Denzel Washington’s FENCES

This truly is a remarkable film.  It is made with so much delicate care and craftsmanship, the entire two hours and nineteen minutes is fluid and seamless.  It’s the picture that feels like Denzel Washington has been working his entire career to not only make, but perfect.
Set in a dilapidated Negro ghetto in 1954, Washington is the tough and oblique patriarch of a family suffocated by their hopes and washout of the American Dream.  Viola Davis not only gives her career best performance, as Washington’s steadfast wife, she easily gives one of the best performances in recent cinematic memory.

While the performances and Washington’s perfection behind the camera are a sight to behold, the cinematography by Charlotte Bruus Christensen, production design by David Gropman, and editing by Hughes Winborne are so perfect, they go unnoticed.  As the film progresses, whether it is a performance, an aesthetic, or a technical aspect, they work in such unison that nothing stands out, the score does not out perform the editing nor does the writing outshine Davis.

The narrative strikes a hidden chord between being timeless and culturally and politically relevant.  It’s a tough story about a (black) working class family that deals with the conventional setbacks of life, yet they have their own uniquely complex set of hurdles that are undoubtedly self inflicted.

FENCES is truly the epitome of a Best Picture.  Everything, and I mean everything, is perfected in the film.  It has all the ingredients to be that Best Picture, but what makes the film surpass the run of the mill, end of the year Oscar bait,  is at its core it is filled with an unmatched amount of heart about what it is to be a family.

PODCASTING THEM SOFTLY PRESENTS: 15 QUESTIONS WITH FILMMAKER SEAN ELLIS

ellis-banner

Filmmaker Sean Ellis is ready to bust out. With a background in short films and photography, his feature debut, 2006’s Cashback, was an expansion of his Oscar nominated short film of the same name, which won numerous awards at festivals worldwide. He followed that up in 2008 with a cerebral psychological thriller called The Broken, before finding further international acclaim for his gutsy and powerful dramatic thriller Metro Manila, which was released in 2013, winning awards on the festival circuit and quickly acquiring a devoted following. In 2016, he released his most ambitious project to date, the tense and terrific WWII action thriller Anthropoid, which is now available on Blu-ray/DVD and via various streaming providers. Podcasting Them Softly is proud to present a 15 QUESTIONS interview with Sean, as he discusses his career, inspirations, and the future. He even presents his personal “watch list” from 2016!

(This interview was conducted via email and was edited by Nick Clement.)

0172.jpg(Director Sean Ellis, Cillian Murphy and Jamie Dornan, Anthropoid)

HOW DID YOU GET INTO FILMMAKING?

I got into filmmaking through photography. I became obsessed with photography from the age of 11. It was the idea that you could use the camera to create an image you might have in your head – like a technical pencil you could draw with. I would drive my parents crazy by setting fire to my action figures and photograph them burning. I’m inspired by many people and things, not just film makers. When I was younger I gravitated towards many films and filmmakers, because when you’re young, you’re still trying to figure out what you like and what you have to say and the way you would like to say it. It takes time to develop creatively as you need to have seen a little bit of the world, and know a little bit about what makes us tick. I think filmmakers start hitting their stride in their forties but obviously there are directors that blow this theory out of the water. Steven Spielberg was 28 when he made Jaws. I think Steven is the modern day film equivalent of Mozart. There are some directors that are just playing at a different level than everyone else, like a grand-master chess player. It’s like any other art-form; you have to work at it every day and get into that head-space that allows ideas to flow freely. The problem with the medium of film is that it’s so closely linked to the commercial aspects, both in making and in the end result. There are filmmakers that bridge these two worlds incredibly well and I find that inspiring.

cashback

DO YOU HAVE ANY FAVORITE FILMS, OR FILMS THAT CONTINUE TO INSPIRE YOU?

I have so many favorites! I’m still a filmmaker that loves watching films. I believe you have to see as much as possible to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the art-form that you work in. How can you comment if you don’t? People want to learn from people that know more than them, correct? So you better make something that does that, and that means you should be learning ALL the time about the process of filmmaking and life in general. For a number of years now I have written down all the films I have seen in a given year, so here is everything I have seen in 2016. I’ve only included Anthropoid once but I probably watched it 20 times at different screenings through 2016. An (R) indicates that I have seen the film before and it’s a re-watch.

January 2016

Anthropoid, We are Many (Doc), Suffragette, Carol, The Program, Woman in Gold, Infinitely Polar Bear, The Hateful Eight, He Named Me Malala (Doc), Joy, The Lobster, Ant-Man, Room, Timbuktu, Beasts of No Nation, Truth, Black Mass.

February 2016

Fear the Walking Dead – Season 1, Hard to be a God (2013), Macbeth (2015), Mad Men – Final season, Shackleton (2002), No Country for Old Men (R)

March 2016

Everest, La French (The Connection), Midnight Special, Son of Saul, Game of Thrones – Season 5, Listen to me Marlon (doc), Guardians of the Galaxy.

APRIL 2016

45 Years, The Endurance (2000 Doc), Singing in the Rain, The Artist (R), By the Sea, 2001 A Space Odyssey (R), Interstellar (R), Short Term 12

May 2016

Everything or Nothing (Doc), Palio (Doc), Big Hero Six (R), It’s a Beautiful Life, My Nazi Legacy (Doc), Bird (R), Brave (R), Bolshoi Babylon (Doc), Marshland, 99 Holmes.

June 2016

Suite Francaise, Southpaw, Crazy Heart (R), Hitchcock/Truffaut (Doc), Tracks, A War, The Past, Le Doulos, Closely Observed Trains, The Singing Detective (TV), Pennies from Heaven (TV), The Assassin.

July 2016

The Lure, Intimate Lighting (1965), Grandma, Demain (Doc), Populaire, How I Live Now, Lost in Munich, Tina – What’s Love Got to Do With It, Coal Miner’s Daughter, Ray, Beyond the Sea, De-Lovely, Great Balls of Fire, Walk the Line, Sweet Dreams, Tender Mercies, Theeb, Stop Loss, The Red Violin.

August 2016

The Night Of – Season 1, The Affair – Season 1

September 2016

Mr. Robot – Season 1, The Americans – Season 1

October 2016

Jane Got A Gun, Roma, Deadpool, Toni Erdman, Manchester by the Sea, Arrival, Hell or High Water, The Americans – Season 2, In the Shadow of the Moon (Doc), Fleabag – Season 1, The Stuntman, The Robber, Born to be Blue, Endurance (1999), Two for the Road, The Athlete, The Godfather (R), The Godfather part II (R), The Godfather part III (R), Personal Best, Prefontaine

November 2016

McFarland USA, Casablanca, My Way (Korean), Nocturnal Animals, The Walking Dead – Season 6, Running (1979), Saint Ralph, Embrace the Serpent, The Secret Life of Pets, Love, Amadeus (R), Wild (R), Dallas Buyers Club (R), Chariots of Fire (R), The Girl, Marnie (R), Harry and Son, Natalie (R), Sex and Lucia (R), Frida, The Boxer (R), Eyes Wide Shut (R), One More Time with Feeling, Hail, Caesar!

December 2016

The Omega Man (R), I Am Legend (R), La La Land, Assassin’s Creed, Under the Shadow, Silence (1971), Silence (2016), Rogue One, The Founder, Jackie, Hidden Figures, Shrek (R), Moonlight, Shrek 2 (R), Miss Sloan, Shrek the Third, Hacksaw Ridge, Zootropolis, Mustang, Eye in the Sky, Patterson, Fences, Train to Busan, Loving, The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner, This Sporting Life, 13th (Doc), Captain Fantastic, Eddie the Eagle, Sing Street, The Eagle Huntress (doc), Allied, Victoria, Evolution, My Scientology Movie, Deepwater Horizon, Julieta.

manila-1(still from Metro Manila)

DO YOU HAVE ANY FAVORITES OR DO YOU HAVE A TOP 10 LIST? I SUBSCRIBE TO THE IDEA OF “FAVORITES” BECAUSE I DON’T THINK IT’S POSSIBLE TO SAY WHAT IS TRULY “BEST” WITH ANY TYPE OF ART FORM.

Don’t ask me to rate my top 10 of the year. It’s like asking what are your favorite paintings from 1765? It has no relevance as only time will tell if a film has longevity, and I believe that’s the only merit there is – wanting to revisit a film 10 or 20 years from now. There are very few films I saw this year that I will revisit in 20 years. Some were just entertainment, and that’s fine. Some were fashionable footnotes and a few were highly over-praised and left me feeling underwhelmed. And there were a couple of small gems that made my life better for seeing them, but it’s all subjective and people place too much importance on what other people are saying about films. If you are serious about film then you have to discover it by yourself, by seeing everything without reading a review or seeing a trailer. There is one critic who uses the tagline “We see all the bad films, so you don’t have to…” You would have to be a pretty arrogant cunt to think you are saving people from films you think are bad, and that people would rather read your ‘bad’ review than have their own opinion. But that is the problem with smart phones – it gives people access to idiots like this, and it takes away the chance of discovering a film. When I was young, I used to pick my films based on the poster artwork alone – the same way most people choose a book – by its cover or the title and the synopsis on the back. If that’s not enough to make you want to see a film then maybe you don’t love film as much as you want people to think you do.

0179(Cillian Murphy and Anna Geislerová get ready to shoot a scene, Anthropoid)

WHAT SORT OF CHALLENGES COME WITH BEING YOUR OWN CINEMATOGRAPHER, NOT TO MENTION CAMEA OPERATOR, AND HOW HARD IS IT TO SHOOT IN THIS FASHION?

It’s all one job for me. I’m a filmmaker. I make them from the ground up. I come from photography so not having the camera in my hands feels unnatural to me. I work much faster with a camera in my hands as I can make any adjustments on the fly. If you have to stop and explain these adjustments it just takes a lot longer.  The last two films I have made have been handheld because I felt the style served the story. Both felt like they need to be in a documentary style to place the audience on the shoulders of the characters. So I would say they are the style of the film and not necessarily my style. It’s just a creative choice. To shoot in this style, I had to prepare for 4 months, with 2 hours of weight training every day. The cameras weigh about 18kg so all the training revolved around lifting, and carrying and running with that kind of weight. You have to be physically fit to run around with the camera on your shoulder for 9 hours a day, 6 days a weeks, and for 8 weeks without getting hurt or too tired to think creatively.

anth-fire(still from Anthropoid)

 

WOULD YOU EVER WANT TO COLLABORATE WITH AN OUTSIDE CINEMATOGRAPHER?

Absolutely! There are many fantastic cinematographers whose work I love. I know their work just as well as the directors they work with. A chance to work with one of the greats is never an opportunity that should be missed, as it will only deepen your experience and understanding of the craft.

0003(Jamie Dornan as Jan Kubiš, Anthropoid)

HOW DID METRO MANILA PREPARE YOU FOR ANTHROPOID?

I think it gave me back my confidence. The making of The Broken was not a pleasant experience for me but I did learn a lot about the sort of filmmaker I wanted to be. I made Metro Manila on my own terms with my own money. It was a huge gamble but the result was a film that I’m very proud of. You take that confidence into the making of your next film and hope it gets you through the day to day process.

manila-2(still from Metro Manila)

I WANT TO DISCUSS THE FINAL ACTION SEQUENCE IN ANTHROPOID. WHAT WAS IT LIKE PUTTING THAT TOGETHER ON A LOGISTICAL LVEL, AND DID YOU ACHIEVE WHAT YOU SET OUT TO ACCOMPLISH? IT’S A STUNNING PIECE OF UNRELENTING ACTION THAT RANKS UP THERE WITH SOME OF THE BEST SET-PIECES IN RECENT MEMORY.

Thank you. Logistically it was huge! I always knew it would be. You had to understand emotionally what those men went through, and the courage it took to face their last hours with such a defiant roar. That echo is still felt today in the Czech Republic. Shooting in the real church was not going to be logistically possible except for all the exteriors. The interior of the church was built on a soundstage at Barrandov studios and is a 1:1 replica of the real church made from the original plans. It took 13 weeks to build, as it was a 360 degree set with no green screen anywhere. Morgan Kennedy, my production designer, first built me a 1/6th scale church. I was able to light it and then crawl inside it. Using 12 inch action figures I photographed the sequence frame by frame. To dramatize the action I had the Gestapo reports, the autopsy reports, and the real church where you can still see where the grenades went off. Using all this I pieced together the events in storyboard form. We had a total of 6 days for the church interiors so they were pretty hard and long days. I’m happy with the sequence and I think we accomplished what we set out to achieve.

page_18(Action figure storyboard, Anthropoid. Courtesy of Sean Ellis)

 

WHAT WAS IT LIKE WORKING WITH CILLIAN MURPHY AND JAMIE DORNAN, AND IN GENERAL, WHAT’S YOUR PROCESS WITH ACTORS?

They were both great! Actors are marvelous creatures! I have no idea how they do what they do, so you have to treat each one differently and ask what they need in order for them to do their job. Cillian and Jamie worked in a similar manner so it was easy for me to slot in and give them what they needed in order to get what I needed. They both hate rehearsal. We would throw the scene ‘up on its feet’ in the morning when would entail walking through the scene, talking the lines but not acting the lines. Here we see any potential blocking issues, and any logic questions normally arise here as well. It was here that myself and Derek Walker, my second camera operator, would watch what the actors were doing and figure out how best to effectively cover the scene. Lines are often changed here too. I’m not precious – it has to work for the actor before it can work for me, but if I disagree, we shoot both ways and choose later. Once happy, I would light the set with my brilliant gaffer, Martin Granilla. I try to light without any lighting stands on the set, as I want the freedom of movement for both myself and my actors. When we are ready we shoot, I often do two or three takes within a slate. Stopping and starting can break concentration so I like to keep the actors working in the moment for as long as possible.

poid

 

THE BLENDING OF LOCATION SHOOTING AND SOUNDSTAGE WORK IN ANTHROPOID WAS REMARKABLE. WHAT WAS IT LIKE SHOOTING AT BARRANDOV STUDIO IN PRAGUE?

The studio was so good and has such history! We were on the same soundstage as Amadeus, Yentl, and Casino Royale, to name a few! But yes, mixing location shooting and studio shooting should be seamless and Morgan Kennedy and art director Radek Hanak did a fantastic job in bringing that altogether. I hate it when a set looks so obviously like a set, as it just pulls you out of the film!

anthrpoid

HOLLYWOOD HAS A LONG TRADITION WITH WWII FILMS. WERE YOU EXCITED TO TAKE ON A PROJECT OF THIS SCALE?

Yes, and scared too! You have to do your homework and see every war film that’s ever been made! There is a lot of preparation. I watched a lot of the BBC TV drama Secret Army and found it had the right tone for what I was looking for. But more than make a war film I really wanted to make a film about the emotional toll on the people involved. If you go into this film thinking it’s a war film you might miss the subtlety of the situations that these people found themselves in.

metro_manila_xlg

WHEN CONDUCTING RESEARCH AND TELLING A STORY THAT’S BASED ON TRUE EVENTS, HOW IMPORTANT IS IT TO YOU TO SICK TO THE FACTS? HOW MUCH ROOM DO YOU ALLOW FOR POETIC LICENSE?

I wanted to stick to the historical facts. I spent 10 years researching this story and spent months in the company of the people in charge of the Anthropoid archives. But there is always someone out there who loves to tell you that you got it wrong and they know more about it from their fourth year history lesson in school. I’m sure there will be someone out there saying “What does he know? He doesn’t even know that Josef is with a ‘Z’ as Jozef”. Well to answer that – he was born Jozef but later changed it to Josef and all the documents I have seen signed by him, were signed Josef. But obviously the main thing about Anthropoid is that there are different accounts based on different testaments. I presented the story knowing all the information and made certain informed guesses as to what testament to believe. The main dramatic license comes with relationships and dialogue. Jan and Josef did not shoot Nazi spies when landing in Czechoslovakia. They were greeted by a man who knew the resistance, but that’s a pretty boring start and also does not tell the audience that there were Nazi spies who were paid to inform on anti-Nazi activity. So this change helped to inform the story as well as opening the film with a set-piece. Also Jan and Josef were shagging everything in Prague! They both had at least three girlfriends each and moved around Prague staying with various different families and single mothers. But that doesn’t help their noble persona and it takes time away from developing the Mrs. Moravec character, played so brilliantly by Alena Mihulova. We also know that the seven men faced the 700 Germans with only hand guns and not Sten guns but this was a creative choice on my part. Also Jan Kubis was killed by a grenade blast and didn’t take his own life. But everything else was drawn from archive documents.

page_86(Action figure storyboard, Anthropoid. Courtesy of Sean Ellis)

HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THE CURRENT STATE OF FILMMAKING AND DISTRIBUTION MODELS? ARE YOU A FAN OF THE SAME-DAY VOD/THEATRICAL PLATFORM?

It’s a long answer and I’m not even sure I have the right answer. All I know is I’m unhappy with the current situation with cinemas. I’m even unhappier about this attitude that you can illegally download a film for free and that it’s okay. It’s not and it’s hurting the industry but people are no longer educated about this. The industry needs more help to protect the jobs that are lost to illegal downloads. There needs to be a cinema revolution the same way there was a coffee revolution. It’s starting to happen but slowly. I think studios should be allowed to take back the right to own their own cinemas. The monopoly rule is way out of date and the internet threatens the whole industry. For instance, Warner Brothers show a Warners Brother film and the only way to see it is in a Warner Brothers cinema. Force people back into theaters again with the experience of seeing something they can’t see elsewhere. And of the theatrical experience itself – BAN MOBILE FUCKING PHONES IN CINEMAS! One reason I don’t go to public cinemas anymore is the total lack of phone etiquette. People have to treat cinema like live theater. You wouldn’t take a call in the middle watching live theater so why do it in the cinema? I’ve seen people on their fucking laptops in the cinemas. Are you kidding me? Cinemas should just block phone signals to the auditoriums. Just force people to switch off. Cinemas are frightened people won’t come if there is no signal. News flash – people have stopped coming because there is signal. Cinemas use the excuse of needing signals in case of emergencies. That’s rubbish! What about before mobile phones were invented?

manila-3

WHAT DO YOU LOOK FOR WHEN SEARCHING FOR NEW MATERIAL? ARE YOU ATTRACTED TO PARTICULAR GENRES?

It’s the whole package really. The process is going to take two years of your life minimum so it helps if you really like the material and have a general interest. I can’t work any other way. I have to be obsessed about it, and I have to fall in love with it. But different people work in different ways.

0162(Director Sean Ellis explains the direction of fire to actor David Bredin, Anthropoid)

 

DO YOU THINK YOU COULD EVER BRING SOMETHING TO THE TABLE WITH A BIG FRANCHISE SUPERHERO MOVIE? ARE YOU INTERESTED IN THAT STUFF?

Again it depends. If I find something in that situation that I love then yes I would do it. But there seems to be this consensus among some filmmakers that Hollywood is the goal. You make an interesting film, it gets some heat, and then do a big budget studio film. You have to ask yourself why you are doing the studio film. And if the answer is to produce something entertaining with mass appeal that is really your vision, then you are in a great position. But many people take that route because it means access to a bigger budget. Bigger budget doesn’t mean a better film, and if the film then fails at the box office, where does it leave you? Most film makers have spent time in director’s jail at some point or another, and it’s a cold and lonely place.

manila-purple

 

WHAT’S YOUR NEXT PROJECT? DO YOU DEVELOP MORE THAN ONE FILM AT A TIME? CAN YOU TELL US WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS?

I’m adapting a novel so my day job currently consists of writing. I don’t like the process of writing but I like the fact that it is something that needs to be done every day and over a period of weeks, and you are rewarded by a pile of pages that one day, you hope, will become your film. I rarely work on more than one project at a time. I have various ideas percolating in my head at any given time but when the hard work needs to be done you have to be faithful to the idea you are working on and knuckle down to get it done. It’s a marathon, not a sprint.

ellis-banner

 

 

STEFANO SOLLIMA’S SUBURRA — A REVIEW BY NICK CLEMENT

2

Suburra is lethal cinema. Directed with vice-grip intensity by Stefano Sollima, this sprawling and propulsive crime film centers on modern organized crime in Italy and how it intersects with politics and the Vatican in present day Rome. Feeling like an unofficial sequel to Matteo Garrone’s Gomorrah, Suburra presents the audience with a slew of characters, almost all of whom are morally questionable and operating outside the lines of accepted society. The violence and sex are graphic and in your face, the cynical narrative is dense yet coherent, leaving no stone unturned or any of the various plot lines dangling, and the vivid and incredibly atmospheric cinematography by Paolo Carnera is frequently eye-scorching, with an extra-smart use of neon and nocturnal rain resulting in some elegant widescreen visuals. The tough as nails screenplay was adapted by Stefano Rulli, Sandro Petraglia, Carlo Bonini, and Giancarlo De Cataldo from the novel by Bonini and De Cataldo. There are unexpected twists and turns that this film takes, and all of it has an unpredictable charge that leaves you pumped for the next scene. Sollima has been hired to direct the sequel to Sicario; I never felt one was needed but now I’m very excited to see it. An Italian-French co-production, Suburra is currently streaming on Netflix (who also partially funded the project), and ranks as one of the best surprises in recent memory.

3

Morgan: A Review by Nate Hill


Morgan is one of the slickest genre flicks I’ve seen in recent years, finely tuned like a barbed wire tightrope, full of nasty surprises, throat ripping action and that ever present ethical turmoil that hangs about in any films that deal with artificial humanoid beings. It’s only weakness is exactly that stylistic strength: it’s so tight and streamlined that one occasionally feels like the scales tip in the favour of style over substance, but it’s a minor quibble when you take a step back and look at just how entertaining and fired up this piece is. The filmmakers are minimally concerned with the moral grey areas that cloning wades into, and subsequent philosophical pondering, but more than anything they just want to pull the ripcord and blast full throttle into an adrenaline soaked, R-rated sci-if tale with vague aspects of a character study. The title refers to Morgan (The Witch’s Anya Taylor-Joy in a performance both terrifying and heartbreaking), a genetically engineered humanoid girl held at a secluded facility alongside researchers, one of which she has just had a violent incident with. The corporate honcho (Brian Cox in a sly, all too brief honcho) dispatches a cold, clinical asset in the form of Kate Mara, sent to assess the situation and implement any measures necessary. She is an outsider, a callous bicep who flexes at the whims of the company. The researchers and handlers, however, are not. They have grown up around Morgan, invested time and, somewhat unwisely, emotion into her and will stop at nothing to ensure her survival. Paternal Toby Jones, opinionated Jennifer Jason Leigh and compassionate Rose Leslie prove to be a formidable armada against Mara’s evaluation, and tensions arise. Morgan has her own cloudy agenda though, and whether by flawed design, ghost in the shell syndrome or pure survival instinct, proves to be the greatest danger of all. She experiences people at their best, worst and most enigmatic, and her startling behaviour is a reflection of all of it, and a sobering example of humanity’s pitiful inability to perfect the creation of artificial life, at least in this film’s universe anyway. From Mara’s threatening presence, to an intense evaluation from a particularly nasty psychiatrist (Paul Giamatti overacting so hard he almost sucks the set dec up into his orbit), it’s no wonder Morgan snaps. Now when she snaps, the film more or less whips all its chips on the table, flips said table and hulk slams it two floors down. All subtlety and thought provocation kind of get left in the dust as everything careens towards an especially visceral climax, and that’s okay, as long as it doesn’t leave you feeling underwhelmed. I kind of had the intuition it was going to take the rambunctious root overall, and took comfort in the fact that it at least somewhat focused on the delicate aspects earlier on. It’s a well oiled machine, impeccably casted, given just enough pathos to keep our sentimental sides invested, and more than enough visceral hullabaloo to get our pulses dancing, all set to a score both thundering and graceful. Great stuff. 

James Foley’s GLENGARY GLEN ROSS

ggr-1_758_426_81_s_c1

The deconstruction of the alpha male has never been so fierce as it is in GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS. The entire film is one pitfall after pitfall of brazen machoism being shed, and the true colors of all the characters are blatantly glowing by the end of the film. They are men who strive to be the best, without having any idea what that really means.

David Mamet is one of America’s most seminal playwrights, and James Foley has always been a filmmaking champion in regards to slow burning character studies. Mix both these auteurs with the greatest cinematic ensemble ever, and what we have is a masterclass of filmmaking in any and every aspect possible.

The blistering dialogue and fiery performances are so powerful that after each dialogue exchange we’re left completely gobsmacked by what we’ve just witnessed. Regardless of how many times you’ve seen the film, how many times you’ve quoted Alec Baldwin’s punchy lines; the film is still as fresh and potent as your first viewing.

The film strikes a very fine balance bewteen tearing down the archetypal 20th century man, yet shadows as a cautionary tale of how hollow and empty all these characters are. Beneath the ego and big talk, these are all men who have put up the ultimate eminence front (it’s a put on). They are all incredibly sad and broken people, who have lived lives of emptiness, regardless of the charade of their salesmen banter.

This film remains the benchmark for an acting ensemble. Jack Lemmon, Al Pacino, Alec Baldwin, Ed Harris, Alan Arkin, Kevin Spacey, and Jonathan Pryce all feed off each other so well, it is an awesome experience to absorb. There have been fantastic ensembles before this film and after this film, but there will never be an equivalent calibre of actors together on screen ever again.

“What happened to you?”A review of The Autopsy of Jane Doe by Josh Hains

The R rating description for the Autopsy of Jane Doe reads “bloody horror violence, unsettling grisly images, graphic nudity, and language”, a misleading description that may give future viewers the impression they’re in for a hearty gore fest. I thought I might be in for a suspenseful slasher, something akin to a cross between Don’t Breathe (another great horror entry from 2016) and The Ring, but with a greater focus on gory splatter. I wasn’t disappointed per se, but the graphic qualities of this movie don’t unfold the way you might expect them to, which admittedly caught me off guard yet pleasantly surprised me.

Without giving anything away (as this is a spoiler free review), I can tell you that this particular horror movie actually shows barely any on-screen violence. In fact, the bulk of the “bloody horror violence” actually comes in the form of the autopsy itself, which doesn’t shy away from giving viewers prolonged sequences of dissection, which plays directly into the “unsettling grisly images” of the rating description. Think of any CSI: Crime Scene Investigation autopsy scene, but make it run for an hour and twenty six minutes. The graphic nudity doesn’t come from an impromptu sex sequence, but from Jane Doe’s seemingly lifeless corpse laying nude on the cold steel table. It’s nothing exploitive or fetishized, just protocol when examining a dead person for cause of death. And as far as the language portion of the description is concerned, you might find more profanity in one scene in Planes, Trains, and Automobiles than in the entirety of this film, not that it’s a bad thing.

The movie introduces us to a gruesome multiple murder scene where a nameless nude young woman is found buried in the sands of the house’s basement floor and whisked off to the mortuary run by Tommy (Brian Cox) and Austin Tilden (Emile Hirsch), a father-son coroner duo, given until the early morning hours to find Jane Doe’s cause of death for the sheriff. Austin has plans with his girlfriend for the night, but once Jane Doe shows up, he feels compelled to stick around and assist Tommy, despite his girlfriend’s immediate unhappiness with being ditched yet again. Jane Doe’s is an extremely odd case for the duo, her entire outer body in perfect condition but her insides boasting a series of horrifying injuries including broken ankles and wrists. With how she died becoming a more frightening answer with every new internal injury discovered, the autopsy draws on, and as an unseen storm outside increases in its catastrophic potential (as heard via a radio that provides comfort music) several unexplainable supernatural occurrences begin to manifest, eventually trapping the duo in the mortuary and threatening to terrorize them all through the cliche dark and stormy night.

Early exchanges of dialogue between father and son, both personal and professional, as well as the blatant chemistry between the two actors, illustrate a believable history and relationship between the characters. You could change Hirsch’s last name to Cox and never doubt for a second that he is indeed Cox’s son, and it’s that believability that elevates the material from standard issue to fare to something special and unique. Both actors bring their A-game, and are not just convincing as family but also as coroners, the technical jargon adding another layer of authenticity and believability to the film. Your eyes and ears might be drawn to Cox more than Hirsch, as Cox has so often been a magnetic scene stealer everything from Manhunter to Braveheart to Red, but don’t underestimate Hirsch’s nuanced work here; this is his finest hour since Into The Wild.

For his first foray into American cinema, director André Øvredal (Trollhunters) does a splendid job of crafting a movie that contains characters we believe in and come to care for, all the while gradually among up the suspense as the movie unfolds. It’s always a delight when a movie sets up an intriguing premise while simultaneously providing characters worth watching, and not just the usual dumb victims.

The first hour of The Autopsy of Jane Doe is both interesting and totally suspenseful, but sadly the movie becomes a less interesting (yet still suspenseful) endeavour as more information about the titular Jane Doe is revealed. You’ll stick around to find out the fates of the characters, but after a third act exposition dumping of information about Jane Doe that lacks the subtlety of the scenes that precede it, the plot stops dead in its tracks: there is no plot left to tell. Once that information comes to light, the focus of the movie shifts to the survival of the characters against the overwhelmingly horrifying odds and lacks the surprise and intrigue of earlier scenes. I still found myself deeply involved, but not necessarily surprised or shocked by the revelations. This misstep by no means makes Jane Doe a bad movie, just underwhelming. 

Regardless of how I might feel about the third act reveals, I have to admit I still really enjoyed watching the movie right up until the final frames snapped to black. I especially enjoyed the relationship between Tommy and Austin, and even appreciated the brief but effective appearances of the girlfriend Emma (Ophelia Lovibond) who thankfully didn’t feel like a cliche and more like a real breathing human. I also appreciated the technical jargon and the extensive look at the practice of being a coroner and conducting an autopsy. It’s grisly stuff, sure to make even some of the most hardcore gore hounds’ stomachs churn, but in the context of the movie and its unique premise, makes complete sense and doesn’t feel like shoehorned gratuitous gore. The Autopsy of Jane Doe isn’t a perfect horror movie, a tall order these days, but it’s still a great and unique entry into a genre in need of a little spicing up. Somehow, despite the underwhelming feeling I got from the third act, I found the ending oddly satisfactory albeit predictable and not at all surprising. It works, like a knife through butter. If you’re in the mood for a good horror movie, open up your heart to The Autopsy of Jane Doe. You just might thank me after the sun shines in.

MIKE MILLS’ BEGINNERS — A REVIEW BY NICK CLEMENT

3

Released in 2010, Beginners is a sweet and sad little film in equal measure, with a generous and warmhearted script from director Mike Mills. Christopher Plummer was absolutely fantastic as an older man who suddenly announces that he’s gay, which brings him and his son, played by the always great Ewan McGregor, even closer together as a unit. There’s some great chemistry between McGregor and the gorgeous Melanie Laurent, who plays McGregor’s love interest, and who delights with some casual peek-a-boo nudity. Mills’ quirky directorial style, which smartly utilizes a flashback structure, punches up the film with some stylish pizzazz, while the ending contains some bittersweet notes of personal reflection that felt honest and rooted in the here and now. Kasper Tuxen’s shimmery cinematography creates a luxurious but never ostentatious visual mood, while the peppy but melancholic score from Roger Neill, Dave Palmer, and Brian Reitzell fit the story like a glove. There’s also some of the best dog acting I’ve ever seen; the reaction shots from the pooch are beyond adorable and smartly integrated into the playful narrative. Mills based the story off of his personal experiences when his father came out of the closet late in life.

1

THE HEROES OF ARVINE PLACE (2014) – A REVIEW BY RYAN MARSHALL

There’s solace to be found in an engaging, down-to-earth drama rich with the sort of essential humanism that seems all but lost in the current cinematic climate, and that’s precisely how one might describe Damian Lahey’s frequently endearing THE HEROES OF ARVINE PLACE. At just 74 minutes, it’s akin to a warm hug from a close friend or relative following a considerable absence and is equally as delightful.

Cullen Moss is marvelous as Kevin, a single father of two young girls who’s just trying to make it through the holidays after losing both his job and his car on the same day. He adopts an attitude of impressive tenacity, and over the course of the next few days, the immensely likable widower does everything in his power to make something – anything – work. Between a Christmas party at his place, a sister in the psych ward, a meeting with one of his literary idols which could determine the future of his hopeful future as a successful children’s book author, and the promise of presents for his daughters; Kevin’s got a lot on his plate, and there’s more to come.

cullen1

Sure, there’s little here that will challenged a seasoned viewer but this doesn’t appear to be Lahey’s priority, instead honing his energies towards painting an effective portrait of a down-on-his-luck guy during one of the most stressful seasons. There are hints of a deeper underlying sadness here, but it’s kind of admirable how Lahey avoids discussing these things in thorough detail at any point; much like the charming character at its core, the film is just trying not to dwell.

Considering its restricted budget, THE HEROES OF ARVINE PLACE could be seen as a testament to the individual and collective talents on both sides of the camera, and how sometimes a decent feel-good yarn is just fine when crafted with such obvious care. Lahey’s direction and script are assured, and he’s able to get some excellent performances from his cast; Tarina Reed’s photography is simple but not lacking formal depth; and Craig Moorhead’s editing is consistently efficient.

489089306_640[1].jpg

The score, from Brian Jenkins and Naarah Strokosch, is decidedly of a whimsical variety and sometimes threatens to sour the experience ever so slightly; it can feel, at times, almost as if the film is unsure of just how much it wants to indulge in fantasy and/or reality. It’s a middle ground that can feel too close for comfort, but given the material, it feels appropriate. There’s an intuitive empathy and sense of humor here that drowns out these little blemishes, and though the film may wear its heart on its sleeve to a fault, the pull of warmth reigns supreme in the end. It’s fairly easy to surrender to the film’s undeniably uplifting energies when one is in such positively personable company as this.

GREGG ARAKI’S WHITE BIRD IN A BLIZZARD — A REVIEW BY NICK CLEMENT

3
White Bird in a Blizzard is something unique – a touching coming of age story, a tense and unpredictable whodunit with a dynamite final twist, a study of marital discord, and a time capsule back to the late 80’s, all of it filtered through some surrealistic touches and flights of fancy for good artistic measure. Directed with customary style by Gregg Araki (The Doom Generation, Smiley Face, Mysterious Skin) who also wrote the genre-defying screenplay based off of Laura Kasischke’s novel, White Bird in a Blizzard feels like one of those movies that’s just waiting to be discovered by a passionate cult audience. Shailene Woodley, so wonderful in The Spectacular Now and The Descendants, was fantastic in the lead role of Kat Connor, a sexually blossoming high-school student with a phenomenally messed up mother (a whacked-out Eva Green) and a put-upon father (a quiet Christopher Meloni) who is trying to figure out what kind of woman she’s growing up to be.
2
The narrative is framed around Kat meeting with her therapist (a kindly Angela Bassett), flashbacks to Kat’s colorful childhood, and the various romances that Kat embarks upon (the boy next door, an older police officer, a college romance). Woodley is naked here – physically and emotionally – and I absolutely love watching her as an actress. She’s able to express vulnerability very well, and she has an unforced and extremely natural presence about herself as an actress. Green steals all of her scenes as the Mom From Hell, and I loved how Arakki upended expectations in more than a few instances, and then threw a killer twist at the viewer during the final moments. The bold and color cinematography by Sandra Valde-Hansen is frequently mesmerizing. This dark and lyrical film was a big surprise, and hopefully it finds a large audience at home. It’s currently streaming on Netflix.
1

ZEDER (1983) – A REVIEW BY RYAN MARSHALL

Circa 1956, young Gabriella is brought to the estate of Dr. Meyer, who believes that the girl harnesses supernatural powers and intends to put them to good use during one fateful night. After accompanying her to the basement, where she begins writhing about on the dirt-covered ground and is then attacked by something unseen when left alone, Meyer deduces that the area they’ve stumbled upon is what is known as a “K Zone” upon realizing that the man who infamously studied them, Paolo Zeder, was buried underneath the house some years ago.

vlcsnap-2017-01-06-12h48m02s515.png

Favoring petrifying ambiance over surface-level schlock, though impartial to entertaining the latter when apt, Pupi Avati’s horror films are characteristically infused with a kind of sinister, otherworldly energy; as if the man responsible for them always has one foot in reality and the other in the spirit world. In this sense, ZEDER (aka REVENGE OF THE DEAD) is straight from the heart of its maker, being (among other things) a film that deals directly with those disconcerting voices from beyond and why they are necessary to a superior understanding of our surroundings.

Following such a uniquely enigmatic opening, we are introduced to Stefano (Gabriele Lavia), a young novelist living in present day (1983) Bologna. He comes home one day to a surprise anniversary gift from his wife Alessandra (Anne Canovas) in the form of an old typewriter which he can’t help but test drive that same evening. Upon closer inspection of the ribbon housed inside the apparatus, he discovers an essay written by the aforementioned Zeder and becomes increasingly obsessed with the man’s studies.

vlcsnap-2017-01-06-12h49m50s260.png

Similarly to Avati’s masterful giallo THE HOUSE WITH THE LAUGHING WINDOWS, the unlikely hero often feels alone in the world. Whenever Stefano attempts to inquire about Zeder and his finds, even the most reputable members of society turn him away; and when he decides to take matters into his own hands, they tend to get a bit dirty. He must be careful who he talks to, for their lives may be endangered if he does so.

vlcsnap-2017-01-06-12h48m38s711.png

Without showing too much, Avati manages to get deep under your skin; take the K-Zones, for instance, which have something to do with reanimation, and yet that specific “something” is never explored in explicit detail. However, it’s undoubtedly better off this way. The horrors of ZEDER, beautifully rendered as they are, seem rooted in paranoia and guilt on a profoundly national scale; the film is like an exorcism for all of Italy, albeit one where the cleansing of body and soul is secondary to the painful possession of Avati’s fellow countrymen and how they attempt to evade it. While Stefano pursues the mystery at hand, Gabriella (now an adult) and Meyer scheme – it would be unwise to trust that anyone, even those closest to you, are not in on it in some way. It’s an angry, poignant, and indeed genuinely frightening state of affairs – assuming one is enticed by implication.

European horror films tend to wear their imperfections on their sleeve, and ZEDER is no exception. Franco Delli Colli’s (RATS: NIGHT OF TERROR, MACABRE, STRIP NUDE FOR YOUR KILLER) cinematography is luscious, Riz Ortolani’s score is typically fierce, the make-up effects – particularly for the undead – are refreshingly subtle, and yet there are flaws to be found in Amedeo Salfa’s editing. On a whole, the film flows exquisitely – but once in a while there’s an abrupt transition which threatens to soil an otherwise divine experience; and although this is easily redeemed, it can’t help but pale, if only slightly, in comparison to its aforementioned cinematic brethren as a result.

vlcsnap-2017-01-06-12h49m37s733

But oh, what sights Avati has to show you. From the abandoned soon-to-be-hotel which marks the high point of Stefano’s journey and the dusty tunnels running underneath to the young couple’s sleek, secure apartment, it’s remarkable how distinctive each location feels and how well the director utilizes them throughout. One feels alienated regardless of where they find themselves; the world is wired by phantoms. As is the case with some of the best, this is a film about man’s relationship with time and place in unison with his personal affairs; while the romance at the center of the story gives it a much-needed emotional backbone, it’s ultimately a vision of our ever-changing landscape and how we choose to confront those sudden transitions.

Admittedly, this could potentially disappoint viewers expecting a gorier, more straight-forward zombie yarn, but what a thing to behold. Avati has contributed something that goes far deeper than exceptional genre cinema, knowing all too well that mystery and tragedy alike account for many of the things in life which are most difficult to swallow. Some questions cannot be answered, or so the director seems to conclude at the end of this macabre tale. We can only seek so much truth before we bump up against our own limits.

vlcsnap-2017-01-06-12h52m16s121.png