Best Pictures #61: 2019 (92nd) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee: Parasite

by A.J.

Best Pictures #61
 2019 (92^nd) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee

Parasite

“You know what kind of plan never fails? No plan. No plan at all. You know why? Because life cannot be planned.”

It’s rare for a foreign film to gain as much popularity with American audiences as the South Korean film Parasite has done. It’s even rarer for a foreign film to earn Academy Awards nominations for Best Foreign Language (now called International) film and Best Picture, but Parasite has managed to join this exclusive club. Director Bong Joon-ho has long been turning out top quality, intriguing work (I’m a big fan of his melancholy 2003 film Memories of Murder, about a years long hunt for a serial killer). Bong Joon-ho and Han Jin-won’s Oscar nominated original screenplay switches tones and even genres so abruptly and successfully, it makes Parasite a unique movie to say the least. Combined with a stellar cast, excellent cinematography, production design, and pacing, Parasite becomes a thoroughly engrossing, extraordinary experience. Movies like this in any language are rare indeed.

Parasite begins as a dark comedy and sharp satire about economic inequality and class disparity. The Kim family lives in a shabby basement apartment. The street level window provides them a view of ankles and urinating drunks. They work short term odd jobs and hunt around their apartment for a spot with Wi-Fi. A change in luck comes when a friend of their teenage son recommends him as a tutor for the daughter of a wealthy family, the Parks. The son, Ki-woo, reluctantly accepts though he is under qualified. Soon the Kim family schemes to replace each of the Park family servants with themselves though they pose under false identities. The 20-ish Kim daughter, Ki-jeong, provides the family with false credentials. Things take a fateful and irreversible turn when the Kims decide to have a night in luxury while the Parks are away for the weekend.

That plot description seems to make the title describe the Kim family. As you watch them work their way into the home of the Park family, you may find the title applies more to the Parks whose lifestyle requires people like the Kims. The differences between a family that is oblivious of their wealth and a family that schemes to get stable, working-class jobs is apparent. But then, the film reveals layers and depth that make it truly profound. When the film becomes a riveting thriller, it does not eschew its themes and substance. I cannot recall the last time I had no idea where a film was going, not because of incompetence, but because I was watching the work of a master filmmaker.

The entire ensemble is terrific. Each role is well cast and there’s a great chemistry between the members of the respective families. The stand outs for me, however are Song Kang-ho as the Kim family patriarch and Park So-dam as his clever daughter. Cho Yeo-jeong as the daffy and gullible Park matriarch is great comic relief.

What sets Parasite a step above other socially conscious films is it does not sacrifice entertainment for the sake its social commentary or vice versa. It never pontificates or pretends to have any didactic solution. It is like a classic Twilight Zone episode, up front about its themes but in such a way that doesn’t speak down to audience and feels detached and immediate simultaneously. There is not a single pandering moment in the entire film. Parasite uses the real problems and concerns of modern society to tell a compelling and universal story that causes us to reflect on our world. That can be the definition a great film and great art.

Nominees: Sin-ae Kwak, Bong Joon Ho

Director: Bong Joon-ho

Screenplay: Bong Joon-ho, Han Jin-won; story by Bong Joon-ho

Cast: Song Kang-ho, Choi Woo-shik, Park So-dam, Chang Hyae-jin, Lee Sun-kyun, Cho Yeo-jeong

Production Companies: Barunson E&A

Distributor: CJ Entertainment

Release Date: November 8^th, 2019

Total Nominations: 6, including Best Picture

Other Nominations: Director-Bong Joon Ho; Original Screenplay-Bong Joon Ho, Jin Won Han; International Feature Film-South Korea; Production Design-Ha-jun Lee, Won-woo Cho; Film Editing-Jinmo Yang

Best Pictures #60: 2019 (92nd) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee: Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood

by A.J.

Best Pictures #60

2019 (92^nd) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee

Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood

“I hired you to be an actor, Rick, not a TV cowboy. You’re better than that."

There are certain filmmakers that settle into their distinct style more and more with each film. Quentin Tarantino is among that group. Tarantino has also reached the same stature in the film community that Stephen King has in the literary world: for better or worse, he’s too successful to be edited down. Indeed, his latest film might also be his most “Tarantino” film since Pulp Fiction. Once Upon a in Time…in Hollywood, a sprawling but not quite epic tour through Los Angeles in 1969 that crosses paths with Bruce Lee, the Manson Family, and Sharon Tate, indulges in long, two-character conversations, pop culture references (both obvious and subtle), wall to wall pop music, flashbacks, insert shots and closeups, barefoot women, an unnecessary narrator, cameos from actors from previous films, and, of course, some bloody, bloody violence. There’s also an emotional maturity that we haven’t seen since Jackie Brown.

I left the theater uncertain whether I liked the picture or not, but by the time I got to my car I knew for sure that I had just seen the most interesting and challenging film by Tarantino in years. I also knew I had seen one of the best films of 2019. Tarantino always manages to surprise us, even when his films are set around historical events.

Leonardo DiCaprio stars as Rick Dalton, a former TV cowboy who can now only land roles playing the villain of the week on other shows (many of them, Green Hornet, The F.B.I, Lancer, are real shows). A Hollywood agent (Al Pacino in a small but well-played part) offers Rick a second chance as a leading man in Italian spaghetti westerns. Rick takes this as proof that he’s a has-been. DiCaprio does the best acting of his career as the washed-up TV cowboy, especially in the scenes of him on the set of the TV western, Lancer. In a wonderfully written, beautifully performed scene between Rick and a child actress DiCaprio expresses vulnerability in a way he never has with any character. 10-year-old Julia Butters proves to be a worthy scene partner for DiCaprio (which is no surprise if you’ve seen her steal every scene on the TV show American Housewife).

Brad Pitt plays Cliff Booth, Rick’s stuntman, driver, handyman, and only friend. If Rick is washed up, Cliff is un-hirable. He may, or may not, have killed his wife and gotten away with it (Tarantino shows us a brief ambiguous flashback) which, along with his irresponsible behavior on set, doesn’t endear him to stunt coordinators. Pitt’s performance is not exactly showy, but it is pronounced. Cliff is a character with no self-illusions; he has an easy confidence and Pitt is very comfortable in the role. It’s not his most challenging performance but it is one of his most memorable.

Margot Robbie plays the beautiful rising star Sharon Tate. She and her husband Roman Polanski, the hottest director in Hollywood, have just moved in next door to Rick. The few scenes that follow Tate as she goes about her day play more like distant observations that idolize her rather than moments that show us an inner life or build her up as a character. Robbie doesn’t have many lines but she still brings her enchanting screen presence to the role, which in this case is all that is required.            

Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood has a fun, brilliant energy. Since you are essentially just hanging out with Rick and Cliff as they go about their days there is a slight episodic feel as the movie goes on but the pacing is smooth and steady. In each scene you’ll find Tarantino’s signature sharp dialogue and interesting, colorful characters, both fictional and fictionalized. A long scene that places Cliff at the Spahn Movie Ranch, home of the Manson Family, is the most tense and frightening scene Tarantino has ever done. It’s a Hitchcockian scene bursting with suspense. The most entertaining scene in the entire movie is a long flashback to Cliff’s fight with Bruce Lee. This scene has caused a lot of controversy (Lee’s family has called in disrespectful) because it suggests that Cliff, a stuntman with no training, could have possibly won in a fight with Bruce Lee. I don’t think the scene pokes fun at Lee; if anything, Lee getting thrown without padding into a car door so hard it leaves a crater and then just shaking it off a moment later makes this Bruce Lee look pretty badass. It’s also a delight to watch Mike Moh’s great performance as the larger than life Bruce Lee.

The Hollywood of this movie feels like a very lived-in world. Nothing feels completely brand new. The sets of TV shows are deglamorized work places. Everything from the hip and not so hip clothing to the cars to the homes feel like the people in this movie have actually been using them. Little details like radio commercials for movies, old TV commercials, movie posters, and billboards all add up to a total immersion in this time period. It’s this immersive, authentic feel that is at odds with the film’s final act, the night of the Sharon Tate and her houseguest’s murder. Tarantino, never one to let a story go where you think, does something unexpected which, honestly, I should have seen coming. It’s right there in the title, “Once Upon a Time…” Despite all of the intricate details, it seems this film is a fantasy after all. 

The final act won’t work for everyone, there’s also plenty in the rest of the movie that won’t work for everyone (like having one of the leads be a potential murderer). There have been many, many discussions and arguments about nearly everything in this movie; it’s rare that we get a film that sparks such interest and conversations. Tarantino has said that he plans to retire after his next movie. I’m skeptical of such declarations from any filmmaker. If true, his penultimate film provides great entertainment and plenty for us to ponder. It also has my expectations high for his supposed final film.

Nominees: David Heyman, Shannon McIntosh, Quentin Tarantino, producers

Director: Quentin Tarantino

Screenplay: Quentin Tarantino

Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie

Production Companies: Columbia Pictures, Bona Film Group, Heyday Films, Visiona Romantica

Distributor: Sony Pictures

Release Date: July 26^th, 2019

Total Nominations: 10, including Best Pictures

Other Nominations: Director-Quentin Tarantino; Actor-Leonardo DiCaprio; Supporting Actor-Brad Pitt; Original Screenplay-Quentin Tarantino; Cinematography-Robert Richardson; Costume Design-Arianne Phillips; Production Design-Barbara Ling, Nancy Haigh; Sound Mixing-Michael Minkler, Christian P. Minkler, Mark Ulano; Sound Editing-Wylie Stateman

Best Pictures #59: 2019 (92nd) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee: Joker

by A.J.

Best Pictures #59 
2019 (92^nd) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee

Joker

“What kind of clown carries a fucking gun?”

The definition of bad taste is having your hero, or anti-hero in this case, who suffered severe trauma and abuse as a child, have his triumphant moment set to “Rock and Roll Part 2,” the most famous song by Gary Glitter. Of course, long before then you’ll know that Joker has no taste, no heart, and no brain. That wouldn’t be so bad if the film didn’t present itself as though it had meaningful subtext or social commentary. Instead this film thinks it is being edgy and shocking when it is actually so plainly mean and cruel and joyless that I found myself wanting to watch A Clockwork Orange as an antidote. This is a meanspirited film with no redeeming qualities, not even Joaquin Phoenix’s performance. Yes, it is a good performance, and at this point Phoenix is a lock to win the Best Actor Oscar, but, frankly, I’m not surprised that an actor willing to sacrifice his career to make a fake documentary about becoming a rap star, I'm Still Here, gives a fully committed performance. That’s just what Joaquin Phoenix does.

Todd Phillips, who previously directed comedies like Old School and The Hangover, said in an interview with Vanity Fair that he cannot make comedies like he used to because of the current “woke culture.” With that mindset he co-wrote and directed an origin story about Batman’s most formidable villain, the Joker. This supposedly standalone film tells the story of Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix), a working-class clown (literally) that is constantly treated poorly by everyone he encounters, humiliated, and even randomly beaten. Still, he dreams of being a comedian and meeting his idol, late night talk show host Murray Franklin (Robert De Niro). His shut-in mother, Penny (Frances Conroy) is the only warmth he experiences, but it turns out she has been hiding dark secrets from him.

In addition to being meanspirited and misguided, Joker is also totally tone deaf. People of color are well represented in this version of Gotham: Arthur is senselessly beaten by a gang of Latino youths, his black female social worker is ineffectual, another black civil service worker won’t help Arthur learn about his past, and a black woman on the bus and a black co-worker are just flat out rude to him. The one person of color kind to Arthur is his neighbor, played by Zazie Beetz, but her role is not what it seems and her fate, and the fate of her child, are left to grim implications. Of course, all of the white characters are also mean, rude, or obstacles for Arthur. The one decent person in the whole movie is Gary (Leigh Gill), a little person that works with Arthur at the clown precinct (complete with lockers and a punch card timeclock), but he is also the target of cruel jokes about his size both from other characters and the movie itself. Phillips’s gripe with “woke culture” casts an extra dark pall over all of this.

After Arthur loses his job and government funded medications for his mental illness, he reaches his breaking point when three Wall Street types beat him after menacingly singing “Send in the Clowns” at him. He shoots and kills them and the mysterious vigilante clown becomes an urban folk hero for some reason. The violent mob of “protesters” wearing clown masks he inspires consists of mostly, if not entirely, angry men. I’m not sure what to make of the one we see carrying a sign that says “RESIST” just before young Bruce Wayne’s parents are murdered in front of him. That mob, angry at the wealthy, is reminiscent of the Occupy Wall Street movement, but that’s just one example of several potentially provocative points that the movie introduces and never follows up on.

If the standup comedy/talk show element sounds familiar that’s because it is straight out of Martin Scorsese’s King of Comedy, which starred Robert De Niro as a hack wannabe comedian obsessed with a late-night talk show host. If the working-class vigilante that has had it with the scum of the city sounds familiar that’s because it is the basic plot of Martin Scorsese’s Taxi Driver, also starring Robert De Niro. Those movies featured anti-heroes with skewed perspectives on what they see every day, but unlike Joker those films take place in something resembling the real world. Scorsese lets us know that the world of those characters exists in a larger world to which they are not tuned in.

Joker establishes firmly that its main character is someone with a serious mental illness that is not able to get the help he needs. When this character turns violent it should feel tragic but instead it is played as though this is a justified climatic triumph. This is an irresponsible and reprehensible film to say the least. Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange is perfect example of a film about an ultra-violent, mentally disturbed anti-hero that successfully presents provocative and challenging ideas about society, civility, and free will. To sum up, I’ll paraphrase the great critic Gene Siskel, which I think is only appropriate since Joker borrows so much from other films: Joker has the distinction of being one of the vilest and most contemptible films I’ve seen. This is a hateful movie. I want to hate it back but that means letting the Joker win, and as Batman said in The Dark Knight, “the Joker cannot win.”

Nominees: Todd Phillips, Bradley Cooper, Emma Tillinger Koskoff

Director: Todd Phillips

Screenplay: Todd Phillips & Scott Silver , based on characters created by Bob Kane, Bill Finger, Jerry Robinson

Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Robert DeNiro, Zazie Beetz

Production Companies: Warner Bros. Pictures, DC Films, Joint Effort, Bron Creative, Village Roadshow Pictures

Distributor: Warner Bros Pictures

Release Date: October 4^th, 2019

Total Nominations: 11, including Best Picture

Other Nominations: Director-Todd Phillips; Actor-Joaquin Phoenix; Adapted Screenplay-Todd Phillips, Scott Silver; Cinematography-Lawrence Sher; Costume Design-Mark Bridges; Makeup and Hairstyling-Nicki Ledermann, Kay Georgiou; Original Score-Hildur Guðnadóttir; Editing-Jeff Groth; Sound Mixing-Tom Oanich,Dean A. Zupancic, Tod A. Maitland; Sound Editing-Alan Robert Murray

Best Pictures #58: 2019 (92nd) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee: 1917

by A.J.

Best Pictures #58
 2019 (92^nd) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee

1917

“Come back to us.”

There are not many films about World War I. The most well-known ones are anti-war dramas: All Quiet on the Western Front (1930), Grand Illusion (1938), Paths of Glory (1957), Gallipoli (1981). On the surface 1917 is a well-done, thrilling action-war movie. It is also such an immersive and intense experience that without making any overt political statement it is firmly an antiwar film. It may be a good, thrilling movie but it is never exciting in the way an adventure movie is exciting. Even in the quiet moments 1917 makes you want to be as far away from this war as possible and hope another one like it never happens.

The plot is simple and very straightforward. Two young British soldiers are selected to deliver a message to a distant regiment calling off an attack the next morning. If the attack goes forward 1,600 soldiers, including the brother of one of the messengers, will charge into a trap. The encounters Corporals Blake and Schofield (Dean-Charles Chapman and Georgy MacKay) have as they make their journey across enemy territory are what you might expect from a story about soldiers on a mission: attacks from the enemy, crossing paths with another group of soldiers, finding shelter that is actually dangerous, even stumbling across a villager trying to care for a child. 1917 isn’t a total onslaught to the senses for two hours though. There are respites here and there that allow us to get to know Blake and Schofield. There are some surprising cameos by well-known British actors along the way too (or unsurprising if you’ve seen the trailer or the cast list on IMDb). Fortunately, none of these cameos take you out of the movie (Andrew Scott and Mark Strong could slip comfortably into just about any movie).

Director Sam Mendes employs long takes and expert, precise cinematography by Roger Deakins and stealthy editing by Lee Smith to make the film look and feel as though it exists in one long unbroken shot. This gimmick works well for the movie when it is not distracting. In its successful moments the one-shot effect is largely responsible for the film’s frantic, immersive effect. The climatic sequence of Schofield running like mad across the top of a trench as a battle begins to find the colonel to call off the attack makes excellent use of the one shot effect; it had me gripping the armrests of my seat. Also, the nighttime sequence in a bombed-out village where flairs illuminate the night with a bright, eerie white light and a fire rages in the distance is surreal and terrifying. Other scenes, however, like when a group of soldiers (and the camera) climb into the back of a truck, then get out to push the truck, then climb back in again feel like they are straining to keep the shot unbroken. Though I think there’s nothing in 1917 that couldn’t have been achieved with conventional editing, I understand why Mendes chose to present his film as a single unbroken shot. It puts us right there with the two soldiers and we are as unsure as they are of what will happen next.      

There are two consequences of using the one-shot/single-take gimmick in a war film. 1) Whether intentional or not, the one-shot effect, which keeps the camera right behind, or in front of, or over the shoulder of the characters, along with the nature of the story makes the film feel like a video game at certain times. This is not really a fault against the film. It is more likely due to video games being influenced by movies and then filtering back into the culture, but the comparison comes to mind nonetheless. 2) I think all of the focus and talk surrounding the one-shot effect actually diverts attention away from the harrowing experience of the characters in the film. 1917 has already won several awards and praise as a technical achievement (which it certainly is). I just hope people can get past the film’s style to fully appreciate and experience the events on screen.

1917 only tangentially touches on the larger scale of the war. One character makes a background comment on the unimpressive patch of land they’ve been fighting the Germans over for years. Mendes chose not to focus on the politics of the war but instead tell the story of the enlisted men that fought in the trenches and in open fields. This movie is based in part on the experiences of Lance Corporal Alfred Mendes, Sam Mendes’s grandfather, to whom the film is dedicated. Mends co-wrote the screenplay, his only writing credit. For all the unrelenting action in 1917, the final shot makes this an emotional and affecting movie.

Nominees: Sam Mendes, Pippa Harris, Jayne-Ann Tenggren, Callum McDougall

Director: Sam Mendes

Screenplay: Sam Mendes, Krysty Wilson-Cairns

Cast: George MacKay, Dean-Charles Chapman

Production Companies: DreamWorks Pictures, Reliance Entertainment, New Republic Pictures, Mogambo, Neal Street Productions, Amblin Partners

Distributor: Universal Pictures

Release Date: December 25^th, 2019

Total Nominations: 10, including Best Picture

Other Nominations: Director-Sam Mendes; Original Screenplay- Sam Mendes, Krysty Wilson-Cairns; Cinematography-Roger Deakins; Makeup and Hairstyling-Naomi Donne, Tristan Versluis, Rebecca Cole; Production Design-Dennis Gassner, Lee Sandales; Original Score-Thomas Newman; Visual Effects-Guillaume Rocheron, Greg Butler, Dominic Tuohy; Sound Mixing-Mark Taylor, Stuart Wilson; Sound Editing-Oliver Tarney, Rachael Tate

Best Pictures #57: 2019 (92nd) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee: Little Women (2019)

by A.J.

Best Pictures #57

 2019 (92^nd) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee

Little Women (2019)

“I'm so sick of people saying that love is just all a woman is fit for.”

With Little Women, first published in 1868, Louisa May Alcott crafted a story so nearing perfection that not only has it become a classic, but it is difficult to mess up when retelling it. The fourth big screen adaptation Alcott’s novel, written and directed by Greta Gerwig, finds a fresh approach to the lives of the March sisters without making any major changes to the well-loved story. Gerwig uses a flashback structure, a steady and lively pace, equally lively performances, and a lovely score by Alexandre Desplat to make this period drama easily engaging to a modern audience. 

Gerwig begins her film near the end of Alcott’s story with Jo (Saoirse Ronan) living in New York trying to carve out a career as a fiction writer. Her sisters are scattered and wrapped up in their adult lives. Meg (Emma Watson) is raising a family and keeping a house while struggling with money. Amy (Florence Pugh) is learning painting in Europe. Only selfless and caring Beth (Eliza Scanlen) remains with their parents at the March family home in Massachusetts. Then the film flashes back to where to the novel and other film versions begin, with the sisters as adolescents living together under one roof with their mother, Marmie (Laura Dern, with infinite patience and warmness and wisdom). Their father is away serving with the Union army in the Civil War. It is seven years before we began with Jo living in New York.

There is real joy and emotion in the scenes of the March sisters together (that’s the appeal of watching any version of Little Women) but we get time with each of the sisters on their own. We get to know them as individuals and are privy to what is in their minds and hearts. Gerwig put together a fine ensemble but Saoirse Ronan and Florence Pugh have been singled out by the Academy with Oscar nominations in the Lead and Supporting categories, respectively. This is no surprise since Jo and Amy are the two showy roles.

Ronan brings just the right kind of energy to the rebellious, strong willed, sometimes abrasive, but always charming, Jo. She is full of life and personality without becoming a caricature. On the other hand, I found Florence Pugh’s performance as the youngest sister Amy (a child when the novel begins) so broad as to be distracting. Pugh plays Amy throughout the film, but the younger Amy’s behavior and actions have not been altered in any significant way. So, in the flashbacks we see an adult Florence Pugh speaking and acting like a child even though she looks like a teenager at the youngest (even with her Cindy Brady haircut). This unfortunately makes the younger Amy come off as odd and extra bratty.

Timothèe Chalamet is a perfect fit for the role of Laurie, the dreamy and charming boy next door destined to be intertwined with the March sisters. Chalamet brings a lively physicality to his performance, moving his long, slender body with a lilt that matches the energy of the movie. In smaller but no less entertaining roles are Meryl Streep and Tracy Letts. Streep plays the intimidating and acerbic Aunt March, who is rich enough to be able to speak her mind. She is full of 19^th century quips and zingers that are delivered wonderfully. Letts plays a grumpy New York publisher that is willing buy Jo’s stories if they are spicy and if Jo’s female main characters get married at the end, or die. Jo’s conversations with him are entertaining but also come right up against being too meta for the movie's own good (if you weren’t sure about Jo being a stand-in for Alcott, these scenes leave no doubt).

I have to admit that as much the jumps back and forth in time work for the overall structure of the film some of the cuts are not immediately apparent and it takes a moment to figure out where you are in the timeline. Once you get into the rhythm of the pacing, however, you’ll find yourself caught up in the film’s enthusiasm and love for its characters. Right from the start this version of Little Women lets you know that it is not a pageant, not just another recreation of a familiar story, but a new perspective on a classic story that gets to the core of what makes this story timeless. The climax of Gerwig’s adaptation, is not whether or not Jo gets married and to whom, but how she is able to stay true to herself and her dreams and her family.

Nominees: Amy Pascal, producer

Director: Greta Gerwig

Screenplay: Greta Gerwig, based on the novel by Louisa May Alcott

Cast: Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh, Eliza Scanlen, Laura Dern, Timothée Chalamet

Production Companies: Columbia Pictures, Regency Enterprises, Pascal Pictures

Distributor: Sony Pictures

Release Date: December 25^th, 2019

Total Nominations: 6, including Best Picture

Other Nominations: Actress-Saoirse Ronan; Supporting Actress-Florence Pugh; Adapted Screenplay-Greta Gerwig; Costume Design-Jacqueline Durran; Original Score-Alexandre Desplat

Best Pictures #56: 2019 (92nd) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee Ford v Ferrari

by A.J.

Best Pictures #56 
2019 (92^nd) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee

Ford v Ferrari

“There's a point at 7,000 RPM... where everything fades.”

If Ford v Ferrari feels formulaic that’s because it is, but it works. It has all the elements of a traditional major studio sports movie: based on a true story, A-list movie stars, acclaimed journeyman director, fabulous cinematography, a motley crew of characters challenging conventions, an underdog angle. A more generous analogy would be Ford v Ferrari takes a reliable recipe and uses the best ingredients and best kitchen brigade to deliver an entrée so well done it is almost easy to dismiss. That is almost what happened with this movie. After coming and going at the box office just before Thanksgiving, it seems the Academy couldn’t dismiss this film entirely and gave it four Oscar nominations, including Best Picture. They were right to not let Ford v Ferrari pass without notice because, though it is working with a familiar recipe, this is an excellently done, engaging entertainment.

Like the title directly states, this movie is about rival car companies. Specifically, it is about the nascent Ford racing program in the mid 1960’s taking on the dominant force in international racing, Ferrari. Like a lot of sports movies, you could argue that this movie isn’t so much about the sport but about the characters and their journey. Ford v Ferrari is certainly about car racing but what is most engaging about it is the friendship between its main characters, racer turned car designer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) and racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale). After a slump in sales, ambitious Ford executive Lee Iacocca hatches a plan to revitalize the car company's image by entering the world of international auto racing and winning the prestigious marathon race 24 Hours at Le Mans. Ford turns to Shelby to head their racing program. Shelby, turns to the best driver he knows, Miles, who is the right driver for the job but does not fit the Ford company image.

At first the accents from the leads are a bit jarring. Damon is using a full Texas drawl and Bale uses a British accent not his own. Accents aside, Damon and Bale settle into the their characters quickly and comfortably. They are A-list stars that give A-list performances with great on-screen chemistry. Damon as the determined no-nonsense Shelby and Bale as the skilled but at times abrasive Miles (he’s described as “not a people person”) are not exactly a mismatched pair; they’re more like yin and yang. Their best scene together is also the funniest in the movie: they fight each other with groceries. Shelby has a canned good in his hand, realizes that it would hurt Miles, so he hits him with a loaf of bread instead. Even when they are trying to hurt each other, they are trying not to hurt each other.

The real rivalry isn’t between Ford and Ferrari but with race crew and the Ford executives who don’t understand racing and are only concerned with corporate image, namely Josh Lucas as Leo Beebee. Lucas is great performer but there’s nothing to his character aside from being petty and obstructing Shelby and Miles. I did not care about the Ford motor company winning a race to gain prestige and sell more cars so rich men could be slightly richer. But I did care about Shelby and Miles succeeding. Watching them and their crew work together to solve the problems of building a state-of-the-art race car, with each member using their individual skills and knowledge, is a total delight. Those scenes reminded me of other film about people working together to solve a problem, The Martian, also starring Matt Damon, and also a Best Picture nominee. So, yes, in a film where the title flat out states conflict and rivalry, the best scenes are of people working together.

Director James Mangold is not a household name, even among cinephiles, but he turns out solid work more often than not. When directing Walk the Line he gave the concert scenes a distinct look by putting the camera backstage and even onstage with the performers instead of just placing it with the audience. He uses the same approach with Ford v Ferrari’s racing scenes. There some shots of the cars zooming by the stands but there are also shots behind and in front of the cars on the track, inside the car with the Miles, POV shots of the racers, or shots where the camera has been attached the door of one of the speeding cars. It is all cut together to thrilling results (editor Andrew Buckland received an Oscar nomination for his work). Ford v Ferrari also picked up Oscar nominations in both Sound Mixing and Sound Editing. Those aren’t just throw away nominations. The sound of the roaring engines, zooming cars, and, yes, explosions, are a major part of the immersive experience of the racing scenes. I have never had any interest in car racing of any kind, but the grueling climatic race at 24 Hours at Le Mans, where drivers race in four-hour shifts day and night no matter the weather conditions, had me completely enthralled. That’s good filmmaking. I can see Ford v Ferrari being dismissed as a “Dad Movie”—the kind of movie an adult child would watch with their dad over the holidays. If that is how you happen to see this picture, you and your dad are in luck.

Nominees: Peter Chernin, Jenno Topping, James Mangold, producers

Director: James Mangold

Screenplay: Jez Butterworth & John-Henry Butterworth and Jason Keller

Cast: Matt Damon, Christian Bale

Production Companies:

Distributor: 20^th Century Fox

Release Date: Chernin Entertainment, TSG Entertainment, Turnpike Films

Total Nominations: 4, including Best Picture

Other Nominations: Editing- Andrew Buckland, Michael McCusker; Sound Mixing-Paul Massey, David Giammarco, Steven Morrow; Sound Editing-Donald Sylvester

Best Pictures #55: 2019 (92nd) Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee: Marriage Story

by A.J.

Best Pictures #55 

2019 (92^nd) Academy Awards Nominee 

Marriage Story

“Divorce lawyers see good people at their worst.”

Despite its annoyingly vague title, Marriage Story is actually about a divorce. On one level writer-director Noah Baumbach’s latest film feels like a divorce procedural. We follow a young attractive couple (Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver) as they agree to keep things simple and not involve lawyers, then involve lawyers, begin a custody battle, and try to navigate all of the emotional and legal complexities of legally dissolving a marriage. On another level, Marriage Story is a showcase of brilliant performances ranging from subtle to ostentatious, comical to moving. I enjoyed Marriage Story far more than I expected though I hesitate to recommend it since very few people (myself included) are able to have a good time by watching people argue and get divorced for over two hours. The divorce gets rocky but the film doesn’t so much and if you are in the right mood for a relationship/divorce drama you’ll find a decent, somehow, feel good movie.

This is the kind of movie that hangs entirely on its performances. Fortunately, the leads and supporting players all turn in strong performances. Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver have both earned Oscar nominations for their performances as the wife and husband seeking to uncouple themselves while remaining involved with their eight-year-old son and maintaining their careers. Both earn and lose and then earn back your sympathy. Charlie (Driver) is a successful New York theater director whose latest avant-garde production is headed to Broadway. Nicole (Johansson) once starred in a popular Hollywood movie but since meeting and marrying Charlie has committed herself to the stage. A Los Angeles native, Nicole has always wanted to spend more time on the West Coast and now has landed a role in a pilot that will likely become a series. Charlie thinks of them as a New York family and expects Nicole and their son to move back to New York once the pilot is done. When Nicole decides to officially file for divorce the real conflict between them begins.

Baumbach’s script does not overtly take sides though it leans toward Charlie, especially toward the end of the film. The explosive climatic argument between Nicole and Charlie gives a chance for both actors to express intense emotions, but it is Driver who gets to let out overwhelming pathos. A court appointed observer—played with welcome awkward comic deadpan by Martha Kelly—is assigned to visit and interview both parents, but we only see the visit Charlie. Charlie does his best to present as an ideal father before the visit falls into dark comedy. In a wonderfully delivered monologue early in the film, Nicole gives us her backstory, both life events and emotional. After this scene the perspective shifts to Charlie and never really shifts back to Nicole. We are as blindsided as Charlie is by claims on money and custody by Nicole’s lawyer.

Nora, Nicole’s flashy and smoothly confident high-powered lawyer, is played with impressive ease by Laura Dern, who has earned a Best Supporting Actress nomination. We’re just as charmed and dazzled by her as Nicole, and just as stung by her as Charlie. Alan Alda delivers some great low-key comedy as Charlie’s first divorce lawyer. He’s old enough that his hands shake but also old enough to know how bad a divorce can get, and how it will likely end, so, he recommends just starting there. On the complete opposite end of the spectrum is Ray Liotta as Charlie second divorce lawyer, a high powered and extremely expensive pit-bull. He speaks with such speed and ridiculous intensity that he can’t help but be funny and believable as a ruthless lawyer. Julie Hagerty is a welcome presence as Nicole’s actress mother. She has so much flighty warmth that she secretly helps Charlie find a divorce lawyer.

I’m sure certain viewers that have been through a divorce or even a bad breakup will find something relatable with the characters and situation in Marriage Story. I wouldn’t be surprised if other viewers find these characters and their situation unrelatable. Nicole and Charlie, though not wealthy, are in a very upper middle class bracket. They are so accomplished that momentous life changing events like landing a starring role in a TV show and earning an Emmy nomination for directing (Nicole) and winning a MacArthur “genius” grant (Charlie) are just background plot points. Whether you can relate or not, the performances from Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver are of such a rare quality as to keep you invested in their emotional journey.

Nominees: Noah Baumbach, David Heyman, producers

Director: Noah Baumbach

Screenplay: Noah Baumbach

Cast: Scarlett Johansson, Adam Driver, Laura Dern, Alan Alda, Ray Liotta

Production Companies: Heyday Films

Distributor: Netflix

Release Date: November 6^th, 2019

Total Nominations: 6, including Best Picture

Other Nominations: Actor-Adam Driver; Actress-Scarlett Johansson; Original Screenplay-Noah Baumbach; Supporting Actress-Laura Dern; Original Score-Randy Newman