SAG Award, and a BAFTA in the last month, all Oscar precursors.  All this would lead you to believe that he has this in the bag, but the Oscars threw a wild card into this category.  Kaluuya’s co-star, Lakeith Stanfield, was also nominated here (and only here), despite the fact that he had campaigned for a leading role Oscar.  Though Stanfield’s work is also nomination worthy, it’s strange that he got recognized here, despite playing the lead in the movie.  This has led many to worry that he may split votes away from what could have been an assured victory for Kaluuya.  But, with the other big wins he’s collected, Daniel Kaluuya seems to have momentum on his side, and it is certainly well earned.  Of all the performances, his is definitely the stand-out, and I can’t think of another performance from this year that was this commanding on screen.  Not to take away from what Lakeith and Sacha delivered, as well as the great work from first timers like Paul Raci and Leslie Odom Jr., who could possibly win in the Best Song category.  Kaluuya’s electrifying performance as Fred Hampton is the kind of performance that the Oscars are made for; one that is both big and intimate, showcasing the incredible range that the actor is capable of.  And I don’t see anything slowing his momentum down on Oscar night; not even the wild card that is his co-star.

WHO WILL WIN: Daniel Kaluuya, Judas and the Black Messiah

WHO SHOULD WIN: Daniel Kaluuya, Judas and the Black Messiah

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Nominees: Maria Bakalova, Borat Subsequent Moviefilm; Glenn Close, Hillbilly Elegy; Olivia Colman, The Father; Amanda Seyfried, Mank; Yuh-Jung Youn, Minari

I love Glenn Close and I do want her to finally win an Oscar someday, but a win for her performance in Hillbiilly Elegy (one of 2020’s worst movies) would be an insult to her legacy as an actress.  She deserves recognition for something better that reflects just how great an actress she is, and not that pandering Oscar bait trash.  Thankfully, she is far from the favorite here.  The remaining nominees all come from much better films that are deserving of recognition.  Amanda Seyfried’s acclaimed turn as Marion Davies in Mank would be the kind of front-runner role in any other year where the Academy favors a nostalgic throwback to it’s own history, but she has surprisingly not built much momentum this year, much like the rest of the film.  Olivia Colman’s previous Oscar win for The Favourite (2018) probably dilutes her chances this year, though her role in the father showcases more of her dramatic talents than before.  The one who has surprisingly built a bit of momentum late has been veteran Korean actress Yuh-Jung Youn for her standout performance in Minari.  Playing the oftentimes naughty grandmother in the movie about Korean immigrants starting a farm in rural America, Youn is delightful to watch in the film, and is responsible for some of the movie’s most memorable moments.  A win for her would be deserved, and a wonderful recognition of her long standing career on the big screen that goes back decades.  However, if I were to pick a favorite her, I’d have to say the one who impressed me the most was Maria Bakalova in Borat Subsequent Moviefilm.  Not only does she hold her own opposite a heavyweight comedian like Sacha Baron Cohen, oftentimes delivering just as many laughs playing Borat’s continually mistreated daughter, but she showed so much fearlessness taking on some of the more elaborate pranks in the film.  Her now notorious scene with the unsuspecting Rudy Giuliani in a hotel room deserves an accolade of it’s own.  So, Minari’s Youn will likely win here, but Bakalova impressed me the most, and a surprise win for her would be a well-deserved honor.

WHO WILL WIN:  Yuh-Jung Youn, Minari

WHO SHOULD WIN: Maria Bakalova, Borat Subsequent Moviefilm

BEST ACTOR

Nominees: Riz Ahmed, Sound of Metal; Chadwick Boseman, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom; Anthony Hopkins, The Father; Gary Oldman, Mank; Steven Yeun, Minari

It may be a little callous to say, but posthumous honors are a hard thing to vote against.  That’s the case with Chadwick Boseman’s nomination here for his lead performance in Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom; his first and only.  Boseman tragically passed away in August of last year after a long fight against cancer, three months before his final screen performance in Ma Rainey would premiere on Netflix.  Since then, he has been the odds on favorite to be honored with an Oscar for the role, and that has carried him through all the Awards thus far this Oscar season.  The Academy has awarded posthumous Oscars before in acting roles, first to Peter Finch for Network (1976) for Lead Actor and second to Heath Ledger for The Dark Knight (2008) in a Supporting Role.  Boseman looks to be the third posthumous winner of an acting Oscar, and it’s one that I cannot argue with.  Like the others, it’s an Oscar win that would’ve happened anyway, whether he was still alive or not.  It’s that good of a performance.  He takes command in Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom, and delivers the performance of his life; even outshining his star-making work as T’Challa in Marvel’s Black Panther (2018).  So, there is no shame in honoring his memory with an Oscar win that pretty much sums up everything that made him the great actor that he was.  The remaining nominees are all very fine in of themselves, with veterans like Anthony Hopkins and Gary Oldman even delivering some of the best work of the already legendary careers.  But, it’s Boseman’s to lose, and an almost inevitable win here will likely lead to one of this Oscar’s most emotional moments, with Chadwick’s widow likely to accept on his behalf, as she has done all season.  It’s a fitting way to remember a talented life cut tragically short, and give him that special honor that will cement him as one of the icons of Hollywood.

WHO WILL WIN: Chadwick Boseman, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom

WHO SHOULD WIN: Chadwick Boseman, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom

BEST ACTRESS

Nominees: Viola Davis, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom; Andra Day, The United States vs. Billie Holiday; Vanessa Kirby, Pieces of a Woman; Frances McDormand, Nomadland; Carey Mulligan, Promising Young Woman

Of all the acting categories of this year’s Oscars, this is the most wide open going into the final stretch.  All the precursor awards have gone to a different winner so far; Andra Day won the Golden Globe, Viola Davis won the SAG Award, Carey Mulligan the Critics Choice, and Frances McDormand  the BAFTA.  Poor Vanessa Kirby is the odd one out.  But, otherwise, it’s anyone’s to take home.  My feeling is that the ones carrying momentum into the final stretch are McDormand and Mulligan.  Frances could come away a winner if Nomadland has a big night and sweeps through all it’s categories, which would give her career Oscar number three; one short of the record (held by Kathrine Hepburn, who won four).  If not, I see Carey Mulligan, who was last nominated for An Education in 2009, taking home the Oscar.  Her performance is probably the most daring of the bunch, playing a vengeful woman getting revenge on men who have a history of sexually abusing women.  It’s certainly the kind of provocative, outside the ordinary kind of performance that does get noticed by the Academy from time to time, and it’s certainly a departure for Carey Mulligan as well, as she usually doesn’t take on these edgy kinds of characters often.  It’s also a lot more dynamic than Frances McDormand’s performance, which was intentionally formed around her as a personality, and doesn’t really display her range as much as her past wins have done.  While both actresses are deserving of recognition, I would like to see a different winner just for the sake of history possibly being made.  For one thing, I think Viola Davis’ performance as Ma Rainey was the most entertaining of the bunch, and secondly, a win for her would be the first for an actress of color since Halle Beary in 2001 for Monster’s Ball.  A Best Actress win for Davis, complete with Boseman and Kaluuya’s almost certain wins in their categories, and Yuh-Jung Yeon’s likely win in hers would mark the first time ever that all four acting awards went to people of color, which would be monumentally historic for the Oscars.  It remains to be seen if Oscar will be that bold, but Viola Davis is a strong contender, so it’s a good possibility.  More than likely, we’ll see Carey Mulligan win her first Oscar for her much talked about performance, but a historic night would be a great encapsulation of the progress made by this year’s Oscars overall.

WHO WILL WIN: Carey Mulligan, Promising Young Woman

WHO SHOULD WIN: Viola Davis, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom

BEST DIRECTOR

Nominees: Lee Isaac Chung, Minari; Emerald Fennell, Promising Young Woman; David Fincher, Mank; Thomas Vinterberg, Another Round; Chloe Zhao, Nomadland

At this point in the race, this one looks like a sure thing for Chloe Zhao for her work on Nomadland.  She has won every precursor in the Directing category, including the Golden Globe and the DGA.  Few have ever won those two and then lost out on the Academy Award, although such a thing did occur last year when Bong Joon-ho upset Sam Mendes.  The same thing seems less likely for Ms. Zhao, as she has far less competition that would challenge her in the same way.  It would also be an historic win built upon an already historic nomination.  For the first time in Oscar history, we have more than one woman nominated for Best Director, with Emerald Fennell being the other nominee.  It’s a nice development after so many were upset by the lack of nomination for Greta Gerwig at last year’s awards.  If Zhao were to win, she would also be only the second woman to take that honor after Kathryn Bigelow, who won in 2009 for The Hurt Locker, and also the first woman of color and Asian woman to do so.  All those elements boost her chances greatly.  For me personally, while I am excited for what Chloe’s win could mean for the Oscars in general, I was not all that impressed with Nomadland overall.  It’s a really good movie to be sure, but it otherwise left me underwhelmed.  The movie that impressed me more than any in this category, from a directing standpoint, was David Fincher’s Mank.  Sure, it’s the most mainstream, Oscar-baity film in the group, but I was blown away by how closely Fincher was able to recreate the look and aesthetic of an old Hollywood movie, and to me that’s the most impressive thing I saw this year.  Nomadland by comparison is a more leisurely film, though with some beautiful photography.  I’m anticipating history made here, but my choices are based on what impressed me the most about the directors work, and once again I find David Fincher to be in a class all his own.

WHO WILL WIN: Chloe Zhao, Nomadland

WHO SHOULD WIN: David Fincher, Mank

BEST PICTURE

Nominees: The Father; Judas and the Black Messiah; Mank; Minari, Nomadland; Promising Young Woman; Sound of Metal; and The Trial of the Chicago 7

One sign of how unusual an Oscar season this has been, half of the nominated movies in this category were ones that I didn’t even see in the calendar year of 2020.  The extended deadline for the 2020 Oscars also meant that a lot of movies slated for year end release got pushed deep into the new year, with late February being the new cutoff.  The three movies that I did see in 2020, (Mank, Sound of Metal, and The Trial of the Chicago 7) did make my year end Top Ten List, so I’m happy they are nominated here.  As for the rest, their inclusions are also expected.  The only one that I don’t like in the bunch is Promising Young Woman, which I felt mismanaged it’s provocative and intriguing premise with a lacking execution.  Nomadland is good enough for a nomination, but I’m not entirely sold on it’s front-runner status.  And I think that Mank, Chicago 7, and Sound of Metal sadly couldn’t carry their momentum into the new year, and will likely end up settling for wins in the technical categories instead.  What I do feel might be a minor spoiler in this race, and is really what I think to be the best movie in the bunch, is little but powerful Minari.  I finally got to see this one in late January and was very much enchanted by it.  It missed my top 10 for 2020, but I can see it still hold on for a spot on my best of 2021 later this year.  It’s a beautifully told story about a family working against the odds to achieve the American dream, and I think it’s a powerful parable for this time in the U.S.A.  that we are living in, especially wit anti-immigrant and anti-Asian rhetoric on the rise.  Nomadland is undoubtedly the movie to beat, as it has dominated Awards season so far, but Minari is the one that felt had the most heart and it left a far bigger impression on me after I saw it.  Still, it wouldn’t surprise me if Nomadland not only takes home the top award, but comes through with a sweeping victory in multiple categories.  And it’s a win that wouldn’t necessarily upset me too much either.  It’s been a while since one movie has been able to run the table at the Oscars, and it would be nice to see a smaller film like Nomadland be that unexpected juggernaut.

WHAT WILL WIN: Nomadland

WHAT SHOULD WIN: Minari

In addition, here is my brief rundown of all the remaining categories based on who I think is likely going to win:

Best Cinematography: Mank; Best Animated Feature: Soul; Best Documentary Feature: Collective; Best International Feature: Another Round; Best Film Editing: Nomadland; Best Visual Effects: Tenet; Best Sound: Sound of Metal; Best Costume Design: Mank; Best Original Score: Soul; Best Original Song: “Speak Now” from One Night in Miami; Best Make-up and Hairstyling: Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom; Best Production Design: MankBest Documentary Short: A Concerto is a Conversation; Best Animated Short: Genius Loci; Best Live Action Short: Feeling Through

So, there you have my picks and thoughts for this unusual and unprecedented Oscars.  The fact that I am publishing this article in a weekend that I usually reserve for my Summer movie previews just shows how much this last year upended the norms.  And yet, the show goes on, and the Oscars (though later than normal) is still happening.  I have said many times before that the more diverse slate of nominees this year has been the best silver lining of this tumultuous season, and my hope is that this is reflected in the winners that we’ll see on Oscar night as well.  This is going to be an Oscars full of historic firsts galore, including in some of those “lesser” categories.  It is interesting to see what a year without blockbuster movies has done to the make-up of this year’s awards.  For one thing, this is an Awards season far more represented with movies that came to us via streaming, because for the most part, it was the only way movies could be seen last year.  Let’s see if the anti-Netflix bias that undercut the hopes for movies like Roma and The Irishman changes this year.  It could be the barrier buster that so many streaming platforms had hope for, because this was the year that the Academy had no other choice but to pay them more attention.  For me, as someone who follows along with Oscars history more than the average viewer, I am excited to see more of a sea change happen.  The change in venue and the more diverse slate of movies represented shows that the Oscars are evolving.  Sure, it’s to meet the needs of moving forward in the middle of a crisis, but my hope is that the Oscars builds upon these changes and just doesn’t make this Awards season a fluke.  More diverse films from different platforms, as well as a more representative body of nominees are a good thing for the future of the Academy Awards.  Necessity is the mother of invention, and to evolve to meet the needs of running this show under the cloud of a pandemic hopefully bears fruit for a more dynamic Oscars in the years ahead.  Let’s put on a good show Oscars, and hopefully next year, the good changes will be able to be a part of an Academy Awards that will feel a bit more like normal.

 

Top Ten Memorable Moments From the Oscars

In it’s 93 year history, the Academy Awards have grown into the film industry’s highest level of achievement for every year.  In the last couple decades in particular, winning an Academy Award (or Oscar for short) is the ultimate goal that every studio and production company hinges their best hopes on when they reach the year’s end.  The Oscars are an industry driver in of themselves, influencing the choices in casting, the amount of money devoted to a movie’s production and it’s promotion, as well as what a movie studio is willing to invest in buying the rights for a strong performer out of the festival circuit.  In the end, it all leads to one night time ceremony where all the efforts come to fruition, and the Hollywood elite are able to gather together and take part in a yearly celebration of their community.  The Oscars telecast itself has seen highs and lows over the years, and in many cases have offered up some truly memorable moments.  Whether it’s an overly enthusiastic acceptance speech, a somber moment of reflection, an impassioned call for action, or just a crazy, out-of-the-blue moment of spontaneous insanity.  The history of the Oscars is just as fascinating as the history of Hollywood itself, with it’s own twists and turns over it’s near century of existence.  What follows is my own list of what I think are some of the most memorable and groundbreaking moments in the history of the Oscars.  They range between historic milestones to moments that will live in infamy.  I’ve also included embeds of those specific moments from the Oscars own YouTube page (I do not claim any ownership of these clips and they are the sole property of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences).  So let’s take a trip down Oscar memory lane and look at the most memorable moments from the Academy Awards.

10.

TOM HANKS THANKS HIS GAY MENTORS IN FIRST OSCAR WIN (1994)

Tom Hanks is without a doubt his generation’s most respected movie star.  With a career that now spans across 5 decades, he has been a part of some of cinema’s most iconic films in the last half century, and has been duly honored for his many iconic performances.  He stands alongside the likes of Spencer Tracy, Kathrine Hepburn, Luise Rainer and Jason Robards as one of the few who have won back to back honors at the Oscars in the same category.  His two Oscars were for the movies Philadelphia (1993) and Forrest Gump (1994).  While both Oscar wins were well deserved for the extremely versatile performer, it was his performance as an AIDS stricken gay man fighting for his rights in Philadelphia that is especially well remembered.  Also remembered fondly was Hank’s impassioned acceptance speech that night.  After thanking his loved ones and creative collaborators, Tom continued with a special recognition of two people in particular.  One was his high school drama teacher, Raleigh Farnsworth, and the other a close friend and classmate named John Gilkerson.  He named these two individuals in particular because they were the first people who he knew that were gay, and their friendship with him helped to shape Tom’s compassionate attitude towards the gay community.  In his speech, Hanks goes beyond just acknowledging the many victims of the AIDS epidemic, and makes a plea for tolerance for the entire Queer community in general.  “My were honored here tonight is magnified by the fact that the streets in heaven are crowded with angels,” he remarked, and it was a more powerful statement in that ceremony than any red ribbon worn on a dress or coat could have made.  The moment was so memorable in fact, that it inspired it’s own movie, In & Out (1997), with the twist being the teacher thanked in the speech was not fully out of the closet.  Queer acceptance in society has faced a long uphill road, but with moments like Tom Hank’s win and acceptance speech for Philadelphia, the conversation was thankfully moved in a direction that made it possible for future progress to be made.

9.

“IT’S…A TIE” (1969)

The voting results of the Oscars are a closely held secret, but we do know for certain how the Academy votes are tallied.  What the Academy uses for many categories is a weighted system based on ranking members choices for each category, and then having those rankings weighted together with the straight across vote count.  This system is still in use today for many categories, including Best Picture, which has led to some interesting results over the years (more on that later).  One of the interesting results of this voting system is that it often leads to a tie in some categories, even though the base vote count may favor one winner over the other.  Usually this happens in some of the lower tier categories, and even then only rarely.  The last time it occurred was in 2012 with Sound Editing, with Zero Dark Thirty and Skyfall sharing the honor.  However, the categories that don’t use the weighted system are the acting categories, which are determined solely by popular vote.  This was enacted in 1968 by then President of the Academy, Gregory Peck, and the Board of Directors in the hopes that it would eliminate any confusion over the winner and prevent a thing like a tie from happening.  So, you can see why presenter Ingrid Bergman was so surprised when she opened the envelope for Best Actress to see two winners.  For a tie to happen in this new system, it means that the winners had to have had the same exact number of votes, meaning that this moment achieved the even rarer feat of being the only ever exact tie in Oscar history.  The honors in that unprecedented moment went to Kathrine Hepburn for The Lion in Winter (her third overall) and Barbara Streisand for Funny Girl (her first and only).  Ms. Hepburn, a perennial no-show, had director Anthony Harvey accept for her instead, so Babs had the spotlight to herself in this crazy moment.  The feat of an exact tie has yet to be repeated since, but what this moment proved is that nothing is impossible at the Oscars.

8.

THE STREAKER (1974)

The Oscars are first and foremost a classy, refined presentation, sometimes to a fault.  The intent is to showcase the glamourous side of the business, with so much effort put into showmanship and eye catching fashion during each ceremony.  But, every now and then, whether planned or not, some moments break through the stuffiness and instantly become the thing of Academy Awards legend. One such moment happened near the end of the 1974 Oscars ceremony.  Jack Lemmon had just left the stage after picking up his Best Actor honor for Save the Tiger (1973) and David Niven approached the podium to introduce the next presenter.  Niven expected in that moment to give a respectful introduction to Elizabeth Taylor, spotlighting her impact on the silver screen and her charitable endeavors off it, but not everything went as planned.  Suddenly out of the wings of the Oscars stage came a man running behind David Niven completely naked.  The “Streaker” was an amateur photographer named Robert Opel who somehow managed to sneak into the backstage of the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, strip nude, and run across the stage while cameras were rolling live across the world.  He was immediately apprehended by security, but not before causing mayhem on stage and giving the the Hollywood elite an unexpected shock.  Poor David Niven was in the the awkward situation of trying to get the ceremony back on track, but with some savage and dry British wit, he did just that, saying, “isn’t it fascinating to think that the only laugh that man will ever get in life is by stripping off and showing his shortcomings?”  It was a spectacular bit of chaos to shake up the stuffiness of the Oscars and also a pitch perfect response from one of Hollywood’s most quick witted actors.

7.

CHRIS ROCK’S “OSCARS SO WHITE” MONOLOGUE (2016)

One of the long standing traditions at the Academy Awards ceremonies is having a well known comedian, actor or stage performer take on hosting duties.  Sometimes the Academy will enjoy a host so much, they’ll ask them to come back multiple times.  Bob Hope, Johnny Carson, and Billy Crystal in particular were prolific in their multiple appearances at the Oscars.  And usually one of the things that made their appearances so entertaining were the monologues that they performed at the opening of the ceremony.  During these monologues, the host is able to take the opportunity to poke a little fun at the industry, and help deflate some of the pomp and circumstance a bit in order to allow the people watching at home to have a good laugh at Hollywood’s expense.  It’s all in good fun, but oftentimes, the host is made to toe the line in order not to offend those in the audience too much, and steer clear of touchy subjects as well that might reflect badly on the industry.  However, when the Oscars court controversy of their own, and have to eat crow for their own shortcomings, it does free up the host to take the gloves off and actually hit a little harder.  One such confluence happened in the aftermath of the “Oscars So White” controversy, where for several repeated years in a row, the Academy had failed to nominate an actor of color in their top categories.  By coincidence, this controversy arose the same year that black comedian Chris Rock was set to host.  So, with the Oscars in a position where they needed to be publicly shamed and a comedian whose proficient in tackling racial issues in his stand-up, the result ended up being one of the funniest, no-holds-barred Oscar Monologues in it’s entire history.  Chris Rock did not hold back, with some hilarious zingers like “Welcome to the White People’s Choice Awards,” as well as a couple of jokes so hard hitting that you could feel the audience at the Dolby Theater squirm in their seats a little.  Even still, it was great to see Chris Rock take his opportunity and run with it, even going beyond critiquing just the Oscars and actually addressing the problem with lack of representation across the entire industry.  Most importantly, he kept it funny while at the same time pointed and it resulted in the best Academy Awards opening ever.

6.

HATTIE MCDANIEL MAKES HISTORY (1940)

Speaking of racial barriers in Hollywood, the early Golden Age of Hollywood was one marred by a history of racism that prevented many people of color from achieving any semblance of equality within the industry.  Black actors in particular were pretty much relegated to servant roles, with very little presence on screen and even less influence behind the camera.  It was sadly a result of not just Hollywood’s racist past, but America’s as well, where movies were made to prop up the false narrative of black servitude in a world of white superiority.  Very few black actors that chose to work through that system very rarely ever won praise from it, often being looked down by their white co-stars and being chastised by black activists who blamed them for propagating these negative stereotypes.  There were a couple of black actors that did rise above the prejudices of the day and demanded attention from both Hollywood and audiences alike.  One of those trailblazers was Hattie McDaniel.  McDaniel had been a popular stage performer before making her way to Hollywood.  She broke through the prejudices of the day by becoming a scene stealer in the Kathrine Hepburn screwball comedy Alice Adams (1935), playing an assertive, sharp-tonged household maid, upending the common stereotype.  She took her newfound popularity to help build a healthy career as an actor, even despite being relegated to servant roles, because she could make them her own.  This led to a highly coveted role of Mammy in the epic Gone With the Wind (1939), a role that though controversial would still turn her into an icon.  The historic success of that movie carried through to the Oscars, and Hattie too made history by becoming the first ever person of color to receive the honor of an Oscar win.  Even still, Ms. McDaniel had to enter the Ambassador Hotel venue through a back door kitchen entry instead of walk the red carpet with her co-stars, and she was made to sit in the back of the room well out of view of the rest of the attendees.  It was a small, maybe even empty gesture, but it was one that carried a lot of weight for black actors everywhere who strived to build upon what Hattie had started.

5.

JACK PALANCE SHOWS OFF ON STAGE (1992)

One of the little thrills of the Oscars ceremony is not knowing what the winner might do once they take the stage to accept their honor.  For the most part, the winners give a heartfelt thanks to their loved ones, their co-stars and their agents.  Some take their moment on stage to use as a soap box for a cause that is special to them.  And then you have the wild cards who do something on the stage during their acceptance speech that you would’ve never expected.  Jack Palance was one of those wild cards when he won his Oscar for Supporting Actor in City Slickers (1991).  Now, Palance’s win was not unexpected.  He was one of the industry’s most beloved and well-respected actors whose place in the pantheon of Academy Award winners was long overdue.  But, when he took the stage to accept his Award, what followed was not what anyone expected.  The often ornery and hilariously callous actor immediately began by taking a jab at his City Slicker co-star, Billy Crystal, who was also hosting that night, saying, “Billy Crystal; I crap bigger than him.”  He then went into a diatribe about young vs. old actors, which led to the then septuagenarian actor towards feeling compelled to show off his virility there in that moment.  He walked away from the podium, and proceeded to do one-armed push-ups in front of the whole audience.  The moment received a raucous amount of laughter, and remained the talk of the night for the rest of the ceremony.  It was especially mana from heaven for host Billy Crystal, because now he had fodder to make fun of for the rest of the ceremony.  What’s especially great about Jack Palance’s speech is just how spontaneously off-the-wall it was, with the actor clearly not giving a damn how he looked in the moment and just showing off what a good time he was having.  It’s moments like this that people love to watch the Oscars for, and it’s especially great when a legendary performer like Palance basically gives us what we wanted.

4.

SIDNEY POITIER BREAKS DOWN BARRIERS (1964)

Hattie McDaniel’s Oscar win for Gone With the Wind was historic to be sure, but the world was very different twenty-three year later when that feat would be repeated once again.  The Civil Rights movement had taken hold in America, as black people across the country demanded an end to the Jim Crow laws and racial segregation that had blocked them from gaining any meaningful sense of equality in society.  Hollywood went through it’s own reckoning, as more and more filmmakers were addressing the issue of Racism in America more head on than before.  And more importantly, it was doing away with the racial stereotyping that had long been used to misrepresent people of color in modern society.  One of the pioneers of this period in time who managed to rise above and become the first black performer to become a head-lining movie star was Sidney Poitier.  Poitier commanded the screen with dignified, powerful performances that broke free of stereotype in beloved movies like No Way Out (1950) and Blackboard Jungle (1955) and The Defiant Ones (1958).  But, in the early 60’s when civil rights marches were happening all over America, Poitier not only proved to be a powerful actor on screen, but a defining symbol of empowerment for black people in all walks of life.  It seemed inevitable that Hollywood would come to recognize that too.  With his acclaimed performance in the movie Lillies of the Field (1963), Poitier made history as the first actor of color to win an Oscar for a Leading Role.  Picking up where Hattie McDaniel left off, Sidney’s win was an important statement and so much more than an empty gesture.  It was Hollywood declaring that things were going to change and that black performers were no longer going to be a novelty but rather an integral part of the industry going forward.  Sadly, it would take another long spell for a black actor to win again, with Denzel Washington winning Best Actor for Training Day in 2002.  Poitier’s win meant a lot for America, it’s just too bad that it’s taken us so long to live up to it as a society.

3.

MARLON BRANDO REFUSES HIS OSCAR WIN (1973)

Politics have always managed to find their way into the Oscars ceremony.  Most often there are jokes made at the expense of certain political figures, and at other times a winner will use their moment on stage to make a statement on any certain issue.  And then there are moments where the very acceptance of an award becomes a statement on it’s own.  It’s sometimes hard to believe that anyone would want to refuse something as monumental as an Oscar win, but it has actually happened twice in the history of the Oscars.  The first was in 1971, where actor George C. Scott refused his win in the Best Actor category for the movie Patton (1970) because he considered the very idea of popularity contest like the Oscars to be detrimental to the art of acting.  More of a personal choice than a political one.  However, only two years later, another Hollywood icon would likewise refuse his win for Best Actor as well, and he did so in the most unexpected of ways.  Marlon Brando was a no-show when his name was read on stage for his winning performance in The Godfather (1972).  But to everyone’s surprise, a woman dressed in Native American clothing took the stage on his behalf.  Her name was Sacheen Littlefeather, a representative of the Apache tribe.  She first refused to take the Oscar from the presenters and instead took to the podium and delivered a statement from Brando addressing the misrepresentation and lack of support for Native Americans within the film industry.  She was immediately met with boos from the audience, as well as a few cheers of support.  Immediately, the industry complained that this was disrespectful troll on Brando’s part, and conspiracies persisted that Sacheen wasn’t even a real Native American but was instead was an adult performer that Brando had paid off to prank the Oscars.  Sadly, the moment’s peculiar circumstance overshadowed the very real statement that was being made, and it was perhaps unfair to ridicule an activist like Ms. Littlefeather just as a way to knock down Brando for disrupting their, as he put it, “little fantasy.”  Even still, it’s a moment in Oscar History infamy, and one that honestly deserves a more enlightened reexamining.

2.

CHARLIE CHAPLAIN RETURNS FROM HIS HOLLYWOOD EXILE (1972)

There has long been a tradition of singling out a beloved member of the Hollywood community for a special recognition, often as a celebration of their entire body of work towards the later part of their career.  It’s also a great way of giving beloved actors and filmmakers an Oscar that often eluded them in competitive races.  Basically, it gives these perennial bridesmaids a chance to finally take an award home for themselves.  For a lot of moments like these, they are a great trip down memory lane for everyone, both industry professionals and audiences alike.  But sometimes the honors take on an even more poignant significance.  That was the case at the end of the 1972 Oscar ceremony.  This year, the Academy was honoring one of the pioneering icons of the entire film industry, the legendary Charlie Chaplain.  Chaplain being honored by the Oscars was obviously inevitable, given his irreplaceable influence on the artform.  But what proved to be especially surprising was that Chaplain was there to receive the honor for himself.  Mr. Chaplain had for years been blacklisted by Hollywood, because of his support for liberal causes that unfairly labeled him as a Communist agent by the US Government.  Even as the Blacklist was lifted, Chaplain still chose to remain exiled, fearing further mistreatment by the film industry that he helped to build.  But, when news came that the Academy wanted to honor him with an Honorary Award, he decided it was time to reconcile the pain of the past and he returned to America to accept the honor in person.  His return was greeted with a rousing standing ovation from the attendees at that years awards, and he appeared visibly touched by the moment.  After accepting the Award, presenter Jack Lemmon gave Charlie an extra surprise by also presenting him the trademark bowler hat and cane that he used for his famous Tramp character for years.  Chaplain returned the loving gesture by recreating a simple but memorable physical bit with the hat, showing that the master still had a little bit of that playfulness in him all these years later.  Sometimes the Oscars can bring a moment of genuine love for the art of film, and it was a great way to also give a legend like Chaplain the true Hollywood ending he deserved.

1.

THE MOONLIGHT/LA LA LAND INCIDENT (2017)

Through all the years of the Academy Awards, there has never been a moment that has ever been as crazy as this.  Sure there have been unexpected surprises and moments of shock, often from the unpredictability of what happens once that envelope opens.  But, until this Oscar ceremony, everything still went according to plan.  That was until presenters Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway took the stage to deliver the last award of the night, Best Picture.  Up to this point, it was just another average Oscar ceremony.  But once the envelope was opened, Warren immediately had a confused look on his face.  The audience thought he was clowning around in order to milk the moment, as did Faye.  She took the initiative and just read the title that she saw on the card and declared the winner to be La La Land (2016).  Now, nobody in the audience was suspicious of anything being wrong; La La Land had long been a heavy favorite for Best Picture, and had already cleaned up throughout the show.  But, as the La La Land team took the stage and delivered their acceptance speeches, the shows producers suddenly stepped in as well.  Then unexpected truth had been revealed; the wrong card had been read, and La La Land didn’t actually win Best Picture.  Thankfully, La La Land’s producer Jordan Horowitz sought to set things right and graciously handed the award to the true winner, Moonlight; a moment of true selflessness that you rarely see happen at these ceremonies.  Warren of course received unfair blame for what happened, and he tried to explain himself on stage; the real culprit for the mix-up was a careless accountant backstage who mistakenly gave Beatty the envelope for Best Actress instead, which went to Emma Stone for La La Land.  Warren and Faye were able to redeem the moment by returning the following year for a do over, which they thankfully got the right envelope for (with The Shape of Water winning).  It’s hard to think that a mix up like this would happen at a ceremony as tightly controlled as the Oscars, and with the biggest award of the night no less, but that’s what happened, and it was a moment that no doubt will never be topped as the craziest moment in Oscars history, as well as it’s most memorable.

Regardless of who wins the awards each year, the thing that makes the Academy Awards such an interesting institution in the film industry is the fact that it is a snapshot in time of what was going on in the evolution of Hollywood over the years.  You can look back on the many different ceremonies of the Academy Awards and see just how much the industry has changed.  More than just the famous faces that come and go throughout the years, we also see a big change in the ways that Hollywood deals with the issues of the day, how they respond to rise and fall of many of their own, and how they try to keep tradition moving on even as the world around the ceremony is constantly changing.  This year in particular will be an interesting chapter added to the overall story of the Academy Awards, as we are about to see an Oscars affected heavily by the pandemic, both in the movies represented and also in the choices of how to present the winners with their award.  It will be interesting to see if this year’s awards have a larger affect on the future of the Oscars, as changes often take hold and leave an impression on the Awards.  Even still, you can still see a common thread throughout Oscars history of change being a good thing, like the increased representation and more tolerant attitudes to movies that fall outside of the norm.  And the fact that the Academy Awards holding itself up as the highest honor the industry can give has not even waned over the years still shows that the Oscars are going to be an important part of movie history for many years to come.   It can be a bit of a stuffy, self-important ceremony that often feels behind the times, but it still offers some unforgettable moments that in themselves contribute to this beautiful and continuing narrative that is the history of the Oscars.  Hopefully this year, we may see even more moments that will stand along with the ones I spotlighted here.  Like the movies they honor, the Oscars are an adventure in of themselves, and one that can really take it’s audience for a wild ride.

Off the Page – To Kill a Mockingbird

Social justice has long been a theme found throughout literature, with authors giving voice to the concerns of the day and finding the medium of storytelling as an effective way to argue a point directly to the reader.  Oftentimes when a writer tackles a particularly pressing issue in their work, it is a reflection of their state of mind with regards to the issue at the time of writing.  And though some works that tackle a social justice point head on can have the positive effect of stirring the conversation in it’s moment, their stories must also be able to stand on their own outside of that conversation.  Some books that were considered progressive in their time have over the years been reexamined and critiqued as being relics of a era where those same values have either fallen out of favor or chaned completely.  The novels of Uncle Tom’s Cabin and The Adventures of Huck Finn  by Harriet Beecher Stowe and Mark Twain respectively were heralded as passionate arguments against slavery in their time, but their less enlightened depictions of black characters in the novels have led them to be heavily criticized based on the values of today.  But if one novel manages to breakthrough the values of it’s day and can still resonate many years later with readers young and old with it’s message of racial equality, it’s that special piece of writing that stands as a true perennial masterpiece.  Such is the case with Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, a book whose legacy may be one of the most profound in all of American literature.  First published in 1960, Mockingbird made it’s debut right at the height of the Civil Rights Movement in America.  Though Civil Rights battles were ongoing throughout the history of America, it hit it’s apex immediately after the slaying of Emmett Till in 1955 and was brought to the mainstream with public figures like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. leading the charge.  And with Mockingbird’s direct and frank depiction of racial tensions in a small Southern town through the eyes of a young, impressionable girl named Scout, Harper Lee was able to connect readers of all races and backgrounds with the the call for Civil Rights in a way that still has the power to call for social justice over 60 years later.

Harper Lee is a unique icon in the world of American literature.  She only ever published two novels in her entire lifetime, the second of which was a first draft of her most famous work that her estate chose to release publicly despite Lee’s own wishes (2015’s Go Set a Watchman).  That’s not to say she wasn’t an active writer.  She wrote hundreds of columns, essays and non-fiction pieces throughout her life, but To Kill a Mockingbird was her one and only fictional novel that she intended to publish.  Most of her writing involved the life she knew growing up in Monroeville, Alabama, particularly with regards to the growing racial tensions she experienced there.  Writing always seemed to be in her blood, and it worked out that her childhood friend in Monroeville also shared her interests.  Living next door to her was a boy named Truman Parsons, who would later become known as Truman Capote, a prolific and influential literary icon in his own right.  Capote made a splash in the literary world first with his successful run of columns in Harper’s Bazaar and the runaway bestseller Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1958).  It was believed that in Capote’s first novel, Other Voices, Other Rooms (1948) that he based a character named Idabel on Harper Lee.  Harper would return the gesture by basing a character named Dill on Capote in Mockingbird.  Though she said that Mockingbird was not a direct autobiographical work, it is pretty clear that a lot of the canvas on which she draws her narrative is taken from her own childhood.  At the center of the story is a young tomboy girl named Scout Finch who witnesses the trial of a black man falsely accused of rape where her father, Atticus Finch, argues for his defense in court.  Though personal in nature, the story touches upon so many issues that resonated with readers that were themselves coming to terms with racial injustice in America.  As a result, Harper Lee found herself becoming a perhaps unexpected but nevertheless essential contributor to the Civil Rights Movement that helped to end Jim Crow and Segregation laws in America.

“You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view.”

Naturally, Hollywood took notice of the power of Lee’s novel, and immediately went to work on crafting a big screen adaptation.  The rights to the novel were picked up immediately after publication by Universal Studios, though getting the movie on the screen wouldn’t be easy.  For one thing, most other studios were reluctant to tackle issues regarding race at the time, given that they were afraid of losing the southern audience.  That’s not to say that most of Hollywood was opposed to the Civil Rights Movement; it’s just that they viewed making a movie about racial injustice to be a financial risk that was better thought to be left untapped.  So, many films that tackled racial injustice on the big screen tended to be smaller and low risk ventures, but that was about to change with Mockingbird.  The novel was enormously popular with Hollywood elites, and many of them were campaigning hard to be a part of this upcoming film.  Though Universal had a strong stable of acclaimed directors, the responsibility for adapting Lee’s novel would fall to Robert Mulligan, who up until that time was mostly a TV director.  With his producing partner Alan J. Pakula, Mulligan sought to create a very down to earth adaptation of Lee’s writing, free from the typical melodrama of most socially conscious Hollywood films.  The casting of the roles was also a particularly important part of the development of the film.  The characters of Scout and her brother Jem would go to newcomers Mary Badham and Philip Alford, both authentically from Alabama.  The crucial role Atticus would pass through the hands of many Hollywood leading men at the time, including Universal’s top box office star at the time, Rock Hudson, who campaigned hard for the role.  Ultimately, the role was given to Gregory Peck, who said yes after having read the novel in a single sitting the night before.  In both it’s approach and it’s execution, Universal Pictures’ adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird was intent on bringing to the screen the essence of Harper Lee’s pivotal novel, and for the most part, it was a successful execution.

“Courage is not a man with a gun in his hand.  It’s knowing you’re licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what.”

Upon both reading the novel and watching the movie, it is pretty astounding how well it translated.  Though some of the flavor of the setting in Harper’s writing gets lost in the translation, the overall narrative is there in tact.  We are told the story, like in the novel, through the eyes of Scout, though the movie adds the factor of it being a recollection several years after the fact by an adult Scout (voiced in narration by an uncredited Kim Stanley).  And with this perspective, the movie is able to tap into a sense of nostalgia that informs the tone of the movie.  Though the novel and the movie indeed are about racial injustice in the South, it is also a story about innocence lost and the effect that moments of distress and trauma have on children.  For much of the story, Scout learns more and more about the struggle of racial justice, and how truly critical it is for justice to be upheld.  She watches as her father puts his own reputation and even safety on the line in their quiet little town for the sole purpose of showing that everyone, regardless of race, should be treated fairly under the law.  A particularly potent moment from the book that made it into the movie involves Atticus holding back a lynch mob from taking his client out of prison and enacting their own warped sense of “Southern Justice.”  Only when Scout and Jem unexpectedly show up to meet Atticus in the middle of this tense situation does the mob disperse.  Knowing the history of lynchings in the South, this scene carries some very ominous overtones, and it becomes a pivotal teaching moment for Scout as well.  Having faced harassments at school because of her father’s case, and how her father remains undeterred in the face of a mob, she learns that social justice is a struggle that requires a strong sense of moral fortitude, and it emboldens her to take the issue more seriously.  Scout’s journey, from being ambivalent towards social issues towards becoming more compassionate and serious with regards to racial injustice is at the core of why Harper Lee’s novel is such a crucial benchmark in the Civil Rights movement.  It’s a call for readers to wake up and see more clearly the struggles that exist within their own neighborhood and not be deterred by the power structures that allow for those barriers to endure.

One of the most remarkable aspects of the film’s production is how well it brings the audience into the world of Harper Lee’s writing.  The fictional town of Mycomb, modeled obviously by Lee’s own hometown of Monroeville, feels so authentic within the movie, that anyone might swear that it was a real place in rural Alabama.  But in fact, the entire movie was shot right on the Universal Studios lot in the heart of Hollywood, California.  Everything from the town square to Finch’s quaint little neighborhood was fabricated from scratch.  To fit the Southern Gothic nature of Lee’s novel, every element of the setting had to feel lived in, and the production design team, led by the legendary Henry Bumstead, put so much effort to recreate a Southern setting right in the middle of Universal Studios.  Most of the sets are gone today, but the town square remains a fixture on the backlot to this day.  It may be familiar to Back to the Future (1985) fans, as the courthouse façade was repurposed many years later to become the iconic Clock Tower from that movie.  The interiors were also intricately detailed to reflect the kind of town that Harper Lee was familiar with.  The pivotal courtroom set, where a big chunk of the movie takes place, was modeled after a real one in Monroeville, which is used to this day as a staging venue for theatrical adaptations of the novel and many other plays as well.  Much of the reason why Universal went so far out of it’s way to build the town within the novel instead of shooting on location mostly had to do with the fact that much of Lee’s childhood home had been modernized over the years, and no longer retained that Depression Era aesthetic that she described in the book.  It’s probably the main reason, but it might have also shielded Universal from any local resistance from the Southerners who objected to the message from the novel.  In any sense, the best aspect of the movie is that it stays true to the novel’s sense of time and place, and it drives home for the audience a sense of authenticity that often was rarely found in most movie depictions of the South.

“Our courts have our faults, as does any human institution, but in this country our courts are the great levelers, and in our courts all men are created equal.”

But apart from the setting, what most people remember from the movie is the character of Atticus Finch himself.  Harper modeled the character mostly on her own father Amasa Coleman Lee, an attorney who also was in the business of taking on black clients who were being persecuted by the Jim Crow system of justice in the South.  Though the elder Lee was not quite as progressive as the Atticus depicted in the novel and film, he did become an advocate for racial equality in his later life, and was proud of Harper’s effective advocacy for such issues.  No doubt the stoic, unbending strength of the character appealed greatly to a long time supporter of civil rights like Gregory Peck.  Though Peck had been around for years in Hollywood, the actor had struggled to define his place as a leading man.  Stuck in mostly war films and westerns, with an occasional romantic comedy thrown in (Roman Holiday), Gregory wanted desperately to have that role that really showed off his strengths as a dramatic actor and also embody the progressive politics that he held up so seriously.  In Atticus, he found that role that would indeed define his career and turn him into an icon.  It’s hard to imagine anyone but Peck in the role.  With his towering frame and booming voice, Peck’s Atticus is the very definition of stoic strength.  But Peck uses his acting talents beautifully in the role, especially during those courtroom scenes.  His delivery of the defense for the accused, Tom Robinson (a fantastic Brock Peters), is dignified and with conviction, and is one of the most inspirational arguments for the definition of true justice ever put on screen.  Peck’s incredible performance is also matched by the authenticity of Mary Badham’s Scout, who is honestly the living embodiment of her literary counterpart.  If Atticus is the movie’s moral backbone, than Scout is it’s beating heart, and both are brought to perfect life by the actors portraying them.  The supporting players also feel authentic too, especially considering that some of them are acting outside of their comfort zone portraying some pretty vile racist characters.  But considering the importance of the story’s message, it’s a testament that everyone aimed to be as authentic as possible.

Since it’s debut, both on the page and on the screen, To Kill a Mockingbird has become pretty much an essential piece of media for generations.  It was especially an effective tool in classrooms to teach students about racial history in America.  I myself remember having to read the novel in school and I was introduced to the movie for the first time in the same way.  But, like many other pieces of literature that has been examined and re-examined over the years, the novel and movie have faced criticisms for it’s portrayal with regards to racial issues.  One of the most common criticisms is that it speaks about racial justice from a very white perspective, which some have claimed is patronizing to Black Americans.  In addition, it has been said that Atticus Finch is one of the clearest examples of the “White Savior” trope ever used in literature; where the focus of the story becomes less about the people who are victims of racial bigotry and more about the white people who come to their aid with far less resistance in their way.  It is a problem that Hollywood has had over the years, with well intentioned social justice films being made that unfortunately turn into self-serving vanity projects in the long run.  There are elements in To Kill a Mockingbird that do unfortunately fall into this trope, particularly surrounding the character of Atticus.  Atticus is very much lionized in the novel and the film, and that is reflected in moments that we see with the black citizens in the community showing reverence for the man.  A memorable scene from the movie, where all the black audience members in the courtroom stand up for Atticus when he leaves the floor after the trial has ended could easily fall into that kind of trope.  However, given the context of the scene in the movie, and the inspiration from which Lee drew upon, the moment feels less exploitive and more genuinely loving.  Atticus stood up for one of their own, so they will stand up for him (symbolically at least).  It’s about finding the common ground on which all races can strive to fight for, and that’s where I think To Kill a Mockingbird rises above those tropes.  I honestly am glad that I was exposed to a movie and novel like Mockingbird at such a young age, because it informed me why issues like this matter and why that moment of shared reverence for one another in that courtroom is such an ideal to strive for in our society.

“Miss Jean Louise, stand up.  You’re father’s passing.”

Like the novel it was based on, the movie To Kill a Mockingbird was a sensational success both critically and with audiences.  It was nominated for the Best Picture Oscar, but didn’t win (which is hard for me to argue against since the movie that won is my all time favorite film, Lawrence of Arabia).  Still, Gregory Peck walked away with the Best Actor award, which is probably one of the most well deserved in the history of the honor.  Atticus Finch, to this day is still celebrated as an idealized crusader for social justice that many activists today aspire to be like.  And like Scout, upon experiencing this story and witnessing it unfold, we have our own eyes upon to what role we must play in making the world a more just place.  It is reflected in Scout ultimately opening her heart out to another outsider in the story, the recluse Boo Radley (Robert Duvall in his screen debut), after he had saved her and her brother Jem from an attack by a vengeful racist thug.  Like Scout, the events of the story make us open our heart to those who fall unfairly outside the justice system today, and it calls upon us to reconsider our own place in the world and what we must do to seek justice for those that don’t usually get it.  That is in essence what Harper Lee wanted us to learn in her novel, and probably more than any other American novel of the 20th century, it shaped the conversation on racial issues across the whole mainstream, and helped push the Civil Rights movement further than ever before.  Harper won a well deserved Pulitzer for her work and in the years since the novel has only grown more in esteem.  Even most Southerners hold it up as a work of literary genius.  Still, the reason why both the book and the movie endure to this day is that it gives a strong human connection to a universal theme of social justice.  Even 60 years after it’s original publication, the themes of the novel still resonate, as racial injustice is a reoccurring problem that we still grapple with; the recent killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor at the hands of police officers last year, among far too many others, being a perfect example.  Despite some legit criticisms of it’s handling of racial justice in it’s narrative, To Kill a Mockingbird is a story just as potent today as it was when it was first published.  With Harper Lee’s graceful writing, and easily identifiable characters, it’s a story that appeals to our better angels and reminds us that racial justice and equality need help in the world and that we must recognize it and fight for it.

“He turned out the light and went into Jem’s room.  He would be there all night, and he would be there when Jem waked up in the morning.”

Godzilla vs. Kong – Review

As the worldwide box office begins to heal from the effects of a pandemic driven shut down, questions arise as to how movie theaters are going to return to business as normal.  What proved to be a challenge in 2020 was the fact that movie theaters had no way to operate while the pandemic was raging, which proved to be fortuitous for the growing competition of streaming services.  For a full year, most people were shut away in their homes with their only source of entertainment being what they were able to watch on their TV’s or mobile devices.  Coincidently, 2020 was also the year that many new streaming platforms launched, and were finding themselves all of a sudden responsible of carrying the burden of being the only outlet for new films from Hollywood.  Now that movie theaters across America are allowed to open, the problem that they face is trying to convince people to return back to the movies after a year of audiences growing comfortable with streaming their content instead.  There are many people eager to return (myself included, and I already have multiple times), but as of right now Hollywood is still a little unsure of the sea worthy conditions of returning to normal business.  For them, streaming almost looks like the more financially stable release model at the moment, and they are more willing to invest their future in that arena.  Movie theaters are in desperate need of proving that they can compete in this new market, and that requires the right kind of movie to bring people back to the theaters in numbers big enough to garner the studios attention.  That film in particular needs to be something that more than anything else is a crowd pleaser, and one that demands a first viewing on the big screen.  Of course, audiences have varied tastes, so what kind of movies out there are monstrously monumental enough to drive people to leave the home and come back to the movies.

From the partnership of Legendary Pictures and Warner Brothers, we are getting the newest film in their Monster Universe franchise titled Godzilla vs. Kong.  The title pretty much tells you what you’re going to get, as the movie brings together two of cinema’s most famous giant monsters for a one on one battle to decide who is the king of the monsters.  Starting with 2014’s reboot of Godzilla, Godzilla vs. Kong is the fourth film in the franchise thus far, which has also included the films Kong: Skull Island (2017) and Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019).  The characters though go back even further, and are the featured stars of some of cinemas more important and influential films.  King Kong, of course, made his debut in the 1933 film of the same name, which was a landmark in visual effects history with the stop motion used on Kong being a groundbreaking feat for it’s time.  Kong has since been updated and given a bigger screen presence in the decades since, including an epic love letter to the original directed by Oscar winner Peter Jackson in 2005.  Across the Pacific, Japan offered up their own answer to Kong’s cinematic legacy by creating the mighty Godzilla, using the giant lizard terrifying screen presence as a meditation over the very real anxieties of nuclear annihilation that the country faced post-War.  It only seemed natural that both literal screen titans would one day face of against each other, and it has happened very early on in their history as well.  Japan created an epic showdown in 1963 titled King Kong vs. Godzilla, though being a film from the 60’s, it involved two actors in suits wrestling around on a miniature set.  Now, with all of our advances in CGI animation, we can actually get a big screen duel with these cinematic icons that really feels authentic to the characters’ monstrous size and power.  Thus far, the new Monster Universe movies have given us a good taste of just how powerful these monsters are, but can the showdown between these two titans live up to the legacy that both of them have embodied for decades.

Being the fourth film in an ongoing series, Godzilla vs. Kong picks up where the previous ones left off.  In particular, it does feel like the sequel to two of the last movies, carrying over threads from both Kong: Skull Island and Godzilla: King of the Monsters.  The movie starts with Kong being contained and monitored on Skull Island by the Monarch Corporation; the organization responsible for monitoring and containing the race of Titan beasts that inhabit the Earth.  Within his containment, Kong has managed to befriend a deaf girl named Jia (Kaylee Hottie), who is looked after by the Monarch representative on Skull Island, Dr. Ilene Andrews (Rebecca Hall).  ON the other side of the world, a facility belonging to the Apex Corporation is suddenly attacked by Godzilla.  Up to this point, it was believed that Godzilla was a protector of humanity, so this attack leads many to worry that Godzilla has turned and that he must be either neutralized or destroyed.  The CEO of Apex, Walter Simmons (Demian Bichir), believes he has the answer and he seeks out a theoretical scientist named Nathan Lind (Alexander Skarsgard) who believes in the Hollow Earth theory that is thought to be the place of origin for all these Titan creatures; another world within our own.  Simmons tells Lind that he can get there to find a power source capable of defeating Godzilla, but they need another Titan to lead them through the passage.  So, Kong is enlisted and brought to the closest entry point to the Hollow Earth in Antarctica, but in order to get there, he must survive being tracked down by the mighty king of Monsters.  Meanwhile, a conspiracy nut named Bernie Hayes (Brian Tyree Henry) has discovered something mysterious that Apex has been hiding and he enlists the help of Godzilla expert Madison Russell (Millie Bobby Brown) and her tag along school friend Josh Valentine (Julian Dennison), a computer hacker.  As they dig deeper into the inner workings of Apex, they discover that there could be even more trouble brewing that could endanger both Godzilla and Kong, something that the already makes the contentious relationship between the monsters even more complicated.  As so much mayhem begins to unfold, we learn more clearly who stands on top as the alpha of all the mightiest monsters on Earth, and who deserves that title in the end.

Thus far, the Monsters Universe has been a mixed bag.  I stated pretty clearly in my review of the original Godzilla in this franchise that it took itself a bit too seriously.  The human characters were wooden, the tone was far too somber, and there was far too little of Godzilla in the movie as a whole.  Godzilla: King of the Monsters was a bit better, but still focused a bit too heavily on the human drama and not enough on Godzilla himself, who was no more than a supporting player in his own film.  I get it that you can’t just have monsters fighting monsters for an entire film; that you need something to break up the film between fights.  But the filler thus far seems to have missed the point of these movies in general.  Before, the filmmakers wanted to treat this as heavy, epic drama, as that was thought to be the answer to making the human characters feel more grounded and believable.  But, this is not Shakespeare; this is Godzilla.  Sure, the original movie from the 50’s had the very serious subtext of nuclear annihilation underneath it, but the filmmakers at Toho Studios also knew that they were making crowd pleasing entertainment.  The tone was much better achieved in Kong: Skull Island, which in a way took it’s inspiration from Vietnam war movies and followed that all the way through.  As a result, it was a perfect mix of monster mayhem and broad action film clichés, which worked together harmoniously.  I’m happy to say that Godzilla vs. Kong fits more within that tone set by Skull Island.  It’s a movie that really does feel like they mastered the formula of what these movies should be, with the monsters’ themselves at the forefront.  It doesn’t waste anytime getting the two titular titans on screen together, with a magnificent sea battle at the end of the first act.  From that first showdown, we get exactly what was promised us, and the movie does an excellent job of establishing just how monumental that battle is.

The movie was directed by established horror film director Adam Wingard, known for breakout thrillers like You’re Next (2011) and The Guest (2014).  Wingard is working with a far more substantial budget than he normally starts with and in a more mainstream venue.  But, his command over the tone of this movie really helps to make it all work.  First thing that he does really well here is to devote so much time to the actual monsters themselves.  The uninteresting human characters are mostly relegated to the sidelines this time and character development for them is minimal.  We are dealing with human characters this time that are archetypal rather than dimensional, and that helps move the story forward much more effectively.  A great example of this is shown with the return of the character of Madison, who was central to the plot of King of the Monsters.  In that movie, too much time was devoted to her family situation, with her mother played by Vera Farmiga taking a villainous turn and being responsible for unleashing the fearsome King Ghidorah on the world.  Here, Madison is just there to connect the two movies together, with Stanger Things’ Millie Bobby Brown returning in the role.  And as a result of not being bogged down with uninteresting human drama, she’s able to define more of a personality for the character.  Like many of the other characters in the movie, she knows her place in the story and she’s there to serve it; no more, no less.  It’s a similar tact that Guillermo Del Toro took in defining the human characters in Pacific Rim (2013); a good model to follow.  Don’t try to overthink your movie’s tone; just embrace the silliness.  And that is what makes Godzilla vs. Kong better than it’s predecessors, with the exception of the equally silly and entertaining Kong: Skull Island.  Even still, the human characters are still the weakest element of the movie, but at least this time they are not the thing that defines the movie as a whole.  The only complaint is that even though the movie is closer to getting the tone right, I just wish that the human side of the story would have embraced the weirdness even more.  The characters are better, but still boring.  At least in Skull Island, you had personalities like Samuel L. Jackson and John C. Reilly to add some flavor just based on who they are.  Apart from a couple of actors like Brown and Brian Tyree Henry, the human characters are good, but mostly bland.  At least this time, their impact is minimal.

On the other side, the development of the monsters is far more superior than what we’ve seen before.  In particular, the movie devotes a lot of emotional investment in Kong himself.  Though the movie is called Godzilla vs. Kong, it should be stated that the film primarily revolves around Kong.  He gets the emotional arc of the story, and it is a satisfying one as well.  Wingard and the writers did a phenomenal job of drawing sympathy for the character, helping us to understand (without words) what are his wants and needs.  And the movie takes him on a journey of self discovery as well.  It’s a portrayal that is respectful to what has come before with the character, through his many cinematic iterations, and at the same time cements him as a central hero within this particular franchise.  At the same time, the movie does a good job of establishing Godzilla’s motivations as well.  This isn’t a battle of titans like in Batman v Superman that makes little sense and exists only pit two popular characters on screen at the same time for the sake of drawing an audience.  It’s more like a battle seen in Marvel’s Civil War where it’s a fight where it’s hard to root for one over the other, because both characters have clear reasons why they want to best the other.  For Godzilla, he doesn’t want to lose his place as the Alpha, knowing that Kong is his biggest challenge to that reign, and Kong has a stake in preserving not just his own livelihood, but those of the humans he has grown to care for.  That’s why when they fight, the stakes are clearly defined for both sides.  The movie does a good job of making it so that either Titan is worth rooting for, and that there is no shame in picking the wrong champion.  Given the history of these two characters, it’s satisfying to see that there is reverence for their presence on screen, and that makes their showdown feel all the more monumental.  And even though it is primarily Kong’s movie as a whole, Godzilla is never missed and is used to great effect as a presence within this story.

Visually, the movie is also a welcome improvement over it’s predecessor.  One of the things that I disliked about Godzilla: King of the Monsters was that it had too many scenes cast in darkness, making it hard to see the battles on screen.  The first showdown in that movie between Godzilla and Ghidorah particularly was hard to watch because it took place in a blizzard, which blurred the field of vision even more.  The first Godzilla had more visibility, and that helped with that movie’s giant set pieces, but that film’s problem was that there were too little of those scenes in general.  Here, the battle scenes are well shot, lit, and easy to follow.  Adam Wingard particularly uses a lot of interesting angles and colors to add some visual splendor to his battle scenes.  A showdown in downtown Hong Kong in particular is cast with the neon glow of the nearby buildings, and that makes the battle far more interesting to watch than it otherwise normally would’ve been.  The movie also embraces a far more fantastical portrayal of the world itself.  The Hollow Earth subterranean world that Kong must find his origins within is a remarkably realized environment that definitely feels like something that we’ve never seen before.  It’s also a reason why this movie certainly demands a big screen presentation.  With homages to the likes of 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and Alien (1978), this movie is a feast for the eyes and ears, and it just wouldn’t feel right experiencing the movie for the first time on a TV set.  Though the option is out there thanks to a dual premiere on HBO Max, this is the kind of movie that definitely reminds it’s audience why movie theaters exist.  Some movies are just too big to contain on a small screen, and the bigger truly is the better option.  I honestly think that reactions to this movie may vary widely due to how people choose to watch it, at home or at the theater, and my thinking is that the latter will likely be more positive towards the movie overall.  It’s certainly how I felt watching this film and I get the feeling that many of the people in my same screening felt the same.  It will be interesting to see if that’s the case, because it will tell us a lot about where the future of movie theaters will stand over time.

With the pandemic hopefully in the rear view mirror, movie theaters needs films desperately that can only be fully appreciated in a theater setting.  I do think that Godzilla vs. Kong is that kind of crowd pleasing movie that demands a theatrical experience to fully enjoy, but it’s hard to say if it will be the movie that gives theaters the immediate boost that it needs.  Right now, theaters are still at limited capacity, so the ability to jam theaters full of people is still not possible.  But there was something that did please me greatly when I saw the film.  During the big battle scenes, when either Kong or Godzilla demonstrated an amazing move on one another, I heard something in the theater that I never thought I would miss so much over this last year; cheering.  People were delighted by what they were watching in the theater, and to hear even a smaller crowd give out an audible cheer during this screening was a very positive sign.  People want to be able to have that experience again; to be able to cheer with delight in response to what they are watching on the big screen.  It’s the communal experience of enjoying a movie together with strangers that I think many people miss a lot since this pandemic began, and hearing just a little bit of that shared audience excitement just made me so grateful to be there and feeling that again.  We have a long way to go still, but I feel that the desire to come back to the movies is out there still, and I’m so glad that Godzilla vs. Kong helped remind us of what the cinema experience was like before it went away.  Though everyone should do what makes them feel safe, I do strongly recommend watching Godzilla vs. Kong in a theater.  HBO Max does give you a safe at home option as well if you need it, but to truly get the full experience, it has to be seen on a big screen to be fully appreciated.  As this movie has shown, when these two screen icons fight, we all win, and hopefully it is the monster hit that helps to save the theatrical experience as a whole.

Rating: 8/10

The Year Without a Blockbuster – 2020’s Impact on Cinema, the Oscars, and Beyond

One year and one week ago, the unthinkable happened.  Like every other part of life, and like so many other nations around the world, American cinema ground to a screeching halt due to the imminent threat of the Coronavirus pandemic.  Movie productions halted.  Studios sent their employees to work from home, or even worse laid them off entirely.  And even more wider reaching for the industry, the entire theatrical market shut down.  It was unlike anything we had ever seen in the history of cinema, and even more worrisome, we didn’t know exactly when it would end either.  As we were adapting quickly to realities of living in a pandemic, it became clear that this would be more than just a temporary pause; this was going to be a long lasting disruption that would leave an immediate impact on society.  I know that the problems it gave the movie industry are trivial in the grand scheme of things, but it is nevertheless interesting to see how cinema culture was forced to evolve quickly under these unprecedented circumstances.  It’s nothing that the movies has ever faced before, since the last pandemic of this size occurred over 100 years ago in 1918.  Cinema was still in it’s infancy then; there was no Hollywood, no multiplexes.  There was no standardization back in 1918 and movies were nothing more than a roadshow attraction like the circus or vaudeville.  But once COVID-19 arrived in 2020, Hollywood and cinema had reached a point where it had become a multi-billion dollar a year industry that was dependent on drawing the biggest crowds possible.  And when you have a catastrophic pandemic that is dependent on large crowds to spread more quickly, well you can see where the movie industry ran into a bit of a crisis.  Thus, we witnessed a full shut down of an entire industry that up until now, for generations, we just took for granted, and it seriously made us wonder if there would indeed be a future for the movie industry going forward.

Being the cinephile that I am, I was certainly devastated when I learned that all movie theaters across the country would be shutting down for an indefinite amount of time.  The first signs came when some of the studios began to move their tentpole features off of their original release dates and pushed them further back into the year.  Once the shut down began, then the worry became whether or not the theaters themselves could survive being closed for a lengthy amount of time.  For a while, the desire to reopen led to a level of cooperation that many hoped would help speed up the process.  Masks, hand sanitizers, cleaning supplies, though scarce in the beginning, became essential tools in the fight, and people began to take their personal health more seriously in response to the virus.  But, almost predictably, people grew tired of following the guidelines and were demanding a return to normal, despite the fact that nothing was normal just yet.  Misinformation began to spread and it prolonged the pandemic beyond what would’ve normally been a downward trend had everyone banded together.  And this continued to plague the movie industry further.  Though movie productions found a way to safely restart filming under health guidelines, movie theaters remained perilously close to the edge of oblivion throughout the rest of the year.  The movie theater chains had to take on a exorbitant amount of debt just to pay the rent while their doors remained closed.  Had they not managed to adapt and even get lucky with their finances (like AMC did with an unexpected stock boost thanks to Reddit), the industry itself was likely to have died.  Movie theaters did slowly reopen throughout the country wherever they could, but the largest markets of New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco remained closed for nearly an entire year, and this made the recovery of the business almost impossible to predict.  Only now are theaters almost all back up in operation, with necessary social distancing measures in place, but there is still a sense that normal is still far out of reach and possibly even unobtainable.

Cinema’s woes due to the pandemic could not have come at a worse time for the industry, as streaming began to come into it’s own throughout 2020.  Leading off from Disney+’s meteoric launch in late 2019, the following year saw enormous growth in the streaming market as audiences were forced to stay home and watch nothing else.  Disney+ benefitted from the head start, as well as their catalog of exclusive content, but Peacock, Apple TV, HBO Max, and the rebranded Paramount+ all managed to gain a strong foothold thanks to the attention that the pandemic driven market brought to their platforms.  Even established players like Netflix, Amazon and Hulu saw an increase in activity through this time.  And these platforms were also the beneficiaries of the need by the studios to unload their increasing backlog of movies that they couldn’t show in theaters.  In a year that many of these platforms would’ve been lacking in original content they now suddenly had exclusive rights to the most sought after movies coming down the pipe from the film industry.  In many ways, 2020 has forced us to reconsider what makes up a blockbuster, because the dynamics that we judged movies on were suddenly changing.  With movies like Soul (2020) an Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) premiering on streaming as opposed to a wide release in theaters, do they still count as a blockbuster success.  The streaming revenue is not measured in the same way that box office receipts are, so how do we judge the success of a film with these metrics now?  Sometimes, these movies will be behind a pay wall like Disney+ offered with their premiere access, but for the ones that are no additional cost like Soul, you would have to believe that Disney is pointing to the increase in membership as their metric of success.  Soul certainly did find an audience, as evidenced by their Oscar nominated status, but considering that it’s predecessors in the Pixar canon have been billion dollar grossing films in the past, is it safe to call it a blockbuster success  in the same breath as those films.  This is true of all the movies released to streaming in the pandemic era.  Given that there was no other choice but to release movies this way, do all of them need to be judged as successes by different measures now?

The fact that we didn’t have a blockbuster in the traditional sense this last year really does have an impact on many different aspects of cinema, apart from exhibition.  It’s pretty striking that the highest grossing film of 2020 in the domestic North American market was a film released all the way back in January; the movie sequel Bad Boys for Life (2020).  And that movie’s $200 million box office gross pails in comparison to past years.  Only the year prior did we see Marvel’s Avengers: Endgame climb to the top of all time global box office.  With movie theaters closed through most of the year, and almost the entire year in the biggest markets, we witnessed another significant shift within the industry as a result, which is the changing paradigm of the global market.  While North America was languishing in a prolonged pandemic response, other nations around the world reopened much faster and as a result were able to get their theatrical markets to reopen sooner.  And for the first time in the history of cinema, the United States was eclipsed as the world leader in box office sales.  Ironically, the nation that most successfully was able to recover it’s theatrical industry post pandemic was China, where the outbreak first began.  Through some very draconian methods of population control, China managed to limit the effects of the virus on their economy and as a result, they were able to keep industries like movie theaters alive once they were allowed to reopen.  And not only have they recovered, but they are thriving right now in China.  Domestic Chinese cinema is now seeing box office numbers the likes of which you normally would see happen to a Marvel or Star Wars film here in America.  This is also garnering the attention of Hollywood and is mainly the reason why you are seeing so many movies move to streaming at this moment.  The movie studios want to capitalize on this robust market right now happening in China, and to avoid bootlegging that could also affect their business here in America, they are simultaneously releasing their movies globally.  So while the Chinese are enjoying entertainment on a big screen, we here in America have to make due with seeing the same kinds of blockbusters on a smaller screen.  What was thought unthinkable nearly a decade ago now seems to have become a reality thanks to the effects of the pandemic:  that North America is no longer the dominant market in the global box office.

And this worries a lot of creatives within the industry.  By appealing more to the Chinese market, Hollywood is also compromising values that it otherwise would stand up for.  Contrary to the attitudes of the modernized people of China, the Chinese Communist government still holds an iron grip on the cultural values of the nation, and as a result they are meticulous about what movies are allowed to play in their cinemas.  Anything with pro-democratic stances or messages of tolerance for different races or sexual orientations are strictly prohibited, as they run contrary to the totalitarian platforms of the ruling Chinese government.  And given that China is an enormous market for all industries, we are seeing a troubling amount of Western corporations compromising their own values in order to appeal to the Chinese, including rolling the rights of women, people of color, and queer individuals backwards.  Representation in media particularly is a troublesome point with regards to how studios are shifting their focus to the Chinese market.  Big budget movies are making it easier to remove a gay character from their movie, while still having it both ways by touting their blink and you’ll miss it queer representation here in America with an easily trimmable clip.  This issue already existed pre-pandemic, but it was certainly exacerbated by COVID, and made more troublesome by the fact that America has lost it’s box office dominance.  For decades, American cinema was a powerful force for changing cultural attitudes around the world, but when the box office paradigm has shifted to favor a country with a shaky record on human rights, the worry becomes whether or not Hollywood is going to turn it’s back on the marginalized that it long has given a voice to.  If the North American box office can recover to pre-pandemic levels (and that’s a big if), maybe the Chinese government’s influence on creative decisions in Hollywood can be neutralized, but if not, we may be seeing a troubling impact that this pandemic will have on cinema for year and possibly decades to come.

On the bright side, there are silver linings that the pandemic year of 2020 has left on Hollywood, and that’s a much improved presence of diversity in this year’s awards season.  In a year without blockbusters taking up all the attention at the box office, smaller indie films were able to flourish.  And in particular, we saw a significant increase in movies made for and by people of color garner attention in ways that wouldn’t have happened in previous years.  This year’s Oscars, which had to extend much further out than usual into the following year, especially has benefitted from this.  Only a couple years after the Oscars So White controversy, we now have the most diverse field of nominees ever in the Academy Awards.  This includes the first time ever that more than one woman is nominated for Directing (including one who is the likely front runner in the overall race).  And the nominees run the whole gamut: white, black, Hispanic, Asian, and Middle Eastern.  It’s also a largely international assemblage, and one with a fair amount of first time nominees.  Had a more competitive, studio driven race occurred like any normal year, things might have been different, as more established movie stars may have been at the forefront.  It’s unfortunate that it had to take a pandemic to change the playing field to make things more diverse in the Awards race, but even still, it’s a change long overdue.  Sure, there are likely contenders in there as well, like David Fincher’s Mank (2020) and Aaron Sorkin’s The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020), and even those movies represent a change in the industry as they were Netflix productions.  This streaming focused year put a spotlight on movies that otherwise would not have been able to thrive in a more competitive race, and that makes this year’s awards seem like such a turning point because not only does it represent a huge change with the movies that are getting recognized, and how we are able to access them, but also with the people involved in making them gaining attention in ways that they never have been able to before.

A more diverse field of nominees also means a lot more attention is being devoted to the stories they are telling in this very much changed industry.   The nominees of this year’s Oscars have largely one thing in common; they are telling stories that speak to their own experiences.  Unlike past years when movies like Green Book tackled racial injustice from a very white Hollywood perspective, this year we have movies about race and gender equality with uncompromised, personal perspectives that feel more truthful and less desaturated.  Shaka King’s Judas and the Black Messiah (2021) for instance tells the shocking story behind the betrayal that led to Black Panther Party leader Fred Hampton’s assassination, and it doesn’t hold any punches with regards to how institutional racism played it’s part in leading to Mr. Hampton’s fate.  It’s a black American story told by a black American  filmmaker with the intent of sharing the truth about what happened, unvarnished to make it more acceptable to “mainstream” audiences.  The same holds true for more uplifting movies like Minari (2020), where director Lee Isaac Chung drew inspiration from his own childhood to create a movie about the Korean immigrant experience in rural America.  The pleasing thing about Minari is that Chung avoids the typical Hollywood clichés that you would often see in a movie of this type as it tries to be Oscar bait, and instead he creates a more honest portrait that trusts it’s audience.  The thing that I hope happens with this year’s Oscar race is that Hollywood begins to respect these kinds of perspectives more, and chooses to invest in voices that otherwise would’ve gone unnoticed.  The pandemic, as disruptive as it is,  did bring a wall down that enabled more interesting voices to be heard, and hopefully it grants more diversity in the future to projects that otherwise would have tapped people from Hollywood’s usually insular and homogenized community.

So, one year later and the movie industry is in a far different position than it was a year prior.  A mere 12 months ago, I was looking forward to a new James Bond movie, and a summer full of new blockbusters from the likes of Marvel, DC, Pixar and the like.  Since then, most of my consumption of movies has not been on the big screen but rather the small one in my living room, and nearly 80% of all those eagerly anticipated 2020 movies that I was hoping to see have still not been released.  It’s an era that I hope doesn’t repeat again, with the culture suddenly having to slam on the brakes in order to prevent an even more catastrophic result.  There have been some interesting things that have resulted from the last year that I do see as a silver lining.  Before 2020, I had never attended a Drive-In movie theater before, and now I have many times over, including earlier this month.  In addition, the already discussed breaking down of barriers in Hollywood due to the increased representation at this year’s Oscars is another positive sign.  But, it is also crucial that the film industry must bounce back in order to make that progress a long term effect post pandemic as a result.  Movie theaters are in dire need of being saved, and hopefully we can see them steadily recover over the course of this year, because it’s important that Hollywood needs to still see the more progressive North American audience as being the more worthwhile market to cater to, instead of falling into becoming a propaganda wing for a totalitarian regime like China.  Cinema has always been one of the world’s most valuable cultural exports, and it’s important that the power structure within the film industry that it is in the world’s best interest to increase representation and not suppress it.  The Covid-19 pandemic was a learning experience for all, and for Hollywood, it became a turning point the likes of which it has never seen before on nearly all fronts.  Normal may not look the same as it did before the storm happened, but we are beginning to see the clouds finally thin out.  Movie theaters are once again re-opened, and it’s up to us to decide whether or not we want it to be a part of the future of cinema.  I’ll be supporting my local theaters, and I encourage everyone else to do as well; safely of course.  Cinema is what we decide to make it, and in a post pandemic world, let’s make the movies better than they were before, with an eye to a hopeful and harmonious future.

Finding Justice – The Long, Controversial Road to Completion for the Infamous Snyder Cut of Justice League

The decade of the 2010’s will no doubt go down as the era of the Super Hero movies.  No other genre captured the imagination of audiences around the world as much as it did in those 10 years, and the worldwide box office saw record breaking numbers thanks to movies with comic book origins.  In particular, Marvel Comics led the way with their seemingly indomitable line-up of interconnected films, all culminating in the release of the film Avengers: Endgame (2019) which capped a decades worth of on-going storylines and became the biggest box office hit of all time.  While this was going on, Marvel’s chief rival, DC Comics, was trying to repeat the same success with their line-up of super hero movies, though the success rate was not quite as consistent as what Marvel was churning out at the same time.  Though some movies performed well (2013’s Man of Steel and 2017’s Wonder Woman, for example) other films that were meant to go toe to toe with Marvel’s line-up were falling embarrassingly short.  Director Zack Snyder, an established filmmaker within the Warner Brothers stable who had successfully adapted complex comic books into movies like 300 (2007) and Watchmen (2009), was tasked with setting the overall tone for the DC Extended Universe (DCEU) with his Man of Steel being the bedrock on which they were going to build.  After Man of Steel’s success, the studio embarked on the next phase of their DC franchise, which was the first ever crossover meeting between two of their biggest Super Hero icons, titled Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016).  Though expectations were high for BvS, the end result was lambasted by critics and left many comic book fans upset as well, which didn’t bode well for the future of the next project in the pipeline for Zack Snyder and crew; the ill-fated Justice League (2017).

The history of what happened behind the scenes of the Justice League movie has almost become more fascinating than the finished movie itself.  Essentially, the ultimate failure of Justice League 2017 was in the fact that it was a movie torn apart by a lot of second-guessing as well as quite a bit of hubris.  There was a deep sense of inferiority going on behind the scenes at the Warner Brothers lot, as they were seeing Marvel and their parent company Disney turning into this juggernaut before their very eyes.  Warner and DC had to go big, or otherwise concede defeat to longtime rivals, so a lot of big money went into building up the DC catalogue for the big screen.  Unlike Marvel however, DC decided to not develop their individual franchises first and instead began to build towards the big epic super hero team of the Justice League as their jumping off point.  Origin stories, a staple of the genre, were not to be bothered with, as the studio believed that these characters were already well established in the public’s eye up to this point.  Only Superman (played by Henry Cavill) was given a backstory on screen in Man of Steel.  By the time Batman v Superman came around, the road to Justice League was already in high swing.  Ben Affleck’s Dark Knight and Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman were introduced at this point and central to that film’s story, but Jason Momoa’s Aquaman, Ezra Miller’s Flash, and Ray Fisher’s Cyborg only got the briefest of Easter eggs.  The way that DC and Zack Snyder were setting up their universe was upsetting to fans, because it seemed like it was showing less reverence for the characters themselves and more showing how these character could make a hefty profit for Warner Brothers.  This, in turn, led to an underwhelming return for Batman v Superman, which despite making $300 million domestic, it was not enough to justify the enormous cost of it’s production, and performed under what Marvel made that same year with Captain America: Civil War (2016).  And this is where the second guessing began.

Justice League was already in the middle of production once BvS premiered, and the latter’s mixed reception did not sit well with Warner Brothers executives who were expecting DC to be competitive with Marvel.  Sadly, around this same time, tragedy struck Zack Snyder’s family, as he lost his daughter Autumn to a suicide.  Realizing that he needed to be there for his family, Snyder was granted a leave from the production by Warner Brothers.  This left the Justice League movie unfinished with a November 2017 release date looming.  Though Snyder had left a specific blueprint for his vision of the finished movie, Warner Brothers instead took the opportunity to “fix” what they perceived was the “mess” that Snyder had left them with and decided to bring someone in from the outside to change gears for the entire direction of the DCEU.  Joss Whedon, who had previously helmed the first two movies of the Avenger franchise over at Marvel, was hired on to complete Justice League in time for it’s release.  And not only was he completing what Zack Snyder already shot, but he was injecting his own style that was very contrary to what Snyder had been working on.  The new Justice League was lighter in tone, with each character being more quippy and irreverent (a Whedon trademark).  It also cut out a significant amount of story in order to meet a mandated two hour limit by the studio, something that would’ve been a struggle for Snyder, a filmmaker who likes to work long form.  So, despite delivering the movie on time, Joss Whedon’s Justice League did not feel complete.  It seemed like two movies with opposing tones mashed together and at odds.  And with costly reshoots to conform to the Whedon-esque style, the ballooned budget left little time and money to complete the complex visuals of the movie.  The finished film’s visual effects are notorious for their cheapness, especially the much lampooned Superman upper lip, because Henry Cavill was unable to shave off his mustache during shooting because of another movie.  Suffice to say, what should’ve been a shot across Marvel’s bow from DC, announcing them a powerful force in the genre, ended up a colossal embarrassment that further made them slide behind their rivals at the box office.

When Justice League crashed and burned at the box office, making less in grosses ($220 million domestic) than it’s estimated production budget ($300 million), people were immediately trying to perform an autopsy on what exactly went wrong.  For many DC comic book fans, this failure immediately reeked of studio interference, and it’s a fair assessment to make.  Warner Brothers wanted their movies to perform like a Marvel movie, so they second guessed their strategy and decided to make their DC movie more like a Marvel movie, hence the hiring of Joss Whedon.  But that didn’t stand well for fans of DC, because despite the gloominess of Zack Snyder’s filmmaking style, it does differentiate itself from Marvel.  It just further fueled the view that Warner Brothers and DC were falling way short of their rivals, who almost looked like they were brushing off the DC universe without a single thought.  A lot of fans online began to wonder what might have been different had Zack Snyder been allowed to complete his vision of Justice League.  Would it have been more coherent? More engaging?  Would it feel complete?  Would it even outdo Marvel?  The speculation was further fueled by statements by Zack Snyder after the film’s release that what ended up on the screen was not the movie he intended to make, despite him getting sole directorial credit.  Combined with people’s perceptions that they received an incomplete film in theaters, these new revelations from Zack Snyder led rise to the belief that there was a hidden away “Snyder Cut” of Justice League somewhere in the Warner vaults.  And when the internet gets a hold of some mysterious lost relic worth talking about, it often begins to take on a life of it’s own.  Suddenly in chat rooms and social media posts, people were speculating about the Snyder Cut, and why Warner Brothers was not making it public.  In turn, it became a trending topic, and DC fans began the petition #ReleasetheSnyderCut online in the hopes it would get the studio’s attention.  Unfortunately, like most things on the internet, something started with good intentions often can turn into something ugly.

The Release the Snyder Cut campaign began small with many DC comics fans spear-heading the march.  But, over time, as more time passed after the disappointing Justice League release, the Release the Snyder Cut campaign began to become a forum for something other than the movie itself.  It became a place to air grievances about the cultural divide in general, and in many cases, became pretty ugly.  Some online trolls used the Snyder Cut campaign to promote their often racist and misogynistic points of view, seeing Snyder’s DC films as the idealized presentation of their hyper-masculine worldview.  The Snyder Cut soon became a recruiting tool for more extremist views online, as it became a touchstone for what provocateurs proclaim as proof of “Cancel Culture” run amok.  The sad thing is, this toxic discourse began to cloud the Snyder Cut movement as a whole, and reflected badly on those who were trying to promote it.  Thus, pushback began against the Snyder Cut movement, because it was believed that it would be giving a victory to these online agitators who were trying to push their extremist points of view, which had nothing to do with the movie itself.  The truth is that these online extremists only usurped the movement, and were in no way involved in the actual organizing of the movement itself.  Their views were not reflective at all of what Zack Snyder actually believes, nor the organizers of the Snyder Cut campaign, nor the vast majority of those who support campaign itself.  Sadly, the Snyder Cut campaign became an unwilling participant in the ongoing and rather stupid “Culture Wars” that the media and the internet likes to formant, using anything as benign as Justice League to Dr. Seuss as a sign of societal decay and oppression, and as a means of pushing forth an agenda that has nothing to do with the subject itself.

Despite the weird turn that the Snyder Cut campaign took in the years since it launched, it did surprisingly capture the attention of Warner Brothers themselves.  Seeing how the campaign had taken on a life of it’s own, Warner’s decided to take another look at what was left on the cutting room floor with Justice League.  Indeed, there was a lot (almost double what ended up in the final movie), and it became possible for their to be enough content to see Zack Snyder’s original vision to completion.  The only question was, would it be worth it.  The answer came once Warner Brothers began their first stages of launching a streaming service, which would ultimately turn into HBO Max.  Naturally, if you are going to go big into the streaming wars, you need a project that is going to generate a lot of buzz for your service to justify the subscription price.  So, seeing the frenzy around the Snyder Cut, Warner Brothers saw it as a possible good investment to invite Zack Snyder back to complete his vision of Justice League.  This immediately grabbed everyone’s attention, because after years of fervent and sometimes ugly discussions online, we were given not just the confirmation that the Snyder Cut was real but that we were actually going to see it for ourselves in the near future.  This benefitted the studio, because it brought much needed buzz to their struggling launch of HBO Max, and it was able to take some of the heat off them, as they no longer looked like the bad guys for ruining the film in the first place.  Zack Snyder did graciously take back the role, but with the caveat that he be given full reign over the complete film.  This involved even further reshoots, as well as money to complete the half finished visual effects from the original movie.  But, in the end, he got what he needed, and the pressure was not as heated this time, because there was no danger of how it would perform at the box office.  This was something meant to bring people to HBO Max, and it no longer needed to be made to please everyone; it just needed to be unique enough to drive people to subscribe.

The timing for Zack Snyder’s Justice League to launch on HBO Max comes at an interesting time, because the fallout of the original movie is still causing a major rift within the studio to this day.  Ray Fisher, the actor who portrayed Cyborg in the movie, has had a particularly contentious relationship with Warner Brothers after his experience working on Justice League.  Part of why the Snyder Cut movement had wings for such a long time is because Fisher was championing Snyder’s work on the film and he stated that most of his performance is what got cut from the theatrical version.  Not only that, he has publicly called out Warner Brothers for what he considered to be a hostile working environment during the reshoots, going so far as to accuse some at the studio of racial discrimination.  In particular, he called out Joss Whedon for what he states were unprofessional and hostile behaviors directed to people on the set, including himself.  Further accusations were also leveled at DC Films execs Geoff Johns and Walter Hamada, stating that they continued to promote the toxic work environment around the making of the film, and ignored his past complaints.  While a lot of this is still under investigation, Fisher’s revelations have opened up a larger discussion about how cast and crew are treated on set, and in particular those who are people of color like Fisher.  He found it very peculiar that of all the characters in the movie, the one whose story got the axe the most was the one POC member of the Justice League team, whom Snyder originally intended to be the heart of the film.  Some of Fisher’s complaints about Whedon have also been given more weight, as past actresses on some of Joss’ TV programs have come forward with their own experiences of abuse on his sets.  Sadly, the contention between Fisher and Warner Brothers has severed any further creative relationship, as Ray has since been fired from reprising his role as Cyborg in a future Flash movie.  Couple this with the fact that Ben Affleck and Henry Cavill have already said farewell to their own roles as Batman and Superman, and Zack Snyder’s Justice League has now become a relic of a past DC universe that is no longer relevant.

But, for all the trouble that it took to finally get here, the Snyder Cut is a reality and is now playing on HBO Max.  And boy is it a behemoth.  Running 4 hours long (that’s right) it is a full hour lengthier than the next longest film in the genre (Marvel’s three hour long Avengers: Endgame) and double the original theatrical cut.  Zack Snyder originally intended this to be a two part saga, and for a while, he and Warner Brothers were looking at turning it into a limited series for HBO Max, until ultimately deciding to release it as one full block.  I watched the entire thing earlier this week, and in lieu of a full review, I can say that the Snyder Cut is better than the original theatrical cut of Justice League, but not a whole lot better.  The same flaws in the overall story are still there, and I think that Zack Snyder’s own stylistic indulgences continue to hamper whatever momentum he can get out of this story in general.  It’s very fundamentally flawed in that way, no matter how complete it now feels.  Even still, there are significant improvements in a lot of aspects of the movie.  The visual effects for one feel more complete and look much better.  Zack Snyder still relies a little too heavily on CGI, but thankfully the time and money was put into this version and it doesn’t have the cheap feel of the original anymore.  The villain, Steppenwolf, is also much better both in animation but also as an element of the story.  He now has motivation and he is far more menacing a threat now.  And perhaps the best addition of all is that we finally get Cyborg’s complete story, and see that Ray Fisher was indeed justified in his anger over how he was treated in the original cut of the film.  Zack Snyder may not be everyone’s cup of tea as a filmmaker, but as we’ve learned he is respected enough to be championed by his cast and crew and defended by his fans, so much so that he rode this goodwill towards seeing his vision to completion.  Not only that, but as shown in the final credits, we find that Snyder is able to finally put to rest a painful chapter in his life with a sense of triumph in the end.  He dedicated the finished movie to his late daughter Autumn with a sweet memorial in the credits.  In the end, the road to completing Zack Snyder’s ultimate version of the Justice League movie is going to stand as one of the most peculiar journeys any movie has ever taken.  Originally butchered in a moment of desperation by a studio, and using the director as a scapegoat for a mistake in direction that they set in the first place, Zack Snyder’s Justice League is no longer a mystery but now a reality.  It still may not be pretty, but it is triumph in a way to seeing a past cinematic injustice being righted.  Though the DC Universe has largely moved on from where Zack Snyder was intending it to go, which does feel awkward now as his Justice League ends with some sequel baiting, his full complete vision may indeed stand as the high point of DC films, at least with regards to it’s attempt to deliver the biggest possible DC movie possible.  In addition to the film finally being complete, we also have a finale to the tumultuous story of the Snyder Cut and it’s one that in some ways feels a bit triumphant to some people.  While there are still many problems surrounding the movie to address, especially in the larger cultural sense and with Warner Brothers corporate practices, we can finally see the full version of the movie for ourselves and judge it accordingly.  And for Zack Snyder, he can finally put to rest one of the worst chapters in his life and show the world what he wanted us to see.  The Snyder Cut is released; now we can finally move on from it.

Evolution of Character – Quasimodo

The city of Paris, France has many things that distinguish it among the great cities of the world.  The most noteworthy of it’s features would be the iconic and varied architecture of the city, ranging from medieval to modern.  Though there are many landmarks that bring tourists from all over the world to Paris, there is no doubt that many Parisians consider the heart of their beautiful city to be the Cathedral of Notre Dame.  Constructed over an 180 year period and completed in 1345, Notre Dame is widely considered to be the greatest medieval gothic structure ever created.  Known for it’s iconic twin tower façade, it’s extraordinary stained glass windows, and the far reaching tone of it’s massive bells, the Notre Dame Cathedral is a source of pride for the city of Paris.  But it may surprise many that Notre Dame has had to face destruction many times throughout it’s nearly millennia long history.  One of those times occurred in the post revolution France, after the long and straining Napoleonic Wars.  The city of Paris had long neglected it’s jewel of the city and Notre Dame had been left to rot and fall apart.  But, popular French author Victor Hugo wanted to change the minds of the apathetic Parisians and help them remember what Notre Dame meant to the city.  He set about writing a new epic novel centered around the Cathedral and the people of Paris, with the hope that it would remind people why it was important to have structures like it preserved.  The eventual novel, Notre Dame de Paris, was published in 1831, and it had the intended effect.  Hugo’s novel was immensely popular and it led to a restoration effort by the city to bring Notre Dame back to it’s former glory.  And while we have the novel of Victor Hugo’s to thank for helping Notre Dame survive a few more centuries, it also gave us some of literature’s most fascinating and unique characters as well.

The novel of course is referred to more by it’s English title, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and that’s because it’s most memorable character is the titular hunchback; named Quasimodo.  It’s said that when Hugo visited the crumbling Cathedral one day, he found carved in a stone on one of the towers a single word; Destiny.  From that mysterious, unknown message, Victor Hugo began to speculate who might have carved such a word, and what it might have meant.  Thus, he devised up the image of a deformed bell ringer who lived in the walls of the Cathedral itself.  The actual novel focuses on a number of characters, primarily the gypsy Esmeralda and the villainous Claude Frollo, a zealous agent of the Church.  Quasimodo actually has something of a minor presence in the book as a whole, but he is nonetheless pivotal to the story, and that’s why he’s become the icon on which the novel is mostly remembered for.  He’s also one of the reasons why the novel has become a popular source of adaptation in many different mediums, including film.  The Hunchback of Notre Dame has enjoyed many different film adaptations spanning the whole history of cinema, and the role of Quasimodo has been coveted by some of the most daring of performers.  For one thing, Quasimodo is a challenging role to undertake.  Portraying the deformed bell ringer requires a deep amount of soulfulness.  It can be very easy to go too over the top with the character and portray him in a cringy, exploitative way.  There is a fine line that must be walked in order to make Quasimodo feel like a genuine human being with a good soul like he is in the novel, and not the monster that he looks like on the outside.  The more subtlety the better, and as seen in his many different screen appearances, it usually comes down to the talents of the actor to give Quasimodo the sincerity that he needs.  What follows are some of Quasimodo’s most noteworthy appearances on the big and small screens, and as you’ll see, they include some performances that are iconic, as well as other that are notorious.

HENRY KRAUSS from THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1911)

Even when cinema was in its infancy, Victor Hugo’s novel was seen as an ideal source for adaptation.  Naturally, the French were the first to commit the story of Quasimodo to film.  Though there was also an earlier adaptation from 1905, this 1911 version is the one that survives to this day.  Like many films of the period, it’s limited in what it can bring to the screen, and the same can be said about Quasimodo’s part within the film.  The 30 minute long movie is mostly centered around Esmeralda, and her persecution by the church, especially from the pious Frollo, who covets her for himself.  Quasimodo only factors in at the end of the movie, much like he does in the novel, acting as a somewhat unexpected guardian for Esmeralda.  The portrayal of Quasimodo by Henry Krauss is pretty limited, with the actor capturing the character as a lumbering creature that is more attack dog than man.  Some have said that the portrayal almost takes on a Frankenstein’s monster characteristics.  It’s certainly not the most sympathetic of portrayals of Quasimodo, but it’s also as much as you would expect in an early cinema retelling of the novel.  All the acting from the performers is broad and dramatic, so Krauss’ Quasimodo would be too.  And with the exaggerated, monster like mask that the actor has on, it’s easy to see how Quasimodo largely entered into the imagination of film-goers as something of a monster.  Not much sympathy given to the character here, but at the same time, he does act as the deliverer of justice like he does in the novel.  It’s a limited portrayal, but it would lead to many more who would thankfully explore the character more deeply in the year ahead.

LON CHANEY from THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1923)

Leave it to the “Man of a Thousand Faces” to take his own shot at portraying the iconic hunchback.  This version of Hunchback proved so popular in fact, that it actually turned Chaney into a full-fledged movie star, and helped to lead to his roles as the Wolf Man and the Phantom of the Opera years later.  Though Chaney does still lean into the monstrous side of the character, with his exaggerated and brooding performance, the movie does devote a bit more screen time to the character than he had seen before.  With more substantial budgets and better filmmaking tools, filmmakers were able to better capture the grandeur of Hugo’s novel, and it allowed for more screen time for Quasimodo in the story.  One moment that does get more focus in this version is the public lashing scene, where Quasimodo is tied down on a platform and pelted with garbage by the jeering public.  It’s a pivotal moment from the books because it bonds Quasimodo and Esmeralda, after she shows compassion for the tortured being.  Chaney portrays this moment very well and with tenderness, in stark contrast with the outward appearance that he has in the film.  Lon Chaney had the reputation of applying his own groundbreaking prosthetic make-up, and his version of Quasimodo is definitely other-worldy, if a bit over the top.  How he manages to perform underneath that mask of grotesquery is amazing, but it’s what he was best known for throughout his career.  What his version did more than anything was to elevate Quasimodo as a part of the overall story, and that in itself would influence most of the adaptations that followed.  If your movie is called The Hunchback of Notre Dame, it’s best that you know who your star attraction is, and Lon Chaney is one of the ones most responsible for turning Quasimodo into a screen icon.

CHARLES LAUGHTON from THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1939)

If Lon Chaney was the one who popularized Quasimodo on the big screen, Charles Laughton would be the one that gave him respectability.  In this classic 1939 Hollywood adaptation, we hear Quasimodo speak for the first time.  Granted, he is incapable of saying much; the ringing of the Cathedral bells have left him deaf and he was never afforded much of an education other than what his caretaker, Frollo, had given him.  But when he does, there is a great deal of compassion in his voice.  It’s clear that Laughton wanted to find the humanity in the character of Quasimodo, and not just portray him as some creature.  As a result, we get what many consider to be the greatest portrayal of the character ever put on screen.  Laughton had built a reputation of playing some of history’s most noteworthy figures, including winning an Oscar for his Henry VIII in the Alexander Korda production of The Private Life of Henry VIII (1933).  And while he had been a bit of a chameleon in the many different roles he portrayed, he never disappeared into a role quite like he did for Quasimodo.  The look that he created for the character would also prove to be influential, with softer features that that of Chaney’s grotesque version.  His rotund physique also would define the character, giving Quasimodo a less threatening outward appearance.  And even though Quasimodo is mentally stunted in many ways, Laughton does give him soulful reflection that shows that Quasimodo is indeed compassionate at heart, and aware of his own moral compass.  He even turns poetic in some of his reflections.  As a result, Laughton really captures the aspect of the tragedy behind the character, that despite his good heart and his drive to do the right things, he will never be able to be accepted by the society at large, just because of the way he looks.  Only Esmeralda (wonderfully played by Maureen O’Hara) sees the good soul within.  It’s one of the greatest performances in one of the greatest movies ever made, and a groundbreaking one for Quasimodo as a cinematic character.

ANTHONY QUINN from THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1956)

This widescreen epic retelling may have much of the grandeur of the 1939 version, but none of it’s subtlety.  The Italian-French co-production is a flashy technicolor spectacle that features Anthony Quinn in the title role.  Quinn was an actor fond of disappearing into a role, though he often wished to do it on his terms.  And for the role of Quasimodo, he made the choice to portray the character his way.  This involved him foregoing a prosthetic hump on his back like Chaney and Laughton had used, and instead he created the effect of a hunchback by changing his own physical gait and posture.  This unfortunately has the effect of both not working as well as he thinks it does and also coming across as a bit insensitive to people with real physical difficulties.  The reason why past screen Quasimodos have opted to create a fake hunch on their backs was because it would genuinely affect the posture of their performance, allowing them to more effectively maintain the performance throughout.  Anthony Quinn’s non-hunch performance has the unintended effect of coming and going throughout the film, making the performance inconsistent.  Not only that, but Quinn’s mumbly performance has none of the soul of Laughton’s subtle portrayal, so it just feels like the actor is mimicking the handicap just to show off some range.  It’s exactly the wrong way of portraying the character.  The movie around him is not much better either, turning the story into a brightly colored melodrama.  Anthony Quinn has done much better work than this, and has disappeared into roles much more effectively.  But when your Hunchback doesn’t even consistently have a hunch in his back, it’s a sign that he made the wrong choices in how he would tackle this kind of character.

ANTHONY HOPKINS from THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (TV MOVIE) (1982)

One of the more impressive portrayals of the character can be found in this surprisingly well crafted television adaptation.  Anthony Hopkins, better known at that time for his heralded work on the stage, takes on the role of Quasimodo with the same kind of reverence that Charles Laughton showed 40 years prior.  His version of Quasimodo certainly looks more ragged and deformed, but there is compassion behind his portrayal.  And this version definitely leans heavily in the tragic figure category.  The portrayal definitely fits the tone of this version of the story, which is surprisingly gritty for a television production.  In many ways, this version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame may be the closest to Hugo’s original novel in terms of tone.  It portrays the City of Paris as this wild, medieval place, with the Cathedral as it’s centerpiece.  Like in the book, the city becomes character in itself, covering societies both high and low, from the palace of the king to the ratholes of the sewers.  Past versions of Hunchback largely steered away from the darker elements of the story, but this version dives right in, and shows us the Paris that Victor Hugo envisioned.  Anthony Hopkins, as always, delivers a performance that matches that needed darker tone, without losing the endearing elements that keeps Quasimodo sympathetic.  It’s fitting that even in this version that creates a more broader and harsh tapestry, that Quasimodo is not overlooked, and is given life by yet another one of the greatest actors who ever lived.  It’s also a version of the story and the character that sadly doesn’t translate into too many other versions, as it’s often the case that in order to get around some of Victor Hugo’s more pointed societal critiques, namely towards the church establishment itself, that many adaptations lack some of the story’s bite.

TOM HULCE from DISNEY’S THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1996)

Apart from Charles Laughton’s iconic version, this is the portrayal of Quasimodo that likely first comes to mind.  Walt Disney Animation, in the midst of their Renaissance Era, made the controversial decision to take Victor Hugo’s classic story and give it a G-Rated spin, with a happy ending no less.  And while purists of the original story will have much to complain about, there is a lot to admire in Disney’s attempt.  It’s beautifully, and even hauntingly animated, and it features one of the best musical scores of any Disney film (yes, they turned it into a musical too).  In addition, it creates one of the most unique versions of Quasimodo ever put on screen.  The movie downplays many of Quasimodo’s handicaps (he speaks coherently, and even sings) and his deformity is softened to the point where he becomes more cute than grotesque.  But, Disney does a good job of capturing his social anxiety that has developed over years of isolation.  And the themes of prejudice, persecution, and overcoming tyranny are still maintained from Hugo’s original work, and most interestingly, this version sees the story unfold almost solely through Quasimodo’s eyes.  He is more central to the story here than any version before, and it gives us far more insight into his character.  A lot of credit goes to actor Tom Hulce for his soulful portrayal, although some of his dialogue may fall a bit too heavily in the cutesy, Disney-fied territory.  Hulce still manages to show a dynamic range of emotions through the character, and probably delivers the most epic reading of the line “Sanctuary!!” in history. For many recent generations, this has been the entry point for a lot of children to learn about Victor Hugo’s original story, the idea of not judging a book by it’s cover, as well as the importance of the Notre Dame Cathedral itself. While I’m sure this movie version may have appalled Victor Hugo himself if he were to see it, it nevertheless is an impressive attempt that is more mature than the average animated film and features one of the more interesting Quasimodos we’ve seen yet on the big screen.

MANDY PATINKIN from THE HUNCHBACK (TV MOVIE) (1997)

We have another version, made for TV, that does put Quasimodo more at the center of the story.  This one, unfortunately has none of the depth of character of Disney’s version, nor the subtlety and grit of Anthony Hopkin’s TV version.  It was a movie that clearly piggy-backed on the success of Disney’s version and was released only a year later.  Interesting enough, Mandy Patinkin was one of the actors who auditioned for Disney’s Quasimodo, but did not get it (apparently due to a disastrous audition).  It’s probably a good thing in the end because his portrayal of Quasimodo here is so bland and basic.  He acts through heavy prosthetics, but doesn’t have the dynamic screen presence of Lon Chaney to make his performance work through the make-up.  Instead, he just looks like he’s making weird faces throughout the movie.  The whole thing looks like a rushed production, despite having some solid talent on board; apart from Patinkin, the movie also has Selma Hayek as Esmeralda and Richard Harris as Frollo.  It’s says a lot that a version of this story looks so much more low rent than another TV version that was made 15 years prior.  Exactly how hard was it to get a better budget for this movie.  Even still, it comes down to how well the actors can work through the shortcomings, and though performers like Mandy Patinkin have shown they can be very good in many different things, it does not work out as well when they are given so little to work with.  It’s a mostly boring and forgettable TV feature that only stands out mostly in how much it falls short of past versions of the story put to screen.

What I think is very interesting about the character of Quasimodo in his evolution on the big screen over the years is how he has gone from an oddity within the fabric of a larger narrative, to someone who commands the story completely.  Each version of Quasimodo brings him more central to the story, to where he goes from a unruly creature in the silent movie version, to being the primary protagonist in an animated feature.  It’s a testament to the filmmakers and actors over the years who have tried so hard to find the humanity in the character that we have grown to empathize with him and even identify with him in many ways.  Charles Laughton’s groundbreaking version certainly laid the groundwork for giving the character new purpose, and Disney (despite straying very heavily from Victor Hugo’s original intent) has fully turned Quasimodo into not just an empathetic character, but also a hero.  It’s surprising that not many more adaptations have come in recent years.  It has been floated that Disney will likely do a live action remake of their animated film in the coming years, and rumor is that Idris Elba is looking at making a modern day re-imagining of the story with Netflix.  Despite all the many different interpretations of the story, there is one thing that has left a lasting legacy from this book, and that’s the reverence it gave to the Notre Dame Cathedral itself.  The Cathedral almost becomes this maternal presence in the story, giving Quasimodo a home and Esmeralda a sanctuary, and it’s helped to keep the real structure cherished in the hearts of people the world over.  When the Cathedral was nearly lost in a fire two years ago, it hit close to home even to people who have never been to Paris, and that is likely due to how much the story of The Hunchback of Notre Dame has permeated the culture.  Despite the cryptic message found by Victor Hugo all those years ago, there never was a bell ringer named Quasimodo, but there has always been a Notre Dame, and that in turn has given us an attachment to him as a character.  Quasimodo has become just as much of an icon as the Cathedral he called home and it’s been a pleasing thing to see him become treated more humanely with every new interpretation.

 

Raya and the Last Dragon – Review

If there was one thing that the pandemic year of 2020 has shown us about the craft of filmmaking, it’s the resilience that the industry somehow has managed to find within itself to keep things moving.  While distribution has been forever changed, shifting from theatrical to streaming over the course of the year, it has not deterred filmmakers and crew from continuing to do their jobs even while the pandemic was still raging on.  During the early days, the pandemic did grind everything to a sudden halt, and production was shut down for months.  But, adapting to the difficulties of the times, the film industry found a way to not only restart up quickly, but they managed to do so in a way that managed to keep everyone safe while on set, strictly following all the protocols needed to stop the spread of infection.  And it’s a good thing too, as keeping production on ice for the full length of this pandemic would have been devastating for Hollywood.  There needs to be a constant flow of production and output to keep this town alive, and putting everything on hold not only put thousands of people out of work, it creates a backlog jam as  more and more projects are delayed.  While on set production has it’s own demands that needed time to be put in place, the one part of the film industry that managed to continue full steam ahead without delay was animation.  Considering that an animated movie is primarily constructed with the aid of computers, it was a sensible move that many animation studios shifted to remote work, having animators and other staff complete their work from the comfort of their own home.  And because of that, animation has managed to not only survive in this pandemic effected economy, but even thrive.

One of the clearest signs of this has been the surprising box office success of Dreamworks Animations The Croods: A New Age (2020).  Though it’s may not be reflected in the total box office numbers (which are low compared to animated films from Dreamworks in years past), but The Croods sequel’s resilience in the pandemic stricken box office ever since it’s Thanksgiving weekend release has gotten some notice.  It has remained a Top 5 fixture at the box office ever since it’s release, including several weekends at the top, and even outperformed the heavily hyped Wonder Woman 1984 (2020).  And a large part of why this has been the case is because the market still remains strong for family entertainment, which bodes well for the theatrical industry.  It’s an encouraging sign that a movie like The Croods can still pull in a $50 million plus gross even with the biggest markets of New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco still on lockdown.  Dreamworks was able to benefit from the shortened theatrical window deal that AMC and Universal put together, so you can expect that the digital rentals for The Croods helped to make that movie a further financial hit.  But the fact that even with the streaming option Croods still performed well at the box office has to be a positive signal that a recovery for theatrical exhibition is likely to happen once the pandemic is over.  Because of this promising development, it has given animation studios the confidence to continue to move full steam ahead, even though the pandemic is still not yet over.  The studios are cautious, depending on multiple platforms for release in order to give people safe options, but they are no longer holding back in a wait and see game anymore.  And that is a positive sign as the king of all animation studios, Disney, has now delivered their newest animated epic to both theaters and streaming; Raya and the Last Dragon (2021).

Raya and the Last Dragon is a definite departure from the fairy tale trappings of past animated films from Disney.  Here, the story centers in a mystical realm that’s based heavily on Southeast Asian cultures.  There is a kingdom called Kumundra that encircles a mighty river that is shaped like a dragon, and each part of this kingdom is named after a different part of a dragon’s body: Tail, Talon, Spine, Heart and Fang.  500 years ago in the past, a sentient plague known as Druun began to spread across the land, turning every living being into stone.  The kingdom however was saved thanks to dragon magic that reversed the Druun’s curse and restored life to all the humans, but left the dragons still cursed in stone.  Many years later, the leader of the Heart Kingdom, Lord Benja (Daniel Dae Kim) seeks to restore unity between the warring nations of Kumundra.  However, the different nations want the power of the last dragon stone, which is housed in the Heart Kingdoms’ fortress, for themselves.  A fight ends up leaving the dragon stone shattered, which causes the Druun to reemerge.  Lord Benja succumbs to the curse after sacrificing his life to save his daughter Raya (Kelly Marie Tran).  Six years later, a grown Raya seeks to reverse the Druun’s presence in the land by finding the last living dragon.  Searching all the way to the end of the Dragon’s Tail, she finds the dragon Sisu (Awkwafina), who can’t make the Druun go away herself, but does in fact have have the ability to restore the stone.  So, Raya and Sisu embark on a mission to find the other shards of broken Dragon stone, and they are helped along the way by different members of the Kumundra tribes; a young fishing boat captain in the Tail region named Boun (Izaac Wang) a baby Talon girl named Noi (Thalia Tran) who survives as a con artist, and the sole surviving member of the Spine tribe, Tong (Benedict Wong).  Meanwhile, the daughter of the Fang chieftain, Namaari (Gemma Chan), a past rival of Raya’s, is also hunting for the dragon stone shards, and is ready to take Raya down in order to posses them.  It soon becomes a race to see if they can outrun the curse of the Druun while also learning to trust one another in order to survive together.

The story of Raya and the Last Dragon’s will no doubt be a fascinating one in Disney’s history.  Unlike internal struggles that plagued the productions of movies like The Black Cauldron (1985) or The Emperor’s New Groove (2000), Raya had to face the uphill battle against an external source of production woes, namely Covid-19.  Originally set for a November 2020 premiere, Raya was delayed like everything else, but not too far back.  It is kind of remarkable that they managed to put a film this complex together through a remote network, because there’s nothing about the look and feel of this movie that would indicate that there were any production woes at all.  Raya and the Last Dragon is an extraordinary polished final product that stands up to the high standards of Disney Animation.  Many years from now, you would find it hard to believe that this movie was made outside of the high tech confines of Disney’s Burbank studio and in the home offices of it’s technicians.  The Disney Animation team went above and beyond what anyone would expect and crafted what may be in fact one of their most visually stunning movies ever.  Given that they had a couple of extra months to work with probably helped, but even still, the necessities of working remotely still made it a challenge for the filmmakers.  Directed by Disney vet Don Hall (Big Hero 6) and animation newcomer Carlos Lopez Estrada, the movie has ambition in it’s world building that really sets it apart from other Disney animated features.  Though fantasy elements like dragons and magic are nothing new to them, the complexity of a richly detailed culture that is unique to this story is really an impressive thing that the movie manages to accomplish, and do so without leaving the audience overwhelmed.  Though the Southeast Asian influence is unmistakable, the fact that they don’t tie it to any specific source, and instead use it as an influence to inform this completely fictionalized world is something incredibly fascinating to watch explored within this movie.

The world of Kumandra is without a doubt the star attraction of this movie.  The Disney Animation team did a marvelous job of crafting a world that is both familiar and wholly original.  There are so many great ideas for portraying the different cultures of the kingdom of Kumandra that make every new scene of exploration in this world fascinating to watch.  Each kingdom lives in it’s own biome, which helps to define the character of that place.  The Tail kingdom is a dry desert wasteland, marking an ends of the earth kind of feel.  Talon is a cosmopolitan waterfront community that is reminiscent of river markets found in places like Bangkok, Singapore and other major ports of Southeast Asia.  Spine is a rugged outpost in snowy mountain forests, with people equally as rugged.  But the most impressive visuals are saved for the prosperous Heart and Fang kingdoms.  The Heart of Kumandra sits literally at the peak of a massive, donut shaped mountain that is without a doubt the movie’s most striking image.  Southeast Asia, particularly on the South China Sea coastlines, have these striking rocky monoliths all over the place, but Raya goes the extra mile into the surreal by putting a massive hole in the center of one and placing a palace on top like a crown.  Not to be outdone, the Fang kingdom’s palace is another striking creation, sitting on a massive, rice field terraced mountain top with walls and towers of rigid geometry, similar to the temples and pagodas found in Myanmar, Thailand and Laos.  What the movie does really well is make this land feel authentic and lived in, without wasting too much time on world building.  It doesn’t dwell long in the details, and instead just lets the audience become immersed in the sights, sounds, and even smells of Kumandra.  Of all the things that the movie does, this kind of immersive escape into another world is it’s most impressive act.

The movie also features a strong cast to inhabit the film’s world as well.  Much like what they did with Moana (2016) a couple years back, their casting choices for the voices of these characters is informed more by a regional connection to this world, and less tied down to any specific nationality.  The voices in this movie literally come from all over the world, but they all have ancestry that connects them to the southeast Asian cultures that inspired the world of Kumandra.  Among the principle cast, the film manages to gain great chemistry from it’s stars Kelly Marie Tran and Awkwafina as Raya and Sisu.  Tran, who is making the jump over here from her time in the Star Wars universe, was surprising not the original voice for the main character.  Originally, Canadian actress Cassie Steele was set to play the part, but was replaced sometime last year with Tran.  No reason has been given why, but Kelly Marie Tran does a fine job of picking up the role and making it hers.  I especially love the energy she gives in her performance, making Raya pop on screen in a way she might not have otherwise.  The voices of Raya’s other companions are also very endearing as well.  A particular favorite of mine is Benedict Wong’s performance as Tong.  Some of his line readings spoken through his tough guy delivery had me giggling quite a bit.  Gemma Chan also brings a nice bit of complexity to her role as Namaari, helping her to become more than just a stock antagonist.  I also want to spotlight the incredible efforts of the character animators, particularly the ones who animated the dragon Sisu.  It’s got to be a challenge whenever an animator has to bring life to a vocal performance from a comedian like Awkwafina.  Comedians perform in a way that is different from other actors and to translate that into an animated character that looks nothing like the performer themselves can’t be easy.  Disney’s been in this place before when trying to match the zaniness of Robin Williams or Eddie Murphy.  Thankfully, not only do the animators manage to match the comedic tone of Awkwafina’s performance, but they managed to make Sisu an amazingly dynamic presence on screen.  It’s another remarkable marriage of vocal performance and animation that stands up strong with the comedic legends that have preceded Awkwafina’s Sisu in the Disney Canon.

With stellar visual and animation, and a lively vocal cast, this movie has all the makings of an all time classic for the studio.  And while it definitely is above average, I also have to say that it does fall a bit short of legendary status as well.  Raya is top tier when it comes to visuals, and it features a surprisingly rich story line as well.  But, what the movie could have used is another polish of the screenplay itself.  The script was written by Qui Nguyen and Adele Lim, the latter just coming off the success of Crazy Rich Asians (2018).  While the duo do deserve credit for holding together the complexity of this kind of world-building and offer some interesting character development as well, some of the dialogue in the movie is a bit trite and uninspired.  In particular, the movie doesn’t have the comedic oomph that other Disney classics have illustrated in the past.  There’s one bit in particular about shopping with credit that feels very much out of place and shoehorned into this movie and it took me out of the experience for a bit.  Some jokes do land, but they are few and far between, and I feel that a another punch up (possibly with a more comedy minded writer) could have saved some of the pitfalls of this movie.  That being said, the actors do their best to make what is on the page as good as it can be.  Tran and Awkwafina’s chemistry goes a long way towards making their scenes together work.  I also think that one unfortunate thing about the movie is that it leaves out more time to delve deeper into these characters’ stories as well, and in particular, Raya herself.  Raya changes very little through the course of the movie and when I thought it would come to a point where she ultimately learns an important lesson, it never happens.  She’s sadly one of the less interesting heroines I’ve seen in recent Disney movies; not bad overall, but far less engaging than say Moana or Elsa as a central character.  These shortcomings hold back what otherwise could have been one of Disney’s most impressive films ever, and while no where near a failure, it nevertheless feels a bit disappointing overall.

Even still, Raya and the Last Dragon is still a movie well worth seeing.  If it’s safe and accessible, this movie is preferably worth going out to the movie theaters to watch.  This is a big, epic widescreen kind of movie that really needs the theatrical experience to really do it justice.  Thankfully, this movie is getting a theatrical run, but it’s limited in scope given that the pandemic is still ongoing, despite encouraging steps in the right direction.  Theaters are still closed here in LA, so I ventured way out of town to visit the Mission Tiki Drive-In once again, but it was worth the drive because I got to see it the way it was intended; on a giant screen.  Disney also has made the movie accessible through streaming on Disney+, with the Premiere Access pay-for-view feature that they used last year for Mulan (2020).  However, unlike Mulan, Raya gives you a theatrical option, so if you accept the risk, I strongly recommend watching it in a theater because one, it’s looks better than on a TV and two, it’s a better value.  I do think that some of the shortcomings of the screenplay do hold it back, but it’s made up for with a richly detailed world and some of the best animation that has ever come from Disney, and that’s saying a lot.  It’s also nice that it’s a new movie from them that is something new and original, and not a sequel.  It’s also a vast improvement over the lackluster Frozen II (2019).  It’s not anywhere near the top of Disney’s animation output, but it’s a worthy inclusion into the ranks of the esteemed Disney canon.  I can see Raya becoming a beloved classic for many and it will deserve that honor in many ways.  I will especially love to see how well the Southeast Asian community embraces the film, and it will be wonderful to see children from those communities respond to watching their culture be reflected finally in a Disney film.  That’s one of the great things about Disney’s drive to portray so many different cultures in their films; it gives a voice and identity to cultures that otherwise go unheralded in animation, and it also educates those of us outside of the culture to the wonderous art, food and people that make up those communities.  It’s kind of interesting that the plot of this movie centers around a society broken apart by the ravages of a plague, and it’s all about bridging all of our differences in order to fight against a common threat that affects us all equally.  It’s ultimately a movie about a society finding a way to heal itself, and for being one of the biggest new movies in what will be a post-pandemic world, Raya and the Last Dragon’s arrival right now couldn’t be any more pivotal to our times as they are right now.

Rating: 8/10

This is….