#Isaac Walton | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

stereogeekspodcast · 3 months ago

Text

[Transcript] Season 5, Episode 4. TIFF 2024 Round-Up, Part II

In the second part of the Stereo Geeks' 2024 Toronto International Film Festival round-up, Mon reviews the documentary Vice Is Broke and the film The Luckiest Man in America. Ron discusses We Live in Time and The Salt Path.

For more TIFF film recommendations, find Ron and Mon's reviews at womenwriteaboutcomics.com

Listen to the episode on Spotify.

Image credit: Courtesy of TIFF

RON: Welcome back to Stereo Geeks. Today’s our second round-up episode of films we saw at the Toronto International Film Festival. I’m Ron.

MON: And I’m Mon. Today, I’m reviewing the documentary Vice Is Broke and the film The Luckiest Man in America.

RON: And I’m chatting about We Live in Time and The Salt Path.

MON: Vice Is Broke is a documentary by Edward Huang, a former creator for Vice who was affected by the company going bankrupt.

While I, like many others, have consumed articles and media by Vice, I didn’t know anything about its origins, its rise to being a formidable media company, and its eventual demise. So this was an insightful documentary for me to understand how Vice was so influential, and where it went wrong.

RON: That sounds scary.

MON: Honestly, a lot of this documentary made me see red. It explained how and why the US is in the mess it’s in now, though I don’t think that was the intention of the film.

From the sounds of it, Vice was like The Wolf of Wall Street on steroids, especially in the early days. And then it got caught in the usual capitalism cycle, so, unless a person was a big gun they could literally work for years without the credit they deserved.

I question some of the choices Huang made in the doc. He kept cutting to these random shots of the talking heads’ shoes or gestures. He also kept in shots of himself, I don’t know, it was like he was thinking or listening? They were incongruous. I’ve seen this being done in other docs or news items — but a lot of times these are just in there as fillers. Maybe the creators have another meaning for them, but they didn't mean much to me as a viewer.

Huang also keeps harping on about how Vice was like Xavier’s School for Mutants — from the X-Men comics — because it was a place for freaks to be themselves. But he doesn’t take the analogy far enough to say that the school, while flawed, also has rules, regulations and a deep need to do the right thing. Vice, from what Huang suggests in Vice Is Broke, was just a place for dudes and ignorant people to be their worst selves and never get called out for it.

The big problem with this doc is that Huang does an interview with Gavin McInnes, who was the founder of Vice before being ousted. Eventually, McInnes went on to found the far-right white nationalist hate group the Proud Boys. And this guy, he comes into the documentary with figurative guns blazing. He’s a disgusting, racist and incendiary man. I was literally cursing at the screen at the footage they showed of him. No wonder the US is messed up!

So, when Huang is talking to McInnes, this guy purposely obfuscates everything Huang asks him about his beliefs. Now, mind you, the interview for Vice Is Broke is not about white nationalism, but there’s a throughline from the edgelord, lowest common denominator stuff that Vice peddled over the years, and the formation of the Proud Boys. You’d expect Huang to probe McInnes more, or at the very least, berate and belittle him for his ludicrous claims. Huang does not. It’s frustrating.

But what’s worse is that, Huang, I felt, misunderstands how the likes of McInnes and eventual owner of Vice, Shane Smith, think. One doesn’t need to know them personally to know what leads to someone creating a bloodthirsty hate group, nor how their colleague pockets a yearly income of $100 million for a company that eventually dies and leaves its creators unpaid. They are greedy and crave power. That’s it. It’s not rocket science. I wish Huang had dealt with the insidiousness of this element of corporate greed and collapse more.

Honestly, seeing some of the things I did in this documentary, I get why the US has such a warped view of itself and the rest of the world. Vice Is Broke put into perspective American media for me. It may just be one company, but if everyone wanted to be like Vice, it explains how their media has done a brilliant job of painting all the prejudiced nutters inside their borders as the cool outsiders and everyone outside their country as a gun-toting, drug-addled cannibal. I get it now. But it’s so scary to think that their people have been consuming these perspectives for years and now it’s too late to change it.

Huang has a personal stake in bringing this story to light, but I also believe this story needs to be told, and who better than someone who was on the inside?

Vice Is Broke is more of a foundational crash course into understanding how such a well-known and influential company imploded, and how the signs were there well before the plug was pulled. I hope there will be more investigations into the company, especially how its mostly-white executives purposely manipulated their coverage of other countries to make them look horrible and scary. Shameful company, and it’s probably just the tip of the iceberg.

RON: Yikes! Well, that’s eye-opening. Let’s go to a completely unrelated, but equally exasperating viewing experience, We Live in Time.

One of the reasons I wanted to watch this movie was because of the absolutely bonkers poster featuring the main cast and a wide-eyed terrifying carousel horse. Watching the film, I was shocked, shocked I say, that the horse had nary an appearance in the film. When it did finally show up, it was hidden by lens glare.

MON: That’s outrageous! The horse wuz robbed!

RON: The film itself is a charming love story about a couple and their life together. Except, it’s told out of order. Andrew Garfield plays Tobias, who works in marketing at Weetabix. The brand is name-dropped several times during the film. Florence Pugh plays Almut, a chef who’s also participated in several cooking competitions.

Because the story is told out of order, we first see them already living in a comfortable routine with their daughter. Then we find out that Almut has cancer and it’s the second time she’s had it. The film hops between their journey through the tough decisions they need to make around her diagnosis and how they first met and fall in love.

The chemistry between Garfield and Pugh is off the charts. This film would not work if they didn’t have chemistry but fortunately it’s so strong that they make for a believable couple.

We don’t get to see much of Tobias’ work but we do get to see Almut being a chef and a competition she joins. These were my favourite parts. As with The Bear, I love watching fictional depictions of cooking. The food in this film is gorgeous to look at.

So far so good, right? Wrong!

MON: Oh no. Why, what happens?

RON: If there is one thing I cannot stand in films is when characters act unnaturally. Unfortunately, this film has the characters end up in far too many unlikely situations, and they make the weirdest choices. Some of them just don’t make sense.

Look, I know that by dint of this being a film, it’s going to be contrived. It’s not real. But my suspension of disbelief can only go so far. Just as Almut is having contractions, they find that their teeny car has been blocked in by both sides. It turns out to be a false alarm, but when Almut is actually ready to give birth, they end up in a traffic jam and she has to deliver at a gas station. At one point, Tobias crashes someone’s baby shower to make a grand apology to Almut. Come on now! People don’t do things like that.

MON: Yeah, this Hollywood trope of women always being in peril during labour is ridiculous. Eden had a really outrageous scene in it, but that might actually have happened. Who knows.

RON: Yeah. Annoying. Almut also makes some wild decisions while undergoing cancer treatment which, honestly, leaves one to wonder if she ever felt appreciated in her professional ambitions. Like, my goodness, if you have to go behind your partner’s back for this stuff, what is happening in the relationship?

But what really put me off this film was some of the disturbing messages around motherhood. We already know that they have a daughter. Later in the film we see them as they’re first dating and Almut says she doesn’t want kids whereas Tobias does. They have a row but decide to continue the relationship and obviously they do have a child.

Now this really bothered me because this is the constant narrative that’s shoved onto women. No matter how a woman feels about not having kids, people always say that she’ll change her mind. Because all women are just dying to have kids, right? When do we get to see the inverse? When do we get to see a female character saying she doesn’t want to have kids and then not having them?

MON: I can think of Starbuck in Battlestar Galactica, but yeah, that’s a frustrating trope.

RON: This film somehow makes it worse. Almut used to have a female partner and they broke up because Almut didn’t want children but her partner did. And then she ends up wanting to have a child with Tobias. It’s literally that awful line that a woman will change her mind about kids if she meets the right man. Good grief!

Even worse, by choosing to ensure she can conceive a child in the future, Almut leaves herself open to a cancer relapse. So a woman should put her health and life in danger for the future possibility of conception?

Then, right at the end of the film, there seemed to be this undertone of women giving up their professional dreams to put the needs of their family first. Which was just the cherry on top of this horrible motherhood is supreme cake.

MON: Wowza! I am so glad I didn’t bother watching this film. That sounds yugh!!!! No thanks. You know it’s going to win all the acting awards right?

RON: Ugh, please. I don’t want to think about this film any more.

MON: Not to worry, I’m here to distract you with The Luckiest Man in America!

I was quite excited to watch this film. I love game shows, and I like films about game shows. Unfortunately The Luckiest Man in America turned out to be seriously disappointing.

The film is based on the true story of a man named Michael Larson, who was on a show called Press Your Luck and got on a record-breaking winning streak. Who is this man, how did he get on the show, and how was he this lucky? The film ekes out this information slowly as the episode shooting continues.

Paul Walter Hauser plays Michael, who is in awe of the show’s co-creator Bill Carruthers, played by David Strathairn. Bill brings Michael onto the show despite his casting director Chuck (played by Shamier Anderson) warning him that something’s off about Michael. Other characters of note are game show host Peter Tomarken, played by Walton Goggins, and Sylvia, the runner/PA, played by Maisie Williams.

My problem with the film was that most of the information was left out — it felt a lot like the creators took a ‘if you know you know’ approach to the storytelling. As someone who did not know, I was lost about the rules of the game or who the players in the story were. Without knowing who the characters were, I couldn’t understand their motivations or the stakes for them either.

I wish they’d been clearer about how much of the shooting made it on screen. Is it one episode or several? Those technicalities tripped up the storytelling.

RON: Oh man, that sucks. You were so excited for this film.

MON: The film is on cruise control. It’s like the creators know what the ending is so they don’t attempt to ramp up the tension at all. The narrative has no rhythm and that’s where this film falls flat.

Another weird grouse is that none of the wigs looked right. At first I thought it was just the one for Anderson and I was going to rage about the hair and makeup department not knowing how to treat their Black actors properly, but no, all the wigs looked bad.

RON: That’s just bizarre. Tell me there was something good about this film?

MON: Yeah, all the performances are good, so it’s a real shame the film isn’t that exciting. Paul Walter Hauser is great as Michael. He gives Michael a standoffish and intense vibe without adding annoying affectations. But, Michael does have a particular way of playing the game, and Hauser manages to capture that affectation every single time. That can’t have been easy, but he was splendid in this.

Shamier Anderson is outstanding in The Luckiest Man in America. He has a smallish role, but he’s excellent. And he has such a striking screen presence. We need more of this man in Hollywood.

I’m so disappointed in The Luckiest Man in America. I’d have preferred a bad film over a disappointing one.

RON: I couldn’t agree more. On a more positive note, let me end our round-up with The Salt Path.

Based on a true story, The Salt Path follows Raynor and Moth Winn, played by Gillian Anderson and Jason Isaacs, a couple who owned a farm and then lost everything. With their children away at university, the Winns make the impromptu decision to walk the Salt Path.

They have very little money to live of off—essentially, they get a £40 tax credit every month. And that’s meant to cover their food and camping needs, as well as any emergency shelter they may need.

Neither of them has done much hiking in a while, and Moth has a degenerative disease that requires that he rest, not really possible when they’re hiking. But they persevere through the hardships and inclement weather, as well as the pain that Moth is constantly suffering, to find a kind of freedom and peace in nature that they hadn’t realized they wanted.

They also realise how much they love each other when all the trappings of life are stripped away.

MON: Awww. That sounds sweet.

RON: Yeah, this was quite a wholesome film and absolutely beautiful to look at. There are so many shots of the ocean behind them as they’re walking up these steep cliffs. They find themselves in these verdant forests and fields. So much beautiful green. It really kicked my wanderlust into gear. There was one point when I wanted to jump into the film, the landscape was gorgeous.

MON: Yeah, I feel you.

RON: But nothing in this film made me want to go hiking and camping. Nope. I want to see beautiful nature but not if I have to deal with eating spaghetti all the time and not having access to facilities.

MON: I’m with you there.

RON: The Salt Path works well because the central couple have plenty of chemistry. Never in a million years would I have imagined Anderson and Isaacs in a film together but they capture the vibe of an old married couple.

Ray is very much the pragmatist, checking their finances constantly, deciding what snacks they should and shouldn’t buy. She’s the cake police among the two of them.

Moth is an optimist. He’s sure everything will work out. Or that they’ll figure out how to make it work. He refuses to be a fatalist. Even when he’s talking about death, especially his impending death, according to doctors, he’s not fatalistic about it. Things will work out.

I’m still not sure why their house got repossessed. They mention something about an investment and having to take on someone else’s debt. Moth’s friend appears to have been the one who led them to this situation. But I’m not sure about the specifics. Doesn’t really matter but I was curious about it.

One part that did bother me was when Moth stops taking his medication. After some nasty withdrawals, he feels much better. He says his mind is clearer and his mobility and pain improves as well. I’m glad things worked out for Moth. That walking and the hiking diet helped him. But I wish there had been some message or at least a dialogue saying, don’t do this at home. Other people with this disease might be tempted to forgo their doctor’s orders and chuck their medication away. But that may not work out for everyone. It’s a dangerous message to share in a film.

This film made me think about Nomadland. Because it’s a somewhat similar situation. Older people without a home or livelihood because of circumstances beyond their control. Far too many countries have no plans for their older populations. Either you have a ton of savings and a great pension, or you’re out in the street. It’s absolutely terrifying and enraging, despite this film ending on a very hopeful note.

There is one funny part that I want to highlight. While Ray and Moth are hiking, people keep calling him Simon. They’re so confused about it. Then they ask him about his writing, and they’re even more confused. Eventually it’s revealed that the poet Simon Armitage is doing the same journey and people just assumed Moth was him. This was really funny because we had a poetry reading by Armitage back in Dubai talking about this journey. Felt very full circle to me.

MON: Wow, that’s certainly a blast from the past for us. I’m glad The Salt Path was a good experience. Sounds interesting.And that’s it for our two-parter of TIFF 2024 round-up reviews. We enjoyed our time at TIFF, and if you’re looking for more recommendations or opinions about this year’s TIFF films, head on over to womenwriteaboutcomics.com for the rest of our film reviews. Until then, see you next time.

#podcast #stereo geeks #film review #toronto international film festival #tiff 2024 #we live in time #florence pugh #andrew garfield #gillian anderson #jason isaacs #game shows #walton goggins #paul walter hauser #Vice #Shamier Anderson #salt path

2 notes · View notes