High Life (2019)

Directed by Claire Denis

MV5BMDNjN2NjYmItMjAyZi00NmNkLWJmYTQtYzcwZGRiM2RmNGNlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyODUxNjcxNjE@._V1_SY1000_SX675_AL_

“It’s just a new religion for you.”

The presence of female directors in the worldwide film industry unfortunately is still somewhat lacking. For instance, over the last decade only 4% of the top 1,200 studio films were directed by women. Despite the odds, Claire Denis has throughout her career established herself as one of the most important French directors of the last decades. Her directing highlights go from Chocolat (1988), a film about France’s post-colonial issues; or Beau Travail (1999), dealing with the memories of war from French Foreign Legion soldiers. In this last one is especially interesting that themes like hypermasculinity and repressed homosexual feelings are explored by a female director, giving it a fresh new look on war films.

Claire takes now a shot at the science-fiction genre with High Life. The film tries to add new perspectives to what it means to be human when you are enclosed in a small spaceship far away from earth. It is not an easy task since the theme is well documented already, for instance in film classics like 2001, A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968) or Solaris (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1972). However, High Life is quite a different experience and references new ideas and problematics.

The great use of red lighting

The plot functions around a group of inmates whose life sentence is to collect an unknown form of energy somewhere near a black hole. The intricacies deepen as we are introduced to the different individuals that compose the unlikely team. Dr. Dibs (Juliette Binoche) is a doctor obsessed with collecting sperm samples from the male crew members and then artificially inseminate the female ones. Failing to do so constantly she decides to double the sedative dosage and, through rape, collect the sperm from Monte (Robert Pattinson), the star of the film. The sexual tension is raised even higher with the introduction of this masturbatory machine that all of the crew, but Monte, use regularly. In a somewhat full of sexual tension and at the same time somewhat eerie scene (with a vibe that reminded me the killings in Under the Skin (2013) ) we see Binoche ride this contraption called “The Fuckbox”. In a complete trance-like state, this machine with a dildo end is set in a dark room with bondage straps hanging up from the ceiling. Making a companion to the heavy sexual tone is also the violence between the team. In a way it’s like the film tries to associate the presence of one with the other. It may start as a sexual violence situation like rape and end up in murder. These are a group of people that have lost a sense of purpose in life due to the uncertainty of their future and the claustrophobic aspect of living in a small ship in deep space.

Inside “The Fuckbox”

The film begins with Monte living with a small child, alone in the spaceship. We later get to know that that child is the only success of Dr. Dibs and her mischievous tries to create newborns. Despite being an unwanted child, in a way it truly saves Monte from the same fate as his crew. Denis tries to show, especially between Monte and his little girl, some positive aspects about Humanity. In the final scenes we get to experience the wholesome relationship between the two until the ambiguous ending.

Its an interesting concept but not without its flaws. Starting with the cinematography, its somewhat lackluster, especially if we are talking about a revered director like Denis. The exterior space shots feel cheap and not very interesting either artistically or realistic, either way. Inside the spaceship it does get that much better. With points taken by the brilliant use of red light, there isn’t much there that blows you away. Maybe Denis was going for an homage to the spaceships of the 70’s because sure feels like we’re in one. The cast works well, especially Pattinson, but the dialogues feel sometimes forced and don’t add much to the plot.

It’s a peculiar film that will not appeal to the major movie goer for sure. It explores the most raw and vicious aspects about our sexuality and capacity to engage in violence. Nonetheless it’s not a missed shot by any means. Under its flaws there is a sense of novelty remarkable in this stage of her career, a director now 72 years old.

5 out of 10

Utvandrarna (1971) / Nybyggarna (1972)

(eng:The Emigrants / The New Land)

Directed by Jan Troell

MV5BZTJlMGEwMTgtNWRlOC00NmQ5LThiY2UtMGZjNTllNTEwZTdhXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNzQxNDExNTU@._V1_

The construction of the modern United States was a long and laborious process that encompassed many hardships by the countless ethnic groups that help created. Millions of people from all around the world embarked on ships to the American continent with the hope for a better life, incited by the “American Dream” that would bring freedom and economic prosperity, something lacking in their place of origin. Unfortunately, the country was built with more than free labour, with slavery and other racist cruelties being imposed to certain ethnic groups.

“Many slaves have better dwellings, food, clothing and working conditions than most peasants in Europe”

In these films, the focus is given to a Swedish family in the mid-nineteenth-century. Sweden is represented far from the image of prosperity that we relate with today’s Nordic countries. It is primarily an agricultural economy, with an engrained protestant ethos. It’s a difficult life, with years of bad crops creating harsh conditions of life, allied with religious persecutions. The film takes focus on the couple made up of Karl Oskar (Max von Sydow) and Kristina (Liv Ullmann), inhabitants of Smalanda, a small farming town. Despite the economic difficulties their family grows, ending up with four offspring. The idea of emigrating to America is conveyed to Karl Oskar by his brother Robert (Eddie Axberg). Kristina refuses fearing for the safety of her children during a arduous transatlantic voyage. The death of their oldest daughter to overeating unfermented grain finally convinces the wife to abandon her hometown and embark on a perilous trip to United States. After selling everything they have, the trip begins, with some family friends and religious exiles.

One moment that is one of the biggest highlights of the film is without a doubt the farewell to their hometown. The director Jan Troell does a stellar job focusing the faces of the ones leaving that impoverish and grey land. The looks to the ones that stay, whether be family or old friends, are a sight that knows that is almost certain that they will not return to this place. It is a bittersweet feeling that almost makes the viewer a passenger in that old wagon that will take them to the boat. It’s without a doubt a very powerful scene that truly shows the experience of leaving one’s home country and all the contrast of feelings with that situation.

.The ones that stay behind

The boat trip that follows shows, in a unique kind of manner the horrendous way that travelling the Atlantic Ocean was for the lower economical classes. Unlike today, the trip lasted for weeks, in an overcrowded boat, with very few preoccupations with hygiene, food or the comfort of its passengers. This kind of conditions are perfect for the transmission of diseases, and even the death of some of the passengers. It’s a claustrophobic feeling inside the large ship, leaving the viewer almost as anxious for the end of the trip as the travellers.

This kind of hardships and the detail for realism depicted in the films certainly makes the viewer feel a certain compassion with the characters. These moments portrayed are not gratuitous displays of poverty and the horrors of it just to shock the viewer or to take cheap lessons of humbleness from it. They are a part of history that sometimes is either forgotten or romanced by the newer generations. The United States of America were formed by emigrants that went to great lengths to give themselves and their descendants opportunities of life impossible in their countries of origin. It is certainly ironic that some of the people that descended from these impoverish and in need migrants now display fearmongering views against ones in similar situations.

Clocking more than seven hours of time length, both the films show a crude and genuine view during this period. They are sometimes slow movies and that take time to develop. Sydow and Ullman have truly a remarkable and honest performances, marked by a deep complicity with each other, and are accompanied by a cast of interesting and sometimes quirky secondary characters.

Film poster for Nybyggarna (1972)

As a follow up for Utvandrarna we have Nybyggarna (1972) by the same director, where we can follow the journey of the Karl Oskar’s family as they settle in a terrain In Minnesota. Here we are introduced to new problematics that challenge the idea of the so called “American Dream”. The richness of the new land is not enough for his brother Robert so he decides to go West, chasing the California Gold Rush. The war against the Sioux, a Native-American tribe (in the Dakota War of 1862) leaves his family in peril, with some perishing to indigenous warriors. On top of that, his wife has several problems with miscarriages and ends up getting dangerously ill. Like mentioned above it was a very difficult life in Sweden, but the change to America doesn’t seem to make it that much better. It’s a dangerous and lawless land and it would take years to create a stable State and a better growing economy. For ones interested in the knowing how the United States came to be, both the films are unavoidable because they create without a doubt a mental picture of the time that cannot be comprehended only by reading history books. It gives a voice to these people that made the ultimate sacrifice for a better future for them despite terrible adversities.

Us (2019)

Directed by Jordan Peele

“We’re Americans.”

After the massive hit that was Get Out (2017), Jordan Peele kept showing his love for horror and a will to keep on writing new material in the genre. The subtexts and politics of Get Out (2017) were clear and well transformed into a more or less consistent concept. The value of the film was deposited in the dynamic of this transaction of racial politics into the horror film discourse, and by provoking the viewer with suggestive and anarchic ideas (similar to the one’s by Spike Lee). It was a film that worked as a genre piece but utilized its strengths to reach the public and confront them with realities that while terrifying are enlightening. Daniel Kaluuya presented us one great performance, backed by an incredible supporting cast. That is the main thing that mirrors and is enhanced in Us. The performances are well-above average and the film owes its cast a lot for its dynamic between horror and comedy (presented even more extremely than in Peele’s previous).

Shadows and reflections are essential elements of the film

The game of mirrors presented in Us starts right of the bat with the name of the film. There is ‘Us’ and ‘US’, and with that information in mind we can expect the film to present certain political ideas. The problem with it is that most of the times the small scenes are full of certain meanings that contrast with the main concept of the film, creating a lot of room for interpretation, especially considering the film as an exercise in ideology. The best thing about the film (after Lupita Nyong’o’s mesmerizing performance) is arguably how vague its political readings can be. We are teased with the idea of it being a political film with the title alone, and yet the film challenges us to dig deeper to find any consistent concepts regarding its ideas. Despite touching on the subject of racism, Peele’s vision is now aiming at broader issues with Us.

Being a comercial film, it comes with its problems. Some of the scenes in the film are too predictable in its stereotypes. What helps the film to get over these scenes is its usage in an almost metalinguistic cinematic way. Peele knows his horror clichés and uses them in an ironic way briliantly, playing with our expectations and creating genuinely funny moments. As an European citizen it is hard to understand the realities of racism in America (mostly due to our racial prejudices being of a different nature and having a different expression), so probably these complaints at the end of the day are just conditioned by my personal life experience. Having this in mind, Us regards the subject of racism in a lighter way than what was expected, especially considering its main theme. This is not a negative criticism at all, because as I mentioned before, the vagueness of Us adds a lot to any reading of the film, including a reading inclined to the ideas of racism.”

Visually it is more interesting than Get Out (2017), despite being a completely different film. It is creative and intelligent in its visual style, enough to be noticeable when comparing it to other big horror blockbusters. However, it still ends up feeling a little bit flat, just like Peele’s previous did. The use of music is brilliantly funny, and the original soundtrack is really great as well, especially the anthemic track (that reminds me almost of The Omen‘s (1976) soundtrack). Technically it is satisfying enough, never being truly flabbergasting.

The already iconic shot from Us

By what I’ve said so far one would assume that Us is a brilliant film. But it is not. It is too vague and too self-conscious to be just a commercial film to watch at the mall, and too predictable in its techniques and paralells to be a really serious and innovative picture. One of the things that troubles me the most is that its vagueness translates a lot into meaninglessness, even though it is clear that there was a care in creating a well-rounded plot (in a Hitchockian way) and complete concept. The second thing that annoys me is the necessity to overexplain everything in the end. The “plot-twist” was rather predictable and despite the film having a lot of interesting buried plot points, it leaves a more experienced viewer feeling that the film is being condescending.

This text took into consideration spoilers and I decided to not discuss any of the plot, as it is very fun to watch without knowing what it is about. Gather some friends and go watch it. Probably every person will come out of the theater with a different reading of the film (I read somewhere that a guy thinks that the film is somehow anti-socialist. I highly doubt that though) and it is an enjoyable time in the cinema. Don’t expect too much out of it, but face it with enough seriousness to consider it, as it is clear that a lot of work and dedication went into it. Jordan Peele seems like he will be the new horror genre director to look out for, though.

6 out of 10

The Sisters Brothers (2019)

Directed by Jacques Audiard

MV5BOTZmNTI1MzMtMGY0ZS00YTRlLWI4OTktYzE3YzZjZjJkNDVlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjM4NTM5NDY@._V1_SY1000_SX675_AL_

“I had to help him. He is my brother.”

The western genre has been a staple of the American cinema since its early beginnings in the turn of the twentieth century. It helped to create a romanticised image of USA’s growth as a powerful nation, from the lawless open deserts filled with bandits, to the fights against the native Americans. Sometimes problematic by today’s standards of justice and ethics (mainly because of unjust representations of non-whites) the western were a very successful category mainly until the end of the sixties when the Vietnam war and the civil rights movements shifted the attention to other more pending issues at hand.

The Sisters Brothers is the last main western release in line with the many that came out in the last years. This western revival has a different paradigm to what it was the purpose of old-time ones. It focuses on unusual themes for the genre (like the African-American struggle in Django Unchained (2012) or portrays the characters in a rather much more crude and realistic tone compared to the idealistic and clean aspect of the old westerns (for instance The Revenant (2015) or True Grit (2010)). The film we´re focusing on today takes a similar stand and pretends to use some of the western typical tropes to depict a deeper story than it appears on the first hand. As the two main protagonists we have Eli Sisters (John C. Reilly) and Charlie Sisters (Joaquin Phoenix). The two brothers and outlaws serve as hired guns of a mysterious wealthy man known only as the Commodore and accept a contract to kill a a man named Hermann Warm (Riz Ahmed), a chemist rumoured to have found a formula that makes the gold glow underwater. The film is set during the gold rush in the western part of the United States. It takes into thoughtful consideration the creation of a truthful atmosphere, displaying a effervescent growth of towns made up by people fascinated by this “easy” way to get rich. Another character named John Morris (Jake Gyllenhaal), also an employ of this Commodore, tries to find the same man as the Sisters. He is the first to encounter Warm, who after some initial struggle convinces him to join him in a partnership. Warm is an idealist kind of man, dreaming that the money raised with his invention could make way for an commune in Texas, where every man was equal and without social classes. The film takes place in 1851, three years after Marx and Engels’s Communist Manifesto was published and it sure had made a deep impression on Warm. Despite this hopefulness in his mind, his invention, as we can see in the end of the film, is of terrible physical harm to humans. Almost as if there is somewhere a metaphor associating creation of wealth and the suffering of millions of low-class citizens.

“You never thought about stopping?”

The focus of the film is primarily the relationship between the two brothers. Eli acts as the more responsible of the two, almost as a father figure to Charlie, always trying to protect him. Charlie, on the other hand, is a drunkard, with a somewhat nihilistic posture to life. In a scene we see the two discussion a future without being hired killers, with Charlie being deeply against any possible career change. Despite all the harsh times and difficulties, we can experience an honest brotherly love between the two. They only have each other and shared a severe childhood, mainly because of a drunk and violent father figure, something that can explain most of Charlie’s attitude towards alcohol and violence.

Director Jacques Audiard (responsible for films such as Un prophète (2009) or De rouille et d’os (2012)), makes its first English speaking feature with The Sisters Brothers. Like Sergio Leone and all the “Spaghetti western” genre, not being an American truly brings a fresh new approach to such a classic and almost a creator of an American identity. Despite being a violent film, with the protagonists being cold hard killers without remorse, the viewer cannot help but to empathize with them. The “Wild West” was truly a rough time to life and that is well represented in the film. In a scene we see a spider entering Eli’s mouth, making him very sick in the following day, in one of the most gruesome moments in the film. Everything surrounding the brothers seems to want to eliminate them, from other outlaws to Mother Nature itself. Despite all the euphoric feeling towards a growing economy, there is a deep loneliness in the men, completely tired of this extremely competitive world. The ending of the film truly reflects that, not obsessing, like old time westerns, in a sense of true justice, but in internal peace and fulfilment.

The Sister Brothers is a good film, with superb performances and a great care for the film’s ambience. It is not a perfect film, mainly because some of the sudden changes, from slapstick comedy to the more dramatic moments feel somewhat odd. It may also feel to more impatient viewers as if nothing much is going on many if the scenes. Despite that, is an different approach to the genre and definitely not to be missed.

7 out of 10

Green Book (2019)

Directed by Peter Farrelly

green book 2.png “So if I’m not black enough and if I’m not white enough, then tell me, Tony, what am I?” – Don Shirley

Green Book is a film directed by Peter Farrelly, who has mostly a bunch of major successful comedies on his record like Dumb and Dumber (1994) and There’s Something About Mary (1998). This comedy past is clearly an influence on this production, which provides a more light-hearted mood to an otherwise dark themed film.

The story follows Tony Lip (Viggo Mortensen), a rough Italian-American bouncer in a upper class night club during the 1960’s. Suddenly out of work after the club closes for renovations, he is compelled to get a new job fast to pay for his bills. An old acquaintance gives him the contact of a “doctor” who is in the need for a new chauffer. This “doctor” ends up not being a medical one, but a stage name for pianist Dr. Donald Shirley (Mahershala Ali), who is planning a concert tour in the south of the USA. As an African American Don is clearly anticipating problems relating his skin colour on the deep American south, so he is counting on Tony to not only drive him around but also be a kind of bodyguard. After some reluctance, he accepts the job. His hesitation is mainly due to racism: having a black person in charge felt humiliating for Tony.

The film does a good job portraying the mob mentality of racism inside the Italian-American community, who suffered discrimination from the other white ethnicities. John M. Parker, a American Democratic politician from Louisiana (ironically one of the places where Don Shirley stopped in his tour) described the Italians as “just a little worse than the Negro, being if anything filthier in their habits, lawless, and treacherous”. Despite that, they hold on to their white ethnicity very strongly as in a way to feel superior. This power relationship was explored in a powerful manner by Spike Lee´s work Do The Right Thing (1989). There we see that despite similar economic backgrounds of low-income status, racism is still a powerful tool for compensating internalized shame, as in a way as saying, “at least I’m not black”.

The first meeting in Don Shirley’s house

But in this film the power dynamic is different, because of the economical status of the two main characters. Shirley is a rich and highly refined pianist, familliar with the best things in life. Tony on the other hand comes from a low-income family and must work hard just to make ends meet. He tries to show throughout the film how he is closer to the African-American culture than Shirley, by showing him things that he has not experienced in his life such as listening to black music and eating fried chicken (which was apparently false in real life, accordingly to Shirley’s family). The film tries to get across the image that the racism that Tony displays is completely unjustified because he is closer to black culture than Don. But what Tony fails to understand is that despite not being connoisseur of the typical black culture, he stills suffers discrimination from the fact that he is black. More than that, it sure has racist undertones, especially in the correlation between being black and enjoying the stereotypical black culture, especially when made by a white man.

“Thats why you drivin’ him around. You´re half N- yourself”

As the film goes by the relationship between the two grows stronger, with Tony Lip saving the pianist from many problems derived from the blatant racism in the south. This is another problem that the film ends up creating. The protagonist of the film is clearly Viggo Mortensen’s character and not Don. It is a movie trope present in a lot of Hollywood films (such as a classic like To Kill a Mockingbird (1962) or more recently The Blind Side (2009) that shifts the focus of the film from the narrative of suffering of the minority to the act of saving by the white character. Worse than that, it almost creates the image that the non-white person is incapable of saving him/herself from all their problems, many of them ironically created by the whites themselves. Despite this drawback, there are some funny and engaging moments portrayed by Viggo Mortensen, and a stellar performance by Mahershala Ali, which ended up earning him the Oscar.

The film ends on a cosy Christmas dinner with Tony Lip’s family where Don Shirley ends up joining them. The resentment against black people suddenly disappears and everybody accepts the black man at the table. This Christmas setting (despite not clearly being the director’s decision to make this statement) is the perfect analogy for racism amongst the white society. We all remember the messages of forgiveness and solidarity that go around in text messages, and suddenly everybody recognizes the need to help the homeless and foster care children. The warm and fuzzy ending to this film encapsulates precisely that feeling. It feels more like holiday spirit than a real change of attitude. Giving this film the Best Picture award at the Oscars – especially when a more poignant movie like BlacKkKlansman (2018) is also nominated – feels like Hollywood only wants to scrape the surface of the problem, without creating much fuss and controversy.

5 out of 10