#streaming services were fine when they only showed shows from tv and movies from theaters

[oranges-are-rad]

Tbh I wish streaming services were never a thing and cable tv was still king. Streaming services used to be great but they’ve sucked for at least five years now. The shows on cable tv were so much better. At this point, it’s almost impossible for me to start a new show because none of them grab my attention like shows used to. Bring back good tv 🙏🏻

[genericpuff]

The LO TV show isn't happening, and here's why.

Now, before I begin, courtesy to /u/Princess_Space_Goose because they're one of the driving forces behind these observations concerning stuff in the entertainment sector and they were the first ones to make a comprehensive post about it over on reddit shortly after we got into it in the Discord and compiled everything we knew. But I also REALLY wanna talk about this and I'm surprised to see I haven't yet. They've covered reddit, so I'm covering Tumblr LMAO

Disclaimer: Long post ahead. Much of what I say below is speculation but there's a lot of damning evidence to support it. Take it with grains of salt.

Rachel has vague-posted about the show a couple times over the past few years, but very sparingly so, always stating that it's "in the works" without anything to actually show for it. This would have been fine back in 2020 or even 2021 (the pandemic did bring a lot of television/movie development to a crawl) but we're over halfway through 2023 now.

So where's the show? Who's running it? What is it gonna look like? Which streaming service is it going to be hosted on?

We literally do not know any definitive answers to these questions because nothing has been revealed and at this point in the game, that's basically a death sentence. LO has been on a noticeable decline in stats over the past year, while we obviously can't access the backend numbers (and neither can Rachel as far as I know because WT guards them with an iron fist which is a whole other topic for discussion) it's still very clear by the comic's rating slowly but surely dropping and the like count average lowering (obv the like count isn't indicative of view count but if the ratio has remained the same, that means if the like count lowers, the viewership is likely lowering too). There's also been certain behavior from WT over the past year that hints at the comic not doing well, such as its VERY aggressive ad campaigning which often undercuts other series on the platform that are far better than LO and deserve the spotlight, but lose it anyways because WT just wants to keep its golden goose on life support even after its heart has stopped beating.

So the fact that we don't know the answers to these questions still after 4 years is NOT good. We don't know anything and while that was excusable 3 years ago, at this point, it's more indicative of the project being at a standstill or dropped completely, and what we dug up and discussed in the ULO Discord (and what was later posted to reddit) proves it with some very telling information dissected from LinkedIn and other sources.

So far, the only people we know connected to this project are Rachel Smythe (the creator of LO) and Stephanie K Smith (the appointed showrunner). Showrunners are the lifeblood of television series, remember this. Here's a little bit about her:

Lore Olympus still doesn't have a network, this means it has no definitive spot to air, which is not good at this point, because the network is what primarily funds these projects. Think of "Netflix shows" - they're not necessarily made by Netflix, they're made by studios that Netflix funds and as such they're given the Netflix branding because Netflix is their proprietary distribution network and benefactor. So LO has no network or streaming service funding its production. All of her other credited works have affiliated networks/distributors, but LO doesn't.

"But what about Jim Henson Company?" Jim Henson Company bought the rights to LO in 2019 to produce it, that doesn't necessarily mean they were onboard to fund the entire project. Again, these studios need networks to back them, not just for monetary purposes, but with the promise that their project will have a place to go when it's finished, whether it's Netflix, HBO, etc. Think of it like a movie theater - the movie theaters aren't the ones making the movies, but they have deals with the studios to air those movies with the agreement that both sides will be making money.

Jim Henson Company is a production studio, not a network. Not only that, but they're primarily for-hire for puppetry/animatronic projects, they're not the same kind of studio as, say, Laika, or Disney, or Warner Bros. Much of their work is done on the backend, creating animatronics and puppets for kids' productions, monster movies, etc. Currently they're working as the animatronic designers for Five Nights at Freddy's, but that movie isn't a JHC movie, it's a Blumhouse production, which has hired JHC to create animatronics for them.

So, the fact that they were the ones to buy out LO for production rights is... very odd. Because for starters, they don't tend to buy out production rights like major studios, they're typically for hire, but they're also not an animation studio. Any animation projects they've worked on were for concept art and design, such as Word Party, but the folks at JHC primarily specialize in conceptualization and practical effects. That's their whole shtick, it's what they're selling, it's what they get hired for.

That's all early stuff though, stuff we've been speculating on for ages. What came to light recently that spurred on this whole essay was discovering this one section on Stephanie K's LinkedIn:

There are a couple things we can glean from this. First, we know this has to be LO even if it isn't being named, because LO is the only one that was bought by JHC.

This also confirms that LO did end up with a distribution network, specifically HBO Max.

But it also confirms that Stephanie K Smith, the showrunner, is no longer on the project, either due to willingly quitting or being removed. According to the time stamps, she left in April of this year.

This is especially not good because without a showrunner, there's no leader. Showrunners are essential to these projects. So without a showrunner, and without any sort of announcement of a replacement, LO's television show is a ship without a captain, a car without a driver, a Hell's Kitchen without a Gordon Ramsay.

There's mention of an "animated presentation" but as mentioned in that reddit post above, that's not necessarily a pilot, it's more likely it was this. Which can't even really be called "animation", it's just video editing, rigging and tweening, but I digress.

There's a lot more in that reddit thread that dives into some of the details of Stephanie K's stuff, including the HBO Max affiliation and how that potentially connects to the Sydney Sweeney trailer, but ultimately, all of these breadcrumbs add up to one of two things:

LO's television show is in severe development hell which it likely will not come out of for quite some time, especially right now with both the writer's strike and streaming services gutting their animation connections.

LO's show isn't happening at all but with LO's numbers declining and its audience growing more fed up with the series (look no further than the comments on Instagram about LO's recent Eisner win, people are PISSED) Rachel and WT are trying to do as much damage control as possible by dangling a carrot in front of the audience they have left in the hopes that they'll stick around long enough on the promise of a TV show happening to keep siphoning cash and views. After all, there are two things many readers are still sticking around for - the SA plotline, and the TV show, and both of those things are being unnecessarily dragged out in the vaguest way possible with no real resolution in sight.

Neither of these are good, but I think what's even more telling is that, since that post was made on reddit, Rachel has attended SDCC and taken part in a new interview from Girl Wonder Podcast, and when asked about the show, all she had to say was this:

"Um, it’s been really interesting. It’s been educational for me. So, what I—what has been done so far is beautiful. Like, if I could share it, I would. But I can’t. Because it’s very naughty."

IDK if the "naughty" bit is referring to the show or just her revealing info about it, but the fact that NOTHING was shown at SDCC is just. Y'all, I'm sorry, but the show is not happening. If you're gonna show off previews for television ANYWHERE, it's SDCC. It's like the E3 of comics and entertainment media. So the fact that she's STILL VAGUE-POSTING ABOUT IT EVEN AT A MAJOR EVENT WHERE IT'S COMMONPLACE TO REVEAL TRAILERS AND PREVIEWS OF NEW PROJECTS, like... it's just not happening. Jim Henson Company bought the rights to produce LO as a TV show in the summer of 2019. Since then, we haven't seen a SHRED of news, if you google "Lore Olympus TV show" it'll still be the same 2-3 articles from 2019 talking about JHC buying the rights and that's it. If you do further sleuthing, all you'll find is Rachel saying "yeah it's still happening but I can't say anything!" which means fucking nothing at this point. The only 'hope' I have left is that they'll announce it at NYCC which has Rachel in a top billing spot in its advertising, but I'm really not holding my breath at this point.

Animated productions take a while, sure, but LO wasn't the only comic bought for TV production in that late 2010's/early 2020's era. Heartstopper was bought in 2019, and it made it to Netflix by April 2022. And it was live action, a medium SEVERELY affected by the pandemic, unlike animation, which wasn't affected as much because a lot of animation development can be done from home. What did affect the animation sector was streaming services like Netflix gutting their connections to animation studios and putting animated projects on the chopping block... which also doesn't bode well for LO.

It's 2023 now and we still don't even have anything beyond those initial announcement articles and Rachel making empty promises. It's not happening. Don't fall for the "it's coming soon but I can't say anything" nonsense. It's far less genuine now than it was 3 years ago and it has nothing to support those claims that it's actually in development, and ironically far more to support mere speculation that she's lying or doing damage control.

And, if it actually is happening, on a shred of belief in that being a possibility, then it sure as shit isn't being marketed well. Knowing how to build hype in a product is an entire course of knowledge. Marvel is practically the king of building hype, they're why people sit until the very end of the credits now in the hopes of seeing an after-credit scene, even in movies that aren't made by them. LO's numbers are bleeding right now, so to not show anything at even the major events like SDCC is a blatant misfire. Almost like there isn't anything to show in the first place.

You can take all of this evidence as you will. Some of it you may dismiss as "overthinking" or whatever have you. And a lot of it is speculation based on the crumbs we've picked up along the way.

But let me pose you this as a final thought: how can it be a good sign when everything being asked about the show, by fans and critics alike, comes down to "Is the show still happening?"

The best time to reveal proof of the LO television show was 3 years ago. The second best time is now.

[blast0rama]

I’m Sorry, But Things Cost Money

Sort of a rambling series of thoughts here, inspired by a post I saw over on Threads1.

I’m not going to link to the specific thread, but there was a trending post which boiled down to “Hey, remember 2013, when Netflix was $20, and you could stream everything?” It picked an ongoing nit in my brain when it comes to how people are reacting to streaming costs.

I will preface this rant with a few points:

Yes, Hollywood Accounting is weird

Yes, the executives at the companies who provide our entertainment are vastly overpaid

Yes, even some actors are overpaid2

I think it’s time that we make an effort to understand the costs of our entertainment. While movie budgets have bloated over the last decade, plus, the money is generally on screen. CG, practical effects, name actors, quality cinematographers and more. Not to mention the literal hundreds of other people who work on these films. The credits aren’t just for show, folks.

What ruined our understanding of these concepts is two fold:

The studios all chased what Netflix did

We devalued what this entertainment meant by flooding the market and calling it “content”3

Let’s look at what was prior to Netflix. The cable bundle. $100+ a month, the owners of the channels getting a carrier fee every month, plus whatever money they generate from television advertising. Not to mention the money generated from DVD sales, theatrical re-releases, and licensing their shows and movies to other networks.

Netflix shows up, and guess what? They pay licensing fees to studios! Sure, they’re all undervalued because “who��d want to watch TV on a computer”, but it’s found money.

Netflix grows. People start cutting the cord. Carrier fees aren’t as strong. Shrinking audiences mean less money for their ads. People stop buying discs. Who goes to the theater? Why should we license our work to someone else, when WE can be Netflix?

Now, let’s look at the things that a Warner Bros, a NBC Universal, a Disney, a Paramount then had to pay out to “join the club” with Netflix.

The infrastructure to launch and maintain their own streaming services

The money to buy back license rights from other networks or services to have their shows and movies on something they own

Also, they better be making brand new content for this service, and they need a LOT of it AND it better serve EVERY POSSIBLE AUDIENCE AROUND THE WORLD

And lets be sure to charge LESS than Netflix, too.

That’s how they end up spending literal billions. And losing literal billions.

And to do what? To follow the worldwide leader in this type of service, Netflix…a company that is only as big as it is because they were the first, and they’re the name, like Photoshop, Kleenex and Nintendo, that people think of when they think of their product. Even they’ve found the siren’s song of advertising revenue.

The creators of all these shows and movies? They used to get paid every time a disc was sold, or a movie was aired on television. Limited slots, limited availability. How do you make that work for libraries which are expected to have everything in perpetuity forever. What’s the math there look like?

That’s why the writers and the actors had their strike. To get the money they were deserved and weren’t getting.

Now you say, hey, wait! I’m not getting access to everything ever from these studios? Why can’t they just all be on Netflix? Why can’t I just pay one subscription and get everything, ever?

Ask musicians how Spotify, Tidal, Apple Music, et al. are working for them.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe crew, they’ll be fine. Just like Taylor Swift.

But what of the Wes Andersons, the David Lynches, and the future version of them to come? Would that be sustainable? Would these projects get green-lit?

We’re at a time where art needs to be valued more highly. A time where studios that were once built around a diverse lineup of movies and shows for audiences of all kinds, at different budgets, they instead put their money behind the sure things, repeating the same things again and again.

And we sit there, and we ask for MORE MORE MORE all of the time?

And we want it cheaper.

And if they’re not? I’m gonna PIRATE everything!4

When you have access to everything, everything means nothing.

Would you want to be paid the same amount of money at your job, forever, and you are responsible for everything you’ve ever done, forever?

Think of the movies and shows that surprised you. The movies and shows that took risks, and weren’t what you expected, or you had to go off the beaten path to find.

Things cost money. Art has value. Pay for it.

The Social Media service you’re embarrassed to read, and never post to! ↩

But probably not as much as you think when you consider the monies generated by their efforts ↩

I react to this word the way others do moist. ↩

I think there’s a fair point to be made about piracy as a way of archiving media, or gaining access to content not available to you internationally, but…I don’t think that’s the majority of use here. ↩

[hotflatrock]

Steve Miller Band at Greek Theater

Things are different now with all the streaming services, but in my day music came to me in distinct ways. Some bands put out incredible albums that I would play endlessly after finding them at one of Berkeley’s glorious music stores. Other bands put out catchy singles that I heard on the radio or on MTV. Every now and then, I might learn of a band live, typically opening for someone else or headlining at a small club. Rarer still, there are a handful of awesome bands I only knew about through Greatest Hits albums, typically owned by a roommate or relative, that eventually worked its way into my collection.

For bands that I knew through studio albums or radio play, I had no interest in greatest hits albums. I have the real thing. But if the band’s hey day was years before I was paying attention, a greatest hits album is the only context I might have for the band.

I consider a few of these as defining Greatest Hits albums: 1962-1966 (Red Album) by the Beatles; Hot Rocks by the Rolling Stones; The Best of the Doors; Simon & Garfunkel’s Greatest Hits; and Steve Miller Band Greatest Hits 1974-78. I still own all these CDs, with the music ripped to my Plex server, and long ago uploaded to my streaming service of choice. My mom had that Beatles album, which was among the albums on which I learned how to use a turntable. The Stones and Doors were remnants of my classic rock phase in high school, driven by their music being featured on TV or a movie. Simon & Garfunkel and Steve Miller came to me in college.

Over time, I explored studio albums by the Beatles, Stones, and the Doors. How could I not? They are amazing in their own right, although I still return to Hot Rocks more than I would to Exile on Main Street. But Simon & Garkfunkel and Steve Miller? I don’t think I have ever listened to a studio album by either of them. I never knew anyone who owned a studio album. So they are the only bands that remain only as my Greatest Hits wonders. I could listen to their compilation albums any time, yet I have zero interest in knowing them more.

If Steve Miller were playing anywhere else, I probably would not have gone. But I love the Greek Theater, it’s a short drive from my house, and I know lots of secrets to unlock parking in Berkeley. And I knew that it would be a greatest hits concert, so off to Ticketmaster I went.

I loved Miller’s old timey touches. No digital signage or video backgrounds for him, instead opting for giant tapestries featuring old album covers. Miller immediately lets you know a couple things about him: he is a pretty unassuming guy for a rock star and he is a hell of a guitar player. Swingtown, True Fine Love, Space Cowboy, Jungle Love, Take The Money and Run, and the Joker all lived up to their Greatest Hits glory and satisfied the audience.

My all-time favorite Steve Miller tune, Jet Airplane, was a different story.  When Miller cranked it out mid-set, I thought the whole band was a beat slower than what I wanted. Basically, it was what I wanted but not how I wanted it. And then 15 minutes later, they played it again, this time a remixed, much slower version. I don’t think I have ever seen a band do the same song twice in the same show. It was weird, but appreciated, because the way too slow version was different and interesting, while the first slightly-too-slow version was just slow.

The concert was enjoyable, but probably will get lost among all the other shows I will see this year. But maybe the next time I start streaming Steve Miller Band Greatest Hits 1974-78 and I see the cover art on my phone, I’ll remember back to that time I saw most of the Greatest Hits album performed live with some wall art.

[asagi-s-garden]

WB is the worst when it comes to DC. It's no coindence that Constantine is leaving 'Legends of Tomorrow" in the wake of the upcoming HBO Max show. And this pandemic ruined a lot of plans. As you said "BL" wasn't meant to be in the Arrowverse put when it happened they were all gung-ho for it. They had plans for Jeff to visit Central City and for Anissa and Grave to chill in Gotham. But then the pandemic and whatever BTS drama that got "BL" canned. Like *something* happened. It got an early renewal in Jan then it was cancelled in Nov. And CW didn't even bother to have proper trailers for new episodes. Don't tell me somebody on the show didn't rub the network the wrong way to result in that level of pettiness

Yeah, WB isn't just the worst with DC, but really the worst with favoritism in my personal opinion

They tried so hard to make the DC streaming service a huge success but as soon as they saw it wasn't going to be they got rid of everything like it was on fire, HBO Max is the new golden child so they're cutting their own throats in other areas to make it succeed- IE: Theaters

My poor Suicide Squad 2 ;_; no I won't say "my THE Suicide Squad" it won't roll off the tongue it was a sacrificial lamb to the damn streaming service :(

I know it's an unpopular opinion to not be all over streaming but they're really clearly cutting way more than just corners in order to feed that specific beast and try to make it compete with Disney+, that's why they're starting to draw the string on the Arrowverse :/ The same thing happened, I think, with the DC streaming service though, when they saw that the biggest success of DC was the Arrowverse, they decided to pull their dying streaming service as well as the DCEU into it to pump the Arrowverse up more, now that the Arrowverse is starting to go under- with three shows being gone, Batwoman being in questionable territory, and the two biggest successes of the year being largely disjointed from it (Superman and Stargirl), I think they're going to try to scramble it like eggs :/ They're doing the same with the DCEU to a degree though, by having loosely connected stories that do more universe hopping and tone changes (IE: Joker coming out just months before Birds Of Prey and having been preceeded by Shazam!) I think since they're seeing more promise in that approach right now for the movies, they might be trying to do the same for TV- or they're just trying to let the Arrowverse die of neglect so they can pump up HBO Max like you said

Ofcourse now that WB has been bought by Discovery, we might get some big changes to this; Discovery already said they wanted to pour seven BILLION dollars into DC properties specifically in the first year alone, and I know the rumor is that they're only going to try to gloss up DC so that they can sell the assets to the highest bidders once their "probation" period ends but like.... seven billion is a hell of alot of gloss..... and if they can start pulling in more numbers like Joker, Superman & Lois, and The Suicide Squad (wich may have not been a huge hit at the box office but wich reportedly smashed the HBO Max numbers enough that WB is circling James Gunn like a starving shark), then I have a hard time believing they'd be wanting to get rid of it, especially when, let's face it, DC is easily the most well known and most marketable asset Discovery has ever had and probably ever will have purely because of Superman alone, you can't find a person anywhere who hasn't atleast heard of Superman, regardless of how much the film properties are hit-and-miss financially, I have a hard time believing anyone would just throw that kind of name power to the wolves....

But onto Black Lightning, I actually have a pretty strong theory about that one

I'm almost certain that China Anne McClain is why the show was canned

And do not get me wrong, I don't mean that in a snippy way, but China quit Black Lightning pretty urgently- to the point that she only wanted to do limited episodes for the final season

Backing up a moment here though, let me explain why I think this was the nail-in-the-coffin

Black Lightning was very quickly becoming centered around Lightning specifically

That doesn't mean to say that it wasn't still Jefferson's story and that Anissa wasn't still important, but Jennifer was getting set up to be The Powerhouse of the show, with the bulk of the drama probably surrounding her and the thought of her potentially taking on her father's mantel

It seemed like the idea of Black Lightning retiring or atleast putting on the suit a little less was starting to become a thing, and with Jefferson firmly accepting his daughters as part of the world of Metas at that point, that would have lead to Anissa and Jennifer taking much more of the spotlight than they had in the beginning- that's a natural progression of things, and although I actually prefer Anissa's storyline (it's just more my personal cup of tea), I will readily admit that Jennifer was the one who had the ability to carry an entire season's worth of story on her shoulders.... not so much Anissa, who has her wife (so romantic subplots are pretty toned down), her powers are developed and stable (nothing quite like the learning curves Jennifer was facing), she has a stable job and a stable superhero identity- two, in fact-, so no literal schoolyard drama or issues with "Am I in my father's shadow? Is this how the world sees me and do I want them to see me this way?" much like what Jennifer was starting to experience in the end of the show either

TLDR Anissa mostly had her shit together, wich is great for her, but it doesn't lend to being able to carry the most dramatic storylines like it does with Jennifer, who's still figuring out pretty much everything

I think Jennifer was already starting to take a very large amount of the story as of the last season and even starting to steal the spotlight before that, if they were to come back for more I feel like she would have been in a place of being much more obviously groomed to take on the main charector status wile Jefferson stepped back just a little bit to be more supportive to her journey instead of the other way around

And the show could still exist very much as Jefferson's story wile that story happened to center on Jennifer

.....Buuuuuuuuuuuuut that's where the problem comes in

China said before the show was cancelled that she was going to step down from playing Lightning because she wanted to focus on her faith more and be removed from anything that wasn't "in service to God", wich is totally fine for her, but it does put Black Lightning in a bit of a difficult position because the charector they were gearing up to make their breakout star was suddenly going to either have to pull a Winn and just... be.... gone.... or have to get recast

To be entirely honest, I'm not sure why they didn't stick with the recasting instead, I thought Laura Karuki did a fantastic job as Jennifer and the "Am I Jennifer or am I JJ?" story would have been a great thing to explore for an entire season, but if I had to guess, they maybe just didn't want to mess with it?

Black Lightning had good numbers but it wasn't in the top five or anything to my recollection, not since it's premiere season anyway, and it could have been a compound decision of "We weren't going to keep this up much longer anyway so let's just take this as a sign to wrap it up", although I think that the way the recast was done could have presented a stable option for them if they had decided to give it a go for a full season, although maybe that's just my opinion and they initially made the recast so that the people behind the curtain could see if Laura would work well enough as Jennifer and when they decided that the vibe wasn't right they went on ahead and pulled the plug rather than risk getting the same um... resistance.... than Batwoman met over their recasting choices

Although I could go on for days about why that situation is different (to be clear: I do like Ryan quite alot but I don't think the Batwoman situation was nearly as seamless as Black Lightning's in terms of recasts, but that's another story for another day)

TLDR I think if China had stayed aboard they would have gone on for atleast another season or two, but there are some shows where members of an ensemble cast are so essential that their leaving is too big of a blow to stay through

It's much like when Dylan O'Brien had to bow out of Teen Wolf for a little wile, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a fan who absolutely loved season six, and even before that people were having a hard time staying with a lack of Tyler Hoechlin, with some even stepping away when Crystal Reed left, even though- at both of those points- most of the core cast was still there and at no point did the titular main ever leave, I feel like Black Lightning's situation is very similar, people were just too invested in Jennifer

[ryanjdonovan]

DONOVAN’S OSCAR PROGNOSTICATION 2021

We all knew it was coming: The Oscar nominees are now almost literally handpicked by Netflix and Amazon. We thought it would be a few years away, but it's just one more piece of fallout from the pandemic. It won't be long now before I'm making my predictions for the Flixies or the Amazies. (By the way, streamers: I just want to watch the friggin' credits, why is that such a problem??)

In case you haven't been paying attention (and I'm pretty sure you haven't), Nomadland is going to win the big Oscars. Haven't seen Nomadland? Or even heard of it? Or any of the Oscar-nominated films? Or didn't even know the Oscars were happening this year? You're not alone. With no theaters this past year, the non-bingeable, non-Netflix-welcome-screen movies were pretty much an afterthought. (But if you asked the streaming services, the nominees this year each accounted for a billion new subscribers and topped the worldwide digital box office for months.)

Well, I'm here to tell you the Oscars are in fact happening, albeit a few months late. Fear not: my 22nd annual Oscar predictions will provide everything you need to know before the big night. (You don't even need to watch the movies themselves -- reading this article will take you just as long.)

BEST PICTURE:

SHOULD WIN: Minari WILL WIN: Nomadland GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Pieces Of A Woman INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: Ma Rainey's Black Bottom

If you're a fan of capitalism, this is not the year for you. Nominees like Nomadland, Mank, Judas And The Black Messiah, The Trial Of The Chicago 7, Ma Rainey's Black Bottom, Hillbilly Elegy, Minari, and The White Tiger are all (to varying degrees) indictments of a capitalist system, or at the very least are suspicious of those who benefit from it, and focus on those left behind. It's certainly fertile ground for angst and high drama, if not belly laughs. (Don't get me started on the ironies of all these movies being distributed by billion-dollar conglomerates. The filmmakers, producers, and actors can tell you that the checks cash just fine.) Like Austin Powers said, "Finally those capitalist pigs will pay for their crimes, eh comrades?"

There is no way for me to talk about Nomadland, which will win Best Picture, without sounding like an a-hole. It's a gorgeous work of art, and a fascinating character study, but I struggled to connect to the story. (You should know that for me as a movie watcher, story is more engaging than artfulness or character. But hey, why can't we have all three?) I wanted to like it, I really did. I'm content to drift along with Fern, the resilient main character played naturally by Frances McDormand, but she has no true objective or antagonist. She's a nomad on the road, either searching or hiding, either with the world or against the world, we're not quite sure which. I thought it might be driving (literally) toward a bigger revelation or resolution, but no. (Same with life, I guess.) It's meandering, reticent, languorous, and ethereal (I'm trying really hard to avoid using the word "boring" here). This is all quite intentional, by the way -- the film moves at the pace of its protagonist, and the effect is palpable. (And don't worry, it's not lost on me that I'm watching this movie about people barely scraping by, on a large ultra-high-def TV on my comfy couch in my warm home under an electric blanket, using a streaming service that the movie's characters probably couldn't access or afford.) Am I wrong about all this? Of course I'm wrong. Every critic out there is doing backflips over this film. And not surprisingly, the movie's mortality themes are playing well with the Academy, whose average age and closeness to death are extremely high. (Like the nomad Swankie, they're all anxious about that final kayak ride down the River Styx.) But beware the movie whose 'user/audience score' is significantly lower than its 'critic score' -- it means that regular people are not quite buying it. For me, the biggest problem with slice-of-life films is that I don't really want to go to movies to experience regular life -- I have life for that. Then again, I'm also a superficial, materialistic a-hole. But you knew that already. (Added intrigue: Hulu, Nomadland's distributor, might score a Best Picture win before Amazon, and gives Amazon a subtle middle-finger in the movie with its depiction of seasonal workers.)

Remember when feel-good movies were a thing? It didn’t mean that there were no conflicts or problems for the characters, it just meant that they were enjoyable to watch, and you came out feeling good about humans. Minari is the rare feel-good Oscar movie, and my personal pick for what should win Best Picture. It easily might have been a tough sit based on the premise: A Korean family moves to rural Arkansas to start a farm, and must overcome a drought, financial calamity, a complete lack of agriculture experience, a crumbling marriage, the son's potentially-deadly heart condition, and a grandmother that drinks all their Mountain Dew. In keeping with Oscar tradition, it could have been a constant assault of upsetting scenes. But instead, it's a warm, sunny, optimistic, funny movie. The family faces struggles and hardships, to be sure, but the story is treated with positivity, not negativity; with a sense of community, not isolation; with an attitude of resolve, not blame. And they get through their problems with mutual support, togetherness, tenderness, humanity, and of course, love. (Not to mention grandma planting some weeds that may or may not miraculously heal physical and emotional wounds.) All these things combine to make it a more engaging experience for me than Nomadland. Not only do I wish this movie would win the Oscar, I wish I could give it a hug.

A lot of pundits think The Trial Of The Chicago 7 has the best chance to upset Nomadland. But I'm not seeing that happen. It was an early favorite and has been getting tons of nominations in the awards run-up, but it hasn't actually been winning much, and seems to be losing steam. (The lack of a Best Director nod is virtually a killer.) I think Minari has a small chance to sneak away with a victory, as it's gotten almost as much universal praise as Nomadland, but hasn't had the same audience. Judas And The Black Messiah is an interesting case, in that it's a late entry that had little early awareness (it didn't plan to be eligible until next year's Oscars), but it scooped several unexpected nominations. Debuting a contender late and taking advantage of recency bias has been a successful strategy in the past, so don't be surprised by a surprise. (Had Shaka King scored the last Director slot over Thomas Vinterberg, I think Judas would be a fairly legitimate threat.)

If you had asked me in September, I would have predicted that Mank would be the wire-to-wire favorite to win Best Picture. Aside from being a prestige David Fincher film (more on him later), it's a smorgasbord of Classic Tales of Hollywood. And the centerpiece couldn't be bolder: It's an homage to, a making of, a dissection of, and political dissertation on Citizen Kane -- only the most deified film of all time. Simply recite the synopsis, describe the film's 1940s black-and-white aesthetic, and mention Gary Oldman's name as the star, and just watch the Oscars come pouring in, right? Well, not quite. It netted 10 nominations, more than any other film, but it's looking like it might not win any of them, certainly not Best Picture. I don't think the film quite knows what it wants to be; at least, I'm not sure what it wants to be. Centered on Herman Mankiewicz, the man credited with co-writing Citizen Kane with Orson Welles, it's a distorted, polemical, impressionistic portrait of a man I barely even knew existed. Though Welles is only briefly portrayed in the film, it demystifies him a bit, suggesting that he's maybe not as responsible for this work of genius as we thought. If the film was framed as "Who actually wrote Citizen Kane?", it would be a little easier to get into. But it feels somewhat academic and circuitous (in a way that Kane itself doesn't). And while the script is clever, it's clever to the point of being confusing. Of course, a film of this pedigree invites a lot of scrutiny, maybe more than any other awards contender (or any film that actually got released this past year, period). It has a lot to appreciate, and surely would benefit from a second viewing. I also can't help but root for the fact that it's been Fincher's passion project for almost a quarter-century. (Then again, tell that to any indie filmmaker who spends their whole life on a single passion project that ends up getting completely ignored, and they’ll tell you where to shove your Fincher pity.) Ultimately, it's an admirable work, but if you're looking for a Rosebud, it's not there.

Promising Young Woman continues to defy expectations. Not only did it rack up six Oscar nominations, it's likely to win one or two of them, and for a while, was gaining on Nomadland for Best Picture. Now that the chips are falling into place, we know it won't win in this category, but it remains one of the most talked-about films of the season. What I like most about the film is not necessarily the literal story (I should have seen the main twist coming a mile away), but the way writer/director Emerald Fennell elevates it in an interesting way. Instead of showing the whole story, she starts her film at the end of a typical revenge thriller (several years after the incident and the legal aftermath). In fact, the victim is not even in the movie, and the victim's best friend is already far along on her path of retribution. (It also challenges the definition of "victim".) The film is not voyeuristically exciting in any way; it's unsettling, but also oddly charming in unexpected ways. The key for me is how it serves as a metaphor for the secrets people keep from loved ones and the toll that it takes on them, and the penances we give ourselves instead of allowing ourselves to heal. It also made me realize that movies could use more Juice Newton. (Paris Hilton, not so much.)

Sound Of Metal and The Father were probably the last two films to make the cut in this category, and are the least likely to win. Their best chances are in other categories. (Pro Tip: If you put the word "sound" in the title of your movie, there's a very good chance you'll win Best Sound.)

I don’t recommend Pieces Of A Woman to anyone who's pregnant, or partners of pregnant women, or anyone planning to have babies anytime in the future, or any partners of anyone planning to have babies anytime in the future, or people hoping to be grandparents anytime in the future, or doctors. (And I'm certain midwives are not giving this a ringing endorsement.) The film starts with an infant death, and then gets worse from there. It's not just an unpleasant experience, it's a series of unrelenting unpleasant experiences: Depression, extra-marital affairs, guilt, a domineering mother, lying, manipulative spouses, abandonment, feelings of inadequacy, sexual dysfunction, litigation, sibling jealousy, public shame, borderline domestic abuse, bribery, courtroom drama, financial problems, baseless blame, and drug addiction. And if that's not upsetting enough, they also manage to throw the Holocaust in there. (This should be a movie sub-genre: "Parade of Horrible Events". This fraternity would include: Manchester By The Sea, Mudbound, Uncut Gems, 12 Years A Slave, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, The Family Stone, and of course, The Revenant.) And then there are the characters. It would be one thing if these were ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances. But these are extraordinary a--holes making extraordinary circumstances much worse. It's literally laughable. If I didn't understand what the word 'melodramatic' meant before, I do now. I'm aware that this is based on the experiences of writing/directing spouses Kata Wéber and Kornél Mundruczó, and I don't mean to trivialize their pain or what they went through. Nobody should have to suffer that trauma. And I realize art is a healthy and oftentimes beautiful outlet for grief. But… did I mention the movie is unpleasant? There are certainly wonderful fragments and ideas in here; if the components added up to something moving, I would be much more receptive to it. If I were a snarky (okay, snarkier) reviewer, I might call it "Pieces Of A Better Movie".

Soul is a lovely and inspiring movie, but I'm at the point where I have to judge films by my experience while watching them with children. Try explaining this movie to a 6-year-old. Way too many existential/philosophical/theological questions. I guess it's good for parents who like to talk to their children, but if you're trying to keep your kid occupied and quiet (the reason screens were invented) so you can do something else, it's a bust. (It's no match for the hysterical self-explanatory antics of a certain motor-mouthed, overweight, black-and-white, martial-arts-fighting bear with a penchant for sitting on people's heads and, more importantly, keeping kids silently dumbstruck.) And: Did they have to make the entrance to the afterlife -- a giant bug zapper -- so terrifying? If that's how you get to heaven, what is the entrance to hell like??

BEST ACTOR:

SHOULD WIN: Chadwick Boseman (Ma Rainey's Black Bottom) WILL WIN: Chadwick Boseman (Ma Rainey's Black Bottom) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Pete Davidson (The King Of Staten Island) INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: Delroy Lindo (Da 5 Bloods)

This one hurts. I usually don't feel a connection to or an overabundance of sympathy for celebrities, but this one genuinely hurts. When Chadwick Boseman wins Best Actor (for Ma Rainey's Black Bottom), it will be a wonderful celebration, but also a painful reminder, not just of who he was, but of who he was yet to be. If ever there was a unanimous vote, this would be it. Before this movie, we had seen him play heroes and outsized personalities, but there had been nothing quite like his role as Levee, the gifted and demonized trumpet player in Ma Rainey's band. His brash, wounded performance is astonishing, revelatory. Since the film debuted after his passing, we can only watch it through the prism of his death. It's hard not to feel parallels: Levee is just starting to scratch the surface of his talent, giving us hints of his abilities with composition and brass before his breakdown; similarly, we have only gotten a taste of Boseman's range and depth. For both the character and the man, we're being deprived of the art he would have created. Boseman's passing makes the performance more resonant and unshakeable, but I think under different circumstances he would still be the front-runner in this race. The only difference would be, we'd assume this would be the first prize of many.

Anthony Hopkins picked an unusual time to go on a hot streak. He recently left a memorable impression on the Marvel Cinematic Universe as Odin, got an Emmy nomination for Westworld, and scored 2 Oscar nominations (after a 22-year drought) -- all after his 80th birthday. This year's nomination, for playing a man slipping into dementia in The Father, probably would have been a favorite to notch him his second Oscar in a different year. He seems like he should be a two-time winner, and we just don't know how many more chances he'll have. (I stand by my declaration that he should have won last year for The Two Popes, over Brad Pitt.) To those aforementioned aging Academy members who fear mortality and probably consider Hopkins a spry young man: Maybe you shouldn't watch this movie.

Riz Ahmed's performance in Sound Of Metal establishes the tone for the entire film, making the experience feel grounded and real. I appreciate how his outward, physical performance is very still, while his internal performance is frenetic, like there's a live wire in his head that he's trying to conceal from the world. His quietness leaves us with an uncertainty that feels like authentic; he's not going to tell us all the answers, because his character is figuring it out as he goes. Speaking of questions, I have a few about his band in the movie (before the hearing loss): Are they any good? What kind of living do they make? Is their cashflow net positive or negative? Are they considered successful (in whatever way you want to define that)? What is their ceiling, commercially and artistically? Are they one lucky break away from making it, or is it a lost cause? Most importantly, if Ahmed and fellow nominee LaKeith Stanfield (Judas And The Black Messiah) had a sad, doleful, wide-eyed staring contest, who would win?

Steven Yeun has been a recognizable face in film and TV (and a prolific voice actor) for a decade, but we haven't really seen him front and center until Minari. And after this bright, heartwarming turn, I think you can expect him to remain in the spotlight for the foreseeable future. His understated and remarkable performance carries this beautiful story of a family finding its path through a new way of life. Despite scant dialogue and minimal exposition, we seem to always know what his character is thinking -- that he's facing daunting odds but has a steel resolve. He and screen partner Yeri Han (who deserves as much credit as Yeun for this film) create one of the most tender crumbling marriages I've seen on screen in a long time. (Though a marriage counselor could have given his character some helpful "dos and don'ts" that might have saved him some headaches.)

What's more improbable, Mank's meandering, decades-long journey to the screen, or the fact that we're supposed to believe 63-year Gary Oldman as a man in his 30s and early 40s? Well, once his performance begins, it's so hammy that you forget all about the ridiculous age discrepancy. He's playing Herman Mankiewicz, whose bombastic writing and sozzled demeanor helped mold the script for Citizen Kane into the legend that it is. It's a bloviated, ostentatious, spectacular exhibition of affectation and panache that only Oldman could pull off. It's a lot of fun. (It must be exhausting to be his wife.) It’s as if Mank wrote the story of his own life... and gave himself the best part.

I'm naming Delroy Lindo for my snubbed choice, for his intense and crushing performance in Da 5 Bloods. I've been hoping he'd get an Oscar nomination for 20 years, and by all accounts, this was going to be his year. Even in the fall, after a slew of critics' awards, he was the odds-on favorite to win. So it was a disappointment that his name wasn't called when nominations were read. For now, he'll have to be content with being everyone's favorite never-nominated actor. (But here's to hoping The Harder They Fall is frickin' amazing, so he can end that drought next year.) There are plenty of honorable mentions this year: Adarsh Gourav (The White Tiger), Mads Mikkelsen (Another Round), and Kingsley Ben-Adir (One Night In Miami) come to mind. (By the way: How often do Kingsley Ben-Adir and Sir Ben Kingsley get each other's take-out orders switched?) But my runner-up is John David Washington (my snubbed pick two years ago), who undoubtedly became an A-List movie star in the past year… but not for the reason you think. Yes, Tenet was a blockbuster and the cinematic story of the summer, but he had special effects and storyline trickery supporting him. Instead, Malcolm And Marie is what stands out to me -- he has nothing but his performance (as abrasive as it is), and he still commands the screen and our attention. When he gets hold of a juicy monologue, he starts cooking… but when he starts dancing on the countertop? Look out.

BEST ACTRESS:

SHOULD WIN: Andra Day (The United States Vs. Billie Holiday) WILL WIN: Andra Day (The United States Vs. Billie Holiday) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Anya Taylor-Joy (Emma.) INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: Jessie Buckley (I'm Thinking of Ending Things)

Coming down to the wire, we've got a race where three women have a chance to win, and the favorite depends on who you ask and when you ask. Carey Mulligan, Viola Davis, and Andra Day have each won precursor awards, and seem to leapfrog each other daily. Mulligan has been picked by most prognosticators, with Davis right behind. But I'm going to put my untarnished reputation on the line and predict a long-shot upset for Day. (And when that doesn't happen, I'm going to say that I actually thought Mulligan or Davis were more likely.)

Maybe I'm picking Andra Day because she's also my personal favorite, for her star-making debut in The United States Vs. Billie Holiday. The movie itself is serviceable but not stellar (some of the scenes and dialogue are absurdly expository), but Day is an absolute dynamo as the Lady Day. The film is a fairly rounded picture of her life, including her drug abuse, health issues, singing the controversial-at-the-time civil-rights song "Strange Fruit", and an investigation by the U.S. government (hence the title) -- all of which is intriguing for those of us not familiar with her personal story. (I'm sure you'll be shocked to learn that, despite my curmudgeonly ways, I was not in fact alive in the 1940s.) Day has seemingly come out of nowhere, because there was no early hype about the film, and nobody even saw it until a few weeks ago (and even now, it hasn't been seen by nearly as many people as the other contenders). Known primarily as a singer before this (I'm a big fan), she literally transformed her voice (straining her vocal chords, taking up smoking) to capture Billie Holiday's unique vocals. The singing alone might be enough to get her a nomination, but it's the dramatic work that puts her ahead of the field. More than any other nominee, we really get the feeling that she's laying her soul bare onscreen. Even for a seasoned actress, the depth of this performance would be impressive. Her film doesn't have the popularity or momentum that Mulligan's or Davis's do, so she's heading into Oscar night as an underdog. But if voters judge the actresses strictly on performance, not on the movies themselves, she might just pull an upset. And, if you haven't heard Day sing outside this movie, do yourself a favor: Stop reading this article (you might want to do that anyway) and browse her catalogue -- she has the best voice of any contemporary singer, period. Forget Billie Eilish, why isn't Day singing the next James Bond song?

Carey Mulligan returns to the Oscar game for the first time in 11 years, for Promising Young Woman. (Is she bitter that her performance in An Education lost to Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side? Probably not as bitter as I am.) Promising Young Woman is getting a lot of attention and accolades, and much of it is due to Mulligan's strong turn as Cassandra, a woman on a revenge crusade that has taken over her life. It's a layered performance; we see a lot of Cassandra's facades, but we don't know if we ever see the real person. Her best friend's rape and subsequent suicide has left her stunted; by the time we meet Cassandra, she's literally and figuratively become someone else. As rough as it sounds, Mulligan is able to make it… well, 'fun' isn't the right word, but 'enjoyable'. We see Cassandra refusing to sit or be bullied; she has agency and kinetic energy in situations where many do not or cannot. Whether or not the film works rests largely on Mulligan's shoulders; it's a good thing she's such a talented actress, because not many could pull it off. The more people see the film, the more she's been picked to win the prize. Will she get enough support for a victory? (Ms. Bullock, you owe her a vote.)

Out of all the nominated performances this year, Viola Davis's is the most amusing. Playing the titular singer in Ma Rainey's Black Bottom, it's clear she's having blast. When she's onscreen, Davis owns every single inch of it. She doesn't just drink a bottle of Coke, she guzzles the whole thing with gusto and verve, serving notice that this is going to be the most entertaining consumption of soda you've ever seen. And so it is with the rest of the performance. (Though the lip-synching is not particularly believable; but then again, that didn't hurt Rami Malek in Bohemian Rhapsody.) It will be interesting to see what happens on Oscar night. She's been up and down in the predictions. She was down after losing the Golden Globe (it's taken us until now to realize the Globes are a waste of time??), but rebounded strongly with a Screen Actors Guild win. She is universally adored, but she's also won an Oscar already for Fences, so voters may not feel quite as compelled to give it to her overall.

And we haven't even talked about Frances McDormand in Nomadland yet. Early on, this category seemed like a sprint between McDormand and Davis. But when neither won the Golden Globe or Critics' Choice, it became anybody's race. As we near the end of the contest, McDormand has pretty clearly fallen toward the back. I don't think it's her performance; instead, she's been discounted due to her own victorious history. She's already got two Oscars (in 1997 for Fargo and 2018 for Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri); a third one would require extraordinary circumstances. By comparison, it took Meryl Streep 29 years (and a lot of Ls) after her second to get her third. But if McDormand hadn't just won for Three Billboards three years ago, I think she'd be a lock here; Nomadland may even be a superior performance. She's probably the only actor alive that could pull this off; if she gave up acting, this is how I assume she would be living in real life. It's remarkable how she internalizes everything, yet informs the viewer how she's feeling and what she's thinking with very few words, just her physicality. This project seems particularly challenging. Her character doesn't have the answers; she's searching, but she doesn't even know what for. "I'm not homeless. I'm just house-less. Not the same thing, right?" It's as if she's posing the question to herself, and she really doesn't know. She gets lonelier as the journey goes on, a sort-of self-imposed isolation, and the viewer really feels it. (What does she ultimately find? Well, that's one of the frustrating ambiguities of the film. Don't get me started.) No matter what happens in this category, what McDormand will find is Oscar gold: She's a producer on Nomadland, so she's a strong bet to walk away with a Best Picture statuette.

Saying Vanessa Kirby is the best thing in Pieces Of A Woman is a bit of a backhanded compliment. My distaste for the film was made pretty clear in the Best Picture section, and anybody acting opposite Shia LaBeouf is going to look like Streep. But Kirby is legitimately great, and I think a welcome surprise to those who know her from the Mission: Impossible and Fast & Furious franchises. (And how many fans of The Crown thought Kirby would beat Claire Foy to an Oscar nomination? Don't lie.) Kirby makes the most of her role as an unpleasant person in an unpleasant situation enduring a barrage of unpleasant events surrounded by really unpleasant people. (An infant tragedy is the least of their problems.) But ultimately the film fails her, and unfortunately I don't really believe what any character is doing in this movie. Her nomination has been bolstered by a whopper of an opening scene: a 24-minute single-shot of a childbirth that ends horrifically. But I can't help but feel like the shot comes off as gimmicky; the immediacy of the scene was effective, but the filmmakers seemed to choose stylistic camera movement and choreography over intimacy and realness. The scene may be emotionally truthful, but hoo-eey, Kirby is dialed up. (My personal favorite ridiculous scene? When she's on the subway, wistfully watching children giggling pleasantly and behaving like angels. Ahhh, seems so blissful. Have you ever taken kids on public transportation? They would be fighting, screaming, climbing over the seats, kicking her, throwing goldfish everywhere, getting yelled at by the parents, bumping into passengers, licking the handrails, wiping snot on seats, and saying inappropriate things to strangers. That's parenthood.)

When the movie gods decided to create a remake that would be the exact opposite of what I would like, they conjured up Emma.. (That's "Emma.", with a period at the end of the title. Seriously. It's a "period" piece. Get it?) Anya Taylor-Joy is undoubtedly talented, but she's a letdown as the fabled matchmaker. She also believes that she can bleed on cue. With regard to her climactic scene: "I was in the moment enough that my nose really started bleeding." Wow. No words. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but her performance actually makes me miss Gwyneth.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:

SHOULD WIN: LaKeith Stanfield (Judas And The Black Messiah) WILL WIN: Daniel Kaluuya (Judas And The Black Messiah) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Shia LaBeouf (Pieces Of A Woman) INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: Glynn Turman (Ma Rainey's Black Bottom)

Can you have a movie with two main characters but no leading actors? If you're wondering why the two stars (and title characters) of Judas And The Black Messiah -- LaKeith Stanfieldand Daniel Kaluuya -- are both competing in the Supporting Actor category, congratulations, you're a human on planet Earth. That's Oscar politics for you, and it's nothing new. They are both unquestionably leads; nevertheless, the shift to Supporting has worked out well for both of them. The assumption was that Stanfield would campaign in the Lead category and Kaluuya in Supporting so as not to cannibalize each other's votes, and to have Kaluuya (the stronger awards bet) compete in the less crowded category. (It's been clear for half a year that Chadwick Boseman would be winning Best Actor.) Stanfield was considered an unrealistic shot to crack the nominees anyway (he was probably 8th for Best Actor, behind Delroy Lindo (Da 5 Bloods) and Tahar Rahim (The Mauritanian)). So when the nominations were read, it was a pleasant shock that he had been slotted in the Supporting Actor category. (And wouldn't you rather have him here than Jared Leto?)

But won't they split the vote, resulting in the very problem they were trying to avoid in the first place? As it turns out, no. Judging from other major awards, voters had made up their minds for Kaluuya long ago, so any votes to support this film will likely go to Kaluuya. It's not hard to see why: As Black Panther leader Fred Hampton, he's dynamic, steely, and charismatic. It's very different -- more confident, self-assured and domineering -- than we've seen him in other roles, like Get Out. (This movie is a like a mini-reunion of Get Out. Dang, now I want a sequel to Get Out.) But I'll be the dissenter, and cast my personal vote for Stanfield. I'm conflicted; they're a close 1-2. But for me, Stanfield's role (as an FBI informant infiltrating the Panthers) has more facets to play, and Stanfield's signature tenderness brings me into the character more. Plus, he also has the bigger challenge: he has to play the Judas (a role he initially didn't want). Like another character actually says to Stanfield in the movie: "This guy deserves an Academy Award."

Leslie Odom Jr.'s quest for an EGOT (Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, Tony) has hit a speed bump. Already armed with a G and a T, he was the presumptive favorite heading into the Golden Globes to collect more hardware, for playing singer Sam Cooke in One Night In Miami. But that was before anybody had seen Judas And The Black Messiah. As the lone acting nominee for Miami, he's got a lot of support from anyone looking to honor the film and its stellar cast. And as the singer, he gets to show off his lustrous Hamilton-honed pipes several times. In many ways, he's the most relatable character in Miami, the one that (despite Cooke's fame at the time) seems the most mortal. So though he'll lose Best Supporting Actor, fear not: He's the favorite to win Best Song, and keep the EGOT dream alive. (Unless… 12-time nominee Diane Warren finally gets the sympathy vote for her song for the little-seen The Life Ahead. Wait, you mean she didn't win for Mannequin's "Nothing's Gonna Stop Us Now"??)

Paul Raci is a fascinating nominee, for Sound of Metal. He was virtually unknown before this movie (best known as Eugene the Animal Control Guy on Parks And Recreation), but his background is intriguing. He's a Vietnam vet who started as a small theater actor in Chicago (he has a Jeff nomination!). With his upbringing as a hearing CODA (Child Of Deaf Adult), he's a frequent player in ASL theater and is the lead singer in an ASL metal band. (Am I the only one who was gotten CODA confused with ACOD (Adult Child Of Divorce)? Is there such a thing as ACODDA (Adult Child Of Deaf Divorced Adults)?) And in the understated role of Joe, who runs a facility for deaf people and serves as a guide for Riz Ahmed's character, he's fantastic. It literally seems like he's been preparing his whole life for the role, and it pays off. (Though upon further examination of his character… Joe seems like a benevolent, trustworthy guy with altruistic motivations, with a shelter focused on mental healing, addiction recovery, and self-sufficiency. But he also appears to foster an environment that isolates its members, severs contact with all loved ones, preys on those who are unstable to begin with, and convinces members that they will struggle if they leave the community. Ultimately Joe runs every aspect of members' lives, and in return expects unwavering devotion and complete submission to his methods. As soon as Ruben says one thing to challenge him, Joe accuses him of sounding like an addict, knowing it will trigger shame and self-doubt, in a clear effort to control his actions. Joe even slyly suggests that he personally knows how to reach heaven, "the kingdom of God". Is there a chance Joe is actually running a cult??)

They may have just picked a name out of a hat to see which member of The Trial Of The Chicago 7 ensemble would get an Oscar nomination (now these are all supporting actors), but however it happened, nomination day was a good day for Sacha Baron Cohen. (He also got a writing nod for Borat 2.) He is effective in the movie -- maybe the best of the bunch -- and it's a (slightly surprising) affirmation that he's a good actor in addition to being a talented performer. Is his performance actually worthy of an Oscar nomination? I'm fairly impressed (except for his I-love-you-too-man scene with the inert Eddie Redmayne, which plays cheap… but you can probably pin that one on Aaron Sorkin). But there are several other people I would have nominated over Cohen. For starters, my snubbed pick, Glynn Turman, is exceptional as a musician holding his own against Chadwick Boseman in Ma Rainey's Black Bottom. (It seems like just yesterday he was the colonel on A Different World, one of his 150+ acting credits.) Honorable mentions include 7-year-old Alan Kim (Minari), Clarke Peters (Da 5 Bloods), Charles Dance (Mank), and Arliss Howard (Mank).

Wow. Shia LaBeouf is not the only repellant part of Pieces Of A Woman, but he's probably the most repellant part. I'm sorry, but anything he does, or is involved in, instantly becomes less believable. At one point he seems to be trying to creepily make out with his wife… while she's actively pushing in labor. Then later, in a distressing "love" scene, he looks like someone who has never had consensual sex with a partner before; I know the film is going for emotional rawness, but it just looks like assault. Bottom line, I have no idea what he's doing in this movie. (And I guess I don't care what he's doing, as long as it's not another Indiana Jones movie.)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:

SHOULD WIN: Yuh-jung Youn (Minari) WILL WIN: Yuh-jung Youn (Minari) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Nicole Kidman (The Prom) INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: Ellen Burstyn (Pieces Of A Woman)

Oh, sweet revenge. Don't you just love a rematch? It was just two short years ago when Olivia Colman, in a flabbergasting upset, tearfully apologized to presumptive victor Glenn Close in her acceptance speech. (…Or did she condescendingly mock her? We can't be sure about anything in that speech.) Now they are both nominated again -- Colman for The Father, Close for Hillbilly Elegy -- and the bad blood between them couldn't be boiling hotter. Since there are no nominee lunches or in-person media parades this year, I'm assuming they drunk-Zoom each other at all hours and call one another every cruel British and American curse word in the book. Colman even reportedly tweeted, "Glenn, this will be your Hillbilly Elegy: You never won a dang Oscar." Nasty stuff, but nothing unusual during campaign season. Colman is facing a tough challenge (besides playing a woman whose father is in the grips dementia). Voters will be hard-pressed to hand her a victory again so soon (and without any losses). Additionally, she didn't even get nominated for a BAFTA award -- the British Oscar-equivalent -- on her home turf (and they nominate six actors in each category). (But, she would be quick to point out, Close didn't either.) All the talk around The Father is about Anthony Hopkins. Colman is facing extremely long odds.

Which seems to perfectly set up Close to swoop in for the kill. Six months ago, on paper this seemed like a slam dunk. The word was that Hillbilly Elegy featured two of the losing-est actors (Close and Amy Adams) in transformative roles in a heart-wrenching adaptation of a successful book. It was going to exorcise the demons for both of them. Then the movie debuted. And the response was lukewarm. But then the response to the response was harsh. People hated the movie, hated the performances, and hated the participants for shilling shameless Oscar bait. (If you think there's a different kind of Oscar bait, I'm afraid you haven't been paying attention.) The film was weirdly derided as political, and faced a sort of anti-Trump backlash (which I don't understand, considering the movie takes place in the 1990s and early 2010s, when Trump was just known for being an inept USFL football owner and a silly reality-TV host). Entertainment Weekly actually used these words in a single sentence to describe the film: "ham-handed", "smug", "Appalachian poverty porn", and "moralizing soap opera". (I guess people felt about this film the way I felt about A Star Is Born.) And no, the movie is not great; it fades soon after the credits roll. But Close is compelling; at the very least, she's working her tail off. (If you think she's just hamming it up in drag, stay tuned for the end-credits images of the real Mamaw. It's uncanny.) I think the voters really want her to win (but I thought the same thing two years ago). The question is: Do they want her to win for this movie? The answer increasingly seems to be No. The general feeling (which I agree with) is that the role feels a little lacking, and below Close's other lauded performances. People realize that if she wins, it may get dismissed as being a flimsy career-achievement award, which would tarnish it.

So, which one will claim victory this time, leaving the other groveling at her feet, Colman or Close? Neither, it turns out. In a shocking turn of events, Yuh-jung Youn has emerged as a favorite over both of them. (Fortunately, she's blocked Colman and Close on Zoom.) Calling Youn the heart of Minari would be trite. She is, but she's much more than that. She's the conduit for connection: to the children, between the parents, and to the audience. Before her arrival, it feels like there's something missing. (The young son has a heart condition, is constantly chugging Mountain Dew, and is hiding his wet underpants. And the dad thinks he doesn't need a babysitter?) It's when Youn enters the film that the film excels, and we start to feel like part of the family. She also challenges our (and her grandson's) ideas of what a grandmother is (including possibly having magical healing superpowers). A lot of people are looking for a way to reward this film, and this category is its best chance. Heck, even if voters only hear Youn's one line of English dialogue ("Ding-dong broken!" -- referring to her grandson's wiener), that could be enough to win.

Maybe the most curious nomination is for Maria Bakalova, starring in Borat Subsequent Moviefilm as the notorious Kazakh's daughter. A lot of things in the past year would have been impossible to predict, but an unknown Bulgarian actress stealing the spotlight and getting an Oscar nomination for a surprise-release Borat sequel would have to be near the top. And she's actually the only one in this category who's managed to score a nomination from every major organization. She won't win, but her performance (and memes) may live on the longest.

I must be missing something in Mank. (Granted, I haven't watched it the requisite four times in order to truly appreciate it, according to the Fincherists.) But I just don't understand what the fuss is about with Amanda Seyfried. She certainly plays her part well (as Marion Davies, the illicit love interest of William Randolph Hearst and the platonic love interest of Herman Mankiewicz), but I don't see how she elevates it or brings anything extraordinary to it. Her character plays a pivotal role in Citizen Kane (Davies was the inspiration for Kane's second wife), and I presume she's supposed to play a pivotal role in Mank's literary epiphany, but I fail to understand why. (Or maybe I failed to understand her Brooklyn accent.) But more than that, her narrative thread seems distressingly incomplete. She appears to be set up for a meaty final scene, but then her character simply exits, leaving Mankiewicz (and me) baffled. I've been more impressed by her work in other movies, like First Reformed. Of course, perhaps the most significant implication of Seyfried's nomination: Two of the Plastics now have Oscar nominations. (Gretchen, stop trying to make an Oscar nomination happen. It's not going to happen!)

Just in case there was any confusion, 88-year-old Ellen Burstyn is here to let us know she can still bring the thunder. Pieces Of A Woman is a mess, and her character is dubious, but she gets one powerhouse speech to shine and (somewhat) anchor the movie -- a declaration of strength, resilience, and survival. And she delivers a two-handed, rim-hanging, backboard-shattering jam. Oh, right, there's the woman who scored an Oscar, plus four other nominations, in a 9-year span in the 1970s. And who's been an Emmy fixture the past 15 years. And who has four more movies already in the works. Just another not-so-gentle reminder that she's one of the great actors of her generation. (Honorable Mentions go to The United States Vs. Billie Holiday's Da'Vine Joy Randolph, who continues her scene-stealing ways after Office Christmas Party and Dolemite Is My Name; and Dominique Fishback, whose performance adds emotional heft to Judas And The Black Messiah.)

BEST DIRECTOR:

SHOULD WIN: Chloé Zhao (Nomadland) WILL WIN: Chloé Zhao (Nomadland) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Ryan Murphy (The Prom) INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: Christopher Nolan (Tenet)

The second-most-certain thing this year is Chloé Zhao winning Best Director for Nomadland. She's dominated the narrative and the awards circuit this year; nobody else is close. In fact, she might win four Oscars, which would be a record for one person with a single film. (In 1954, Walt Disney was a quadruple winner for four different movies… but do short films really count?) Odds are that she'll win three, but if she wins Best Editing early in the night, the record will be hers. Historically joined at the hip, Best Director and Best Picture have surprisingly been split between different movies several times in recent years. The voters will align them this year, but I'm going to malign them. (Disalign? Unalign? Who am I kidding, I will malign them too.) As tepid as I am on Nomadland for Picture, Zhao is my Director choice. She is clearly a masterful artist and impressionistic storyteller. But more than that, she's able to conjure a mood and state of mind with her pseudo-documentary hybrid style. She gets us to feel what the character is feeling and put us right in the environment -- and makes it seem effortless. The film's long, languid takes allow us to breathe the air, drink in the scene, and live in the moment, unhurried. Zhao augments the nomadic quality of the film in every shot. But (oh, you knew there was a 'but'), on the down side, I also find the style to be a bit tedious and overdrawn at times. Because of my lack of investment, the film often struggles to keep my attention, or more accurately, my curiosity. And despite the film being touted as a tale of community and interconnectedness, it mostly suggests to me (via the main character) feelings of pain, loneliness, coldness, and sadness. But ultimately, I think those things speak more to the story than the directing. This will doubtless be a crowning a achievement for Zhao, but I'm more excited to see what the future will bring, and what she can do for a story that I'm invested in.

I was really close to picking Lee Isaac Chung for my Should Win, for his rich, captivating film, Minari. (Really close. You, the fortunate, insulated reader, will never truly know how much I agonize over this. Some suffer for art, I suffer for unsolicited criticism.) Honestly, I was tempted to give Chung a clean sweep of Picture, Director, and Screenplay; but instead I've opted to spread them around (I can play Academy politics all by myself). So many of the qualities of Zhao's film are present in Chung's film as well; his toolbox is just as full and varied. His quiet, atmospheric shots are unburdened by haste yet always nudging the story ahead. Chung draws us in, as another member of the Yi family, our hopes rising and falling with each challenge and trifle (and sexed chick) they face. There's a real confidence in his style; he knows how to best engage the audience for the specific journey. For me though, what I appreciate most is the warmth of his filmmaking; while the story has tribulations, the film itself is compassionate, never harsh or aggressive. That stands in stark contrast to Nomadland; the palette is one of the main things that sets them apart. Chung also scored points by showcasing the best accessory on the virtual Golden Globes telecast: a ridiculously adorable child. (Was that his own kid, or a rental? Only his publicist knows for sure.) Careful, I might accidentally talk myself into flipping my pick to Chung.

This was supposed to be his year. Goddammit, this was supposed to be his year! That was the sentiment from cinephiles all over the internet this year. Throw a rock in any direction and you'll hit a podcaster (and possibly me) ranting about how David Fincher was robbed in 2011 when he lost Best Director for The Social Network to Tom Hooper and The King's Speech. (Was the Academy justified? Since then, Fincher landed a third Oscar nomination, fourth Golden Globe nomination, and two Emmy wins; Hooper directed Cats.) In early winter, the pieces seemed to be lining up for a Fincher victory with Mank: a big, mainstream, Hollywood-y underdog story; an ode to the most revered film of all time, Citizen Kane; a scenery-chewing performance from beloved thesp Gary Oldman; a film that was more accessible (read: less weird and violent) than most of his other fare; and a passion project that he had been developing for decades, written by his late father. The only question was not whether the film could win all the Oscars, but whether it could cure pediatric cancer or pilot a rocket to Jupiter. But that was 2020… and we all know how that year went. Maybe it's the fatigue caused by the prolonged award campaign season, maybe it's the lack of theaters that would have showcased his visual marvel, or maybe it's the fact that the film didn't quiiiiiiite live up to the hype, but one thing is clear: Fincher is out of the race. I'll say what a lot of the other film snobs won't: This is probably not the film we want Fincher to win for anyway. We want him to win for something sharper, weirder, more incisive, and more upsetting; in short, something more Fincher-ish. Mank is fantastic, to be sure; and in (mostly) pulling it off, Fincher demonstrates his mastery of historical and contemporary cinema. But the hiccups are puzzling. The film is structured like Citizen Kane itself, which makes it at times equally difficult to engage in; but while Kane's flashbacks feel natural, a handful of Mank's feel shoehorned. The dialogue is in the style -- but not the pace -- of hard-boiled 1940s films, which alone is a recipe for difficult viewing; further peppering every retort with unnatural irony makes for wit but not necessarily comprehension. The Kane-esque echo effect doesn't help; neither do subtitles. (I tried.) While it turns out that it's not supposed to be his Oscar year after all, I commend Fincher on an effort like this -- the singular vision, the vigor, the risk -- even when I don't necessarily love the movie or connect with it. We need his art, we need his beautiful mess. (But next time maybe throw in a grisly murder, perverted romance, or crippling heartbreak… and acquire a charming child for the awards telecast.)

Emerald Fennell impressively scored a nomination for her first feature film, Promising Young Woman, an inventive genre-mashup of a Rape Revenge movie -- a new spin on a 1970s grindhouse staple. Like a lot of people, I don't quite know what to make of the movie (I don't think I've ever actually seen a Rape Revenge movie… though I've seen plenty of Dognapping Revenge movies). It's a film that could go badly a thousand different ways, but Fennell makes choices that keep it fresh and thoroughly watchable. The primary word that comes to mind is 'subversive'. From the candy coloring to the pop music to the meet-cute to the campy suspense, she toys with convention at every turn (in some cases more effectively than others). Even the support casting -- the kooky, on-the-nose (or 180-flipped) cameos spice up the movie, but also tend to undermine it and give it a B-movie vibe. (Do we really need Jennifer Coolidge and Max Greenfield doing what they do best, but not as well as they usually do it? Probably not. Do they make me chuckle? Yes.) The result is an oddly entertaining movie on a subject that is anything but. The patina of playfulness is helpful; if it was an avalanche of distressing, horrifying scenes, it could be a tortuous watch. All in all, it might be the most enjoyable Rape Revenge movie you'll ever see.

Perhaps the biggest surprise nominee in any category is Thomas Vinterberg, for the Danish film Another Round. (The lion's share of the Oscar buzz had been for star Mads Mikkelsen; the film is also up for Best International film.) This movie is in the grand tradition of celebrating alcohol because excessive drinking is awesome. And the Academy has recognized Vinterberg because he has so astutely captured how booze is a tasty balm for every wound -- an ancient and failsafe key to enlightenment and inner peace. Wait, what's that? I'm sorry… I'm being told that this movie is actually a cautionary tale. Hmmm. I guess I should have watched it sober. In light of that, I suppose the film is an interesting examination of middle-aged ennui and the tendency to overlook that which is right in front of you. (Anyone that has gotten this far in the article knows exactly what ennui is, and should have overlooked what was right in front of them.) It's also an unintentionally apt allegory for pandemic life: When it started, we began drinking a bit at home, enjoying Zoom happy hours, and generally having a good time; pretty soon we were day-drinking out of sheer boredom, trying to teach our home-schooled kids long division while buzzed, and it got very sad and depressing; now we're all pretty much ready to jump off the pier. In general, I like the film (though I prefer my mid-life drinking crises more in the mold of Old School), but the story and arc are fairly telegraphed. You mean their problems can't be fixed by increased alcohol consumption? The more you drink, the harder it is to control? Drinking at work as a teacher around minors might go awry? Instead of booze, have they tried rest, exercise, healthy eating, or appreciating the good things in their lives? (Who I am kidding, those are a waste of time.) Ultimately, there are several directors I would have chosen over Vinterberg (Christopher Nolan for Tenet, George C. Wolfe for Ma Rainey's Black Bottom, and Florian Zeller for The Father come to mind), but it's interesting to see the continuing trend of nominating non-American filmmakers in this category, as the Directors' branch of the Academy becomes increasingly international.

I want to talk about the ending of Another Round for a moment. If you didn't see the movie (and I'm betting you didn't), just skip this paragraph. Most of the reviews I've read online interpret the ending as a hopeful, happy one. I think that's crazy. The ending is a Trojan horse. It looks joyful, but just underneath lies tragedy: The trio resume drinking after they've seemingly hit rock bottom and lost their best friend to booze; they believe they're in control and having a good time when really they're spiraling into chaos; they think they've found a balance, when they're actually sliding endlessly further into alcoholism. They don't realize that they cannot enjoy life sober. I think one of the reasons why I like the movie so much is that it masks that ending as a "happy" one, much the way a drinker would see it when they don't realize there's a problem. The ending is denial. A lot of people have seen the final scene as uplifting and life-affirming (even Vinterberg seems to say this in interviews, which is puzzling), that the friends have come to terms with their drinking, and have found a way to drink in moderation and still invigorate their lives and celebrate the small things. I don't understand that take at all. I would buy it if they had found a way to celebrate life while sober. Instead, I think it's the surest sign that they are destroying their lives, because they don't even realize it's happening. It's the 'darkest timeline'. They ask themselves the wrong question, "What would Tommy do?", instead of "What would Tommy want us to do?", and we know exactly what Tommy would do because we see him drink himself to death. Martin has gotten a reconciliatory text from his wife, but just as he's about to go to her, he instead joins the party, quickly gets plastered, and literally goes off the deep end. What's truly heartbreaking is seeing that they've (gleefully and unknowingly) perpetuated the cycle, having encouraged the next generation to drink in order to cope and be "awakened to life". I think there are hints in the final song lyrics ("What a Life") and the movie's poster (the image of Mikkelsen recklessly chugging champagne in a blurry stupor is from the final scene). To me, the seemingly exuberant ending is a fallacy… and utterly tragic.

In a surprise move that everyone saw coming, I'm naming Christopher Nolan as my Snubbed choice, for his twisty, backwards-y spectacle, Tenet. Did I understand the movie? Of course. Oh, you didn't? Dummy.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:

SHOULD WIN: Derek Cianfrance, Abraham Marder, Darius Marder (Sound Of Metal) WILL WIN: Emerald Fennell (Promising Young Woman) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Aaron Abrams, Brendan Gall (The Lovebirds) INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: Sam Levinson (Malcolm And Marie)

Did his name have to be Ryan? No, that wasn't my biggest takeaway from the script for Emerald Fennell's Promising Young Woman. But it was a big one. As Carey Mulligan's chances fade a bit, Screenplay is the movie's strongest chance to strike gold, making a strong run in the precursory awards. The ending of the film has been pretty divisive, but I like that it's completely unexpected. Maybe it's contrived, but it's what makes the movie memorable for me, and separates it from other revenge thrillers. Or maybe it's inevitable, given the themes of the movie and the character pursuing her mission past the point of no return. Either way, did his name have to be Ryan? Unless Fennell's role (she's an actress, too) as Camilla Parker Bowles on The Crown accidentally embroils her in recent royal family controversies, she should be collecting this award on Oscar night.

Most of the praise for Sound Of Metal has been specifically for its sound design. But it starts with the script (written by director Darius Marder, along with Derek Cianfrance and Abraham Marder), which is the blueprint for the sound and experience of the movie. And it's my pick (by a hair) for best screenplay of the year. It has -- hey, whaddya know! -- an actual narrative, with a main character who has an objective and opposition. It's always impressive to me when a story has very little I can directly relate to, but it still manages to resonate, and strikes a tone that feels real. I also appreciate the skill in the writing -- it's minimalistic, yet thorough in the ways that matter. The film doesn't explain a lot or give us much exposition -- it doesn't lean on voice-over, window characters, or monologues. It's quiet. Which may seem obvious considering it's about a man losing his hearing, but even the man himself and the real world he lives in have a muted vibe (despite his mind being anything but calm). The film has also been lauded for its authentic portrayal of deaf people… but not for its authentic portrayal of audiologists. (I mean, how bad is Ruben's audiologist consultation, that he is in no way prepared for how things would sound after getting cochlear implants? I get more information from my dentist when getting a cavity filled.) Also: What does metal sound like? I still don't know.

Aaron Sorkin would seem like the obvious pick here, for The Trial Of The Chicago 7. It's the kind of sonorous, social-consciousness word-porn we've come to love and expect from him. But he's already got an Oscar (though most people assume he has three), and the fight-the-system theme isn't exactly unique to his script this year. Not surprisingly, the movie feels like a mash-up of The West Wing and A Few Good Men, complete with humorous exchanges of smug cleverness, heart-warming declarations of overly-simplified principle, and his own trademark Sorkin-esque version of facts. Sure, the story of the Chicago 7 is intriguing, but would I rather watch a movie about a Chicago 7-Eleven? It's tempting…

I've previously talked about the reasons I appreciated Minari so much (written by director Lee Isaac Chung). A lot of the sweetness of the film is present in the screenplay. He cleverly tells much of the story through the eyes of a 7-year-old boy, so it's told less fact-by-fact, and more through the filter of a child's memory. (Chung based the screenplay somewhat on his own experiences growing up.) Charming as it is, I can't help but view it through the filter of a parent's anxiety: 1) Is moving across the country to live in a small town where you don't know anyone, living in a trailer, and starting a farm with zero experience the best way to solve marital problems? 2) One of the main promotional photos for the movie is a of the little boy holding a stick. Am I crazy, or is that the same stick that the father was going to use to beat the boy when he disobeyed? Did the marketing person keep their job after that? 3) The friend's deadbeat dad leaves the kids alone overnight, presumably out carousing and drinking, then shows up at breakfast hammered, saying, "Tell your mom I was here all night." How many times can you get away with that? 4) When the boy cuts his foot, is it bad that I did not think of the wound or his safety, but about the blood getting on the carpet? 5) Why aren't these kids in school??

Perhaps the script (and movie) with the biggest head of steam coming into awards night is Judas And The Black Messiah, a late entry that has been picking up acolytes left and right. The film has been lauded for its approach to the story of Black Panther leader Fred Hampton -- by telling it as a gritty, 70s-style, cat-and-mouse thriller, from the perspective of the FBI informant sent to help stop him. Director Shaka King (who wrote the script with Will Berson, based on ideas from the Lucas Brothers) has said that structure, instead of a more traditional biopic style, helped get it made by a studio. Despite the inevitability of the ending, the dramatic conflict and ferocity of the performances make for a satisfyingly tense ride.

This is going to come back to bite me, but my snubbed pick is Malcolm And Marie (or, as it should have been called, Things You Shouldn't Say To Your Girlfriend At 2 AM When You're Drunk And She's In A Bad Mood). It's like a really long Bad Idea Jeans commercial. Now, I'm not necessarily recommending this movie. You should know that most critics and regular people hate it. It's two hours of a couple arguing. It's a rough ride. It's indulgent, overwrought, and well, chock-full of mental and emotional abuse. But (stay with me here), if you can get past all that, those elements have a purpose, and there is a point to the film. I think the key is that it's not intended to be literal. It's allegorical for how we talk to ourselves -- the internal conflict we have, when we wrestle with ideas that are hard to reconcile. It's also lyrical; there's an elegance in how the characters spew eloquent vitriol at each other and rhapsodize (okay, rant) about some opinions that seem dead-on and others that seem wildly inaccurate. In some ways, the words seem like the most important thing; but in other ways, I think the movie could work as a silent film. (Either way, it's inventive: It was the first major film to shoot completely during the pandemic, so it takes place in a single home, with 2 actors, in more-or-less real time.) Writer/director Sam Levinson poses interesting questions about storytelling and authorship: Sure, write what you know; but also, and maybe more interestingly, try to write (and learn) about what you don't know. (Case in point: I don’t really have any experience or expertise about the Oscars, yet here I am.) Levinson has gotten a lot of criticism for what appears to be his point of view. I think that's fair, but I also disagree. I believe it's a bit of a misdirection. I think he believes in both sides of the argument; he's been the irrational, emotional one, and the cool, calculating one. The characters are halves to a whole. There's also the frustration with how the couple end up. The film is ambiguous, but audiences seem to think they stay together. I think the girlfriend actually decides before the movie starts that she's leaving him, and this is their breakup. That's why she lets him say all the horrible things he does, because she knows he has to get it out -- it affirms what she already knows, and reinforces her decision. Did I sell you on the movie yet? No? Well, how about this: It's the best autobiographical movie that Burton and Taylor never made.

As an honorable mention, it would have been a nice story had Mank been nominated here, as it was written by David Fincher's father, Jack Fincher, over two decades ago. The elder Fincher was a life-long newspaper man, who had an affinity for 1930s/1940s cinema, a strong knowledge of Herman Mankiewicz, and a fascination with a famously-dissenting Pauline Kael article that disparaged Orson Welles's contributions to the Citizen Kane screenplay. David Fincher had hoped to get his passion project off the ground in the 90s, but hasn't been able to until now. A nomination would have been a touching tribute to his father, who died in 2003. (Another interesting connection: John Mankiewicz, Herman Mankiewicz's grandson, was an executive producer on David Fincher's House Of Cards.) Despite my frustrations with the overall movie, the script is slick, and analyzes some intriguing inside-the-snowglobe aspects of Citizen Kane. It's a crackling, showy piece that jauntily goes out of its way to flaunt its writerliness. (For you keen-eyed writers out there, you'll notice I just made up the word 'writerliness'.) It doesn’t necessarily require you to believe that Citizen Kane is the greatest film ever made, but a healthy sense of awe doesn’t hurt. (It also helps to have a working knowledge of the film's lore, pre-WWII Hollywood, and 1930s -- or some would say, 2020s -- California politics.) The script simultaneously adores and gives a middle finger to Hollywood. Isn’t that what art is supposed to do? (That's not a rhetorical question. I'm actually asking if art is supposed to do that. Because I don't know.)

I've picked The Lovebirds as my Gloriously Omitted choice, not because it's a bad movie, but because it's a missed opportunity. It should have been amazing. The premise, the trailer, the choice of leads, and the chemistry are all fantastic, and set lofty expectations. But the movie itself is just… underwhelming. Maybe hopes were too high, but it's not as clever, tight, or funny as I wanted it to be. The problem isn't the actors -- Issa Rae truly holds the screen, and Kumail Nanjiani is naturally funny (though his character doesn't stray far from previous ones). I think it's the script (from Aaron Abrams and Brendan Gall), which feels rushed and half-baked, like a collection of sketch ideas. It's as if the screenplay left chunks blank, with a note saying, "The actors will figure out something funny on set." For these actors, I'd rather see a taut thriller story, and let them imbue it with humor and humanity. Or better yet, let Rae and Nanjiani write it themselves next time.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:

SHOULD WIN: Christopher Hampton, Florian Zeller (The Father) WILL WIN: Chloé Zhao (Nomadland) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Jane Goldman, Joe Shrapnel, Anna Waterhouse (Rebecca) INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: Ruben Santiago-Hudson (Ma Rainey's Black Bottom)

Adapted Screenplay is going to get swept up in the Nomadland tidal wave on Oscar night, but to me it's probably the film's weakest element. I've talked about my lack of connection to the story. I understand the opinion that it's resonant, but is it revelatory? I can certainly see how it would strike a stronger chord during the pandemic, when we are all isolated; it makes the main character's loneliness feel more real. We've all been living in Nomadland, and whether it's David Strathairn shattering our favorite plates, or our kids shattering our iPad, we're just about at wit's end. But Chloé Zhao's script also plays up the theme of community and interconnectedness, and I didn't really feel that. The main character seems to be closing herself off from connection (though the ending suggests a change that we never actually get to see). A red flag is a movie description that says, "It asks more questions than it answers." Ugh, that's tough. For me, narrative is king. I understand that the movie is literally about a drifter with no plan, and the structure of the film is supposed to make you feel unmoored, but a little plot direction would be nice. Then there's the emotional climax, when Bob the Nomad Guru comes to the rescue to explain the whole theme. He tells Frances McDormand (but really, us) that he gets through grief by helping other people: "For a long time, every day was, How can I be alive on this earth when he’s not? And I didn’t have an answer. But I realized I could honor him by serving people. It gives me a reason to go through the day. Some days that's all I've got." Hmmm, where I have I seen that exact sentiment expressed before? Oh yeah, an award-winning short film called Through The Trees. (Available now, for free on YouTube.)

Dementia Mystery Thriller… is that a movie genre? Well, it might be, after success of The Father (written by Christopher Hampton and Florian Zeller, adapted from Zeller's Tony-winning play). "Exciting" is hardly the word I would use to describe the horrible crumbling of the mind that is dementia, but in this movie, it weirdly fits. The film has a way of presenting the disorder in a unique manner, that goes a long way in conveying the helplessness and frustration of the victim. With copycat movies inevitable, I can almost see Christopher Nolan's version now: Demento, where a mumbling Tom Hardy (unrecognizable under heavy old-man makeup) kills his caregiver twice because he can't remember if he already killed her… or her identical twin. The big twist comes when he discovers whether he killed them in the past, or in the future, or if he's remembering the memory of someone else who killed them. The scenes of the movie play in a different random order every time, and the only score is the constant deafening sound of the old man's heartbeat. Marion Cotillard plays the twins -- apparently the only females in the universe -- using whatever accent she feels like, because she has limited, unrealistic dialogue, and has no compelling story or agency, or any useful traits for an actress whatsoever. Hardy's son may or may not be a British crime lord or an undercover MI6 agent, played by Michael Caine (digitally de-aged to look the age that Hardy actually is). An emaciated Christian Bale, who manages to lose 3 inches of height for the role, makes a cameo as Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Revolutionary practical effects include a life-size recreation of Westminster Abbey inside a zero-gravity chamber, for one massively-complicated but forgettable 5-second shot. It will only cost $723 million, and will go straight to HBO Max. I will name it the best film of 2022.

I may be picking The Father, but I'm rooting for The White Tiger, written and directed by Ramin Bahrani. Set in India in the recent past, it's a striking, chilling tale of what men may be willing to do (or forced to do) to escape poverty. Bahrani constructs a fiery examination of themes that never get old: power vs. agency, freedom vs. choice, complicity vs. culpability. His script uses a lot of devices that shouldn't work: excessive, expository voice-over; explicitly-stated metaphors; speaking directly to the audience; and on-the-nose correlations to current times. But the story and acting are strong enough to make these feel integral. Given the themes and foreign setting, it has the misfortune (or great fortune) of being an easy comparison to Parasite, last year's Oscar grand prize winner. But I find The White Tiger far more accessible and scrutable than Parasite (maybe partly due to the devices I mentioned). A win here would be a welcome surprise. By the way, Bahrani's first Oscar nomination is an interesting footnote to Hollywood lore: In the 2014 Roger Ebert documentary Life Itself, we learn that Ebert was given a legendary token by Laura Dern -- a puzzle that had been passed on from several film icons, with the understanding that each would pass it on to someone truly deserving. Dern had gotten it from revered acting teacher Lee Strasberg, and it originated when Alfred Hitchcock gave it to Marilyn Monroe years before. And now Ebert was giving it to Bahrani. 60 years of movie history, from Hitchcock to Bahrani, and into the future. (Good thing it's not at my house, we would have lost several pieces by now.)

Four of the most famous and popular men in the country walk into a bar… so shouldn't the patrons be freaking out more? One Night In Miami plays out a very intriguing hypothetical scenario: When Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali, Jim Brown, and Sam Cooke all met one night in 1964, what did they talk about? The compelling script (by Kemp Powers, based on his own play) and naturalistic direction (by Regina King) make for a highly enjoyable think-piece and character study. It's a daunting task, to say the least: Not only are they representing extremely visible and important figures, but two of the actors (Kingsley Ben-Adir as Malcolm X, Eli Goree as Ali) are reprising roles already played by Oscar-nominated performers (Denzel Washington, Will Smith) who may be more famous than the actual figures themselves. I guess my hang-up (besides the horrendous Johnny Carson impersonation) is, what are the stakes? Historically, we know the stakes for these four people, in the larger context of their lives and the civil rights movement. But in the film itself, in that single night, for these specific characterizations, what are the stakes? What are they each looking for that evening? I think the movie doesn't fully address this, structurally. Ultimately, due to their fame, we know where the characters' lives go from here -- how it "ends". While that makes it interesting culturally, it feels like it puts a ceiling on the movie in a way, like it's holding something back. With these outsized characters, plot-wise, I wanted a little bit more.

Released in October with almost no warning, Borat Subsequent Moviefilm either single-handedly swung the presidential election, or had no absolutely no impact whatsoever, depending on who you ask. It's a rare feat for an original movie and its sequel to both score Oscar nominations for screenplay; I can't think of another time it's ever happened for a comedy. The fact that it's even under consideration -- given its improvisational nature and whopping nine (nine!) screenwriters (I'm not going to name them all, I'm trying to keep this article brief) -- is fairly astonishing. Even more baffling still, it's been placed in the Adapted category instead of Original. (Pesky Academy rules: Any sequel is automatically defined as an adaptation of the original.) The movie itself is unfortunately a shell of the unrelentingly funny original (Sacha Baron Cohen looks more like a middle-aged man doing a mediocre Borat impression at this point). When the big night arrives, the film will either single-handedly swing the Oscar vote, or have absolutely no impact whatsoever, depending on who you ask.

One of the biggest surprises on nomination day was the exclusion of Ma Rainey's Black Bottom from Best Picture and Best Adapted Screenplay, assumed to be a lock in both categories. It was even thought to contend with Nomadland in this category (it would have gotten my vote, had they asked me). I think it was diminished by the perception of being a fairly straight recreation of August Wilson's play, which is a shame. The film version (written by Ruben Santiago-Hudson) makes wonderful use of the physical space, the confinement, the claustrophobia. And I'd say the movie feels more like an album than a play -- a collection of "songs" (monologues, exchanges, and actual songs), each with its own rhythm, beat, lyrics, and theme, but coming together as a cohesive piece. The composition is effective; it draws you in the way the best albums do, and challenges your brain to think one thing while your heart feels something else. (My only complaint is that I wanted more of Viola Davis and Chadwick Boseman together! Their personalities are electric, and their personas overtake the room. Their conflict is brief (it mostly flows over to conflicts with other characters), and I really wanted to see them alone, head-to-head and unbridled. I realize their distance is purposeful, and important thematically, but damn, it could have been a showdown for the ages. Just another reason to wonder… What might have been?)

The remake of Rebecca was written by a few people, including Joe Shrapnel, whose name may have been a bad harbinger for what was to become of this script. Keep it simple: Please leave Hitchcock alone.

[glassvines]

Thoughts on 2020 Favorites

Thoughts on all my favorites from 2020! Sadly, I witnessed what is most likely the demise of one of my favorite hobbies: going to the movies. I hope all my local theaters don’t close up for good this year, and I start going more regularly again in 2021 but. I don’t know if it’s ever going to be the same again. TV Shows 1. Battlestar Galactica (2004) - Getting into this one rather late, but I just discovered I can watch it for free on Peacock haha. Absolutely loving it. Been meaning to finish it ever since I watched the 2003 mini series a few years ago. Stylistically brilliant, and I love that the theological-laden dialogue appears to have a plot-driven point to it. 2. Evil (CBS) - I love this show! Hope it gets another season. It manages to pull off that fine line between silly and creepy most of the time, and all the actors come off as sincere. Also Michael Emerson is there which makes everything even better. Also, also a plus: I'm used to the media portraying Catholics in two different ways: lapsed or bigoted. Muslims? Devout and spiritual or terrorists. It's nice to see a series centered around a devot Catholic, a lapsed Catholic and an ex-Muslim who are all the good guys. Fantastic central characters dynamic. Animation 1. Hilda, season 2 - One of Netflix's best imo. The new season was gorgeous, and even got me to shed a tear at one point. I want to read the comic it's based on. 2. Infinity Train, seasons 2 + 3 - Excellent follow-ups to a great first season. Both were good seasons, but I really enjoyed s2 for Jesse and MT's instant chemistry. 3. Castlevania, season 3 - This show is going to end up breaking my heart but damn if it isn't a really fun watch. Fight scenes continued being top-notch in s3. 4. Bee and Puppycat, season 2 - Yeah, this isn't getting an offical Netflix release until 2022 (what the fuck), but I watched the leaked episodes and enjoyed them a lot. The show feels un-polished and the plot is surrealist nonsense, but those aspects of the show also make it creative and original. I'd like more seasons in the future, but given how disorganized to the point of incompetence the s2 release is, I'm not counting on getting anymore. I don't like seeing the popularity of this show squandered so it's a huge shame. 5. Amphibia, season 2 - Best Disney show airing right now. Characterizations and animation continued being great and I'm looking forward to s3. 6. Wolfwalkers - We all needed a beautiful Cartoon Saloon movie in 2020. It did not disappoint! Hope it has a bluray release soon so I can rewatch it somewhere other than Apple TV+ :/. 7. The Willoughbys - More Kris Pearn directed films please. This movie's character design style was so charming and cute. Loved the Ricky Gervais Cat Narrator. I watched this one with my family after having been separated from them for some time due to the lockdown. It was probably one of the happiest evenings of this year for me. 8. Soul - I enjoyed Onward quite a bit, but Soul hit me in that old-school Pixar feels way. A film about inspiration and finding purpose, so it had a message very similar to Ratatouille. Only Soul ponders on one's worth if they are "not doing what they're meant to do". This movie really knocked that message out of the park.

Video Games 1. Animal Crossing: New Horizons - I played this rather religiously. Definitely kept me from moping during those times when my work hours were cut. 2. Creaks - Amanita Design is offically one of my favorite indie game studios at this point. I adore the atmosphere and music in this game; it's one of the most chill puzzle games I've ever played. 3. Hylics - This game is so bizarre. I've never seen anything like it. Really want to play the sequel.

Films 1. Emma - May officially be my new favorite Emma adaptation. I loved everything about it. The stylized look to the cinematography, the costumes, the music, the actors. Everything. 2. Doctor Sleep - Was surprised at how much I enjoyed this one, as I completely missed it in the theaters. An excellent sequel to a classic, and a well-done good vs. evil story. 3. The Vast of Night - Fun little sci-fi/indie/1950s period piece. I hope streaming services start distributing more films like it. 4. Prospect - My dad recommended this one to me and we watched it together. I was blown away by the dedication to detail; how everything worked in this future setting. Pedro Pascal's character was constantly surprising me too. (Also see: very handsome.)

Podcasts This is only here so I can mention that my favorite new thing was 100% The Magnus Archives. I listened to a lot of new stuff in 2020, but it all paled in comparison to TMA. Good spooky times, great characters and character dynamics, interesting plot direction. The lore is so, so good; I'm impressed with how thorough it is with explaining the seemingly unexplainable, without fully taking away the air of mystery.

Honorable Mentions 1. The Mandalorian, season 2

Things I'm Looking Forward to in 2021 1. Hopefully we'll finally be getting that PacRim series?? 2. The French Dispatch 3. I just want to go the movies again sighhh

Some Creative & General Goals for 2021 I actually managed to do a proper job this year with the journaling and taking more photography! I've started serveral journals, as well as a digital one. So, at least I managed to keep up with one of my creative goals. Managed to have a fairly successful deck garden this year too. My sugar peas didn't die on me haha. Hope to expand on it more this spring/summer. Moving forward this year: 1. Continue to keep up with journaling: drawings, gardening, travel (fingers crossed) and tv/film commentary. 2. Seriously organize my photography this year, as well as post online more often. 3. Help my brother this year with some of his own creative projects! He's always asking for art and I'm usually too busy, but this year I want to get more serious and contribute to his projects. 4. Maybe get back to an old goal of learning how to play the guitar. I want to drop some cash on one this month so I can practice at home.

[machetelanding]

BY JOE BOB BRIGGS

Los Angeles — I just finished recording a 148-minute commentary track for I Spit On Your Grave Déjà Vu, the 40-years-later sequel to the notorious rape-revenge movie from the seventies, and one of the main reasons I was hired by director Meir Zarchi and his producer son, Terry, is so that the upcoming Blu-ray release could beat back the haters.

Critics don’t like Meir Zarchi. They didn’t like him in 1979 and they don’t like him now.

Distributors don’t like Meir Zarchi. They wouldn’t give him a deal in 1979 and they wouldn’t give him a deal now. (A major studio backed out of an agreement, citing “the cultural environment.”)

Feminists don’t like Meir Zarchi. They called him a misogynist when I Spit On Your Grave first came out, and the film has been the subject of impassioned debate in Women’s Studies classes and film departments ever since.

Fortunately, there was an exploitation marketer named Jerry Gross who took Meir’s original film, called Day of the Woman, retitled it, platformed it through a system of sub-distributors, and fought the various protesters in every city, including Chicago, where Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert stood in front of theaters and told people not to go in. That was followed by a video release that allowed people all over the world to see the movie that was often banned in the very city where they watched it. One of the most liberating developments in the history of free expression was the invention of VHS.

Today all those subdistributors are gone and VHS is a hipster hobby at best, a piece of metal crap in your garage at worst. The chances of I Spit On Your Grave Déjà Vu getting into a mainstream movie theater in 2020 are somewhere between zero and impossible. Fortunately, there’s a device called the Blu-ray player that allows anyone in the world to order a physical copy online and watch it the next day.

The Blu-ray player, in other words, is the Jerry Gross of our day. It’s our defense against a world of judgmental overlords who would very happily make Meir Zarchi’s film disappear.

And pretty soon now we won’t have that protection anymore.

Samsung recently announced that they will no longer manufacture 1080p or 4K Blu-ray players. These are state-of-the-art devices, the absolute best digital image quality ever achieved, but they showed up two years too late. As we know from the early days of video players, people don’t care about image quality. If people cared about image quality, Technicolor and Eastman Kodak would still be in business, because film images have been getting progressively worse since the late 1930s. People care about convenience and price. Nobody upgraded from the Blu-ray players they bought in 2017 — they either accepted the less brilliant image or switched over to streaming, where image quality will never equal any Blu-ray.

We’re not quite at the end of physical media — Sony and Panasonic will probably show record sales this year, now that their biggest competitor has left the field — but it’s the first signal that pretty much everything is gonna be moving to The Cloud. The problem with The Cloud is that someday The Cloud is going to explode into a fine digital mist and trillions of cultural artifacts are going to be lost. I don’t know how it will happen, whether through cyber-terrorism, actual war, or simple mismanagement, but a whole bunch of stuff is gonna get burned up and everyone will be asking, “Who do I sue?”

Of course, all your physical media could burn up, too. Your house could burn down and take all your tapes and DVDs with it. But State Farm would replace it for you. The problem with The Cloud blowing up is that it takes a billion other people with you.

But that’s not even the worst result of moving away from physical media.

The worst result is that controversial movies and tv shows and music — especially under-the-radar media like I Spit On Your Grave — will simply not be there anymore. They will be censored into a digital void.

And we won’t even notice it happening.

Take it from a person who has dealt with censors his whole life: they’re nothing like the stereotype. The stereotype is Anthony Comstock, head of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, upholding Victorian morality. The stereotype is Thomas Bowdler, the English doctor who took all the naughty parts out of Shakespeare. The stereotype is Tipper Gore, dedicating herself to saving the youth of America by getting rid of rap music.

I’ve only encountered one opponent like this: The Reverend Donald Wildmon of Tupelo, Mississippi, a “family values” advocate who devoted himself to ridding the world of pornography in all its forms, including high school sex comedies and horror films. The Reverend was fun to debate with because his position was so pure — he really did think movies could turn ordinary people into rapists and killers.

But these aren’t real censors. These are crusaders. They eventually collapse under the weight of their own self-righteousness.

The real censors are the people who say, “Let’s stay away from that topic.” They’re the retiring types. They wear grey cardigans and sensible shoes. They’re middle managers at Disney, creative executives at Fox, lawyers at CBS. Their solution to any controversy is to cancel the show, pull the film out of distribution, cut off the licensing.

Amos ‘n’ Andy, one of the most influential radio and television series ever produced — the template for The Honeymooners, Sanford and Son, All in the Family and many other “bro” series — hasn’t been widely seen since 1966 because CBS took it out of distribution and refused to license it. Its crime: racist stereotypes.

If you haven’t seen the slasher Clownhouse, you probably never will unless you own the hard-to-find DVD. Its crime: the director was a convicted child molester.

Don’t watch the “Sign my dick” scene from Victor Crowley on Amazon Prime, because they took out the money shot. Its crime: showing a dick.

Notice that these are all crimes of omission. They just make the film, or the scene, or the entire series, unavailable.

And these are the people who own The Cloud.

These are the people who run streaming.

Once the DVD players are gone, and once the Blu-ray players are gone, all we’ll have left is faceless bureaucrats who are periodically cleansing their library of inconvenient titles. They won’t care about right or wrong, justice or injustice, questions like “Has enough time passed to start running The Cosby Show again?”

And the little companies like Something Weird Video, knocking at the doors of the big streaming services? “No, sir, I don’t think our company needs to be renting Bigfoot Gets Laid at the current time. We’re doing just fine with Transformers 12.”

It will be censorship of the minority by the majority. It will be silent and legal. You won’t notice it until the day you discover Cannibal Holocaust, only to find that all the rights have been purchased by an animal-rights group so that they can make sure it’s never seen again.

Vladimir Putin will love it. Xi Jinping will love it. Recep Erdogan will be especially fond of it. All you have to do is find the corrupting media influence wherever it resides in The Cloud, push one button and — voila! — it’s gone. So much better than when they had those pesky home video devices. In those days we couldn’t even be sure of what they were watching. Media is better when it keeps track of the watcher. Media is better when it doesn’t just know what to feed you, it knows when to starve you.

[duhragonball]

Dragon Ball Z Movie 1: Dead Zone

All right, it’s time or the first DBZ movie.   Dead Zone premiered on July 15, 1989, right between epsiodes 11 and 12.   It wasn’t actually called “Dead Zone”, and it’s title was simply “Dragon Ball Z” until the other movies came out, and then it was known in Japan as “Return my Gohan!”     Personally, I think “Dead Zone” works better as a title although it doesn’t really come into play until the very end.  

I ran into some trouble with this one, because I own all the DBZ movies on Blu-Ray, and it turns out that I can’t take screen captures of Blu-Ray movies on my computer.   So my only other option was to log on to Funimation’s streaming service and get my images from there.   But the video quality was pathetic, so I’ll apologize in advance for the crappy screenshots.  

I’m not sure how I’ll proceed with the other films.   I can’t use Funimation.com for all of them, because the Bardock special, the Broly movies, and Fusion Reborn were all taken off the site, probably because they’ve been playing them in theaters lately.   I guess I could buy the DVD editions, but I’m not sure it’s worth the trouble.   Well, I’ll worry about that later.

We open on this shot of Piccolo screaming.   Right away, you call tell this is going to be a great movie.   Casablanca should have done this.  

I’m not sure what Piccolo is up to here, but I guess he’s blowing up rock formations as part of his training to beat Goku someday.  

Then he gets ambushed by three mysterious warriors, and they pretty much eat his lunch.   A fourth one orders them to kill Piccolo.

Piccolo screams, and there’s an explosion, and the bad guys seem pretty confident that he’s dead.   They also know that since Piccolo and Kami were once the same person, they’ve killed Kami along with Piccolo, which seems to have been the purpose of this attack.

Except Kami’s just fine.  We see him on the Lookout, sitting in what looks like a confessional.   He’s startled, but only because he can sense that Piccolo has been defeated.   He suspects Goku, but then he realizes that it must have been... him. 

From there, we move on to Goku’s house, where the Ox King just arrived to bring Gohan some presents.   It’s very much like the first few episodes of DBZ, only this time Gohan is actually home when Ox shows up.

But then Ox King collapses, and Gohan has to run away before his grandpa can fall on him.

Turns out some bad guy coldcocked Ox King from behind, and now he wants the Dragon Ball on Gohan’s hat.  Chi-Chi sends Gohan into the relative safety of the house...

...but this guy’s waiting inside, so that’s no good.   Also he eats three pears, just because.

Chi-Chi squares up to fight these guys, but there’s three of them and one of her, and she has to keep an eye on Gohan too.  There’s a lot of gifs out there of Chi-Chi’s desperate stance in this movie, because it’s just so well-animated.   Everything in this movie is well-animated, really.    It might not be the most innovative story, but the visuals more than make up for it.  

Chi-Chi can’t even land a blow, as it turns out.   The bad guys take Gohan and leave, and Goku’s out fishing.   Somehow, he senses it when Chi-Chi falls, and he runs back to the house to see what’s wrong.   Chi-Chi tells him that his son has been kidnapped by bad guys.   The question now is: Is Goku a bad enough dude to rescue him?   The answer is yes.  

Then we cut to the bad guys’ lair.   This shot looks amazing.   I love the weird architecture of the castle, I love the salmon-colored sky and the yellow clouds, it’s just really pleasant to look at.   I’d hang this up on my wall at home if I did that sort of thing. 

The leader, named Garlic Junior, plans to use the Dragon Balls to wish for eternal life.   With Gohan’s capture, they now have five of the Dragon Balls, and they seem pretty confident that they can locate the last two without much trouble.   I’m curious as to how they can find them so easily, but this is never explained.

Also, I don’t understand why they kidnapped Gohan when all they wanted was the Dragon Ball on his hat.   Gohan informs them that his father will come rescue him, and the bad guys seem mildly impressed to learn that Goku is his father.   Garlic even recognizes Goku as the man who defeated Piccolo at the World Martial Arts tournament.    On the other hand, they just got done beating Piccolo, and quite easily, so they figure they can handle Goku if he happens to show up.

Garlic senses that Gohan has a great power within him, and decides to raise him as his henchman.   This right here turns out to be a huge mistake.  Bringing Gohan here was a questionable move at best, but here we see Garlic decide to keep the kid, rather than kill him or send him back to his family.    It just isn’t worth it.   Yeah, Gohan might make a useful flunky, but does Garlic really need one?   Probably not, but he’s too high on his own success to hedge his bets. 

Meanwhile, Goku heads to Master Roshi’s place to get Bulma’s Dragon Radar.   Not sure how he knew Bulma was at Roshi’s place, but whatever.   Just like in the TV series, when Radditz kidnapped Gohan, Goku was able to track his son by the Dragon Ball on his hat.   And this seems like a good time to discuss the continuity of this movie.

See, the original Dragon Ball movies sort of functioned as a retelling of Goku’s early adventures, with different characters and plot elements tossed in.   It was readily apparent that they didn’t fit into the continuity of the TV anime or the manga, because they literally retold key moments, like Goku meeting Bulma for the first time, or Krilln meeting Master Roshi, or Tao Pai Pai’s murder of Bora.   But the circumstances were changed, so it was clear that those movie moments didn’t fit in with the original story.   The DBZ movies, on the other hand, sort of operate as side-stories to the manga and anime, ecxcept that there’s usually one or two plot holes that keep them from fitting into the mythos.   

In this case, the big problem is that Bulma, Roshi, and Krillin are helping Goku find his lost son, but they didn’t find out Goku even had a son until Episode 2 of DBZ, which ends with Radditz kidnapping the boy.    If not for this scene right here, you could make an argument that this movie works as a prequel to DBZ, and Gohan got kidnapped by a different supervillain right before Raditz showed up.   

So why not say that it’s set after the battle with Raditz?    Because Goku dies in that battle, and by the time he comes back, Piccolo is dead.    By the time Piccolo returns to life, they’re all on Planet Namek.    You won’t see all of these characters reunited on Earth until Episode 121.    By that time, Goku’s a Super Saiyan, and Gohan is a few years older, and far more capable than the timid little boy we see in this movie.  

Still, it’s a pretty subtle plot hole, which I think is why some fans cling to the idea that the movies are canon somehow.   It doesn’t help that Toei did a whole filler arc in the anime, where Garlic Junior returns and references the events of the movie, but it just doesn’t make sense. 

Back at Garlic’s castle, he’s sent two of his minions to gather the last two Dragon Balls, while the third has to look after Gohan.   He doesn’t care much for this, and he stops to take a break by eating fruit from a tree in the courtyard...

... But Gohan has the same idea.  

Turns out this is special fruit that gets you drunk.  

Gohan has a whole hallucination, complete with a musical theme.

Somehow he wanders into Garlic’s oversized novelty cuckoo clock.

And then he sleeps it off on Garlic’s throne. Garlic seems to consider all of this as a sign that Gohan is no ordinary child, so maybe a normal kid would just pass out or die if they ate that fruit. 

Doesn’t matter, because it’s wish time.  Garlic gets all seven balls, and he asks the Dragon to make him immortal, and it works!   Goku’s still on his way when this happens.    It’s kind of surreal to see a bad guy pull something like this off without a hitch.    Even King Piccolo had to fight a few people first.

The actual process of making Garlic Junior immortal seems to involve some sort of energy transfer.    It even looks a little uncomfortable, but Garlic is sure that it worked. 

then we get this whole scene of demons rising up from the ground and marching off to war.    I’m not sure if this is actually happening while Garlic is becoming immortal, or if he’s just imagining what he’s going to do now that no one can stop him.

Goku arrives soon after, demanding the release of his son, and then Kami shows up, all glowing yellow like he’s a big shot.  Garlic is shocked to see Kami, since he assumed he was already dead, but Goku is just annoyed that Kami is butting into his rescue mission.   This scene makes a lot more sense when you’ve seen Kami and Goku quibble over the fight with Piccolo in the original Dragon Ball.

From there, Kami starts explaining just who Garlic Junior is.   Turns out that Garlic Senior was Kami’s rival for the job of Guardian of the Earth.   The previous Kami recognized the evil ambitions in Garlic, Sr.’s heart, so he picked the guy we now know as Kami.   Garlic, Sr. was a sore loser about this, so he rebelled against Kami, only to be defeated.   According to Kami, Garlic Senior’s last words were that he would take his revenge 300 years later. 

Kami finds it tragic that Garlic would be so evil as to put his own son in charge of his vengeance, but that’s where things stand.    So let’s talk about this for a bit.

I guess this is one of the things that makes this one of my favorites.    The previous films really didn’t add anything to the lore or advance the story.   Mystical Adventure was pretty good and fun, but it basically rehashed the same ideas that were already established in the TV series.   My favorite part of that movie was the Mifan Empire, but it can’t exist outside of that movie, because there’s no Chiaotzu or Crane Hermit to run the place.    On the other hand, the villain in Dead Zone has ties to Kami, which means that we can learn some things about Kami that maybe fit into the canon as well?   Like, this movie isn’t canon, but Kami is, so maybe he really did have to compete with a guy named Garlic to get the job 300 years ago?

Anyway, Garlic Junior seems to be an amalgam of several Dragon Ball villains.  He looks a lot like Emperor Pilaf, to the point where Funimation cast Chuck Huber to play both roles.   Garlic always struck me as an attempt to make an Emperor Pilaf who could really cause trouble.    Beyond that, Garlic also resembles King Piccolo because of his wish on the Dragon Balls and his plan to conquer the world, and he resembles Piccolo Junior, in the sense that he’s been tasked to avenge the defeat of his wicked father.   I don’t know if the Garlics have the same relationship as the Piccolos, where the son is essentially a duplicate of the father, but it could be like that.   Garlic also resembles Raditz by kidnapping Gohan and using similar moves to battle Goku and Piccolo later, and finally, he resembles Vegeta in his desire to wish for immortality.   Put all of this together, and you end up with a pretty compelling movie boss. 

At his core, though, I think Garlic is sort of meant to be an evil version of Kami.   Garlic Senior failed to impress the previous Kami, so he went full-on evil.    The current Kami, on the other hand, succeeded because he purged himself of his wickedness, although he created Piccolo in the process.    The implication here is that it was kind of a no-win situation.    The previous Kami had to choose between two inadequate applicants.    One became a villain and the other created a villain.   Even when Garlic Senior was defeated, his son was left behind to carry on his vendetta. 

The story raises more questions than answers, though.    What was Garlic Junior doing for 300 years?   Training, I guess, but it never gets explained.   The Garlic Junior Saga will later establish that he and his father are aliens from the planet Makyo, so how does that all fit into this?    Was Garlic Senior always a bad guy, or was he truly sincere in his desire to become Kami until he was turned down for the job?    Where are the Spice Boys in all of this?

Anyway, Goku doesn’t care about any of this.    He’s just here for his son, and for some reason Garlic’s minions actually bother to stop him.   They introduce themselves as Ginger...

...Sansho...

... And Nikki.

Then they puff up their bodies to get stronger and faster.

The three of them give Goku a little trouble, but then Krillin and Piccolo show up and the odds are now even.   I guess Krillin followed Goku here from Roshi’s place, while Piccolo survived the ambush from the start of the movie, and now he’s here for revenge.

Turns out that Garic’s henchmen aren’t so tough when they can’t gang up on someone.   Piccolo crushes Sansho like it’s not even hard.

Meanwhile, Kami and Garlic fight.   This is kind of a big deal, because we never get to see Kami in action in the anime, even though he was supposed to be a very powerful character in the Piccolo sagas.  But this is DBZ, so he’s helpless against as DBZ villain like Garlic.  

But Kami still has some power to spare.

Meanwhile, Goku fights Nikki and Ginger at the same time, and while they give him a little trouble, he wins pretty handily.    This movie also marks one of the few times we see Goku use his Nyoibo as an adult.    I feel like DBZ never quite figured out what happened to the Nyoibo after Goku came down from Kami’s Lookout, but he’s got it in this movie, and he needs it, because Nikki and Ginger can pull swords out of their bodies.

This movie also marks the first time Goku actually kills a villain with a Kamehameha.   In the past he either misses or the bad guy survives somehow, but here he aims at Ginger, hits him, and then hits Nikki with the same blast.   That’s one of the nice things about the movies.    They’re very short and self-contained, so there isn’t time for plot twists like “The big finishing move didn’t work!” or “Goku lost!  What do we do now?”   If Goku loses in a movie he just has to get up and try again, or hope the bad guy is feeling merciful.

Kami is clearly overmatched against Garlic, so he tries to blow himself up to kill Garlic in the process.    Trouble is, Garlic’s immortal, so that trick wouldn’t work.

Fortunately, Goku and Piccolo want a piece of Garlic Junior, so Kami can sit this one out.   Garlic actually wonders why either of these dudes would come to Kami’s aid.    Isn’t it obvious?    Garlic kidnapped Goku’s son, and he ambushed Piccolo, so now they want revenge.   I mean, on top of that, Garlic’s plans for the Earth would make things tough for their own lives, but there’s plenty of reasons for them to want to beat him up.

So Garlic transforms into the big beefy guy we saw in shadow a the start of the movie.    I guess this makes him the first Dragon Ball character to transform?   Well, Goku and Gohan turned into giant apes, but still, this is kind of a big deal.

Like I was saying, Garlic sort of resembles Raditz here, in that he managed to get Goku and Piccolo to team up against him.    He even uses the same opening move as Raditz, rushing towards them, vanishing, and then hitting them in the back with his elbows at the same time.

So where’s Krillin in all of this?   Goku tasked him with looking after Gohan, but when the fight started, Krillin got clobbered by a falling pillar and dropped the kid. 

Outside, Goku and Piccolo shed their weighted training clothes, just as they did against Raditz.    Goku again expresses surprise that Piccolo even uses weighted training clothes, so once again, this episode just doesn’t fit in continuity.   They could have teamed up to fight Garlic and Raditz, but Goku can only find out about Piccolo’s weighted clothes once.

Anyway, shedding the wieghted clothes seems to do the trick pretty well, so I guess that means Garlic Junior isn’t quite as tough as Raditz.   

For some reason, they decide Garlic is beaten, so they move on to settling their own rivalry.   Did everyone just forget that he’s immortal?

Garlic Junior sure didn’t, since he’s back on his feet.    But instead of fighting again, he takes a different approach.

Here’s a great shot of the castle, by the way.

Then this black hole looking thing opens up in the sky and starts sucking everything into it.

Piccolo almost gets drawn in, but Goku manages to save him, which is pretty awesome.

I always thought “Dead Zone” was a dub-ism, but no, that’s what Garlic himself calls it in the original script.    He even says “Dead Zone” in English.   What is a dub-ism (I think) is that his father, Garlic Senior, was banished into the Dead Zone 300 years ago.   Of course, any living thing that gets trapped in the Dead Zone gets killed eventually, so we might as well call that an execution, but the Japanese dub never mentions this when discussing Senior’s fate.  

It would be kind of ironic, though, because Kami doesn’t have anything to do with the power of opening portals to the Dead Zone.   Garlic Junior can do it (obviously), so if Senior got stuck in the Dead Zone, then that sort of implies that he put himself there accidentally, just like Junior is about to... well, let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

Turns out Gohan’s awake now, and he’s mad.

I mean really mad!

Garlic isn’t entirely surprised to see that Gohan can resist the suction of the Dead Zone, but he doesn’t seem to think Gohan can stop him either.  He prepares to attack him with all of his power...

But Gohan fires an energy blast that knocks Garlic off his feet, and sends him into the Dead Zone instead.   

Garlic proclaims that this won’t kill him, but I don’t know if he’s relieved or terrified by that prospect.

Now that the moment has passed, Gohan just sort of passes out.

And without Garlic to maintain the portal, the effect wears off.

And then the sky fractures?   I don’t know what this is supposed to mean.   I thought the yellow and red color scheme just meant that it was sunset at Garlic’s fortress...

But now it’s a clear blue mid-day sky.    So I guess it was Garlic Junior’s doing?   Anyway, Kami remarks that he’s trapped forever in the Dead Zone, without even death to relieve his suffering in that place.  

Ironically, Gohan thinks it was Goku who saved him, when it was actually the other way around.  

Piccolo watches the others leave, and promises to deal with Goku another day.

And then we find the shards of the orange sky on the bottom of the sea, and Garlic is inside one of them, desperately trying to get out.  

So yeah, this is one of my personal faves from the movies.    I dig the idea of a bad guy actually wishing for immortality, only to have it backfire on him so spectacularly.   It fits in nicely with the whole theme of greed in this story.   Garlic didn’t need to attack Piccolo or kidnap Gohan to further his plan, but he did it anyway because he saw no downside to it, and it all came back to haunt him.   Goku and Piccolo almost lost when they got too wrapped up in their own grudge, but they managed to get back on track before it got out of hand.   

Also, this movie is just a visual feast.    Even simple things like Nikki eating pears or Chi-Chi tossing her apron aside are really beautifully done.   

It’s a little light on characters, but after Mystical Adventure, I’d say that was a good move.   Yeah, it would have been nice to have more of the gang in this movie, but they would have slowed the story down.   Honestly, they could have left Krillin out of the mix and it wouldn’t have hurt anything.  

[weekendwarriorblog]

The Weekend Warrior 4/16/21: IN THE EARTH, JAKOB’S WIFE, GUNDA and LINCOLN CENTER REOPENS

This is hopefully gonna be a relatively lighter and more streamlined column, because I have so much going on over at Below the Line, including a full weekend of awards this weekend past and another even busier one coming up. Because of this, I wasn’t really able to watch nearly as much stuff as I would have liked and have written fewer than normal reviews. (I know you’ve heard this tune before, but unfortunately, this state will continue for at least the next week, but once Oscars are done and past, I can get back to this column.

The big news this week is that New York’s Film at Lincoln Center has reopened with a retrospective celebrating the 50th Anniversary of FilmLinc’s long-running collaboration with the Museum of Modern Art, New Directors/New Films, which will begin on April 28. You can see the full line-up of the 2021 New Directors/New Films here, though I’m not sure how much I’ll be covering this year. (see above) It will take place in the virtual cinemas of FilmLinc and MOMA for people across the country and for those in New York City at the reopened FilmLinc theaters.

Leading up to that date, there will be a two-week retrospective called New Directors/New Films at 50, which will screen at the FilmLinc theaters as well as on Virtual Cinema, and that line up is:

Duvidha dir. Mani Kaul

Following dir. Christopher Nolan

The Goalie’s Anxiety at the Penalty Kick dir. Wim Wenders

The Living End dir. Gregg Araki

Lucía dir. Humberto Solás

My Brother’s Wedding dir. Charles Burnett

Peppermint Candy dir. Lee Chang-dong

Playing Away dir. Horace Ové

Les Rendez-vous d’Anna dir. Chantal Akerman

Sleepwalk dir. Sara Driver

Twenty Years Later dir. Eduardo Coutinho

Speaking of festivals, apparently there is a Brazilian genre fest going on right now called Fantaspoa 2021 that takes place on the Brazilian streaming horror service Dark Flix.

I have family in Brazil including a filmmaking cousin so I wonder if they know about this, but they seem to have a lot of cool and interesting films to share… and someday I hope to watch some of them. :)

Let’s get into some of the theatrical releases, shouldn’t we?

Filmmaker Ben Wheatley (High-Rise, Free Fire) is back with his eco-thriller IN THE EARTH (Neon), which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival earlier this year. It stars Joel Fry and Ellora Torchia as Dr. Martin Lowery and Alma, two park rangers sent into the woods in search of missing researchers only to encounter an odd and eccentric hermit woodsman named Zach (Reece Shearsmith), who has lots of crazy ideas about nature and its effects on humans, so he proceeds to capture and torture the two rangers.

This is another one of Wheatley’s stranger films, one that he completely filmed and completed during the pandemic, and I’m not even sure what I can completely explain in the second half of the movie, not just due to spoilers but also because it just goes into some fairly out there places. But no mistake that this is true horror, especially when you see how the two main characters have to deal with the situation they found themselves in.

What’s interesting is that the story takes place during a pandemic but not necessarily the one we’re currently in, but as Martin and Alma get deeper into the woods, horrible things start happening. They’re attacked in their tents while sleeping and their shoes are stolen and then Martin gets a nasty cut on his foot that gets infected with something almost plant-like, which leads to a fairly tense and horrifying scene later on.

The movie shifts pretty drastically in the second half as the duo encounter another researcher named Olivia (Hayley Squires), who happens to be Zach’s wife AND Martin’s ex-girlfriend. Yeah, it’s that kind of movie, but it’s also one where it’s never really more than the two or three characters at a time. The movie can be slow at times but it always maintains the viewer’s interest in what is happening and what might happen next. And then it just gets so strange in that last act, really trippy and surreal and crazy with lots of fast-cut images and loud noises that really puts the viewer even further on edge. OH, and as you can see from the picture, Zach has an axe, which takes the film into places more akin to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and away from the more cerebral stuff.

Where In the Earth really transcends is that it’s just such a great looking movie, and when you have a composer like Clint Mansell providing the score, as he did with Wheatley’s High-Rise, then you end up with a movie that works quite well for what it’s trying to do, which is to astound, disorient and puzzle the viewer but in a way that makes them want to watch it again and try to figure out more with each viewing.

As weird as the movie is, I could see there being an audience for the movie, particularly when you consider how movies like The Witch and Hereditary and Midsommar and The Lighthouse have found a niche audience or auteur lovers. Oddly, all four of those movies were released by A24, offering further proof that NEON is trying to get in on their turn.

I’m not quite sure how many theaters NEON is putting In the Earth into, but Wheatley’s latest eco-thriller maybe a harder sell with no known stars, and it’s definitely gonna be looking to bring in cinephile and auteur-huggers more than the normal Joe or Jill off the street. I expect NEON will try to get the movie into at least 1,000 theaters with many screens and reopened movie houses looking for content, but I’m not sure I’d expect this to do that much better than last week’s Voyagers, but maybe $3 million or so. It just doesn’t have much chance against a mainstream movie like Godzilla vs. Kong.

Anyway, check it out. I’ll have an interview with Ben Wheatley over at Below the Line probably early next week.

Another movie I highly recommend for horror fans is Travis Stevens’ JAKOB’S WIFE (RLJEfilms/Shudder), which stars the terrific Barbara Crampton and equally great Larry Fessenden as Ann Fedder, a woman married to the local small town pastor (aka Jakob), who feels that she hasn’t been able to live her full life while married to him for 30 years. When she has an encounter with a mysterious figure known as “The Master,” she finds herself gaining powers that allow her to live a new life but it has dark effects on her and everyone else in the town.

One thing I probably should mention is that I’ve known Larry Fessenden for a long time -- a friend of mine co-starred in his early movie Habit -- and I’m just a huge fan of Barbara Crampton from her classic horror films and more recent ones like my pal Ted Geoghegan’s We Are Still Here, which starred both of the actors.. And was produced by director Travis Stevens. See, how it all comes together?

This is another movie I don’t want to say too much about, as to not spoil your enjoyment of watching the various elements coming into place. Fessenden and Crampton are great as always, but I particularly like how Stevens has made a fairly contemporary horror movie that throws back to classic tropes like Cronenberg body horror and straight-out giallo blood flying everywhere.

I will say that the story involves a bit of a twist on the vampire movie, but more in vein of the weirdness from that 1988 Nicholas Cage movie, Vampire’s Kiss, versus anything like a studio Dracula movie, but it gives the two actors (especially Crampton) a chance to shine and really show different aspects of their abilities. Oh, also there’s lots of rats… lots and lots of rats...

Jakob’s Wife is a pretty fine independent horror film that certainly will deal a number of shrieks and squeals, and though it’s opening in theaters, On Demand and digital, much like most of RLJEfilms/Shudder’s offerings, I wish there were more of the local genre movie houses in which to watch it with a crowd cause even the SXSW Premiere probably wasn’t the same without an audience. Sigh, when will this fucking pandemic be over?!?

Oh, and by the way, I have an interview with Stevens over at Below the Line, so check that out to learn more.

Before we get to the rest of the new movies, let’s check out what’s going on at a few of my local digs, the Metrograph and Film Forum. Metrograph is just wrapping up another Aaron Sorkin retrospective, just three movies this time that wrapped with The Trial of the Chicago 7 (again) last night. On Friday, you can catch Thomas Vinterberg’s Oscar-nominated Another Round, starring Mads Mikkelsen, running as part of its digital Live Screenings series… I keep saying and will keep saying until you list. It’s $5 a month to join and watch a ton of cool movies!

Michael and Christian Blackwood’s Monk in Europe runs until next Monday and then there’s a few others also running through the weekend. Just click on that link above and join already!

At the Film Forum, Hitchcock’s great Rear Window is just wrapping up today, and I’m bummed I didn’t get a chance to see it on the big screen again. Starting Friday is Alec Guinness and Kind Hearts and Coronets, which had a pretty successful run at Film Forum in the before-times. The doc Gunda (right below) is also starting there in its reopened theaters as is the Norwegian Oscar entry Hope, starring the always great Stellan Skarsgard.

Victor (Aquarela) Kossakovsky’s acclaimed documentary GUNDA (NEON), which played most of the festivals last year is finally getting a bonafide theatrical release. It’s a black and white cinema verité that follows the lives of a number of farm animals, a mother pig, some chickens and a herd of cows. As a fan of The Biggest Little Farm, this is a movie that I’m apt to enjoy since I love nature docs, but it also involves staring at a screen (mostly my TV set) watching animals, which I really have to be in the right mood for, and it’s really been tough to get into that mood in the past year.

Sebastian Stan and Denise Gough star in Argyris Papadimitropoulos’s MONDAY (IFC Films) as Americans living in Athens who meet and have a whirlwind weekend one hot summer. Gough plays Chloe, whose time in Greece is coming to an end, but she has to decide whether to pass up a big job back home to see if the weekend she had with Stan’s Mickey is worth exploring and turning into something more serious. I do hope to get to this one eventually, but who knows when?

Gabriel Carrer and Reese Eveneshen’s FOR THE SAKE OF VICIOUS (Dread) stars Lora Burke as Romina (Lora Burke), single mother and nurse, who returns home after a late shift on Halloween night to find a maniac hiding in her home with a beat-up hostage. When a mob of intruders invade Romina’s home, the three have to work together to survive. The movie will hit theaters on Friday, be available via On Demand on Tuesday and then hit Blu-ray on May 4, so you’ll have lots of options to see it.

Barry Pepper stars in Brad (“24,” “Homeland”) Turner’s TRIGGER POINT (Screen Media), which will hit theaters this Friday and be On Demand on April 23. In it, he plays retired U.S. special operative Nicolas Brazer, who worked as a shadow assassin for the government but disappeared into a life of solitude after being accused of killing his team. Two years later, he’s drawn back into the world to clear his name and maybe turn a new leaf.

I don’t have a ton to say about this film, especially cause we just saw it in a much better version of this movie called Nobody. Pepper’s a great actor and that’s probably what saves Trigger Point from being a total loss, but it’s a fairly dry by-the-books crime thriller with a fairly generic plot that we’ve seen plenty of times before and often quite a bit better.

Also out this week is Christo Brock’s craft beer documentary BREWMANCE (Giant Pictures), which looks at… you guessed it… the history and obsession that a number of brewers have with craft beer. This is a fine doc, but like Gunda, I have to be in the right mood for it, and I’m just so busy that I never was able to just sit down and just concentrate on watching this.

Alan Yuen, the screenwriter of New Police Storyand director of Firestorm return with THE ROOKIES (Shout! Studios!), starring Alu Wang and Milla Jovovich. Wang plays daredevil and extreme sports lover Zhao Feng, who gets caught up in an illegal trade scheme when he crosses paths with Jovovich’s Special Agent Bruce and she recruits him for the Order of the Phantom Knighthood. The group is dedicated to fighting evil in all its incarnations, and it’s a ragtag outfit of four rookies with different skills. This sounds like my kind of jam, and at any other time, I would have had more time to watch and review it. Two weeks before the Oscars is not that time.

Devereux Millburn’s HONEYDEW (Dark Star Pictures/Bloody Disgusting) stars Sawyer Spielberg and Malin Barr as a young couple forced to seek shelter in the home of an aging farmer (Barbara Kingsley from “Jessica Jones”) and her odd son until they start having strange hallucinations and cravings. It’s a little odd that two horror sites, Dread Central and Bloody Disgusting, have movies out this week as they venture in distribution. But I just didn’t have time to see either movie. Sorry, guys!

And then the other movies I wasn’t able to get to this week include:

BEAST BEAST (Vanishing Angle)

VANQUISH (Lionsgate)

NIGHT OF THE SICARIO (Saban Films)

BILL TRAYLOR: CHASING GHOSTS (Kino Lorber)

OUR TOWNS (HBO/HBO Max)

GOODBYE BUTTERFLY (Gravitas Ventures)

That’s it for this week. Next week is actually the release of the new Mortal Kombat from Warner Bros. although I’m expecting a very busy weekend with awards over at Below the Line, so we’ll see how far I get. Wish me luck!

[chicagoindiecritics]

New from Every Movie Has a Lesson by Don Shanahan: 20 YEAR RETROSPECTIVE: The best of the rest of 1999

(Background image: twitter.com)

In an annual series, Every Movie Has a Lesson is going to look back twenty years to revisit, relearn, and reexamine a year of cinema history to share favorites, lists, and experiences from the films of that year.

As I was saying one column earlier when I laid out my absolute Top 20 from 1999, I was a 20-year-old undergrad Elementary Education major at Saint Joseph’s College twenty years ago. I was a country kid absorbing cable television for the first time, working at a local video store, writing movie reviews for the college newspaper. I was devouring movies new and old and the rural boundaries of Rensselaer, Indiana or my activity time as the football equipment manager didn’t stop me. On football road trips, I was more or less “staff” where I wasn’t bed-checked like the players. I used to go out after hours, pre-Uber and without a cell phone, and scout ahead the closest movie theater to the team hotel in order to find ways to see movies on opening Friday nights. Man, that was living.

As the historians will tell you, 1999 was a damn fine year. There are many films from that year that count as favorites and greats in several different ways. Some have gotten better with age and some have worsened, even dropping at as former favorites. Here are my little breakdowns of the “rest of 1999.” Enjoy!

Personal Favorites

(Image: justwatch.com)

Message in a Bottle, Entrapment, Deep Blue Sea, The 13th Warrior, The Mummy, Double Jeopardy, Life, Star War: Episode I – The Phantom Menace, The Best Man, The Bone Collector, Bicentennial Man

My 1998 retrospective last year will show you that I am an absolute softy for a romantic genre. My first taste of anything Nicholas Sparks came in movie form and it was the Kevin Costner-starring Message in a Bottle. This might have been my #2 favorite movie of 1999 in the college newspaper behind The Green Mile and I swallow a minute amount of shame. I still love this one. Kostner is a lifetime favorite of mine and his pairing with Paul Newman set against melodrama with rich production values (that Caleb Deschanel cinematography and Gabriel Yared score still get me) was gold for me.

Along the same lines, 2014’s The Best Man Holiday made me re-fall-in-love with The Best Man, a favorite that has only gotten better. Sappy Robin Williams has a limit, but Bicentennial Man can still arouse bigger sci-fi thoughts I appreciate. I’ll never grow tired of the best big-screen WTF moment of that year with Deep Blue Sea and its Samuel L. Jackson swerve.

The 1990s were the peak of the “mid-budget programmer,” studio-backed star vehicles with easy budgets, proven talent, and often genre content risks. Many of those became your steady diet of basic cable entertainment years later before reality TV took over. I’ll gladly put on the likes of Entrapment, Deep Blue Sea, Double Jeopardy, Life, Bicentennial Man, and The Bone Collector over many of today’s straight-to-Netflix films of the same budget level. The old stuff is so much better. The 90s also did blockbusters pretty damn well for its time too where I have no problem still enjoying Star Wars: Episode !- The Phantom Menace (just turn on Darth Maul and those John Williams choir voices) and The Mummy. Story came before effects still and it shows.

Guilty Pleasures

(Image: youtube.com)

Varsity Blues, Any Given Sunday, American Pie, She’s All That, Simply Irresistible, Cruel Intentions, 10 Things I Hate About You, Austin Power: The Spy Who Shagged Me, The World is Not Enough, Lake Placid, Galaxy Quest. The Boondock Saints

Speaking of those mid-budget programmers, the next class down was the lost art of the “high school movie.” The 1980s has John Hughes and the 1990s had the R-rated raunch phase that pushed further what the 80s started. Made for virtually pennies with mostly unknown talent or TV stars, these movies raked at the box office with the youth of the day, myself included. Honestly, they don’t make these kinds of movie anymore. Hell, they couldn’t get made today with the same landscape and lenses. Six years ago, I wrote an editorial here on Every Movie Has a Lesson on that phenomenon and it feels even more true in 2019. The raunchy teens grew into the “man-child” movies of the 2000s and 9/11 made everyone grow up into a wiser political culture since.

With that in mind, it’s probably wrong and more than a little misogynistic to enjoy the debauchery of American Pie, Varsity Blues, and even the intentional camp of Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me in 2019. Alas, I could and I do. They’re time capsules of eye-rolling fun at this point. I just can’t show these movies to my students or own children. They count as guilty pleasures, right next to James Bond films and cheesy creature features.

Not all in this section are contraband. One can argue there isn’t a 1999 movie that has aged better, surprisingly, than Galaxy Quest, which grows with esteem and fandom the more other things retread and reboot. The football fans still rightfully worship the swagger of Any Given Sunday. Pygmalion and Shakespeare students can still be proud of She’s All That and 10 Things I Hate About You (which is many folks’ introduction to the late Heath Ledger, including mine). The buried treasure I recommend the most is Sarah Michelle Geller’s Simply Irresistible, an airy and easy romance that also couldn’t be made today with the same panache. I gave that one some anniversary love this year writing for 25YL. Seek it out for a good time.

Underrated Gems

(Image: letterboxd.com)

Payback, True Crime, EDtv, A Walk on the Moon, The General’s Daughter, Summer of Sam, The Wood

Here are a few to add to Bringing Out the Dead and Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai which made my Top 20 in the last post. These titles are a step down from personal favorites, but movies that I find more solid than flimsy compared to the rest of the offerings from 1999. Most are more of those mid-budget programmers like Payback and The General’s Daughter, but don’t sleep on director Spike Lee’s under-seen Summer of Sam or Viggo Mortensen’s swooning Woodstock romance A Walk on the Moon. Plenty cheesy for sure, but EDtv counts as slightly ahead of its time even after trying to follow The Truman Show from 1998.

Re-Visitations Needed

(Image: rogerebert.com)

Magnolia, Eyes Wide Shut, Being John Malkovich, 8mm, Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, Pushing Tin, Dick, Sleepy Hollow, Ride With the Devil, Girl Interrupted

With full admission, the 20-year-old version of me did not have his teeth completely cut or his eyes fully focused as a fit critic who could see past the entertainment and into the art. There are many movies on fancier “Best of 1999” lists that were simply lost on me back in their day. I recognize the impact and greatness of Magnolia, Eyes Wide Shut, and Being John Malkovich, for example, but they will always be distant. Some of them I’ve tried again. Some need another chance or two. For the others, I want to see how a few top directors’ (Guy Ritchie, Ang Lee, Tim Burton) earlier works look now against their current stuff.

Blind Spots

(Image: The Independent)

The Straight Story, Ravenous, All About My Mother, The Thirteen Floor, Flawless

These are the movies looking to make the queues and wish lists on platforms and streaming services so richly available to us in 2019.

Overrated

(Image: variety.com)

The Sixth Sense, The Blair Witch Project, Analyze This, Never Been Kissed, Big Daddy, South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut, Mystery Men, Dogma

Alright, let me get my next umbrella to cover the crap coming to fall. I’m going to come right out and call M. Night Shyamalan’s The Sixth Sense overrated. It’s the biggest 1999 movie that has fallen out of favor for me personally. I blame the director’s degrading work since this first hit. Smart as it is, it loses a little each viewing and only exposes his twist-dependent lack of creativity. I know Mystery Men has earned a level of cult status, but I find it to be a busy mess still. The repeated crappy comedy phase since 1999 for Robert De Niro has not helped Analyze This.

After that, it’s about personal taste. I’m never been a South Park lover, TV or otherwise. Kevin Smith’s work has not aged well for me and Dogma, as bold as it was, feels like preening more than deep satire. I’m not a horror guy and couldn’t care less about the 1999’s equivalent of click bait with The Blair Witch Project. Thanks for the motion sickness, though. I’ve never been a Drew Barrymore fan, and I think Big Daddy is where Adam Sandler started to lose his edge and sink into the weak sauce territory that, other than a few moments like Uncut Gems this year, he’s never recovered from.

Still Bad

(Image: forbes.com)

Wild Wild West, Baby Geniuses, My Favorite Martian, Virus, Wing Commander, Forces of Nature, The Mod Squad, Runaway Bride, The Out-of-Towners, Bowfinger, Mickey Blue Eyes, The Bachelor, Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo, The Haunting

Yikes, was Wild Wild West a trainwreck! But then, we also got Wing Commander. Double yikes!

Permalink

from REVIEW BLOG – Every Movie Has a Lesson https://ift.tt/2Q4ZUZ5 via IFTTT

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2Q82wFU via IFTTT

[movietvtechgeeks]

Latest story from https://movietvtechgeeks.com/allegations-hits-kevin-spacey-jeremy-pivens-floodgates-open/

More allegations hits Kevin Spacey and Jeremy Pivens as floodgates open

The floodgates have opened as men and women are coming forth with new allegations about both Kevin Spacey and Jeremy Piven. Even Dustin Hoffman has been accused of sexually harassing a 17-year-old, so we know the hits will keep coming steadily. You can imagine that after decades of this going on, we're not even at the tip of the iceberg yet with these claims. Hollywood’s widening sexual harassment crisis brought forth a second actor’s allegation against Kevin Spacey on Tuesday, halted production on his Netflix series “House of Cards” and prompted CBS to check into an actress’ claim she was groped by Jeremy Piven. Mexican actor Robert Cavazos wrote on his Facebook page that he encountered Spacey at the bar of London’s Old Vic Theatre, where Spacey was artistic director, and the actor tried to fondle him against his will. “It was more common for this guy, when he was in the bar of his theater, grabbing whoever caught his attention,” Cavazos wrote. “I didn’t stand for it, but I know some people who were afraid to stop it.” Cavazos declined an interview request. There was no immediate reply to a request for comment from representatives for Spacey, who was artistic director from 2004-15. In a statement Tuesday, the theater expressed “deep dismay” at the allegations and said, “inappropriate behavior by anyone working at The Old Vic is completely unacceptable.” In recent days, Hollywood has reacted swiftly to allegations of sexual harassment and assault: Harvey Weinstein was fired from the company he founded within days after initial reports of sexual harassment were published in The New York Times earlier this month. Weinstein has denied engaging in any non-consensual sexual contact. Dozens of women, including actresses Selma Blair and Rachel McAdams, have alleged that writer and director James Toback sexually harassed or assaulted them. Toback has denied the allegations. On Tuesday, however, the Beverly Hills Police Department said it was investigating both men after receiving “multiple complaints,” although the department did not specify the nature of the complaints. On Monday, Netflix said it would end “House of Cards” after its upcoming sixth and final season, although the streaming network said the decision was made before the BuzzFeed News report on Spacey last weekend. The network has not commented on plans for a Gore Vidal biopic starring Spacey that is currently in production. The pause in production Tuesday shadows the fate of the last season. Also Tuesday, CBS said it is “looking into” a claim by actress and reality star Ariane Bellamar that Emmy-winning “Entourage” star Piven groped her on two occasions. On her Twitter account Monday, Bellamar alleged that one encounter took place in Piven’s trailer on HBO’s “Entourage” set and the other occurred at the Playboy Mansion. Piven, who stars in the new CBS series “Wisdom of the Crowd,” said in a statement that he “unequivocally” denies the “appalling allegations being peddled about me.” “It did not happen. It takes a great deal of courage for victims to come forward with their histories, and my hope is that the allegations about me that didn’t happen, do not detract from stories that should be heard,” he said. In a Monday interview with media outlets, Piven said he was glad people had come forward with allegations against Harvey Weinstein and that he had never been in that situation. HBO, which aired the 2004-11 series, said in a statement that it was unaware of Bellamar’s allegations until they were reported by media. “Everyone at HBO and our productions is aware that zero tolerance for sexual harassment is our policy. Anyone experiencing an unsafe working environment has several avenues for making complaints that we take very seriously,” the channel said. Bellamar’s credits include “Suicide Squad” and “The Hangover Part III” and the reality series “Beverly Hills Nannies.” Netflix’s actions involving “House of Cards” are rare in an industry that puts commerce first. Shows are infrequently derailed by concerns other than their ratings performance, said TV historian and former network executive Tim Brooks. “It usually depends on how popular the show is, not to put too fine a point on it,” Brooks said Tuesday. The widespread tumult has prompted unusual actions, such as Weinstein being booted from industry organizations, and created a climate of uncertainty. But a look back shows that Hollywood has dealt with disruption before, with even beloved shows and actors fighting to keep their balance amid controversy. During the 1950s “red scare,” Brooks said, “I Love Lucy” star Lucille Ball was accused of being a communist sympathizer. The sitcom co-starred her husband, Desi Arnaz, who took action. “Desi came out before a studio taping and said, ’The only thing red about Lucy is her hair, and even that’s not real,’” using humor to effectively defuse the situation, Brooks said. The show’s No. 1 status also helped. Popularity and audience acceptance of a star’s personal issues aided “Mickey Spillane’s Mike Hammer” when lead actor Stacey Keach served six months in jail for a drug-related arrest in England in the mid-1980s. The 1984-85 season was cut short but the series returned in 1986 with Keach aboard and a revised title, “The New Mike Hammer.” It aired until 1987 on CBS. “Grey’s Anatomy” was swamped by controversy in late 2006 when an on-set scuffle broke out between stars Patrick Dempsey and Isaiah Washington over Washington’s use of a gay slur regarding another cast member. After Washington repeated the slur at the 2007 Golden Globes while denying he had used it, ABC rebuked him publicly, as did co-star Katherine Heigl. He was subsequently fired, and the medical drama from TV hitmaker Shonda Rhimes sailed on even as Washington blamed racism for his treatment. Bill Cosby has felt the professional as well as the legal brunt of multiple accusations of decades-old sexual offenses. Three years ago, when multiple women accused Bill Cosby of decades-old sexual offenses, the comedian’s ambitious standup comedy tour was dotted with cancellations, NBC dropped development of a new show with him and Netflix pulled the plug on a stand-up special. An actor’s popularity with his cast mates can determine his fate, Brooks said. “If they like him, if they get along with him, it’s easy enough to say, ‘If I don’t get my career ruined in this, I’ll stick with him,’” he said. How Spacey’s cast mates are reacting to the allegations remains to be seen. Robin Wright, who stars opposite Spacey as his wife, hasn’t commented publicly, but her Twitter feed includes a number of posts backing social issues including female rights and education. Netflix and “House of Cards” producer Media Rights Capital had already decided to end the series at the end of next season, its sixth, but on Tuesday they chose to pause the production, which is filmed in Baltimore, “to give us time to review the current situation and to address any concerns of our cast and crew.” Spacey was not scheduled to work that day. The move comes after actor Anthony Rapp came forward with claims Spacey made inappropriate sexual advances toward him in 1986, when he was 14. Spacey responded by saying he doesn’t remember the alleged encounter but if he acted the way Rapp alleges, “I owe him the sincerest apology for what would have been deeply inappropriate drunken behavior.” He also spoke publicly for the first time about being gay, which draw backlash from some observers as an attempt at deflection. The fallout for Spacey also included the loss of an award he was going to get later this month by The International Academy of Television Arts & Sciences. The group says “it will not honor Kevin Spacey with the 2017 International Emmy Founders Award,” which is to honor “an individual who crosses cultural boundaries to touch humanity.” Spacey was to get it at a gala on Nov. 20 in New York City. Past recipients include Rhimes, Steven Spielberg, and J.J. Abrams. A release date for the final “House of Cards” episodes has yet to be announced. Netflix is developing a possible spinoff of the award-winning drama that helped put the streaming service on the TV series map. Earlier Tuesday, British media reported that police have widened their investigation into sexual assault claims against Weinstein. The Independent newspaper, Press Association and Sky News say London’s Metropolitan Police is now investigating allegations against Weinstein by seven women over incidents that reportedly took place from the 1980s to 2015. Weinstein is also being investigated by police in New York and Los Angeles.

Movie TV Tech Geeks News

[ethanalter]

How Dylan Baker and Becky Ann Baker Became Mr. and Mrs. Character Actor

Becky Ann Baker and Dylan Baker in New York City. (Photo by Walter McBride/WireImage)

Thanks to their three decade-and-counting careers as gainfully employed character actors, Dylan and Becky Ann Baker are accustomed to being recognized as the various personalities they’ve portrayed on the big and small screen over the years. To this day, though, they’re rarely recognized as husband and wife. “A lot of people think we’re brother and sister,” Becky says with a hearty laugh. “We’ve had that reaction before. I think it’s because I did the old-fashioned thing and took his name. It was based on the fact that my maiden name [Gelke] was so hard to say; so after we’d been married for two years, I thought ‘What the heck?'”

It’s not as if the people approaching them necessarily know their real names anyway. They’re more likely to recognize Dylan Baker as Bill Maplewood, the quietly creepy pedophile he played in Todd Solondz’s 1997 drama Happiness, or as Colin Sweeney, The Good Wife‘s most notorious client (a role that has earned him three Guest Actor Emmy nominations). Or, if they’re fans of FX’s beloved spy drama The Americans, they know him as William Crandall, the KGB biochemist embedded in an American laboratory developing biological weapons during the show’s fourth season. Meanwhile, Becky Ann Baker will forever be identified as a pair of generation-defining TV moms of perpetually troubled daughters: Jean Weir of Freaks and Geeks and Loreen Hovarth from HBO’s just-concluded Girls, a job she already deeply misses. “When that job ended, I was just devastated,” she says. “There has never been a moment where I haven’t been thrilled to be part of that production.”

That said, the busy life of a working character actor leaves little time to mourn past jobs. When Yahoo TV spoke with the Bakers on the phone from their New York City home one recent Sunday morning, Becky was a few hours away from her call time at the Park Avenue Armory production of Eugene O’Neill’s The Hairy Ape, in which she stars opposite Bobby Cannavale and David Costabile. And Dylan was preparing to leave the following day for an extended overseas trip. He’s also been making visits to the West Coast for the upcoming Showtime series I’m Dying Up Here, in which he’ll play legendary Tonight Show host Johnny Carson in his ’70s prime. “You look at him, and it’s like, ‘Well, he’s a god,'” Dylan says. “He’s reached that status. He was so private off-screen and so public on television; it’s been interesting learning more about him.”

We spoke with the couple about their career, their marriage, and whether they leave their characters at the door when they come home together.

You both started acting around the same time, and seemed to stumble onto the character actor path almost immediately. Did that happen by accident or was it intentional?

Becky Ann Baker: I always tell this story: I was 18 years old, and it was the summer after my freshman year of college. I went to audition for a summer theater company called the Kenley Players [run by theater producer John Kenley] in Ohio. I sang one song, and he told me, “You’ll always be a character woman.” And that was it! I was defined right there at the ripe age of 18. John Kenley sent me on my path.

Dylan Baker: When I was an undergraduate, I had a professor who told me, “You’ve got to do something about your voice. If you don’t, you’ll always play sick people.” So I basically took his advice, did nothing about my voice, and I’ve been lucky enough to play sick people all these years!

BAB: It’s definitely what other people tell you, and not what you think you’re going to do. They saw us coming a mile away. [Laughs]

Dylan Baker as Det. Arthur Polson on ‘Murder One’ (Photo: Everett Collection)

It’s hard for any actor to get started in the business. What do you remember about landing your earliest TV roles?

BAB: [To Dylan] Oh gosh, you were pretty quick to get cast right out of school.

DB: Yeah, I was very lucky. I’d gone to the Yale School of Drama [for graduate school], and when I came to New York, I’d already done a couple of plays back to back. And because I was in those plays, casting directors were happy to see me, and all of a sudden I started getting work in film and TV. I think the first time I got a real TV series was Murder One for Steven Bochco. I was convinced that they had picked somebody else and just had the name wrong, because I couldn’t see myself as a hard-bitten L.A. detective. I went out to Los Angeles worried that as soon as they saw my face they’d go, “Oh no, no, not him. We want the other guy.” Of course, once I did Murder One, all I played for a while was detectives and FBI guys! [Laughs]

BAB: I had a different path altogether. When I came to New York, I was a chorus girl for years. It was a very hard transition getting casting people to look at me for television or anything serious outside of singing and dancing. But I somehow fought my way into that transition by doing some theater that people actually saw, and made them think, “Okay, maybe she can do something.” I also started doing commercials, and I booked some that were very story-driven. There was this one American Express ad about a woman having twin babies, and from there I started getting television work, and then from that to film work. So that commercial was the transition for me, because I wasn’t being seen as a serious actress whatsoever.

DB: And also, [after that commercial] we were asked all the time about our twin babies that we actually didn’t have!

BAB: Yes, everybody thought I actually had twins.

DB: Two years later, we had our daughter [Willa] and were happy to tell everyone, “Oh, she’s coming along fine.”

Watch Becky Ann Baker and John Turturro in a vintage 1986 Campbell’s Soup commercial 

It’s only in recent years that actors have been able to move freely between movies and television, but you were both doing that early on. Is it strange for you to see how it’s become “acceptable” for bigger stars to do TV?

BAB: The thing that actors are all talking about today is craft services. You can tell that television has become more lucrative because the food on the set is so much better than when you do a film. Especially an indie film. We all laugh about it, but the craft service table is the sign of what the budget is on anything.

DB: The other thing that I’ve noticed is that back when I did Murder One, the big criticism of that show was that it covered one case for the entire season. The critics just went crazy about that! Now, of course, it’s the norm, but back then there was no streaming, so you had to watch it week by week. What was exciting was to watch really good writers realize the potential of a film that’s 20 hours long. We developed and told a story that was intricate, with characters coming in and out. I think they realized the potential of television, and the writing was really exciting in a way that it hadn’t been before.

BAB: [To Dylan] I think you’re right that the thing about television now is that it’s drawn exceptional writing. The writers for Girls were spectacular. I don’t imagine I will ever see that kind of writing again in my lifetime, for me.

Becky Ann Baker on the series finale of ‘Girls.’ (Photo: HBO)

The Sopranos and the rise of cable television feels like a turning point in terms of elevating the profile of characters actors on TV. James Gandolfini broke out in a big way, and seemed to make being a character actor cool.

BAB: There are great opportunities right now for character people. The Margo Martindales of the world, or the Dylan Bakers. I keep finding things like The Americans so amazing in terms of their characters.

DB: But it’s interesting that even The Americans is a show that doesn’t star typical leading men and women. Keri Russell showed a whole other side of herself that no one knew was there: this steely Russian mother who will kick your butt. So it’s like [cable TV] is looking beyond the mold to fill out these roles with actors that can do a wide range of things.

The Weir family from ‘Freaks and Geeks’ (Photo by: Chris Haston/NBC/NBCU Photo Bank via Getty Images)

Obviously, The Americans and Girls are both recent high-profile roles for you. But are there earlier performances that you think marked a turning point in the way people saw you or that made you recognizable?

BAB: I did Freaks and Geeks, and it was a joy to do and a really terrific job. But I think Girls has definitely made a huge difference in how people look at me as an actor. It’s funny, though: you look back, and you don’t know what really started the ball rolling. It all kind of builds on itself.

DB: With me, I would say it was probably the film Happiness that really brought me to people. That movie had a bizarre and immediate impact. I remember I went in to [audition] for Chris Rock for his film Head of State. He and his producer, Ali LeRoi, were giggling like girls while I was chatting with them. No matter what I said, Chris just kept saying, “You’re that guy. You’re that guy from Happiness.” I said, “Can I go ahead and read now?” They put me on tape, and when I went to talk to them again, Chris was still giggling! I told my agent, “There’s no way I’m going to get that part. They were laughing at the thought of me being in the film.” She said, “Well, you never know.”

Later, after I got the job, I told Chris: “That audition was the most bizarre thing I’ve ever been through.” And he said, “We just thought it was a joke bringing you in, but then I was going back over the audition tapes. I wanted to look for another actor, but I came across yours, and I said, ‘Oh yeah, there’s that guy. You know, I never really looked at this.'” So he looked at it and, all of a sudden, he hired me! He thought it was a total joke, but then he was able to see me in a different way.

You’ve largely maintained separate careers, but there have been occasions where you’ve acted in the same series. Kings is one example, although you didn’t share any scenes there.

BAB: We did a very short-lived series called Life As We Know It where we were the parents of Jon Foster’s character, Ben. And Smash!

DB: Yeah, we played husband and wife on that.

BAB: So every now and then somebody has the great idea to put us in something where we actually have screentime together.

The Bakers play the Cartwrights on ‘Smash’ (Photo: NBC)

When those opportunities come along, how much of your own lives do you bring to the screen?

BAB: It really depends on the situation and the writing, but what’s terrific is that there’s so much work we don’t have to do. We have so much reference to each other as husband and wife that a lot can go unsaid. In both Life as We Know It and Smash, though, they were totally different types of couples, so you still have to put yourself in the situation that you find in the writing.

DB: We had known [Smash creator] Teresa Rebeck, and might have even done some readings of plays for her. So she was the one who came to us and said, “Look, I need parents for Katharine McPhee’s character [Karen Cartwright], and we’ve kind of thrown this together. Would you like to do it?” So we talked with Teresa about the arc of the story, and then met with Katharine to discuss things like, “What does Karen think about the two of us?” Then we just started building on that. I don’t think we ever come in from the outside going, “Oh, this is a chance to use [our marriage].” With each story you’re telling, you’ve got to draw on the parts of you that will bring out the most in the writing.

In terms of the practical realities of being working character actors, how do you coordinate your schedules to balance your professional and personal lives?

BAB: In this business, there’s a lot of times where you do find yourselves on separate coasts, but I think we’ve just always prioritized [each other]. When I could, I would travel with Dylan, and when he could, he would travel with me. When I did Freaks and Geeks, he and our daughter came to L.A. and stayed with me that year instead of staying in New York. So we try to manage as best we can to stay together as a family, and we’ve done pretty darn well. We’re celebrating our 30th wedding anniversary this coming summer, and we’ve been together 32 years.

DB: I think it’s funny that sometimes you’ll find actors who are on a set and say, “Oh, my wife’s coming out today.” And Becky and I just look at each other in total confusion about that. Like, “Why would they want to come to the set?”

BAB: Yeah, it’s where you work! It’s like, “Let’s go hang out on set where everyone’s working.” [Laughs] It’s sometimes fun. My daughter loved to come visit Girls. But it’s a job. When it’s February, and you’re shooting outside, it’s not so much fun.

Dylan Baker as William Crandall in ‘The Americans’ (Photo: FX)

Do you bring your work home with you or do you have a “leave it at the door” policy?

BAB: I find being married to an actor really helpful, because if there’s something that’s upsetting or if I’m nervous about something we have each other’s backs and each other’s ear. And there were so many ups and downs in this business, like the devastation of losing a job. It’s great to be married to an actor in those cases, because he really understands the emotional impact of those situations we go through.

DB: There are times where I think, “I really screwed up and it’s not going to work out,” and Becky has always had my back and been my most loyal supporter. Being able to talk over things like that, and knowing they know what you’re talking about is wonderful.

BAB: So I guess that we don’t really leave it at the door. It’s been a healthy situation for us to come home and discuss our work, because it’s what interests us. It’s what draws us out. We love storytelling, and we love the way writers, actors, and everyone involved [in a show] approaches how we’re going to focus and tell this particular story. Because that’s what it is all about. I always liken it to the beginning of man: everybody’s out for the big hunt, and then when they’re sitting around the campfire at night, one guy tells the story of the hunt a little better than anybody. And that’s the actor.

DB: I would say we do have one major taboo: we won’t run lines. You gotta find somebody else to do that.

BAB: If you really need someone to run lines, you’re going to have to hire a teenager. We will not do that. That’s a total dealbreaker. We will help each other with an audition piece and run that with each other. That’s a totally different thing. But running lines for a play or something — that’s just so painful.

Did growing up with working actors for parents make your daughter interested in that career path? Or did you encourage her away from that?

BAB: She actually showed us her own way. When she was younger, we did a lot of theater up at the Williamstown Theatre Festival, and we used to put her on a little horse farm out there. She’d be there all day riding, mucking, and looking after sheep, chickens, and other animals. So that informed her [career path] more than anything else. She graduated from college with a human ecology degree and went to work at the Bronx Zoo. She actually met Jane Goodall yesterday and was very excited! And she’s looking at various programs in other fields, especially those related to horses. So her field is animals, and nothing to do with [acting]. She’s very supportive and comes to our opening nights, but she truly has no desire to go into this kind of life.

Are there any shows of yours that she’s a big fan of?

BAB: I know she’s a big fan of Girls. She’s always been a big supporter of Lena [Dunham]. She just adores her.

DB: There are some scenes on Girls where Becky appears naked, and she goes running out of the room.

BAB: Yes, she told me she fled the room. [Laughs] I had warned her! I didn’t let it be a surprise. But she’s very supportive about everything.

You’ve both had the opportunity to appear on several long-running shows, but there have also been some that haven’t lasted beyond a season.

BAB: We’ve got a million of those, especially Dylan.

DB: I’d heard that George Clooney was in 10 pilots before he got ER. And I always thought, “Where’s my ER?”

BAB: Dylan did this pilot called Eligible Dentist with Gene Wilder, Carol Kane, and Wallace Shawn, all of these amazing people. They shot the pilot before a live studio audience, and the next day the costume designer said, “Do you want to come buy your clothes?” Because it had been shut down! If we counted how many pilots and series we thought we’d been involved in, it would be a staggering number.

Becky Ann Baker on ‘Kings’ (Photo: NBC)

Is there one that you’re particularly sad didn’t continue? I really enjoyed Kings during its short run.

BAB: We liked Kings a lot, too. It really spoke to our marriage: Dylan was royalty and I was a farm woman! [Laughs] But yeah, I thought that show was so smart. I don’t know why it never caught fire. And I can never figure out why Freaks and Geeks didn’t get another season. There are just so many variables, and it’s hard to determine.

DB: I did a Dick Wolf series called Feds back in 1997. I think it was unfortunate that it didn’t quite catch on. There was another show with David Caruso about the same subject [Michael Hayes] that was purchased after us, so I think CBS just said, “You can’t have two shows about this, so we’ll go with David Caruso.” We ended up doing six episodes that aired from March to April; they never did mid-season series back then. At the time, Dick said that if he had just named it Law & Order: Feds it would still be running.

Because you’ve both been able to sustain long, varied careers as character actors, young actors must approach you all the time asking for advice. What do you generally tell them? 

BAB: We do mentor a few young actors that we really adore. I think it’s so much harder to get started these days, because there’s such a flooded market. The most important thing is don’t just come to audition and try to get jobs. You actually need to keep working as an artist, especially when you’re younger. Find different teachers and different classes. Find whatever it is that’s drawing you to this business, and keep studying.

DB: My first television job was in 1985, but I began acting in university in 1976, and every summer, I was doing theater of some kind or another. So that was nine years of really trying to figure it out, because I wasn’t ready to do anything from 1976 to 1980. By the time I got out of grad school, I was ready to show people something and prove I could do it on a consistent basis. Because it’s not just who you are or what you want to do; it’s doing the work so that you’re ready to go when you finally get there. As actors, we need a couple of years to do bad stuff and try things that don’t work, because that makes you a better actor when it does work. Read more from Yahoo TV: TV’s Top 20 Character Actors Working Today Character Study: ‘This Is Us’ Dad Ron Cephas Jones Talks His TV Takeover

[placetobenation]

Well with all this death around us let’s talk about the one thing we all know and love, television. The Daytime Emmy nominations came out while I was away and here’s what we got. 

EMMY NODS

CBS leads all noms with a whopping 57 nods, Amazon following closely behind with 55, Apple TV scored 17, as they should because they are a computer company. Let me just clear something up – Amazon started as a digital library where you could read books. Does anyone remember that? You had to buy the kindle, which screen was black and white, and download books to read on a train or beach or park or whatever. Remember the big knock on the was the glare the screen had? It had too much glare so they made the little 5×7 kindle screen without glare and more like a real book? Now look at what it has become! A mall, a tv studio, a library, a streaming service, a supermarket – I mean Amazon has become everything! Ridiculous. Anyway. 

The View topped the talk shows with 8 nods, then Kelly Clarkson with 7, then Talk and finally Ellen with 5 who honestly I thought died a year ago. 

Interesting fact, CBS wants to air the awards show virtually, whatever that means, June 26. So that’s another interesting car wreck we get to watch in this God forsaken year.

JON STEWART

Big news – Jon Stewart is finally doing something with his life. Jon, whom I love and hate for leaving us right when Trump appeared in our lives, is directing a movie called Irresistible. Starring guess who – Steve Carell. Since his contract says he must be in every Hollywood film ever made, this makes sense. The movie was scheduled for theatrical release but powers at be want it released sooner, to make more money. So the film will be available May 29 for $20 on all platforms, then is planned to be released into theaters on June 26.  Hey why not. Stewart never did things the easy way.

LORI LOUGHLIN

Here’s some good news about the law – there isn’t any. Lori Loughlin after years of saying she was innocent and did nothing wrong, now says she is guilty and did something wrong. Hmmm. Fooled us? I guess so. Ha ha, funny Lori – we thought you were serious when you argued with everyone and said you were innocent for a year. Boy you really got us. Anyway, The felony charge carries a 20 year jail sentence, but miraculously Lori is getting just 2 months in jail!! Wow! Which is funnier? You decide. 

TOM BRADY

With the enormous success of Michael Jordan’s doc, The Last Dance, cuz Jordan is literally the best who ever played the game, ESPN has set a new doc for a new legend. Tom “Pretty Boy” Brady will be getting his own spotlight on ESPN, with a 9 part doc, not a 10, like Jordan, so already MJ has him beat. Quick tip for ESPN – NOBODY reveres Brady like we revered Jordan. So, expect a flop. Thanks.

MICHAEL BAY

Michael Bay, the world’s most hated yet most successful director has chosen a premiere project for his brand new contract with Sony. “Armored” which is a novel by Mark Greaney, will be Mr. Bay’s newest massacre. About an old, aged out, security contractor who runs convoys of UN delegates through cocaine country. Nice. What can be redundant about that? Thanks Michael for being more shallow than my bath water. Can’t wait to see this debacle with a million explosions and zero dialogue.

PETER DINKLAGE

Here comes the best news I have heard all year. Peter Dinklage and Jason Momoa are teaming up for a movie called “Good Bad and Undead”. Love both these guys, and even better, they are staying in the fantasy realm! Peter will play a Van Helsing, the last in a long line of vampire killers, and Momoa will play a vampire that helps him. Just the plot of this makes me smile and my skin crawl. If I could only survive long along in 2020 to see it!! 

ZACK SNYDER

Well after years of girl talk, it is official. Zack Snyder, the director shamed into retirement from the DC world, is releasing his official director’s cut of Justice League. Why? I have absolutely no idea. This film is not beloved, so I imagine the studio is releasing it so say, “yea you think this was bad – you wanna see something worse?” I mean, I cringe to have to watch this a second time, but to see what Zack did or how they handcuffed him, if they did at all, might be worth a fast forward through. In no way do I wish to hear the dialogue again. But for Gal’s legs, I could look at them again. Will I think it’ll be a revelation and everyone will stand on their couches cheering for the almighty Zack? Hardly. Pretty sure it will suck just the same, only in a different way. 

BATWOMAN

Here’s a new one – Ruby Rose quits Batwoman. First of all, I never even heard of there being a Batwoman, I always thought it was Batgirl. Regardless, Ruby Rose was a hit portraying the lead character, and once the show was picked up for another season, Ruby quits. Why? Naturally no one knows for sure – rumor is, it was too hard. Too hard. I don’t want quality work, with good pay, if I have to stay up past 10. I don’t know what else Ruby has going on in her life, but I know if you want a job, you have to work for it. If you want fame and fortune it doesn’t come during banking hours. This saddens me about the next generation. They get a chance of a lifetime and quit. 

TOM HANKS

Now let’s talk about a real star. Tom Hanks, our dearly beloved, is getting screwed over by this COVID-19 crap. His baby project, which he has wrote and directed “Greyhound” is being thrown to a streaming service. I think we all love Tom’s other movie that he wrote/directed, “That Thing You Do”, that was pure genius, and I’d love to get to see this one in a theater as well. “Greyhound” is a WWII naval drama starring Hanks as George Krause, a career officer finally given command of a Navy destroyer called Greyhound. It takes place during the Battle of the Atlantic as Krause fights his self-doubts and personal demons to prove he belongs. This film was set for a June19 release date, but instead it was shopped around to streaming devices and was finally bought by Apple TV for $70 million. A sad state of affairs for such a fine and proven talent like Hanks, who truly has earned his day in the sun with a global theatrical release. Let’s hope some day it makes it there.

Thanks for reading – as usual – follow me or ask me questions any time, all the time @pauliek2003

[l-a-r-r-yspellslove]

5000 question survey - part 2

101. What does happiness/joy feel like physically? Cheeks hurting and heart pumping and feeling sort of free. 102. List five people you love starting with the one you love the absolute most. I have two nephews and two nieces and they rank 1-4. Then #5 would probably be my little. 103. How many movies have you gone to see this month?

One. Today, I went and saw Onward. 104. If you could have 3 wishes...but none of them could be for yourself, what would you wish for?

Forever happiness and freedom for Harry and Louis. 105. In what ways do you relax and de-stress when you are really tense?

Reading. Deep breaths. 106. How much money would it take to get you to drive to school naked in the springtime and get out of the car?

A million dollars. 107. Have you ever killed an animal?

I think I ran over a squirrel once. 108. Have you ever lost someone close to you?

My grandpa. 109. What do you think of cloning?

It’s fucking weird. 110. Do you read or watch TV more often?

Depends on the day. 111. With all this talk of terrorism going around are you willing to sacrifice rights and freedoms for increased safety?

Uh, depends on the rights/freedoms, I suppose. 112. What is the punishment you would come up with for Osama Bin Laden if you caught him alive?

I don’t like to think about these things. 113. Have you ever named an individual part of your body?

Nope. 114. Have you ever been on the radio or on TV?

I was on the news as a kid and I was on the radio with my sorority once. 115. Have you ever won a lottery, or sweepstakes?

Uh, no. 116. Have you ever won a contest or competition?

Ummm, I think the spelling bee as a kid. 117. Do you like to watch The Joy of Painting show with Bob Ross (check out this link if you don't know who he is. Also please note me if you notice the link is broken) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Ross_(painter)?

Not often. 118. Do you know what your grandparents and your great grand parents did for a living?

Uhh, yes for two but no for the others. 119. Is there anything really interesting in your family history?

The guy that the movie Braveheart was based on? I’m related to him. 120. Is there anyone you trust completely?

My little. 121. Have you ever lost someone without having the chance to say goodbye?

Yes 122. How do you feel about women in politics?

Women can do anything. 123. Would you rather have an indoor Jacuzzi or an outdoor pool?

indoor Jacuzzi 124. What things are you interested in that you study or read about on your own?

Lots of things. It varies from time to time. 125. Would you consider yourself to be intelligent?

Yes 126. Would you consider yourself to be wise?

Somewhat 127. Have you ever given or received a lap dance?

No 128. Have you ever spoken to a homeless person?

Yes 129. Would you ever creep into the subway tunnels to go exploring?

Not alone. 130. If you could add 70 years to your life but only by making some random person die 70 years sooner would you?

I don’t think so 131. Can you finish any of the following lyrics? A: Nothing to kill or die for... B: Late comings with the late comin' stretcher... C: I could make a film and make you my star... uhh no

132. Were you ever with someone while they died?

No 133. Would you rather be a world political leader or a rock star?

a rock star. 134. Have you ever given someone a love letter that you wrote?

no 135. Have you ever sent someone a surprise though the mail?

i don’t think so 136. Are you looking forward to any concerts right now?

YES. Niall’s, Louis’s, Harry’s 137. Of all animated movies, which is the best one you've ever seen?

I really really really loved Onward, but it’s right up there with Frozen, I guess. 138. What are the best bands or songs to listen to while driving?

Anything upbeat. One Direction. Obviously. 139. What do you think is the most amazing thing that anyone has ever accomplished?

I mean, whoever put peanut butter inside chocolate the first time. 140. What could a member of the opposite sex do to impress you?

I dunno. Cook me something delicious. Make me something.  141. About how many emails do you get a day?

a lot. How many of those emails are junk mail? most How many of them are forwards? none, forwards are a thing of the past. 142. What's your favorite thing to do online besides write in your diary and hang out at this site?

I don’t spend much time on livejournal where this is from... I would say most of my time online is watching/streaming shows/movies. 143. Do you believe Kurt Cobain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Cobain) killed himself or was it a conspiracy?

idk 144. Have you ever though about hitchhiking across the country?

sure 145. Who would you bring with you on this kind of a road trip?

whoever wanted to go, i guess. But hitchhiking is dangerous, so no. 146. Of the following, which word best describes you: accurate, bold, charming, dependable 147. If you are single, at about what age do you think you will be ready to settle down and get married? If you are married, how old were you at the time?

I’d be cool with settling down anytime. 148. Do you often wonder, when you say goodbye to people, if it is the last time you will ever see them?

Sometimes. 149. What movie are you most looking forward to seeing when it comes out?

The new Wonder Woman, the next Guardians of the Galaxy. The next Spider-Man. 150. What is your quest?

I wish I had a quest. 151. What is louder and more annoying: 200 adults talking or one four-year-old screaming?

200 adults talking.

152. Do you believe the stories about planes, boats and people mysteriously disappearing into the Bermuda triangle?

yes. 153. Who are you the most jealous of?

Louis/Harry 154. What is the happiest way you can start your day?

sleeping in. It’s always so much better to wake up fully rested. 155. Do you ever have moments where you feel like everything is all right in the world?

Sometimes. 156. Who thinks that you are offensive?

I dunno, probably some church people I used to speak to. 157. If you had to teach a class in something, what would you be able to teach people?

uhhhh, maybe crochet 158. Have you ever had a spiritual experience (an experience that cannot be explained by science)?

I think concerts can give you this surreal experience of connectedness to a lot of people at once. 159. Do you believe that this experience was truly mystical or do you think there is some scientific explanation for it, only you don't know what it is?

I dunno. 160. Do you get offended easily?

No 161. Would you still love and stay with your signifigant other if he or she had to have a breast or testicle removed?

yeah. 162. Do you believe in fate or free will?

a little bit of both 163. Do you believe that only boring people get bored?

no 164. Can life change or are we all stuck in vain?

change 165. What changes are you afraid of?

I dunno. 166. Are you a day person or nocturnal?

day 167. What one CD could you listen to for an entire week (no mixed CD’s, it must be an album)?

Fine Line - Harry Styles 168. Which is worse, working in retail, food service, or an office?

food service 169. What's the coolest job you ever had?

I’ve never had any cool jobs. 170. What is one central idea that your thoughts seem to come back to?

Why does this suck 171. Have you ever wanted to be an actor/tress?

When I was a kid 172. If you had the power to control one person and make this person do anything you wanted for a whole day, who would you pick and what would they do?

I’m not comfortable answering this question. 173. What star sign are you and what is your sign like?

virgo. 174. Did the Blair Witch Project scare you?

I don’t think I saw it. 175. Are you in constant fear of death?

no 176. Does fear of death keep you from building a life?

no 177. Do you like all your movies to be in wide-screen?

i don’t really care. wow this survey is OLD 178. Are you a fan of any comic books?

i like some but not super into any of them. 179. At what age did you attend your first funeral?

uhhh, kindergarten 180. What do you smell like (lotion, cologne, sweat)?

at the moment, stress relief lotion from bath and body works 181. What are your greatest sources for wisdom?

winnie the pooh. marvel. harry potter. 182. When you were little, where did your parents tell you babies come from?

i don’t remember 183. What is your favorite band?

one direction. 184. What's the best cheesy 80's song?

love is a battlefield 185. What's the best kind of movie to see on a date?

dude, not a good question for me. 186. Do you like to sit in the front, middle or back of the Movie Theater?

back 187. Have you ever been inside an abandoned building?

yes 188. Under what circumstances would you agree to work for free?

pretty much none. 189. Candles or strobe lights?

candles 190. Do you think the Lord of the Rings movies are true to the books or did Hollywood change the story too much?

they were fine. 191. When you see a stranger on the street does your first reaction lean towards thinking of this person as a potential friend or as a potential threat?

threat. social anxiety is a bitch. 192. Is it natural for human beings to fear and distrust each other, or is it cultural?

cultural 193. What do you really want to buy?

I dunno. GoF illustrated edition i need to get when I have spare cash, but I really need to save money for vacation and concerts. 194. You have to choose. Would you be happier marrying someone rich for their money or living in the streets and subway tunnels with someone you love?

with someone i love 195. If someone wanted to understand you what book could they read that would help?

harry potter 196. Do you think it’s odd that Americans have freedom of religion and yet call themselves 'one nation under god'?

yes. 197. In what sense are you a minority?

woman. 198. Are you anti social?

yes. it’s painful. 199. Do you photograph well?

ha no. 200. Do you think that human beings would survivor through a nuclear winter?

there’s some sure.

[mastcomm]

What to Stream on Valentine’s Day

Hot Thriller, Cool Romance

‘The Thomas Crown Affair’ | YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Google Play, iTunes, Vudu

Make sure you watch the 1968 version, not the 1999 remake. While the newer film is fine enough, the original is a textbook example of classic Hollywood at its sexiest. Steve McQueen plays a millionaire who robs banks for fun, and Faye Dunaway is the insurance investigator on his tail. There is something downright intoxicating about the two stars’ charisma, and their chemistry feels as inexorable as tectonic plates moving toward each other. When they engage in a game of chess — a real one, though the metaphorical aspect is also there — you might have to fan yourself. Michel Legrand’s alternately lush and driving score is a gem of its own. ELISABETH VINCENTELLI

When Burt Lancaster and Susan Sarandon appeared in Louis Malle’s 1980 heartbreaker, he was almost twice her age. Yet after his rueful character, a small-time hood named Lou, takes a shine to Sally (Sarandon), a struggling oyster-bar waitress, their connection develops a melancholy magic. Blending romance and crime caper, Malle has crafted a dreamy, atmospheric study of a man, and a city, in decline, and Lancaster plays him with so much tattered heart that we easily understand Sally’s surrender to Lou’s quiet courtship. Watching him spy on her each night as she stands gloriously naked in her kitchen window, rubbing lemons on her skin to banish the odor of a job she detests, there is something innocent and inoffensive in his peeking. To him, she represents all he has lost — and all he might yet salvage. JEANNETTE CATSOULIS

Watch and Weep

‘Brief Encounter’ | Amazon Prime Video, iTunes

It’s not a spoiler to say that the love affair in “Brief Encounter” does not last: The title is pretty clear on that point. Yet you will hope against hope that Laura (Celia Johnson) and Alec (Trevor Howard) somehow find a way to end up together. The enduring appeal of David Lean’s 1945 romantic masterpiece lies in the push and pull between two people’s mutual attraction and their sense of honor and duty. (They are both married to other people.) The film gently suggests the all-encompassing power of love with characters who maintain a stiff upper lip. Slight gestures and sideways glances resonate like deflagrations of unabashed desire in this context, and the effect is devastatingly emotional. ELISABETH VINCENTELLI

Sweetheart Scares

‘My Bloody Valentine’ | Shudder, Crackle, YouTube, Amazon Prime, Google Play, Vudu, iTunes

This Valentine’s Day, do like many horror fans do: Fire up the streaming service Shudder and snuggle up with your boo. Start with “My Bloody Valentine,” a 1981 Canadian slasher film about a mining town besieged on Valentine’s Day by a killer with a pickax. It’s gory and deranged, but also a strangely nostalgic slasher classic. Follow that with the new Shudder podcast “Horror Noire: Uncut,” a fascinating six-episode valentine to African-American film buffs’ love-hate romance with horror cinema, based on Shudder’s acclaimed 2019 documentary. The podcast is also available on Apple Podcasts and other platforms. ERIK PIEPENBURG

Sweet Bromance, Dude

‘Dude, Where’s My Car?’ | YouTube, iTunes, Google Play, Vudu, Amazon Prime Video, Cinemax

“Dude, where’s my car?” “Where’s your car, dude?” Were more romantic words ever spoken? Ashton Kutcher and Seann William Scott still make a dynamic couple in this 20-year-old stoner comedy that takes repetition to a place of absurdist enlightenment. The premise is simple: Two friends, Jesse and Chester, wake up and can’t remember the night before, including the whereabouts of said car. Yes, much of the laughs come from a puerile place, but there’s some genuine heart amid the gags. And the chemistry between these bros is palatable, from their shirtless tussle while trying to figure out what the new tattoos on their backs say to a one-upmanship showdown they have with Fabio that results in Jesse and Chester making out with each other. Sweet! MEKADO MURPHY

I Have an Hour, and I Want to Swoon-Cry

‘San Junipero’ (‘Black Mirror’ Season 3) | Netflix

The British series “Black Mirror” is famously bleak, but the Season 3 episode “San Junipero” has what passes as a happy ending in the show’s universe. Make no mistake, though: Tears will flow, prompted by a love that defies time, space, physical reality and even death itself. Mackenzie Davis’s shy, nerdy Yorkie finds herself pulled into the orbit of Gugu Mbatha-Raw’s extroverted, magnetic Kelly. The story jumps around the space-time continuum but is mostly set in 1987 America — if only, you may suspect, so it could put Belinda Carlisle’s “Heaven Is a Place on Earth” and Robbie Nevil’s “C’est la Vie” to memorable use. While technology tends to be a nihilistic force in the series, it comes to the aid of love in “San Junipero.” Imagine that. ELISABETH VINCENTELLI

Love From Beyond the Grave

‘Atlantics’ | Netflix

In Mati Diop’s feature debut, two lovers, Ada (Mama Sané) and Souleiman (Ibrahima Traoré), are separated by forces beyond their control. Although Ada is betrothed to a wealthy man, Omar (Babacar Sylla), her affections remain with Souleiman, a suave but less prosperous suitor who leaves their coastal town in Senegal in hopes of finding steady work in Spain. Strange things begin to happen back in Senegal after Souleiman is feared dead, including a mysterious fire that disrupts Ada’s wedding celebration. Diop and the cinematographer Claire Mathon (who also worked on “Portrait of a Lady on Fire,” back in theaters this week) frame Ada and Souleiman’s enduring love as an epic romance, a passion that reverberates through Fatima Al Qadiri’s haunting score. MONICA CASTILLO

Love at Work

‘Eames: The Architect and the Painter’ | Amazon Prime, YouTube, Google Play Movies & TV, iTunes

It all started with a chair. When Charles Eames met Ray Kaiser, they were both at the height of their fields (architecture for him, abstract art for her). In his love letters, he dreamed of a future together. He destroyed her letters. After all, he was married, with a daughter. Yet their connection sparked a professional partnership that helped define design and consumer culture. The film paints the picture of a love rooted in work and a shared joy in making things. Which is to say it manages to make the business of furniture and experimental filmmaking seem terribly romantic. Charles and Ray, who eventually married, are seen smiling together in archival photos from the 1940s, ’50s and beyond, look like a pair of delightful, delighted oddballs, fussing over designs that would eventually make their way into homes across the country. Their bond flourishes as they find success, is buffeted by industry criticism, the era’s sexism, and even infidelity. Still, they forged ahead, leaving their mark on just about everything they touched. #Goals. KWAME OPAM

Love Triangle: What Could Go Wrong?

‘Broadcast News’ | Amazon, iTunes, Vudu, YouTube, Google Play

One of the great love-triangle movies of all time, James L. Brooks’s comedy-drama (set in the world of network television news) finds Holly Hunter, in her breakthrough role, as a high-strung producer torn between two potential partners: Albert Brooks (as a reporter with a great mind but no physical spark) and William Hurt (as the hotshot new anchor with a killer bod and an empty head). They’re all playing recognizable types, and dig the expected laughs out of those personalities (and their interpersonal dynamics). But Brooks’s witty, sophisticated screenplay doesn’t treat them like stock characters; these people are all both likable and deeply flawed, and the film’s refreshing lack of clear choices makes Hunter’s romantic predicament all the more poignant. JASON BAILEY

Bollywood Romance

‘Jodhaa Akbar’ | Netflix

Some love stories end in weddings; others begin with one. In the Bollywood historical romance “Jodhaa Akbar,” the Mughal emperor Akbar marries the Hindu princess Jodhaa as part of a peace arrangement with the king of a rival province. Jodhaa resents being used as a political pawn and forced into a stranger’s home, but Akbar’s acceptance of her independence and religion slowly wins her over. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and Hrithik Roshan are resplendently charismatic as the lead royals: the scene in which, armed with swords, they duel it out to resolve a lover’s quarrel is one of the sexiest moments ever committed to screen. The director Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s knack for swooning romance and political intrigue — and the stunningly designed set — make the film worth every minute of its three-and-a-half-hour run time. DEVIKA GIRISH

An Ever-After That’s Actually Dreamy

‘The Thin Man’ | YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, iTunes, Google Play, Vudu

Who ever said marriage killed romance? Not Nick and Nora Charles, for whom life is a euphoric succession of dry martinis and drier banter, seasoned with a little detective action here and there. The first (and best) in what would become a successful franchise, “The Thin Man” (1934) is Hollywood screwball comedy at its most sophisticated: Everybody looks great in evening wear, cracks wise, and downs staggering amounts of alcohol while keeping their wits about them. But the key to the movie’s enduring appeal is its portrayal of an enviably liberated modern couple, played by William Powell and Myrna Loy. Partners in crime-solving and sly sex appeal, Nick and Nora don’t just love each other — they absolutely delight in each other’s company. ELISABETH VINCENTELLI

Why Fight Destiny?

‘Crossing Delancey’ | Amazon, iTunes, Vudu, YouTube, Google Play

Opposites attract, in spite of all attempts to stifle said attraction, in this bewitching 1988 romantic comedy from the director Joan Micklin Silver. Amy Irving stars as Izzy, a downtown woman who’s moved uptown and fancies herself a sophisticate. So she dismisses her grandmother’s attempt to find her a husband via a matchmaker — especially when the suitor is the neighborhood pickle vendor (Peter Riegert). “I don’t live down here, I live uptown,” she assures him, and refuses to admit her obvious attraction, because of the backward step a romance with him seems to represent. Susan Sandler’s complex screenplay (based on her play) hits the expected will-they-or-won’t-they rom-com beats, but underscores them with complicated dynamics of cultural assimilation; the result is an sparkling, dizzy New York romance in the “Moonstruck” tradition. JASON BAILEY

Rom-Com, French Style

‘Heartbreaker’ | YouTube, Google Play, iTunes, Amazon Prime Video

This French charmer may remind you of the romantic-caper style that flourished in Hollywood from the late 1950s to the mid-60s. It is so sneakily funny and charming that it can shoulder such references as “To Catch a Thief,” whose Riviera setting this 2010 film echoes. Alex (Romain Duris) has a very special profession: Anxious friends and parents pay him to break up mismatched couples by seducing the woman. Things go south after Alex is hired to wreck the impending nuptials of Juliette (Vanessa Paradis) and Jonathan (a pre-“Walking Dead” Andrew Lincoln), and he finds himself actually drawn to his target. As with the best rom-coms, the romance feels ineluctable, no matter how hard the two leads fight it — but what fun it is to watch Duris and Paradis spar. ELISABETH VINCENTELLI

Bad Romance

‘The Souvenir’ | YouTube, Google Play, Vudu, Amazon Prime Video

The best rule of love is to love yourself. It’s a lesson that the film student Julie (Honor Swinton Byrne) learns the hard way as she falls under the spell of a dashing and charming older man, Anthony (Tom Burke). He’s not quite what he seems: As his drug addiction gradually strains the relationship, they engage in a vicious cycle of breakups and reconciliations. As much as this movie is about a bad romance, it’s also about what happens after Julie walks away. Based on her own youthful heartache, the director Joanna Hogg reimagines her experience in a gorgeous work of art, one that wrestles with the messy feelings of a toxic love affair. MONICA CASTILLO

A Time for Sportsmance

‘Bull Durham’ | YouTube, Google Play, Amazon Prime Video, iTunes, Vudu, Hulu

‘Tin Cup’ | YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, iTunes, Google Play, Vudu

With two sportsmance classics under their belt, the director Ron Shelton and his star, Kevin Costner, are the rightful masters of this subgenre. In “Bull Durham” (1988), Costner portrays a woeful Minor Leaguer courting baseball-crazy Susan Sarandon; in “Tin Cup” (1996), his self-sabotaging golfer becomes entangled with a psychologist played by Rene Russo. What’s great about these movies is that they show adults figuring things out, rather than, as has been the case with too many recent rom-coms, leaving characters stuck in arrested development. While the sports action can feel a little hokey — but then, that’s exactly how we like sports action — the human element has a wonderfully genuine lived-in quality. And, in “Bull Durham,” when Costner’s Crash lists “long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days” as one of the things he believes in — well, game over. ELISABETH VINCENTELLI

Love and Other Existential Puzzles

‘Phoenix’ | Criterion Channel, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, iTunes, Google Play

‘Transit’ | Vudu, YouTube, Google Play, Amazon Prime Video

In “Phoenix,” by the German director Christian Petzold, a Holocaust survivor, Nelly, is recruited by her husband — who fails to recognize her after her facial reconstruction surgery — to pretend to be his “dead” wife so he can obtain her inheritance. Nelly, clinging to the charade of the love that she’s lost forever, plays along with his “Vertigo”-esque scheme even after his betrayals become slowly evident. Keep the tissues handy for Petzold’s “Transit,” about a Jewish refugee in Marseilles who is mistaken for and then starts impersonating a dead writer, and becomes enamored with the writer’s wife. Shot in a seductive, minimalist style, both movies (strange doppelgängers of each other) beautifully capture the tragic desire to become someone else — someone new — through love. DEVIKA GIRISH

from WordPress https://mastcomm.com/what-to-stream-on-valentines-day/