Tag: oscar noms

Our Picks for the 88th Annual Academy Awards a.k.a Oscars!

The 88th Academy Awards go live in an hour and we’re finally ready to share our picks, just in the nick of time! These are not our predictions, but rather what our choices for each of the categories. So queue the drumroll and read on:

Best Picture: Spotlight

Spotlight 01

In a category this contested, this one resonates with us and our idea of movies as a means to tell stories. As Mike says, ‘There’s a story here and I think it’s an important story.’ And a story told spectacularly well.

Best Director: All’s not fine in idyll on this one! We couldn’t agree on one, so here are the two picks:

Adi’s Pick: George Miller for Mad Max: Fury Road

Mad Max 05

An out an out action film overcomes Oscar snobbery to get it’s due. What a day, what a lovely day! 

Sahil’s Pick: Tom McCarthy for Spotlight

S_07041.CR2

It’s a story crafter with perfection and that couldn’t have been without Tom McCarthy. The spotlight’s on you!

Best Actor in a Leading Role: Leonardo DiCaprio for The Revenant

TheRevenant

Leo’s revenge against the Oscars. No ifs, no buts, all the crawls and the grunts, add up to an Oscar!

Best Actress in a Leading Role: Here again we’ve different picks!

Adi’s Pick: Brie Larson for Room

Room

This one is Cate Blanchett’s to lose. The super depressing nature of Larson’s Room, just makes it an unforgettable film to watch and a role that required a lot from her. Rooms can get claustrophobic.

Sahil’s Pick: Cate Blanchett for Carol

Cate Blanchett as Carol is mesmerizing. That is the performance of the year, and you can’t take your eyes off her!

Best Supporting Actor: Mark Ruffalo for Spotlight

Spotlight 04

This category is far more contested than Best Actor in a Leading Role and that is something to say about the awesomeness of each of the nominees. What a year of sterling characters, portrayed to perfection. Mark Ruffalo as Mike Rezendez is a powerhouse in Spotlight. And he is our pick!

Best Supporting Actress: Alicia Vikander for The Danish Girl

Well she should have ideally been in the leading category, but Oscar voters went cuckoo over this one. Sorry Kate Winslet and Rooney Mara, but this goes to our Danish girl with top notch A.I. 😉

Best Original Screenplay: Spotlight

spotlight-2015-directed-by-tom-mccarthy-movie-review

Spotlight is storytelling at it’s very best. This one was very tricky and the right narrative was critical to tell the story. And it’s story worth telling.

Best Adapted Screenplay: The Big Short

The Big Short 04

From a pile of numbers to a story on Silver Screen! We’d give this to Charles Randolph for trying to make this simple for the average man.

Best Cinematographer: The Revenant

For making bleak look beautiful, The Revenant is an easy pick for this category. If anyone could make this happen, it was Emmanuel Lubezki and well we gotta cheer for him – he is on a hat-trick!

Now let’s see who actually wins Oscar gold!

Keep the popcorn tub handy!
Adi & Sahil
@ThePopcornWaltz

 

Bridge of Spies: The feel good Oscar film!

Adi’s TL;DR It has Tom Hanks. You can’t go wrong with that.

Sahil’s TL;DR Duck and cover spy movies!

Bridge of Spies is a wonderful film that we really enjoyed watching. We’d been waiting to say this unequivocally, with no riders, no ifs and buts for all of this Oscars challenge! There is no existential angst, no scientific illusions, no claims to change the world, just good cinema. The kind that entertains without CGI, with good acting, strong direction and effective storytelling. Bridge of Spies is not trying too hard to be different or edgy, it’s smart cinema which is so underrated at times.

Here’s some dope on Bridge of Spies. Directed by Steven Spielberg, Bridge of Spies happens to be his 31st directorial venture. That’s more films he’s done, than years we have :/ The screenplay of Bridge of Spies, comes from the writing mills of Joel and Ethan Coen along with Matt Charman. Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks have worked on classics like Saving Private Ryan and Catch Me If You Can, so his casting as James B. Donovan, the protagonist of Bridge of Spies was no surprise. The film was a box office success and has been widely appreciated for its acting and production. It has six Academy nominations to its name including Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor and Best Original Screenplay. Tom Hanks could’ve been in the lead actor nominees, but guess that one got a little crowded this time, leaving out some fine performances, including the ones from Will Smith (Concussion) and Michael Keaton (Spotlight).

Bridge of Spies is set in the Cold War in the 1960s and is based on a historical event. It’s a gripping drama that takes us through the story of Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance), an elderly Russian spy, and James B. Donovan (Tom Hanks), an insurance lawyer appointed to defend him. Rudolf Abel is the antithesis of everything you think when you hear the word spy. He ain’t no James Bond. More like James’s uncle from that place far, far away! He is an old, frail looking, denture wearing, canvas lugging spy and yes people believe he’s a monster who deserves nothing less than ‘the chair’. Is he a spy? Yes. Just because he is old, doesn’t mean he ain’t smart, observant, loyal, brave. James Donovan played by Tom Hanks is a successful, upper middle class insurance lawyer who was part of the prosecution during the Nuremberg trials. He’s good at his job, which gets him into this politically charged situation in the first place. He’s entrusted with the task of negotiating the release of an American officer, in lieu of Abel, doing all of this, in his unique, non-combative, not heroic, matter of fact way.

Bridge of Spies methodically works to deglamorize the role of the spy in the cold war, to make it as real as possible.The act of spying is hardly shown in the film. With Abel you see a muffled attempt to pick up and hide a secret message, while Francis Gary Powers, the American is just one of the ‘drivers’ as their recruiter calls them. What you see is the trial of two ‘spies’, who are doing their jobs, devoid of action, glory and overt heroism that we typically associate with a cinema spy. This realism extends to Donovan’s character as well. Just because he has been appointed by the CIA to negotiate the exchange, he doesn’t suddenly become the ‘hero’, with annoying, over the top bravado. Donovan remains true to his character, a lawyer whose job is to make it work for ‘his guy’, who operates within a moral compass and is not jaded by the cold war rhetoric to lose his humanity. The film celebrates a humble, more heartfelt version of heroism, one that’s captured in Abel’s ‘standing man’.

Tom Hanks and Mark Rylance are the highlights of the film. They are a joy to watch as they form an unlikely relationship of trust and respect. Their repartee is just a treat for the audience. The movie has some very good dialogues, going from dramatic to emotional to even humorous in parts. In every one of their conversations, Donovan asks Abel, if he is worried or scared and Abel replies ‘Would it help?’ and the earnestness of that question never fails to evoke humor and depth all at once. It’s an endearing sequence, that you want an encore of. Abel earns your trust and sympathy almost from the word go, with his mannerisms and unassuming style. In his first interaction with Donovan, Abel tells him that ‘You have men doing the same thing for your country. You’d want them to be treated well.’ Of course, all Abel wants is paper, pencils and cigarettes, but this comment stays with Donovan.

We first meet James Donovan in the middle of a negotiation and his skill as a lawyer is established right away. Donovan is respectful but firm, open but observant. Tom Hanks uses his inimitable brand of humor to make Donovan likeable and it brings some welcome reprieve to an otherwise somber film. He diffuses a high strung scene with a couple of words, a look, without appearing cocky or like he knows it all. He gives us moments of lightheartedness, anticipation, sadness, fear, tragedy and ultimately relief. He is a ‘standing man’ as Abel puts it. He finds himself out of depth as he witnesses a world of anarchy with the partition of Berlin and the building of the Berlin wall. It’s a world where people are losing their lives for a chance at freedom. Abel at one point remarks, ‘What’s the next move, when you don’t know what the game is?’ and Donovan figures out the rules of the new game. He discovers that the whole setup was to ‘feel him out’ and that the two sides have been playing him to see when he buckles under pressure. His perseverance in the face of adversity is a character building exercise and one that Tom hanks conveys with an actor’s integrity, of course an actor of his caliber.  

BridgeOfSpies_2

It’s hard to miss the similarities between James Donovan and Atticus Finch from To Kill A Mockingbird (RIP, Harper Lee). They are both well respected lawyers, who want justice for all and stand up for things they believe in. They experience animosity and ostracization from the social order, they’d been a part of because of their professional decisions. And they both find themselves in the eye of the storm as they are targeted by a faceless mob, not for what they did, but for what the mob assumed their actions implied. Donovan is at the receiving end of the coldness, the hatred of those very people who respected him. At one point he says, talking about Gary Powers, ‘that he (powers) is perhaps the most hated man in America, after Abel and me’. From turning a cold shoulder to a mob led witch hunt, the situation escalates quickly for both Atticus Finch and James Donovan. Social perception is not a theme explored in detail in the film, but it’s one worthy of dialogue. In a scene at the end of the film, we’re shown the changing attitude of people commuting with Donovan as they read reports of his involvement in bringing back an American soldier, pointing to the fickle nature of public perception. As Abel says, ‘Sometimes people think wrong. People are people.’.

Bridge of Spies does a good job of bringing out the paranoia of the cold war as well as the insensitivity of the government. It shows the irrational fear that grips people, who unequivocally brand Abel as a monster and demand death penalty for him without a fair trial, as well as a child who calls the Russians ‘reds’ and wants to know why his father is defending a communist when he isn’t one! A feature presentation on safety measures in the event of a nuclear war, ‘Duck and Cover’, is seen by Donovan’s son as it was shown across schools in the US during the 1950s. You can argue that the story of ‘Bert the turtle’ was propaganda or just disaster preparedness but the fear it instilled in young minds, making them see a nuclear attack not as a probability but rather an eventuality cannot be denied. You’re also shown the insensitivity of the American government which doesn’t care for the life of Frederic Pryor, an innocent student captured by East Germany or for that matter Gary Powers’s as Donovan points out. He’s important simply because of what he knows about the US missions and defense.

Here’s the ‘one stand out moment’ for each of us. Donovan says things in threes in the film, on at least three occasions! In his introductory scene he is arguing that it’s in fact ‘one accident’ and not five as the other lawyer wants to prove and says, ‘The guy insured by my client had one accident. One, One, One.’ He uses this when stressing to make a point. It’s these subtle quirks of characters that makes this film such a fun one to watch and just tickles your interest. Our second pick is when Abel calls Donovan ‘standing man’. Abel recounts the story of his father’s friend, who never did anything ‘remarkable’ all his life, except for the one time their house was overrun by partisan border guards. This man was beaten by the guards, but stood back up each time till the beating stopped. Abel called him ‘Stoikey Muzhik’, a standing man’. ‘Standing man’ becomes an underlying theme in the film, right till the final prisoners exchange, when Abel sees Donovan for the last time. Donovan tells Abel that he is waiting for another man to be freed. The agent in charge tersely remarks that it doesn’t matter what Donovan wants and that Abel is free to go. Instead Abel turns to look at Donovan and says ‘Stoikey Muzhik… I can wait.’ That’s the nature of this relationship – they both remember their humanity and stay loyal to each other, which is more than what you can say about most.

Bridge of Spies never stops being interesting, funny, spirited, meaningful, but doesn’t fall in the trap of taking itself too seriously. This is true of the film as a whole and the protagonists Donovan and Abel. They never lose sight of the people they are, even in these extraordinary circumstances. All Abel wants is to go home and have a Vodka and all Donovan wants is to get back to his bed. There are little doses of subtle humor, in this serious drama. And this is perhaps what makes it a deserving nominee for Best Picture at the Oscars. Will it win? No, if the pundits, the predictors, the experts are to be believed. But was it a good film? Heck yes! Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, Mark Rylance give you all the feels and evoke nostalgia of a good old film, something which we can all enjoy from time to time. So if you’re wondering which Oscar nominee to watch this weekend with your choice of intoxicating beverage, our recommendation is Bridge of Spies!

Until next time, keep the popcorn tub handy!
Adi & Sahil
@ThePopcornWaltz

Frankenstein for the ‘Smartphone’ generation: Ex_Machina

Adi’s TL;DR Oscar Isaac is the one to get down with on Saturday Night!

Sahil’s TL;DR If you’re gonna have a crazed robot at home, teach them a ‘safe word’!

 

Science or faff? Enough CGI or bat-shit crazy CGI? Aliens or machines? When you’re embarking on a sci-fi movie these are things this genre has to work with to keep it interesting. So when you come across a sci-fi flick that barely uses any of the above, and still gets you hooked from the word go, you sit up straight and take notice. Ex_Machina was the one film from the Oscar picks that both of us wanted to see right after we finished watching the trailers. And it didn’t disappoint! One of us (I ain’t gonna say which one) started watching after two glasses of wine but the film had such an effect, the ‘buzz’ flew out the window within the first fifteen minutes.

Here’s some dope on Ex_Machina. Believe it or not, Ex_Machina is Alex Garland’s directorial debut. Best known for his 90’s cult novel ‘The Beach’, Garland is also the screenwriter behind 28 Days Later and Sunshine. With this one, he adds directing to his list of skills too! Ex_Machina has been a fan favorite and has received a bunch of nominations for original screenplay, visual effects and supporting actors. Interestingly, all the three protagonists Alicia Vikander as Ava, Oscar Isaac as Nathan and Domhnall Gleeson as Caleb, are being looked at as supporting cast. It’s one of those films where there are no lead roles, in the traditional sense of the term. Alicia Vikander and Oscar Isaac have received several nominations for their stellar performances as Ava and Nathan. But when it came to Academy voters, the critical acclaim and the novelty of Ex_Machina, did not translate to nominations, keeping its tally to two for Best Original Screenplay and Best Visual Effects. Guess, that could mean three things – 1) 2015 was a great year for hollywood! 2) Ex_Machina was a beginning of the year release, not top of mind and 3) Oscar voters aren’t known for their smarts. Our best guess – all of the above!

Ex_Machina is science fiction with a difference. Garland’s work has been deeply influenced by science and existentialism and you see those same themes emerge in this one too. The film takes us to the dark recesses of the ethics in science debate. The story wastes no time in build up and straight gets to the point by introducing us to the three protagonists right at the beginning of the film and showing some of the key scenes teased in the trailer in the first 30 minutes. Clearly the people cutting the trailer knew what they were doing! Ex_Machina starts with Caleb, a nerd working at the Google-esque Blue Book, the world’s biggest search engine as a coder winning the chance to be part of something cool with the founder of Blue Book, super scientist, Nathan. Nathan’s position of power and control is established within minutes of the film starting, when we’re shown Caleb flying over his estate and the high tech man-cave he’s built as a recluse for his scientific research. This is even before we meet Nathan. The basic plot of Ex_Machina, involves Nathan conducting a Turing Test with the help of Caleb on the AI he’s built, Ava. But it quickly becomes clear that the one being tested is Caleb and the true test is for Ava to prove that ‘it’s’ just as human.

Nathan Bateman is the modern day Victor Frankenstein. You can’t help but draw comparisons to Mary Shelley’s, 19th century sci-fi, horror classic ‘Frankenstein’. Frankenstein is considered to be the first science fiction novel, written by Shelly when she was 18. So to everyone who believes men get science better than women – In your face, men! The film is using several of the tropes created by Mary Shelley, but what makes Ex_Machina unique are the ways in which it’s making the story of Frankenstein contemporary. In the novel, Victor Frankenstein’s creation remains unnamed, referred to as ‘creature’ or ‘monster’ or ‘it’ and there is no clear gender assigned, though it’s safe to assume that it’s a man. The creation is also scary to look at and Victor experiences feelings of hatred, disgust and even remorse for creating it. Ex_Machina inverts this on it’s head, when Nathan names his creation Ava (clearly a play on Eve), and gives her both gender and sexuality. Nathan is obsessed with his AI creations and clearly ‘form factor’ plays a big role! By giving Ava an identity, a personality, Ex_Machina further complicates the man vs. machine debate.

Ex_Machina is ‘a stripped to the basics’ sci-fi film that revolves around its three protagonists and the games they play, not Hunger Games just games. Of the three, Caleb is the easiest to understand and empathize with, so you’d perhaps start watching the action unfold from his perspective. You can’t help but pity Caleb as he struggles to figure out who to trust in this maze as he finds himself in the middle of a tug of war between Ava and Nathan. Add to that his own insecurities as he compares himself to Nathan who’s a superior both physically and mentally and you have a highly vulnerable character, open to manipulation. And this brings us to Ava. She is Nathan’s ‘almost human’ AI. She’s attractive, she’s smart and she is aware of her growing influence on Caleb. She has a read on him that’s accurate to the T, as she analyses his ‘microexpressions’ and plays up her sexuality to draw him in. But it’s Oscar Isaac’s Nathan, the mad scientist who has tipped over, that has your complete attention. Nathan is the Alpha Male, the one who’s in control, for at least most of the film. He is at the heart of the ethical debate ‘should you take the next step, just because you can’? He has come unhinged, but there is no confusion, no clutter in his mind. It’s the kind of focus, the kind of obsession that’s all consuming. His life is stripped to the basics – minus the distractions of luxury and excesses. Towards the end of Ex_Machina, it’s him you want to see more than Caleb or even Ava! From all his conversations with Caleb where he’s trying to be a friend and a ‘bro’ but can’t hide his sense of superiority in every way to the perfectly choreographed dance with his other android Kyoko, this is one cuckoo genius we’re willing to watch again!

Ex_machina 07

Nathan creates Ava in his own reflection and by giving her gender and sexuality, you have an alpha-female in the room. These two dominant characters play with the mouse, Caleb, in this homemade experiment. While Nathan uses raw physicality and brute mental force to overpower Caleb, Ava uses demure submission and latent sexuality to draw Caleb towards her. In this voyeuristic power-play the audience is the one that’s manipulated from the start of the film where we can’t trust any of the three characters. All three are putting on an act at one time or another and as viewers you can’t fully align with either of them. Power centers in the film shift rapidly with Nathan literally running this experiment from his control room as the film begins, only to be outsmarted by the mouse Caleb who’s ultimately taken for a ride by Ava. Gender adds another dimension to this already charged situation. Between session 3 and 4, when Caleb asks Nathan about why he gave Ava sexuality, Nathan replies ‘Can you give an example of consciousness at any level, human or animal, that exists without a sexual dimension’. Gender is clearly established as another rung of power politics in the film. Nathan gives his AI creations feminine form but uses them without a care for their individuality. Ava and Jade are kept under restraint both desiring freedom, with Jade destroying herself. Kyoko who is used by Nathan as his slave and fuck-toy, is kept outside the cage but denied language and the ability to communicate verbally. For Nathan they’re nothing but experiments to be used and discarded as he deems fit. Ava on the other hand uses her sexual awareness effectively to tame Caleb and deploys him as a means of escape. For her sexuality is a mere tool for survival where the two males represent a threat to her freedom.

Ex_Machina is engaging, interesting cinema. It’s a well made, well thought out film for most parts and that’s perhaps why the ending sticks out as a weak link, leaving a lot to be desired. Clearly they wanted to leave things as open ended as possible to start where they left off in the sequel! From Caleb drugging Nathan to steal his keys, which is such a cliched trick to Nathan resorting to simple violence instead of relying on his intellect, the ending appears too simplistic and almost out of character. Why and how do Kyoko and Ava come together? How does Ava communicate with Kyoko who’s clearly not been given language? Why didn’t Nathan have a backup plan? For all these reasons, the ending feels a little rushed and not well planned. The kicker though comes with Ava walking out, leaving Caleb stranded, reminding everyone that she’s an AI, devoid of human ethics and judgement.

Ex_machina 05

Here’s the ‘one stand out moment’ for each of us. And for a change it’s just one! Both of us couldn’t help but pick the crazed ‘non sequitur’ (as Oscar Isaac put it) dance sequence with Nathan and Kyoko dancing to Oliver Cheatham’s 1983 disco song ‘Get down Saturday Night’. It comes totally out of the blue in a moment, that’s super intense. From Kyoko starting to strip to Nathan standing in the corner watching (as usual), you simply don’t know where this is going and then all of a sudden you find yourself in the eeriest dance club ever! This one is going in the book for legendary dance scenes. It almost has the same thrill as watching John Travolta and Uma Thurman in the famous Pulp Fiction dance. Except it’s just two decades later and way crazier. When Ex_Machina 2 happens (there’s no question of if in our minds!), Oscar Isaac better have a dance sequence in it 😉 It’s the one scene in the film that totally has you and was our pick too!

Alex Garland has done some rather interesting jazz with Ex_Machina. He takes a fairly well used trope, Artificial Intelligence, but plays with it a lot more intelligently than most. Create an android completely at par with humans with an instinct for survival, throw in a mad scientist, who obviously thinks he’s nothing short of god, and, a budding fella out to make his mark, who’d take praise from a caged robot, with a fair bit of gender and power play and you have a powder keg ready to blow! For once you see more movie and less CGI which these days is such a welcome break. Sci-fi films are busy with hordes of people and machines but Garland strips the movie to its bare basics giving you three unstable characters and a looming ethical debate. The plausibility of this happening in the near future gives this part sci-fi part psychological thriller a totally different edge. At the end of the film the lines between right and wrong, and good and evil are so blurred, that you find yourself incapable of hating either the manipulative Ava, the gullible Caleb, or the insolent Nathan.

Ex_Machina_Magnet Review

P.S. Frankenstein is the inventor not the monster; Name’s a bit misleading but you can blame Mary Shelley for that ;D

Until next time, keep the popcorn tub handy!

Adi & Sahil
@ThePopcornWaltz

Steve Jobs: So close and yet so far!

Adi’s TL;DR We wrote this post on our MacBooks. Thanks Steve!
Sahil’s TL;DR Steve and I have something in common. We hate the stylus!

Famous, controversial, genius, revolutionary, ferocious, passionate – now isn’t that just the kind of person whom you’d like to put on the silver screen?! Ladies and gentlemen, (welcome to the stage) Steve Jobs! With three-movies made on him between 2013 – 15, perhaps Jobs now also holds the Guinness record for being the person on whom most films have been made in less than five years of his death. Or you could say one real movie after two rather forgettable portrayals :/ Ironically enough, Steve Jobs, the movie bears a striking similarity to Apple, as both were built on the charisma of one individual with help from one helluva supporting cast. With two mainstream Hollywood flicks, both bombing at the box office, it appears this very popular techie and entrepreneur just can’t be successfully brought to life on celluloid.

Here’s some dope on Steve Jobs (not the man, only the movie). With this film, Danny Boyle adds another one to his eclectic list of movies, a ‘near biopic’ on Jobs. Steve Jobs comes after Trance and 127 hours, Boyle’s last two directorial ventures. According to Boyle, the one thing constant in his films is showing stories of characters who ‘are facing impossible odds and overcoming them’. With Jobs, struggles and successes came in abundance, making him a fitting subject for Boyle’s films. Aaron Sorkin’s screenplay is based on Walter Isaacson’s biography with the same name. So basically this story is at least twice removed, which might explain some of the discrepancies with the real life of Jobs! The film had a miserable run at Box Office, barely recovering the investment, on a mid scale budget. It just couldn’t win over the audiences, who saw Jobs’s portrayal to be too negative and/or not true.

Despite poor box office performance, the film has received critical acclaim for acting and screenplay, from nominations across SAG, Critics Choice, Golden Globes, BAFTA, all the way to the Academy Awards. Sorkin has consistently won in the adapted screenplay category for Steve Jobs, maybe because of the sheer number of words, but failed to make the cut for the Oscars top 5! With Facebook and Apple off his tech list, guess it’s safe to guess who Sorkin is Googling next 😉 With just two Academy Nominations for Best Actor in a leading role and Best Supporting Actress, Steve Jobs clearly couldn’t impress the Oscars voters as much as other films from 2015 did. And this is a perfect segway to talk about what works in Steve Jobs- Acting.

Our first reaction after watching the film was that it had some incredible performances. There’s copious amounts of dialogue and it’s delivered with utmost conviction. Steve Jobs played by Michael Fassbender is the highlight of the film. Fassbender captures Jobs eccentricities, nuances, habits, style, appearance to a degree that offers his screen presence credibility. The film starts with Fassbender looking anything like the Jobs we remember, but ends with his inimitable mock turtleneck black sweater and blue jeans. In the last act of the film, Fassbender is Steve Jobs in every which way. He captures the man’s obsession, his insanity, his desire for perfection and even his inability to love. Kate Winslet is also spot on in her role as Jobs’s ‘right hand woman’, Joanna Hoffman, his ‘work wife’ as she calls herself and the connection between these two is a thing to watch. She is the only one able to hold her own with Jobs and perhaps the only one he truly respects. Their relationship is one of friendship, loyalty, trust, understanding, things that Jobs (at least in this movie) experiences nowhere else. Between these two they cover majority of the spoken lines in the film!

The supporting cast is also very impressive with Seth Rogen playing Steve Wozniak, Jobs’s friend, cofounder and the brain behind Apple I & II. There are several very powerful scenes between them where you’re shown the tumultuous nature of their relationship. It also highlights how Jobs was the alpha male between the two, while Wozniak was the mind. It’s a love – hate relationship, like most of Jobs’s other relationships. There is one scene where Wozniak tells Jobs, ‘It’s not a binary. You can be decent and gifted’. It’s a rare moment in the film where something strikes home with Jobs and one of the only times where he shows raw emotions because he knows Woz meant it. John Sculley is another one on the long list of strained relationships in Jobs’s life. Jeff Daniels plays this part father figure/part mentor as Apple’s CEO. He’s the one to forewarn Jobs of what’s to come with the failure of Macintosh. John’s a pitiable character in some ways, as his career takes a fall for letting Steve Jobs go, even when it was hardly his doing. There are several scenes where you see Jobs go into the details of his adoption with Sculley and those are the only times you hear about Steve’s parentage. The other interesting character is Andy Hertzfeld, played by Michael Stuhlbarg. Andy and Jobs have some of the most hilarious, intense and tragic scenes in the film. These three emerge almost like the ‘ghosts of christmas past’, with pieces from Jobs’s history that he may not want to remember, but cannot forget. Their conversations before each of the launches, change color, but the tension runs throughout.

The film is shown in three acts, each opening about an hour before a major product launch, where Steve Jobs spends time talking to the same five characters. His head of marketing, Joanna Hoffman, CEO of Apple, John Sculley, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, a member on the Mac team Andy Hertzfeld and his daughter Lisa Brennan Jobs. While clearly this did not happen in real life, for a cinematic experience this is the structure Aaron Sorkin creates. Steve Jobs has a compelling outline, focusing on Jobs’s tumultuous years wrought with failure, rather than picking his major successes (which would’ve been easier!) and showcases him as a sum of his relationships, rather than the genius he’s imagined to be. Sorkin picks up five of Jobs’s relationships that may have moved him the most and shows his evolution through each of these interactions.

This structure created by Sorkin and Boyle, appears to be both a strength and a shortcoming of the film, when you see the final product. While you watch a side to Jobs which is rarely shown, the movie gets caught up in this rather mean portrayal. You don’t see the Apple born in the garage nor do you see the slew of products Jobs launched to make Apple successful again that he is most well known for. You see an attempt to create a ‘more human’ Steve Jobs with his flaws, but unfortunately the film gets lost in this somewhat unidimensional portrayal. With a fair bit of fictionalization, like extending Joanna Hoffman’s role in Steve’s life to eliminating his real wife, Laurene Powell Jobs, Sorkin and Boyle take quite a bit of artistic license (to put it mildly!). In trying to make him ‘human’, we’re shown Jobs as a vengeful, mean, disrespectful, illusionist and trickster who cared for very few around him. You see a couple of brief scenes about the young Steve Jobs and the passion he has but you’re left asking for more since the film simply gleans over that period.

The portrayal of Steve Jobs in the film has earned it a fair amount of flack from the fans of Jobs as well as some of his closest associates including Tim Cook and his wife, Laurene Powell Jobs. Guess that’s one of the biggest disappointments in the film for us too. With this cast, it was possible to show the many facets of Steve Jobs and not just the terror he was known to be in tech circles. He was the man who revolutionized personal computing and gave the world the most successful, coveted devices and that couldn’t have been possible simply by being a ‘trickster’, an ‘illusionist’. There had to be more to this person. The film sidelines his genius and intelligence to show a selfish, obsessive individual which doesn’t do justice to the complexity of his life or being. And that makes the ending even more hackneyed, where his relationship with his daughter, who he’s hardly shown to parent, is used in a redemptive light. The movie ends with Jobs, reconciling his differences with his daughter, in an over simplified sequence, where all of a sudden he experiences love, humility and concern, none of which he is shown to possess just minutes before.

Steve, Andy, Joanna

Here’s the ‘one stand out moment’ for each of us. The first comes in the first act, when there’s a problem right before the launch and the system doesn’t say ‘Hello’. The exchange between Andy Hertzfeld and Steve Jobs is one epic hilarious moment, till it turns dark. Andy tries to reason with Jobs by saying ‘We’re not a pit crew at Daytona. This can’t be fixed in seconds.’ To which Steve responds in the only way he knows, ‘You didn’t have seconds, you had three weeks. The universe was created in a third of that time.’ With the most ingenious quip of all time, Andy says, ‘Well someday you’ll just have to tell us how you did it’. This one’s going in the movie quoters guide for sure! The second one is when in the third act, Jobs meets Sculley and as they shake hands, moving on, in another moment of reconciliation, Jobs says ‘It was the stylus. I killed the Newton because of the stylus. If you’re holding a stylus you can’t use the other five that are attached to your wrist.’ It reminded us of the simplistic design philosophy Jobs upheld and it totally jived with us, since we just don’t get the point of the stylus either! Perhaps this is what led to some of the design ideas for the first iPhone.

This screenplay is undoubtedly better suited for Broadway. All you take away from the film is Steve Jobs as a rather narcissistic individual, Michael Fassbender’s brilliant performance and three acts which mirror each other but show a character’s evolution as the story moves. This is fitting for theatre. Artistic liberty, an individual’s fascination with Jobs’s eccentricities and obsessions make this a somewhat interesting film but not there yet! Celluloid success will perhaps elude Steve Jobs just like real success eluded him for a bit after his first astounding opening at Silicon Valley when he was twenty-four. Steve Jobs is a classic example of a film that had all the right elements, but doesn’t make a lasting impression.

Until next time, keep the popcorn tub handy!
Adi & Sahil
@ThePopCornWaltz

Spotlight: Extended Cut

Spotlight – The Team

Thanks for coming over! Here’s the main post, in case you missed it.

Cardinal Bernard Law: A little gift Marty. Think of it as a cardinal’s guide to the city of Boston.

Robby: This is how it happens, isn’t it Pete.
Peter Conley: What’s that?
Robby: A guy leans on a guy and suddenly the whole town just looks the other way.
Peter Conley: Robby, look. Marty Baron is just trying to make his mark. He’ll be here for a couple years and he’s gonna move on. Just like he did in New York and Miami. Where you gonna go?

These are two very interesting sequences in the movie – when Marty meets Cardinal Law for the first time and when Peter who works for Lake Street tries to tell Robby not to print this story. In the second one you can’t mistake the veiled threat Peter makes ‘Where you gonna go?’.’ Robby faces not just ostracism in the town he’s grown up in but also stands to lose all the respect he’s earned. To me though, the first scene appears more threatening than the second one. Take away the collar and the cross from Law and this scene totally reminds me of the ‘new person in town’ who’s been asked to come pay his respects to the local mafia don. The condescension with which Law speaks to Marty, telling him how best to function in the city, giving him a book on the ‘Christian catechisms’ as a guide to Boston is a rather ominous gesture and a warning asking him to not meddle in a place where he doesn’t belong.

Garabedian: Look how they treat their children. Mark my words, Mr. Rezendes, if it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to abuse one.

The film has some beautiful dialogues. Without any excess drama, you see a repertoire of impactful lines delivered with impressive acting. The above lines that Mitch says about the whole town hiding this dirty secret is a jolt for Mike in the scene and for us in the audience. Between Liev Schreiber, Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, Stanley Tucci, Rachel McAdams, Brian d’Arcy James and John Slattery, you see both absolutely spot on acting and lines that leave you speechless. This is one cast, that’s totally outperformed as a sum of their actions! The right lines in the hands of the right actors and director makes for a potent combination.

Language, gestures and tonality are tools preferred rather than over-dramatization. Like Sacha Pfeiffer tells Joe Crowley when she’s interviewing him for the first time, ‘Joe, I think the language here is going to be very important. We can’t sanitize this, just saying molest isn’t enough. People need to know what actually happened.’ This statement is very telling for the film as well as its audiences where you’re told that they’ll explore the events in depth and detail but without becoming either very graphic or sensationalizing the matter.

Sensationalism and over-dramatization are two tropes common to both cinema and to news reporting. Spotlight doesn’t employ either and yet manages to hold your attention every second of the way. Our first reaction when we stepped out of the theatre was how this movie was so totally understated. There is no over-dramatization of what the team of journalists are trying to accomplish in the film, and there is no demonization of the church despite the discoveries they make as they go from one to seventy priests who’ve preyed on kids in Boston.

As someone who loves color, it’s glaring that spotlight is made in monotones. There are only grays and blues and blacks in Spotlight and like the performances even the colors are understated. It’s a limited color palette – maybe to ensure that nothing takes your attention away from the story or distracts you from the dialogue. And there is a lot of dialogue in Spotlight. A lot is being said, but no one’s really talking about the things that matter, in an unspoken code of secrecy.

The movie is like a controlled explosion exercising a lot of restraint on it’s actors to not make this larger than life. We’re shown real people who’re just doing their job, a very thorough one at that. They’re not superheroes or saviors but shown to be as real as any of us which is a testament to the direction by Tom McCarthy.

Spotlight 04

Richard Sipe: The Church is an institution, Mike, made of men. It’s passing. My faith is in the eternal. I try to separate the two.

Faith and religion are different things – faith is what you believe in, it’s internal, inward looking, while religion is an external, social classification. It’s possible to have faith and no religion, but what’s religion without faith. In Spotlight, we’re taken to Boston where religion is a critical determiner of your identity. Faith and religion are no longer separate ideas, where the Church is not just preaching the religion but trying to control people’s faith. The pedestalization of the church is pervasive to a degree that makes it unquestionable and distances it from the very people that the institution was built to serve. And when institutions become gatekeepers, beholders and protectors of religion, there is reason to be scared, because then those institutions assume the power to influence thought and action to benefit their own agendas. Through the movie there are numerous references to the church and its powers. From Ben’s reaction about suing the church, to Garabedian’s assertion that the church controls everything – the church is clearly the seat of power in Boston. There is a also a fair bit of emphasis on each character’s relationship with faith and religion. When Phil Saviano meets the team for the first time, he asks if any of them were catholic, almost assuming that his audience’s religious orientation would determine their extent of understanding his story. It’s interesting that all four of them were raised catholic, but now have their own unique relationship with religion which may not be what the institution demands. The unholy union of abuse and religion, only makes it harder for the victims to grapple with it all. Where do they look for answers, for solace, when they are robbed of their faith, of their spirituality.  

Jim Sullivan: You’re right, Robby, we all knew something was going on. So where were you? What took you so long?

The whole village knew and no one did a thing, a guy leans on a guy and the whole town just looks the other way. That’s the story of Spotlight. The undertone of guilt and blame, runs throughout Spotlight and you know there’s more than one to blame. There is no simple black and white, right and wrong, good and evil in the film. Just like real life, most characters are treading the line between right and wrong, living in grey areas. It’s also interesting to see how everyone deals with guilt differently. The church’s rhetoric of doing a ton of good, makes up for a ‘few bad apples’, or Ben’s defensive argument that the story needed Spotlight, or Robby’s introspective guilt of skipping this story when he could have done more years ago – suddenly a light gets turned on, and there’s fair share of blame to go around.

Spotlight is not like a loud, visible, smack across your face, it’s more like a low punch in your gut that hurts. It’s a film that leaves you with a shared burden of guilt, of knowing that we all know of something that ain’t right and we choose to look away. The film makes us feel like we failed at protecting those, that need to be protected. Our shared burden of guilt is the overarching reality of Spotlight. There is no catharsis in Spotlight – it’s simply not structured that way as a narrative and that’s hardly the objective of the story.

Until next time, keep the popcorn tub handy!
Adi & Sahil

A ‘Spotlight’ on 2015’s best film!

Adi’s TL;DR From comic book superheroes to real men… Here’s to growing up!

Sahil’s TL;DR This one is for the ‘classics’ rack on the movie library you’re building!

How many times can you see a movie and still find it riveting? We don’t necessarily know of a scientific way to answer that question, but having seen Spotlight thrice, in about two months, tells me that we’re going to watch this one many, many times. If that’s how you spot a great film, then this one’s surely on that list. Spotlight is intense, it’s evocative, but not provocative. It doesn’t want to rile you up, there isn’t outrage for the sake of outrage. It holds your attention, it holds your thoughts and it constantly reminds you this is for real. The one word that comes to mind when we think about Spotlight is – gripping. It’s gripping cinema, minus any over-the-top drama, emotion or action and that in itself is such a rarity.

Here’s some dope on Spotlight. Directed by Tom McCarthy and written by him and Josh Singer, Spotlight is McCarthy’s fifth directorial outing in Hollywood. And by all means the most successful one. It’s a relatively low budget ($20M, compared to over $100M for The Revenant / The Martian), independent film, with none of the big production companies to back it. Despite that, it has snagged nominations for Best Picture, Best Director and four other categories at the Academy awards this year. This is testament to the brilliance of the film and it’s surely our pick for Best Picture!

Spotlight’s a work of editorial integrity in every sense of the word. The subject of the movie – child abuse by priests, is one that evokes intense emotions, but it’s dealt both sensitively and sensibly in the film. Spotlight is made from the perspective of the team of journalists at The Boston Globe that investigated and published the findings about the systemic nature of this abuse in January 2002, just a few months after 9/11. The two Toms, McCarthy (Director) and McArdle (Editor), ensured that the film’s narrative remained true to the story, understated and tightly knit, with acute clarity of thought and no excesses whatsoever. This makes Spotlight a movie to watch over and over again. The music by Howard Shore complements the intense storytelling and makes the silences more poignant. It’s distinct, paces well with the film, emphasises the highs, the lows, but at no point draws any unnecessary attention, or takes away from the core narrative and that’s so important to ensure you don’t miss a beat in Spotlight.

Spotlight sucks you right in with the opening sequence, where we’re shown a sketchy interaction at a police station in the middle of the night, that you don’t know what to make of. And with that moment the tone of the film is set – you will traverse night and day, dark and light, with the hope that there is some light at the end of this dark, dreary tunnel. In the very next moment, we’re taken to a regular day at a newspaper office. The office banter, the familiar faces, the farewell, the dry humor, the working environment, the cake that some eat and some don’t, provide a backdrop to the film that’s real, believable and mundane. And this realism, runs across the movie, and that’s one of the primary contributors to the intensity of Spotlight. It’s also an introduction to the film’s conversational style and we catch a glimpse of the characters. In one particularly (and rare) funny moment, Robby (played by Michael Keaton) asks his retiring colleague ‘I find the timing of your departure a bit disconcerting. The corner office sits empty, the new editor arrives on Monday, so forgive me, buddy, but I gotta ask… what the hell do you know?’ Now we make sure we laugh extra hard every time we come to this scene, because laughter is a scarce commodity in Spotlight.  

It’s a convoluted world in Spotlight, where the ones who hide the truth are the ones who belong, who have an air of righteousness, and the ones who choose to speak out, face the fear of ostracization and are looked at as ‘meddling outsiders’. The city of Boston is as much a character as any other. From ‘The Curse of the Bambino’ that Marty Baron (played by Liev Schreiber) is reading to get a feel of the city, to the constant reminder of how everyone is ‘born and brought up’ in Boston, to Cardinal Law (played by Len Cariou) calling it ‘a small town in many ways’, Boston is the very fabric of the film. Each character is being evaluated in context to their relationship with the city. Either you are ‘them’ or you are ‘us’. Baron is a visual reminder of the outsider in Spotlight and he is at the receiving end of a lot of this sentiment. A jewish man from Miami, who is not married, who does not play baseball, who doesn’t enjoy socializing with the who’s who of Boston is the very definition of an outsider and one that makes everyone uncomfortable. It’s assumed he has an ‘agenda’, partly because he is not from here and partly because of his religion. Tension between the ‘insiders’ and the ‘outsiders’ is omnipresent in Spotlight and those perceived as outsiders are treated with skepticism, with their intentions and agendas being questioned forever. You can’t help but wonder if such rampant abuse could have been kept under wraps, if some of this skepticism was inward looking.

Journalism is not the background in Spotlight, it’s the very action in the film. The film takes you through aisles of paperwork, dingy record rooms, copious note taking, hours and hours of research, lengthy interviews, meeting deadlines – the act of journalism is front and center in Spotlight. You’re taken on this investigative ride along with the characters, where stories criss-cross and you start putting the pieces together. Spotlight has the edginess of a thriller, without the usual tropes associated with one, which adds to the novelty of what’s to come. The tension in the film rises in crescendo and you experience the intensity all along. Doing the right thing, the ethical debate, the political consequences, the readership’s reaction, will it bring about change, is the timing right, what’s the big picture, what if it all blows up in our faces – the movie is rife with all these questions, contradictions and more and you see there are no easy answers. Part of the success of the film lies in the characters navigating this swarm of questions and arriving at answers, that are not simplistic and often incomplete or unsatisfactory, pretty much like real life.

Spotlight reminded us of a text we read, ‘Le Père Goriot’ by Honoré de Balzac as part of our second year paper on French & Russian writing in college. Balzac would focus on minute details for his characters to make them as realistic as possible. Their idiosyncrasies, eccentricities and habits are what separated them from one another making them real (something our professor who taught Balzac pointed out to us). Tom McCarthy applies this style of realism in the film where every character is fleshed out in great detail and are personas you’d meet in real life. You can’t help but notice how McCarthy has used dialogue, body language and tonality to build such well rounded characters. From the soft spoken yet firm Marty Baron to the passionate and driven Mike Rezendes (played by Mark Ruffalo) to the witty and perceptive Robby Robinson, to the voice of reason Sacha Pfeiffer (played by Rachel McAdams), to the nerd who’s writing a horror novel to help him sleep Matt Carroll (played by Brian d’Arcy James), to the cranky Armenian Mitchell Garabedian (played by Stanley Tucci) you’re literally marvelling at how these personalities come to life. Even when the characters aren’t talking, the looks, the gestures speak volumes which is another highlight of the film. Spotlight is replete with moments where looks and body language communicate so much about the person. For instance, when Marty asks Robby ‘Would you consider picking this one’ when he wants the Spotlight team to scrub the ‘Geoghan case’, or the look Matt gives his team when he walks Phil Saviano, a survivor to the bathroom, each shows the details you can highlight as a director, when you have a bevy of fantastic actors to work with.

Here’s the ‘one stand-out moment’ in the film for each of us. Towards the end of the film Marty says ‘Sometimes it’s easy to forget that we spend most of our time stumbling around in the dark. Suddenly a light gets turned on, and there’s fair share of blame to go around. I can’t speak to what happened before I arrived but all of you have done some very good reporting here, reporting that I believe is going to have an immediate and considerable impact on our readers. For me, this kind of story is why we do this.’ This comes at the moment when the team discovers how they had some pieces to the story earlier but didn’t put it together. There’s fair share of guilt in the room but Marty in his little speech points out how it’s never easy in life to find the big picture but they’ve now managed to right a wrong and are going to present a story that’ll have real impact. The wisdom and maturity in these lines and the humility with which they’re spoken, leave you in awe of the moment.

The second is actually the ending of the film. The last sequence in Spotlight takes us back to where it all started, their office in the basement. As Mike and Robby run in, they find the room abuzz – phones ringing, people talking, taking notes as they hear stories after stories from victims who are contacting the tip line. You can’t miss the shock on their faces. Mike jumps right in to pick up a call, while Robby is seen walking down in a haze. There’s disbelief, wonder, relief – written all over his face. He skips a beat. And he knows this is a once in a lifetime moment – in his life, in the life of a journalist, when something they do makes a difference, makes a real, tangible difference. Maybe there are second chances, maybe you can make it right, at least you can try and try they did. The film leaves you with Robby picking up a call and speaking in the phone, ‘Spotlight’.

A powerful story depicted with ‘horribly good’ realism, backed by fantastic dialogues and acting, make Spotlight the best movie to come out this year, in our opinion. One that you can’t help but stand up and applaud for its gritty storytelling, told without any demonization of the church or glorification of its heroes but with a maturity that’s so refreshing. True story – when we saw the movie for the first time, it received a standing ovation from the entire theatre – something you don’t see happen everyday! So if you haven’t seen this masterpiece just yet, book your tickets or grab a copy as soon as it’s out. This one is for the movie library you’re building!

Spotlight Magnet Review

Until next time, keep the popcorn tub handy!
Adi & Sahil

P.S. We had some more to say about Spotlight (sheepish grin) in the Extended Cut 🙂

Mad Max: Fury Road – Extended Cut

Thanks for coming to the Extended Cut! Hope you enjoyed our take on Mad Max: Fury Road here 🙂

Mad Max: Fury Road

Fury Road, although primarily an action film, touches upon a number of themes which we explore in our extended cut here. Read on to see what we found out between the sparse lines said in the film and the madness of monster cars exploding all around!

Toast: ‘What are you doing?’
The Dag: ‘Praying’
Toast: ‘To who?’
The Dag: ‘Anyone that’s listening’

Religion and faith are two interesting themes raised in the film. Immortan Joe is both a religious figurehead and an autocrat, who uses religion the same way as it’s used today – an opium for the masses. ‘Valhalla’, a piece of pagan mythology originally meant for soldiers who died in combat finds its way into the religious fabric of the film. Immortan Joe uses it as a promise of a glorious afterlife for his slave ‘war boys’ who die on the fury road. Nux, the war boy is perhaps the key to understand this dystopic world and you can see how blind the faith runs among his kind indoctrinated by Immortan Joe, who in the beginning says ‘I’m gonna die historic on the Fury Road’ and ends his half-life with ‘Witness me’. You also have the war boys screaming ‘V8, V8, V8’ with a temple-like structure built of steering wheels with cars nearly worshipped in the film. From the ‘gates of Valhalla’ to ‘you will ride eternal shiny and chrome’, an alternate discourse of religion has been created by the people in this wasteland.

In contrast, you see the faith of Furiosa in ‘The Green Place’ and ‘The Many Mothers’ of the Vuvalani to find redemption for herself and a home for the five wives. Towards the end of the movie we see, The Dag one of the wives praying to ‘anyone that’s listening’, while the concept of praying has survived, god is lost.

‘Who killed the world? We are not things’

Painted on the walls in the vault where Immortan Joe keeps his five wives/prized breeders, these comments highlight the objectification of human beings in this society. People have been reduced to things in the movie, another resource to be consumed piecemeal and in whole and then thrown into the wasteland. From blood to mother’s milk both are considered precious commodities prized more than the life of a human being. The gates to the citadel itself are operated by a horde of slaves pedaling like cattle, part of the machinery that runs it. Immortan’s war boys with their shaved heads and painted white bodies look like skeletons trained to do his bidding wiped of all humanity. Everyone in the colony is branded with Immortan Joe’s stamp, owned by him like the war rigs and pursuit vehicles they run.

The characters in the film have rather (un)characteristic names (pun intended!), another theme that brings out the dystopia and objectification in the film. From Furiosa to Rictus Erectus to Immortan Joe’s wives Splendid, Capable, Fragile, Toast, and The Dag, all names are based on some attribute the person displays. The two somewhat familiar names you hear are Joe and Max which are also transformed with an adjective in the beginning. Larry and Barry are the most benign names in the film, but alas they’re the tumors on Nux’s neck that he’s named. Funnily enough the chaperone and nursemaid Immortan Joe has is called ‘Miss Giddy’ another character named after an adjective but given the title of ‘Miss’ as you would in Victorian times!

Splendid: ‘It hurts!’
Furiosa: ‘Out here everything hurts.’

Gender is complicated in Fury Road. Gender roles are both reinforced and inverted through the course of the narrative. There is objectification of both men and women and it’s hard to say who’s representation is worse in Miller’s story. The half-life war boys and war pups, with no real names, are slaves to Immortan Joe’s (played by Hugh Keays Byrne) demands, from picking him up to dressing his ulcers and are falling over themselves for his slightest approval, because in this broken world he holds the key to Valhalla. All men are shown helplessly following orders from one tyrannical leader, weak, incapable of standing for themselves, succumbing to his irrational demands. Nux and Max are the only men to have human shades in their character and experience hope, fear, solidarity and the desire for redemption.

On the other hand, women in Fury Road are bound by ties of kinship and shared histories of oppression. They are fighting for their common goals of survival as a race and not as individuals driven by power and politics. Women are shown to have the last vestiges of humanity, who don’t kill for pleasure or play. Despite their despicable treatment at the hands of men, they are capable of love, compassion, solidarity and forgiveness and they can extend this to women and men alike. In this film women are resilient, courageous, survivors and the true heroes of the film. They are not afraid to jump right in and take charge when needed, they are not scared of rolling their sleeves and getting things done. From tallying ammunition to driving vehicles to fighting men in one on one combat – women are shown to be just as badass and that’s a great statement against any kind of stereotyping of women as the ‘weaker sex’. They are scared because they are human, but that also makes them capable of love. Women are shown to hold in them life and hope, and, birth and motherhood. In a poignant moment, towards the film’s climax we see a mother of an older generation pass on the last remaining ‘seeds’, her heirlooms, to a younger mother. In this their is hope of life and growth and rebuilding the idyll – the Green place.

Immortan Joe’s world – his citadel is free of women for most parts, no roles are assigned to women except for breeding and lactating. He keeps specially chosen women, called Breeders in his harem with chastity belts to reproduce his alpha male progeny. These women are all physically attractive and young, making them the easiest targets in this patriarchal world, with an excess of testosterone. The other set of women are much older who are being raised like cattle to produce milk for Immortan Joe, his war boys and even for trade with Gas Town and Bullet Farm. Mother’s Milk is some sort of an elevated ‘energy drink’ and is even in their chant. Did we tell you that this is the mother of all dystopic worlds you’ve ever seen? If not, you’ve now been told.

In this world where women are treated in the worst way possible, we’re introduced to Imperator Furiosa (played by Charlize Theron) who is the only female Imperator in Immortan Joe’s army. Fury Road begins with her leading a war rig (which is a big deal) to get ‘guzzoline’ and bullets. How Furiosa survived the fate of other attractive women in this world remains a mystery. Our best guess is her physical deformity – she doesn’t have a hand, which makes her ‘imperfect’ and not suited for Immortan Joe’s breeding plans. One could build an entire film on Furiosa’s back story and how she fought her way to the top of the army and became an Imperator. Fury Road is primarily her story of defiance, of her fighting the patriarchal order to make a world that’s fair to the weak and the strong, with everyone else, Max (Tom Hardy), Nux (Nicholas Hoult), Splendid, Toast, Capable, playing supporting cast. At the climax, Furiosa is the one to put an end to Immortan Joe, and not Max, further reinforcing Miller’s vision of this being her tale.

And this is the perfect segway to talk about Max and what is Tom Hardy doing in Fury Road. For one, he is in the title of the film and it’s through him that we’re taken to Immortan Joe’s world and introduced to the awesomeness of Furiosa. He is also the narratorial voice, even though sparingly used in the movie. But mainly he is seen as Furiosa’s partner in crime and by the end of Fury Road, you see a sense of partnership between them, that’s new to both loners. Thankfully at no point does this become something cheesy or overly sentimental and they both stay true to their characters – Furiosa as the leader of the oppressed and Max as the weary traveler moving from one adventure to another. Max convinces Furiosa to go back to the citadel and fix what’s broken, instead of going on a wild hunt for a better world which may or may not exist. And by doing this with her, he sees redemption for both of them. Towards the end of the film, we see Max choosing to move on instead of staying back. He appears to be scared of being tied down to anything or anyone. He values his freedom and his solitude and wants to protect that fiercely.

Of all characters in Fury Road, Nux was the most interesting and in a way he holds the key to many layers of the film. It’s through him that the war boys get a voice, a representation that makes them appear more human and not just faceless suicide warriors owned by Immortan Joe. It’s also through Nux that we are taken into the deep recesses of the ideology of this dystopic universe. We’re shown how his only desire is to go to Valhalla – his final destination and dying on the fury road is the chosen route. His blind faith in Immortan Joe, his belief that death is the only way to Valhalla, his constant doubt of being awaited, the certainty in his mind of his death – Nux lives everyday with the desire to die and in this he captures the extent of dystopia. Sitting amidst wildfires, sandstorms, gore and blood is his idea of a ‘lovely day’. So when his last bid to reach the gates of Valhalla fails, his disappointment is just as intense. He feels broken and hopeless. And in that moment he experiences compassion and empathy and care all at once with Capable’s gentle touch. Capable’s trust in Nux gets him included in Furiosa’s band of survivors and for once he experiences hope. Redemption is an important theme in Fury Road and perhaps Nux is the only one to attain it. He dies for a cause, a free agent, or at least as free as he had ever been. He dies in glory and is witnessed in that moment by the one person who cared for him, with whom he’s seen a glimmer of love and life. In Nux, we see that there is hope to switch over, to change course, to experience happiness, to take control of a life that’s seemingly uncontrollable, even if it’s for a little while.

Andy Dufresne really knew what he was talking about when he said ‘Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies.’

Until next time, keep the popcorn tub handy!

Adi & Sahil

This decade’s prescription for action: Mad Max: Fury Road

Adi’s TL;DR Proposed title – Mad Max: The awesomeness of Furiosa!

Sahil’s TL;DR Don’t name your kids Rictus Erectus or Capable!

 

Every once in awhile (or decade) an action movie is made that you know will spark off a thousand heated debates, rip-offs, parodies, sequels, prequels, one-liners and more! Films like Enter The Dragon, Raiders of the Lost Ark, First Blood, Die Hard, Terminator 2: Judgement Day, The Matrix have gained cult following and are all classics in their own right. Is Mad Max: Fury Road on its way to this hall of fame, only time will tell! Meanwhile, here’s a review from The Popcorn Waltz, who coincidentally hadn’t been exposed to Max and his antics before and will talk about their first ride with the madness unleashed by George Miller.

Here’s some dope on Mad Max: Fury Road. Fury Road is the fourth edition in the Mad Max franchise. It’s been directed by George Miller, who also happens to be the director behind Babe and Happy Feet. We’re glad that turned out alright for our animal friends 😉 The screenplay is written by George Miller, Brendan McCarthy and Nico Lathouris. Miller is also amongst the producers of Fury Road, which would explain how the ginormous action sequence budgets were approved! Since we haven’t seen the earlier Mad Max films, we don’t have a comparative theory on where it falls in the Mad Max universe, which in a way ensured we enjoyed the film for itself, with no legacy concerns.

They say, you can only have one – box office success (Read: people’s money) or recognition from the Academy (Read: licence to charge producers more money). Fury Road is one of those few lucky films to have both. If we look at Academy history with action films, there haven’t been too many that got the stamp of Oscar recognition, barring The Hurt Locker (if you consider it an action flick) in the last decade and Gladiator and Raiders of the Lost Ark much earlier. Believe it or not, The Matrix did not win any of the top honours at the Academy Awards! With a staggering 10 Oscar nominations including the top ones for Best Picture and Director, Fury Road is second only to The Revenant, which has 12, making it a serious contender across the board this year. If nothing else, Fury Road has confirmed its place in the Oscar hall of fame!

Watching this movie was like dodging bullets (literally and figuratively) with high-octane action sequences crafted to perfection and very limited CGI use. It was like sitting in a car, hurtling down a mountain at breakneck speed, and yet on a trajectory which wavers not one bit! For its action alone and the way it’s orchestrated, George Miller deserves multiple awards. The film uses a very oft-repeated trope from action flicks, one of a car chase, making it the mainstay of the film with shots that’ll leave you agape with shock and awe. As a viewer, the action was overwhelming on the senses but at no time do you lose sight of what’s happening in every shot. One could possibly go on and on about the action in Fury Road, the way it’s shot, the intense camerawork, but suffice to say this movie is a milestone in technical prowess.

Mad Max 05

The plot of Fury Road is simple enough to describe; a religious cult leader who has gone off his rocker, a man on the go caught by the wrong men, a woman with anger issues who’s kicking some serious ass and then an epic chase. The movie is based in a dystopic wasteland, where fresh water and ‘guzzoline’ is the currency used to rule by Immortan Joe (played by Hugh Keays-Byrne), the tyrannical leader. Death and decay permeates all levels of this universe. Under Immortan Joe’s dictatorship there are three kinds of people – his war boys that do all his bidding, his prize breeders, the few chosen women of ‘worth’, and everyone else whose existence the tyrant ignores for most part. The dystopia creates sufficient distance to make it believable which is reinforced in the language and cultural fabric of the film. Loose, broken, half-pieced information from the world known before the thermo-nuclear war has creeped in. From ‘McFeasting in Valhalla’ to ‘Aqua Cola’ to ‘Blood Bag’, all reinforce the dystopian world they live in. The war boys use ‘Mediocre’ to highlight a great job, while Immortan Joe later uses it aptly, knowing its real meaning, withholding knowledge from the masses.

Even though the film is titled Mad Max: Fury Road, Max (played by Tom Hardy) is hardly the focus of the story. Fury Road is more Furiosa’s (played by Charlize Theron) tale of defiance and survival. In this world, where women are treated as objects to fulfill specific needs like producing milk and giving birth to the perfect progeny, Imperator Furiosa is an exception to the rule. She stands her own ground and is respected and feared by men. She undertakes the task of rescuing the women kept in captivity by Immortan Joe and she meets Max while on the run. They become an unlikely partnership and Max realizes how both of them are looking for redemption. They are both characterized as loners and working as a team doesn’t come naturally to them, but you see them fall into a rhythm of mutual respect and trust through the course of Fury Road.

Here’s the ‘one stand-out moment’ in the film for each of us. The first one is when the Buzzards start chasing Furiosa’s war rig and Morsov, one of the war boys, jumps on it in a dying moment. He picks the homemade spears, screaming ‘Witness me’ with his face painted ‘shiny and chrome’ and jumps from the war rig blowing the car up on impact. The entire sequence especially the jump captured in slow motion is what the action is all about! This happens within the first twenty minutes and you know here’s an action film you won’t forget in a hurry! The second one is when Nux (played by Nicholas Hoult) in the middle of a wild sandstorm driving his pursuit vehicle, with bodies flying all around, on a suicide mission exclaims ‘What a day! What a lovely day!’. This is literally the film in a capsule. That moment symbolizes everything crazy and scary and freaky about Mad Max: Fury Road and gave us goosebumps.

 

Fury Road definitely shaves off important plot points and dialogue to keep the action rolling and keep audiences at the edge of their seats. While this goes to show Miller’s incredible skill at keeping the action tight and not letting it overtake the film in a way that renders it meaningless, it’s also a critique of how he’s let go of building what could have been an intense storyline that cuts through lines of gender, politics, power and ultimately survival. One would imagine Miller didn’t want his audiences to be ‘Nolan-ized’! For it’s epic action, cinematography and visual direction, Fury Road will go into both film annals and fan history, while also giving you just enough fodder to chew on philosophical questions about religion, faith, gender and power. The cool part is that you can choose to watch Fury Road just as an epic action film or also as a socio-political commentary on our world and both make it a great film to watch.

The Popcorn Waltz: Our take on Mad Max.

Until next time, keep the popcorn tub handy!

Adi & Sahil

P.S. Want some more? Here’s our Extended Cut.

The Martian: Thanks for not killing anyone, not even Sean Bean!

Adi’s TL;DR We’ll have to write the shit out of this!

Sahil’s TL;DR Don’t forget duct tape when you go to space.

When you think of sci-fi films, let me be more specific ‘outer space’ sci-fi films, what comes to mind? Aliens, alien worlds, most obviously, space exploration (all Star Trek fans say Yay!), and everything in the middle from philosophy (think Interstellar) to outlandish drama (think Armageddon) to horror (you thought we wouldn’t remember Event Horizon!). Among these our celestial neighbor (not the moon, the other one) has a special place with 29 films to its name, if you go by this Wiki article. Some worthwhile and some better in space than on your hard drive!

The Martian is somewhat of a formula ‘outer space’ sci-fi movie, giving sci-fi buffs a healthy dose of all things they dig, but with a twist. A first for this genre, The Martian practices reckless optimism, way more positive than any other space movies made before. There are no crazed aliens out to get you, or robots cut loose, or scientists with dark ulterior motives and even the planet is not out to kill you, at least for most sols! So you may wonder what’s in the movie when all these rich plots of the past have been dropped? Well don’t go losing all hope so soon! The Martian is the story of an astronaut beating all odds with his unconventional survival tactics, peppered with a healthy dose of wit and humour.

Here’s some basic dope on The Martian. The movie is based on a book by Andrew Weir, that was never supposed to be a book in the first place. The Martian was a hobby project, where regular episodes were posted on a blog. Andrew Weir put together the book on public demand and published it as a PDF on Amazon at an attractive price of 99c. Within a couple of weeks, Andrew Weir had a publisher and a movie deal with Ridley Scott! If that’s not an american fairy tale, what is?! The Martian is another one of Ridley Scott’s sci-fi fantasies, backed by bigger, brighter visuals than ever before. The long spanning shots of Mars’s surface (Wadi Rum in Jordan) are absolutely fabulous and for that the credit goes to the cinematographer, Dariusz Wolski.

The Martian’s won a bunch of awards already this season, including the Best Actor in a comedy or musical for Matt Damon and Best Picture comedy or musical at the Golden Globes. Whether it’s really a comedy or not can be debated – but the film has undeniable humor and some seriously funny one liners, that we’re sure will enter the ‘movie quoters’ lexicon. After all, who can resist the urge to say – ‘In your face, Neil Armstrong’! Drew Goddard can take a bow for this and many such brainwaves through the film. The Martian has 7 Academy nominations including Best Picture, Best Actor and Best Adapted Screenplay – all of which points at it’s fantastic reception with the Academy. Interestingly it did not change Ridley Scott’s luck with the Academy, who did not win a nomination for Best Director. Clearly, Ridley Scott is to directing what Leonardo Di Caprio is to acting, if you go by the Oscars!

‘Mainly starring’ Matt Damon and one helluva ensemble cast, Jessica Chastain, who should be named Murph forever, Jeff Daniels (Harry for life), Sean Bean (Boromir – appearing to be shady, but ultimately good guy), Chiwetel Ejiofor (stoic Solomon), The Martian should have won all outstanding cast awards this year. But that wasn’t to be, because all the screen time and Ridley Scott’s off screen time was spent on building Matt Damon’s character. This is evident with nearly all good lines going to – you guessed it – Matt Damon! Way to go, Scott & Goddard. And this is perhaps the biggest problem with The Martian. It’s funny, it’s got great lines, Matt Damon really holds your attention, but the supporting cast is literally the wallpaper in the room that no one’s paid any attention to and that kinda sucks, given how awesome it could have been.

The movie begins with a not-so-novel plot, with a space mission gone awry (like Gravity, Apollo 13, Sunshine) and an astronaut left behind in space. Just when you’re thinking, ‘I’ve seen this before’, Matt Damon makes you sit up by performing an intestinal surgery and kicks off things with a round of laughs. And suddenly this seemingly tragic film turns into the tale of a character who is talking to cameras, trying to grow potatoes, romping around a planet all by himself and cracking one liners like ‘I’ll have to science the shit out of this’ and ‘Mars will come to fear my botany powers’! The movie isn’t a laugh riot but it definitely has it’s funny moments sprinkled rather generously.

the-martian

The science in the movie, although dubious in places, like flying ‘Iron Man’ style in space, or crazy storms on Mars or having gyms in impractically large and luxurious space ships, is pretty tight for the rest of it, making it fairly plausible. Counting and rationing food supply, hacking plant growth, making water, are all reasonably realistic and thought through. But honestly, the science isn’t as important as the attitude in The Martian, which is summed up by what Mark Whatney says towards the end of the movie to a batch of students, ‘You do the math, you solve one problem…Then you solve the next one. And then the next. And if you solve enough problems, you get to come home’.

NASA was consulted every step of the way in the making of the film and it’s featured prominently throughout, with The Martian’s release date closely coinciding with NASA’s announcement of water on Mars (no coincidence according to us). Interestingly, reputation management is a noticeable theme in the movie, where the PR head (played by Kristen Wiig) of NASA is shown in most discussions surrounding the ‘retrieval’ of Mark Whatney. Not what you’d expect in sci-fi films, but suggestive of how everyone needs strong image management in today’s world and a rather amusing injection of realism in the movie.

Abba, David Bowie (RIP), Donna Summers, Thelma Houston – all make an appearance in The Martian. Considering this film is based in 2035, all this music is pretty darn old and no wonder Mark Whatney feels the way he does about it! Watching him dance along to Donna Summer’s ‘Hot Stuff’, right after he figures how to keep himself warm in the truck is one fun scene. The film ends with Gloria Gaynor’s ‘I will survive’, which should have been Matt Damon’s mantra in the film! It totally sums up his survival tale and the song captures the euphoria of the film, leaving you with a sense of elation.     

Here’s our ‘one standout moment’ from The Martian. It wasn’t easy to pick one for both of us, so we picked two instead. First for the love of LOTR, the Elrond scene is pretty damn cool, especially making Boromir/Sean Bean explain what it was to the ‘non-nerdy PR girl’, and losing his cool like he did in the actual ‘council of elrond’! Our second pick is perhaps the closest the film gets to sentimentality when Mark Whatney is finally rescued by Murph and the first thing he says to her is ‘It’s good to see you…You have terrible taste in music’. The Martian ain’t a hyperbolic tale of heroic survival but a practical, scientific and witty one.

Our final take on the film

IMG_20160131_165349

Let us know what were your favorite moments in The Martian, in comments below or tweet us @ThePopcornWaltz.

Until next time, keep the popcorn tub handy.

Adi & Sahil

P.S.Interested in more science in The Martian, watch this amazing Screen Junkies video and subscribe to them for more awesome movie magic!

Carol: Extended Cut

Hey, thanks for reading our take on Carol and coming over to the extended cut! Read on for our individual takes on the movie. We’d love to hear your thoughts – you can comment on this post or tweet us at @ThePopcornWaltz. Happy Reading!

Adi’s Take

To be or not be, a conformist

Conforming to social norms or not is an underlying tension in Carol’s narrative, where we see both characters dealing in equal parts with the desire to belong and to break away. Right at the beginning we’re shown Therese’s non-conformist self, when she doesn’t put on the ‘santa hat’ unlike everyone else at the toy store. Then she goes on to say that she preferred train sets to dolls as a child, again moving away from the ‘girls love dolls’ stereotype, but without any over-dramatization or being labeled a ‘tomboy’. When Carol inquires does she know a lot about train sets, Therese self-consciously answers ‘yes’ and attributes her knowledge to reading and immediately remarks that she ‘reads too much probably’. Another societal construct about women and their ability to read. We’re shown Therese wants to be a photographer which was a largely male dominated profession at the time. She is also the only one to mention same sex love in the film and actually has a conversation with her boyfriend to hear what he thinks, which does appear rather daring for the time the movie is based in. Her unique non-conformism is pointed out by Carol many times when she says that Therese has been ‘flung out of space’ or ‘what a strange one’ she is or how ‘she is full of surprises’. Against this you see Carol as a struggling conformist – mourning over the burnt turkey, trying to fit in the moulds of the perfect wife and mother, trapped within social and familial norms of class, upbringing and gender. When she picks up a job, decides to live life on her own terms – she moves away from her conformist self, but doesn’t break away from all socio-economic norms.

The journey

The metaphor of a journey is used all through in Carol – there’s the trip Carol and Therese go on and then there’s the larger journey they undertake that shapes them through their shared experiences, as the story of ‘Carol’ unfolds. Therese’s journey is definitely the more linear one, as she goes from adolescent like self doubt, to exploring her sexuality, discovering her inner strength and finding her place in relation to her world. Carol’s journey on the other hand is a lot more complex, as it goes back and forth. We meet Carol as a middle aged woman, whose ten year old marriage is ending and her daughter is the center of her universe. Losing all that had defined her identity thus far – her marriage, the construct of a ‘normal’ life and most importantly her daughter, Rindy, who is the fulcrum of her being, truly puts her out of her comfort zone.

Thus Carol becomes a story that’s not just about the struggles of two lesbian women in the 1950s, but the story of women who choose to not conform to social expectations and give themselves a real shot at a fuller life. We see Carol move from being the seductress at the beginning of the film, to a broken woman seeking companionship on a journey with no clear destination in mind to giving up her desire to be herself to salvage what she loves most. And eventually going back to the strength within to stand up for her happiness, and not being miserable ‘living against her grain’. She is the one to start from scratch and rediscover her place in the world again, as she moves houses, cities and roles becoming a single, working woman and for the first time really, being her own master. Carol’s story is rife with emotion and you can’t help but stand beside her as Cate Blanchett takes you on this journey with incredible beauty and grace.

Expression of love

To me, Carol’s a love story. And the delicacy with which the expression of love is handled is fascinating. There are no long declarations of undying love, of staying faithful and committed, there is no use of any known cliches to tell us how they feel for each other and yet you cannot miss the intensity of their feelings. If I were to romanticize them falling in love, I’d tell you that it felt like a slow, long walk in central park on a fall morning with nothing but beauty of the changing colors around you. Cate Blanchett is this mysterious woman with an air of surreal around her, that you can’t help but gawk at. You simply cannot take your eyes off her and neither can Rooney Mara! But if I had to pick a moment, the moment when Therese falls in love with Carol, that would be when she captures Carol being Carol, oblivious of how captivating she is to Therese who is completely smitten by her. Therese takes her first picture of a person instead of the inanimate world she’s been fascinated with so far and all this is told through their eyes and the wonderful soundtrack by Carter Burwell. What makes it even more poignant is that perhaps, Therese herself doesn’t know the name of this feeling yet. And there isn’t a point in the film, where we’re shown her struggle with these feelings – Therese just flows with it, to love or not to love Carol is not a question for her.

As with most other things in the film, this is not an easy path for Carol, whose ‘moment’ is a lot harder to pick. She is the one who gets to say the magic words, only to be rudely interrupted by reality. What could have been a cathartic moment for the characters and the audience, is sharply taken away as Carol leaves, without getting an answer. A sparseness of dialogue runs through the film, which is eloquently replaced by the background score. And such is the case with the ending of the film, where you see Carol and Therese look at each other and their eyes emote everything from surprise to anguish and the essence of the film is locked in Cate Blanchett’s smile, that says nothing, but says it all.

Abby & Carol

One could really write an entire post on Abby and Carol’s relationship and it’s handling by Todd Haynes. Sarah Paulson, plays Carol’s childhood friend, Rindy’s godmother and her first lesbian lover. But really we are shown Abby as Carol’s alter ego. Abby is wise for her years, strong through her experiences and capable of being practical and rational and emotional when required. She is the one with no regrets, who knows what she is doing, who’s comfortable with her sexuality and is living the life she wants, not answerable to anyone but herself. She is shown as Carol’s support system, her voice of reason. Abby is the only person she speaks to about the ridiculous ‘morality clause’ (trust us it’s as crazy as it sounds.) Abby is also the only character Carol trusts enough to speak about Therese. When Carol’s world slips under her feet, she calls Abby to seek advice and solace, even though she is with Therese at that moment. And Abby knows this, but there is no judgement, no bitterness, just unconditional love and loyalty.

There’s a scene where you see Carol and Abby walk down the staircase, with their faces away from the camera, their arms interlocked – there is more solidarity, more support, more kindred spirit in those few steps, than anywhere else in the film. Abby is Carol’s confidant, her agony aunt, her one supporter that she couldn’t take calls without. In a scene early on, Abby asks Carol to tell her she knows what she is doing and Carol just says ‘No I don’t. I never did’. This exchange is a summary of their bond – candid, brutally honest, without fear of judgement or isolation. In some ways, I feel I know a lot more about the dynamics of the Abby – Carol relationship, than I do of Therese and Carol’s, and that’s something to say about it.

Sahil’s Take

The Gaze

Carol’s camerawork is intricately woven into the storytelling and perhaps a theme that stood out the most for me. The movie opens to a zoomed-in shot of the subway/sidewalk grate which appears like a gate, an interesting view on how perspectives and understanding can differ with relativity or your vantage point.

The film uses the camerawork to highlight two different ‘gazes’, so to speak, where on one hand you see how others around Carol and Therese view them, and how when they’re together, they look at each other. The movie is so focused on the two characters that the camera is literally eavesdropping into their world. The film starts with an unknown man who walks in on a conversation between Carol and Therese, where his interruption is literally how you’re introduced to the two protagonists, establishing the gaze of the world upon them and how that’s a constant intrusion.

Then there are scenes where you see Carol and Therese together, like their car journey, where the camera shows you sides of each as if it was the gaze of one following the other, like Therese following Carol’s hand as she drives or Carol looking at Therese through the corner of her eyes, while driving. There is this intense sense of intimacy that the cinematography is building without being intrusive at all. Interestingly, a scene in the movie is repeated twice when Carol and Therese meet at The Ritz Tower Hotel, where in the first instance we are shown Therese’s gaze and Carol’s the second time. Another highlight of the movie is how it begins with Therese and ends with Carol, the object and subject of Therese’s desire.

The motif of journey

Carol covers both a literal and a metaphorical journey for both its characters. You see a real journey, a sexual journey and a life journey, especially for Therese whose part in the film can be divided in three acts. The first where she can barely ‘decide her own meal’ and does mostly what she’s told to, the second one where she develops a relationship with Carol and can coyly suggest they take the presidential suite ‘if the price is attractive’ to Carol to the final act, where she comes out shaken and begins her life anew, taking a slew of decisions from painting her house to moving out of a relationship with her boyfriend, Richard (played by Jake Lacy), to realizing her dream as a photographer and working at the Times, her evolution is clearly marked throughout the film.

A gentle seduction

You can’t miss how Carol’s literally drawing Therese out, gently seducing her, with each meeting the two have. For Therese, Carol captures her imagination the first time she sees her in the toy store, and is enraptured by this woman who’s languidity and charm are at odds with her own lack of both! You can’t miss Cate Blanchett’s evocative eyes in the movie, that would have everyone falling for her.

Of course, Carol finds Rooney a very intriguing girl, allured by her unworldly innocence and caged desire, a girl ‘full of surprises’. The intimacy the two share increases as their journey west progresses, with Therese suggesting they stay together rather than taking two rooms and Carol teaching her the ’ways of women’, from makeup to perfumes. By then, you know the question is not if, but rather when.

Their intimacy rises like a crescendo, the sexual tension palpable, and though Therese’s desire is visible, she doesn’t really know how to express it until Carol breaks the barrier and unties her robe. Interestingly, it’s Therese who tells Carol to take her to bed but it’s Carol the experienced woman who you see on top. The lovemaking scene, nearly two and a half minutes long, is shot very artistically and captures the intensity between Carol and Therese, not making one awkward which happens a number of times when you see a sloppy sex scene.

I am quite sure there was a wave of disappointment at not being able to see Cate Blanchett naked after you see Rooney Mara! Perhaps Todd Haynes just couldn’t get Cate Blanchett to agree and had to make do with showing just her back 😉

You don’t need weak men

The movie features four noticeable male characters, Harge Aird (Carol’s husband), Richard Semco (Therese’s boyfriend), Dannie McElroy (Therese’s friend) and Fred Haymes (Carol’s lawyer) none of who measure up to the women. It almost feels like the absence of strong male characters is by design to show the strength of the women. I believe you don’t need weak men in the background to show strong women and wish the film had taken that stand too.

Harge is shown raging in almost every scene where all he wants is to take Carol away with him. He loves Carol in his own weird way but his desire to possess her and preserve a false sense of ‘that happily married couple hosting parties and dining among friends’ is so important that he can’t take Carol not wanting the same. He’s like a whining, cranky child who doesn’t want to let go of his toy, while Carol is shown to be at another plane of understanding altogether who can admit that she didn’t make Harge as happy but ultimately wants the best for their child. Richard on the other hand is another petulant kid, fixated with the idea of possessing Therese, marrying her and taking her to Europe, almost as unexciting as a cardboard cutout.

Characters as strong as Carol and Therese don’t need a handicap and I wish Todd Haynes had taken some creative liberty with the story and shown at least one strong male in the mix. It feels like the male characters weren’t really fleshed out. Harge comes close but fades in comparison to Abby, Carol’s friend who has an extremely impressive role in the movie.

Until next time, keep the popcorn tub handy!

Adi & Sahil