Drama

THE PERFECT CANDIDATE (2019)

May 27, 2021

(Criterion/VOD) 444 days. That’s how long it had been since I’d been in a theater. I’m finally fully vaccinated, so yesterday I rode the bus for the first time in almost as long to visit the Music Box Theatre to see the only film I could catch there: Haifaa Al-Mansour’s THE PEFECT CANDIDATE. Thanks to the Chicago Transportation Authority, I arrived late. The lobby was empty, apart from one employee who glanced at the ticket on my phone and instructed me to leave on my mask at all times during the film.

I walked into the theater which, under normal conditions, can house over a thousand people. I stumbled through the darkness, trying to seek out my favorite seat, only to find it roped off to enforce proper social distancing. I found the closest seat with some leg space and settled in, trying to catch up with the film.

A few minutes later my eyes had adjusted, and I realized I was the sole person there.

Granted, this was a mid-afternoon screening of a two-year-old feminist Saudi Arabian film (just now receiving a U.S. release), but still. This was the first time I’d ever been the lone viewer for a Music Box screening, much less for a film playing in the main theater. It’s a miracle they’re still operating, but I’m glad they are.

If you aren’t familiar with Haifaa Al-Mansour, she’s often cited as ‘Saudi Arabia’s first female filmmaker’. WADJDA (2012) was her breakthrough film, but she’s also helmed American films such as MARY SHELLEY (2017) and NAPPILY EVER AFTER (2018). THE PERFECT CANDIDATE is the first film of hers I’ve seen, and I’m quite excited to dive into her back-catalog.

THE PERFECT CANDIDATE is about a woman doctor in a small Saudi Arabian town, Maryam, who lives with her father — a recent widow and musician — and her two sisters, and she aspires for more. The street leading to the hospital she works at isn’t paved and is a consistent mess — people are constantly being wheeled through mud — and incoming patients often outright refuse her, even if they require emergency care, solely because she’s a woman.

Due to a confluence of religious, bureaucratic, and patriarchal issues, she’s unable to attend a medical conference in Dubai, which she’d hoped would serve as a way to work her way into a better position, and due to similar religious, bureaucratic, and patriarchal issues, she ends up inadvertently applying to run for election to govern the town.

What follows is a relatively straight-forward, definitely disheartening, activist film that completely hammers home the gender inequality in Saudi Arabia while still being a thoughtful portrait of a family trying to repair themselves after the sudden death of their mother. Al-Mansour inserts a number of deft character touches, such as Maryam’s brand-new car, which she retains the plastic on the seats, but the car’s wheel wells are covered in mud because of the shoddy road. The sister dynamics are especially nuanced, with the younger sister outright rejecting her older sister’s attempts to make a difference, and the older sister being a savvy, confident, semi-supportive entrepreneur working within ‘the system’.

Was this film the one I imagined would be my inaugural post-vaccinated filmgoing experience? No, but I’m glad it was. It represents everything I’ve missed about cinema in the pandemic: the ability to walk blindly into a tale of another space and then leave the theater feeling altered.

MARY JANE’S NOT A VIRGIN ANYMORE (1998)

May 26, 2021

(Arrow/tubi) If you live in Chicago, you may have heard that streaming service MUBI has teamed up with local arthouse favorite the Music Box Theatre for an event they’re calling ‘Back on the Big Screen’, which has two themes: the first week of screenings will consist of big screen epics, while the second week is centered around films about the filmgoing experience.

It’s a phenomenal list of films, including RAN, DAYS OF HEAVEN, TOUCH OF EVIL, PLAYTIME, MATINEE, THE TINGLER, SUSPERIA, which will feel like I’m attending a mini-TCM Fest in Chicago. However, I was absolutely shocked that one of the included films is the indie punk cult classic MARY JANE’S NOT A VIRGIN ANYMORE.

MARY JANE’S NOT A VIRGIN ANYMORE is an audaciously raw low-budget film from Sarah Jacobson about being a young woman, about losing one’s virginity and sex, and about working in a low-rent theater. It’s extremely honest, but often flip about it; proper punk. If you had told me last year that a well-funded streaming service would pay to screen this at the Music Box, I would have laughed at your Zoom image, but this is 2021 and I find it glorious that it’s one of the ways folks are trying to entice people back into theaters.

If you live in or around Chicago, the ‘Back on the Big Screen’ schedule is available here.

If you don’t live near Chicago, you can still stream it through one of the services listed above!

THE LAST BLACK MAN IN SAN FRANCISCO (2019)

May 25, 2021

(kanopy/Prime) I’d argue that THE LAST BLACK MAN IN SAN FRANCISCO has one of the best opening scenes in the last five, maybe ten years? It’s brilliantly executed: it tells you everything you need to know about the world, the primary characters drawn with so little dialogue, and does it so artfully and succinctly:

Even if the film was just this short scene, I’d still be raving about it. I can’t get enough of Adam Newport-Berra’s visuals or Emile Mosseri’s Michael Nyman-esque score.

However, THE LAST BLACK MAN IN SAN FRANCISCO is far more than its opening. I -love- this film. It intersects with a lot, but the male friendship portrayed here is something rare. It’s also about an infatuation with a house, the history of a building, and the complex history of a city.* It’s also about exploitation, gentrification, modern classism, economic race disparity, the obligations of those who come into a city, and homeownership all dovetailing regarding a space with pre-existing history. It’s dense, but it never overwhelms you. It’s an astounding work, an intimate tale that takes on a larger context.

* If you want to read about the origins of film and San Francisco in one big gulp, I highly suggest THE INVENTOR AND THE TYCOON, which is the story of early photographer Eadweard Muybridge and his railroad tycoon backer Leland Stanford. (Yes, Stanford University is named after him.) I guarantee you that it’s far more interesting and intriguing and ruthless than you’d suspect. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/7965/the-inventor-and-the-tycoon-by-edward-ball/

A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE (1974)

May 24, 2021

(Criterion/HBO MAX/VOD) In A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE, Peter Falk is Nick Longhetti, a construction foreman married to Mabel (Gena Rowlands, who was married to Cassavettes until he died in 1989) and they have three young children as well as a litany of family and friends that constantly drop by, barely giving Nick or Mabel a moment of peace. While this would be difficult for any couple, it’s complicated by the fact that Rowlands is incredibly intense woman, and often interacts with people in socially unacceptable ways. Nick describes her as “unusual, not crazy”.

What unfolds is a story of the two of them trying to cope with Mabel’s behavior, Nick’s detachment and frustration, and eventually Mabel’s breakdown. It’s a stunning depiction of a couple, one enriched by Rowlands’ absolutely astounding performance. She completely inhabits the role, bringing to life a character unlike one I’ve ever seen. It’s a nervy, nuanced take on a character that could otherwise come across as cartoonish. Rowlands was nominated for a Best Actress award for her role, but lost to Ellen Burstyn for the also-exceptional ALICE DOESN’T LIVE HERE ANYMORE. (I do prefer Rowlands’ performance, but they’re both great.)

It’s worth noting that Cassavettes never meant for Mabel to be considered ‘crazy’ — his words, not mine — but that she’s “frustrated beyond belief. More than being crazy, I think she’s just socially inept.” He also pulled from his own personal experience and his relationships, which seems obvious given how close everyone involved in this project are. To callback to my write-up regarding PLEASE STAND BY, this is the difference between writing a puzzle box story about someone with a neurological disorder, and writing an intimate tale about coping with people’s very human and divergent idiosyncrasies.

Just one more thing: COLUMBO fans will almost certainly be surprised to hear Falk whistling ‘This Old Man’, which was a tune that Falk turned into a Columbo affectation with the iconic episode -Any Old Port in a Storm-, which pre-dates A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE. Falk just always liked to hum or whistle it.

“You want spaghetti?!”

MELANCHOLIA (2011)

May 23, 2021

(Hulu/kanopy/VOD)? Every film nerd I’ve known has their favorite seat. I certainly do: I prefer middle aisle as I have long legs and prefer not to be tightly compacted for ~two hours, and I enjoy a slightly more distanced view of the screen, as opposed to having the screen fully fill my vision.

However, sometimes — especially with film fests — you aren’t going to score your favorite spot. Sometimes you’ll get the worst seat in the house. My wife and I certainly did when we nabbed stand-by tickets for a screening of MELANCHOLIA during the 2011 Chicago International Film Festival.

If you aren’t familiar with MELANCHOLIA, it’s Lars Von Trier’s meditation on depression and, while I run hot-and-cold on von Trier (especially regarding his on-set approach to filmmaking), MELANCHOLIA is certainly one of his more palatable films and features fantastic performances all around, but especially from Kirsten Dunst. It’s also arguably one of the most visually jaw-dropping films from von Trier; there’s a scale and scope and painterly look to MELANCHOLIA that’s absent from the majority of his other works. (One exception might be the psychodrama horror of ANTI-CHRIST.) While it’s absolutely gorgeous, this is a film that was not meant to be viewed in an offset front row seat which, surprise, was what our stand-by tickets garnered us.

You’re left without any distance from the mind-numbing depression and cosmic confrontation. It hammers itself into your head; you have nowhere to run. I’m sure von Trier would smirk if he read this, but it turns the film into something absolutely appropriately overwhelming and suffocating, but a perspective on the film that I would not recommend. Keep with the middle row or watch it at home and keep your distance, or it will mess with you even more than it’s intended to.

I KNOW WHERE I’M GOING! (1945)

May 22, 2021

(Criterion/VOD) A very specific romantic drama from Michael Powel & Emeric Pressburger, where a willful woman — Joan Webster (Wendy Hiller) — has mapped out from her childhood the exact life she wants: to look lovely, to have fine things, and to have a husband with a title who can provide her with all she wants.

She has a life-plan which she’s followed through on and, frankly, most of us in these current days would envy.

She’s one step away from realizing it: she just needs one boat to see her to her title-bearing beau, and she’ll have seen her plan through. However, she meets Torquil MacNeil (Roger Livesey), a RAF sailor/landowner of a tiny Scottish island meant to shuttle her to her final destination, storms prevent her departure, and her plans start to unravel.

In less-capable hands I KNOW WHERE I’M GOING! could have been a treacly melodrama, but master filmmakers Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger (THE RED SHOES, BLACK NARCISSUS) deliver up an extraordinarily winsome and surprisingly thrilling romance that also acts as a love letter to rural Scotland, not unlike OUTLANDER but with significantly fewer rape scenes. It’s worth noting that, while much of it was shot on location at the Isle of Mull, a significant portion of the film was shot in a British studio due to Livesey’s work schedule, and the fact that the seams don’t show is a testament to cinematographer Erwin Hillier’s skills.

What’s especially intriguing about the film is that there’s none of the push-and-pull and internal questioning that you have with most modern romantic dramas. From the moment Joan meets Torquil, she immediately realizes she’s in trouble, that this man could upend all of her hard work. Granted, it’s never stated outright, but Powell & Pressburger do a fantastic job of conveying it visually.

Unfortunately I was unable to locate a trailer, so this memorable scene will have to suffice:

PLEASE STAND BY (2017)

May 21, 2021

(hoopla/kanopy/VOD) I’ll preface this by saying this isn’t exactly a recommendation. I found merit with the film and ultimately enjoyed it, but it is not a perfect work and is, perhaps, inherently exploitative.

PLEASE STAND BY is the story of a young autistic woman, Wendy (Dakota Fanning), who has been placed in Toni Collette’s home for autistic individuals by her older sister Audrey (Alice Eve), who has recently had a kid and self-proclaims that she doesn’t have the time to babysit Wendy as well.

Wendy, who has always been a huge STAR TREK nerd, sorts this out by writing a four-hundred some-odd page STAR TREK screenplay involving the complicated relationship between Spock and Kirk — Spock representing herself, Kirk representing her sister — for a $100,000 competition to celebrate STAR TREK’s 50th anniversary. Shortly after Wendy completes the absurdly long script, she realizes there’s not enough time to mail it, so she has to go on a journey to deliver it by hand.

A personal note: when I was a kid, I -loved- STAR TREK, and I particularly identified with Spock because he struggled with similar emotional issues that I grappled with. So, to see Wendy do the same warmed my heart, even if Spock is one of the easiest autistic analogues.

PLEASE STAND BY mirrors another relatively recent work centered around an autistic protagonist, Mark Haddon’s THE CURIOUS INCIDENT OF THE DOG IN THE NIGHT-TIME: autistic person is mostly sheltered, has to venture out in the world, and their life becomes a living hell. It, like CURIOUS INCIDENT, was also written by a dude that found the concept of an autistic character ‘interesting’ and ‘challenging’, and they decided they were the ones to tell this story. In the case of PLEASE STAND BY, writer Michael Golamco was inspired by the New York Times article ‘What Autistic Girls Are Made Of’ to write a one-act stageplay, and then turn that into PLEASE STAND BY. (Similarly, CURIOUS INCIDENT started as a novel, then became a Tony award winning musical.)

CURIOUS INCIDENT frustrated me because of how little research Haddon did. He wanted to tell the tale that he envisioned, details be damned. PLEASE STAND BY frustrates me because it’s a work extolling the creative nature of those with autism, but it’s written, directed, and performed by neurotypicals. It feels inherently disingenuous, despite the amount of research and experts they enlisted.

That said, it’s still an entertaining film, with fantastic performances all around, and it seems to have been well-received by the autistic community, especially since it is a positive portrayal of an autistic woman. Representation matters, but I would rather that it wasn’t via the writerly curiosity of a neurotypical man, regardless of how well-wishing his intents were.

**

PICKUP ON SOUTH STREET (1953)

May 19, 2021

(FLIX FLING/YouTube) Every film noir nerd has their own definition of what constitutes a ‘noir’ film, and I’m no different. To me, what makes a film ‘noir’ isn’t hard-boiled dialogue, severe chiaroscuro cinematography, or moral detective stories, but that the protagonists are considered deviants or ‘cultural misfits’ and the forward thrust of the noir then focuses on removing them from society. The appeal of noir, at least for me, is in the acknowledgement that there are a subsect of folks that will never mesh with mainstream culture, no matter how hard they try, and they’re almost always eradicated via conviction or death.

PICKUP ON SOUTH STREET, while being an oddity in that it’s ‘spy noir’, embodies that through unruly women, flawed men, and a shit-ton of political chicanery. It’s all about the fringe elements of society, despite (or perhaps, exacerbated by) the fact that it’s framed by an FBI investigation.

It’s worth noting that PICKUP ON SOUTH STREET is getting a proper Criterion release in June!

Trailer:

Full film via YouTube:

THE LODGER: A STORY OF THE LONDON FOG (1927)

May 17, 2021

(Criterion/HBO MAX/YouTube/VOD)? Hitchcock is arguably the progenitor of modern genre film, which I suppose is why no one thinks of him as a silent filmmaker, but he directed handfuls of silent films before his first sound film, BLACKMAIL, and THE LODGER is one of his most remarkable early achievements.

While THE LODGER lacks the sophisticated visual scene construction Hitchcock would become known for, it does feature a number of his other signature attributes: an infatuation with blondes, startling visual motifs (his focus on the lodger’s right hand, for instance) and sexual tension buoyed by a sense of danger. It also plays with color tinting, has an astounding use of graphic design, and the interstitials are uniquely gorgeous with their use of fonts and background visual elements.

As a mystery, THE LODGER is a bit lackluster, but Hitchcock’s command of cinematic language far makes up for it, and showcases how ahead of his time he was.

As usual, I’ve included a trailer below, but please don’t let it fool you: the restored BFI print that Criterion and HBO MAX have is thrillingly vibrant. There’s also a link to a YouTube copy of the film below and, while it’s more pristine than the trailer, it lacks the tinting of the restored print.

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJnoaTzJdLs

Full film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_grf3UHuak

MADELINE’S MADELINE (2018)

May 16, 2021

(fubo/kanopy/Showtime/VOD) Josephine Decker’s films always take a bit of time for me to come to terms with. I remember seeing MADELINE’S MADELINE as part of a self-imposed triple-feature at the Music Box during a particularly stormy Chicago day, and it left a sour taste in my mouth, as if the characters I’d seen writ large on the screen weren’t being portrayed fairly.

Then, after haunting my memory for a month or so, it clicks. I realize why the actions were made, no matter how selfish, how distasteful, how the film couldn’t be any different.

(Also, it helps that her films are uniquely surrealistically stylized in a way that most indie filmmakers eschew nowadays, and it’s a style I can’t help but love.)