Struck by "Stutz"

Hi everyone,

I want to talk about "Stutz" (2022).

The conceit of this documentary film is that it is a vehicle through which director Jonah Hill can more broadly disseminate strategies he has learned from his therapist, psychiatrist Phil Stutz.  Shot in black-and-white, the film has a stripped-bare presentation that masks the rich complexity it contains.  

The film opens with Stutz and Hill appearing to sit down for a therapy session, at times gazing directly into the camera.  As Hill and Stutz simultaneously break the fourth wall and speak to each other, the audience is actively drawn into the surprisingly open yet intimate relationship between the two men.  It is as if we are simultaneously patient and therapist, Hill and Stutz, studying, listening to, and engaging with each other.

Of course, as a psychologist, I am prone to apply particular suspicion and scrutiny to a film like this.  It is very rare for therapy to be accurately and constructively portrayed in media--to the contrary, its portrayals often offer lurid and over-dramatized versions of therapy in which therapists are often varyingly cold, inept, superior, or outright irresponsible, which pisses me off because it likely decreases the likelihood that some people who would benefit from therapy will ever get it.  

In addition, the very premise of this film--bringing cameras into the sacred, private space of a therapist's office--majorly raises both red flags and my hackles.  It runs totally counter to the ways therapists are supposed to work with their clients, where one of our most serious responsibilities is to protect our clients' right to a private space where they can talk about their most vulnerable, personal, and raw thoughts, emotions, and experiences.  It makes me extremely leery of the kind of clinician who would therefore agree to this kind of intrusion into his patient's therapeutic process.

I will also note that I have a bit of a pet peeve about practitioners lightly repackaging already-established evidence-based therapies and presenting them as innovation, which Stutz arguably does with some of his proposed strategies.  That said, it can absolutely be valuable for clinicians to be able to make the strategies they teach their clients their own, to live with and in them to ensure they are robust and useful, and it's Hill that is touting Stutz's strategies as ground-breaking way more than Stutz himself.  I actually suspect that this is less about Stutz's ego than it is about Hill not having an effective therapist before.

Despite myself, I nevertheless put my misgivings aside as this movie continued to unfold, revealing ever deeper and deeper levels of therapeutic connection between Stutz and Hill.  Without going into spoilers territory, through a series of little twists "Stutz" does a beautiful job of side-stepping the potentially very boring and self-aggrandizing movie about a celebrity and his therapist that it very possibly could have become.

Broadly speaking, this is accomplished because both Hill and Stutz mutually agree to get ever more self-revealing as the film progresses.  As a result, the lines between therapist and client are blurred and perforated in ways that, surprisingly, seem--at least for this particular dyad--constructive rather than contraindicated.  When Stutz shares details of his life, Hill greets them with the gentle and respectful curiosity that has clearly been modeled to him by his therapist.  More than the admittedly interesting and likely helpful strategies Stutz describes in the film, it appears clear that the deep mutual understanding the two men share is what is largely responsible for the benefits Hill has enjoyed in his work with Stutz.

I was struck especially by moments when Stutz and Hill said "I love you" to each other, in a way that felt representative of a platonic ideal of friendship between two people who truly care about each other and hold each other in high regard.  While in many circumstances given the power dynamics inherent in a therapist-client relationship it would make me incredibly concerned to hear that a therapist had said that to a client and it is not something that I would ever say as a therapist, these moments nevertheless gave me pause because of their radical vulnerability, authenticity, and warmth.  It's not a choice I would make as a clinician, but to my surprise, I can't say it's the wrong choice for this particular therapist and client.

Ultimately, this film is actually a rare and precious peek into some of the best therapy has to offer.  "Stutz" does a beautiful job showing how, at its best, therapy is a beautifully bidirectional process; to be a good therapist requires showing up for one's clients not just as an expert, but as a human being, which means being vulnerable and open to being changed by our clients as we hope to help our clients change.  Instead of aspiring to be the aloof and inscrutable tabula rasa of previous generations of therapists, Stutz provides a model of radical authenticity in therapeutic practice.  His example demonstrates that a therapist can share his personal story of pain, loss, illness, shortcoming, struggle, growth, and evolution to light a path for his clients, he can learn from his clients as they learn from him, and the genuine care he feels toward his clients can be openly expressed in a way that has the potential to heal his clients as well as himself.  Because ultimately, all people are social beings, and our relationships with each other leave lasting impacts.

To my pleasant surprise, "Stutz" is a sensitive, thought-provoking, and deft film, leaving me excited to see what else Hill might be capable of.  I gave it a 5.

{Heart}

An A-Plus for "Plus One"

Hey there,

I am so pleased to share that I recently watched an excellent rom com!  Let me tell you all about it.

The movie is "Plus One" (2019), starring Maya Erskine and Jack Quaid as Alice and Ben.

In the interest of actually being brief (for once), here are the major relevant factors in my enjoyment of this movie:

The characters feel like actual real people.  This is definitely true of Erskine and Quaid's performances, but also thoroughly permeates each of the supporting characters.  This uniformly high quality of performance, where every character feels genuinely lived-in, allows the audience to relax into a competently acted and therefore authentic-feeling film.

"Plus One" cashes in on this authenticity by giving Alice and Ben--but particularly Alice--free rein to be delightfully weird without veering anywhere near manic pixie dream girl territory, maximizing the enjoyment and realness of the funny moments between two long-time good friends.  I laughed out loud multiple times while also definitely wanting to be Alice's friend.  She seems like fun.  It is even more enriching to this film that Erskine imbues Alice with not only the idiosyncratic humor that is made possible by confidence and comfort in one's own skin, but also moments of deep vulnerability.  Alice isn't so hardened that she doesn't want to be loved, and isn't so weak or silly that we don't take her seriously.  Erskine's performance comprises so much of why "Plus One" works so well.

Also because these characters ring true, the movie sidesteps more predictable and therefore tedious romantic breakthroughs and obstacles, much to my relief.  Alice and Ben's transition from friends to lovers is well-timed and, mercifully, not overly drawn-out, capturing exactly how swiftly relationships can progress from one state to another.  When it's time for the necessary (and, spoilers: thankfully temporary) rift between our heroes, "Plus One" sources the climactic conflict between Ben and Alice from what feel like real people's lived experiences.  Real people do get too in their heads, too perfectionistic, too preoccupied with paternalistically protecting other people's feelings and thereby fragilizing them to the point that they talk themselves out of what their hearts clearly need.  

As Ben, Quaid has a tough job generating this kind of self-limiting angst in a way that is both convincing yet still keeps the audience hoping he'll end up happy.  And thankfully for this movie, he is very successful!

He is aided in this exploit by at least two extremely well-executed scenes: one in which he shares in the raw loneliness and uncertainty of entering one's thirties with no clear prospects for long-term partnership with Jon Bass's Cartelli, and the other in which Ben is lovingly but directly called out on his bullshit by Beck Bennett's Matt.  These scenes, as well as scenes between Ben and Alice throughout the movie, provide a discourse on the nature of romantic love that is predictable of a romcom without being stale or trite.  Through these scenes, this extremely well-executed movie manages over and over again to produce moments that feel like they're being lived by real people pondering some of mid-life's biggest questions.

In addition to all these positives, the central conceit of the movie--that woefully single Ben and Alice team up as each other's plus ones in order to get through a relentless wedding season--adds a fun structure to the film.  Each new set of nuptials, introduced by tonally wide-ranging reception toasts, successfully conveys the wide range of feelings that can come up at weddings: joy, ambivalence, despair, loneliness, and some judginess for extra spice.

All this to say: When romcoms are good, they're really good.  "Plus One" proves this point, with gusto!  I gave it a 5.

(Also lol at being brief.  LOL I SAY.)

{Heart}

I Wish for More "Wish Dragon"

Salut!

My movies-for-kids medley has continued, and yesterday I finished a movie I'd love to tell you all about.

Let's talk about "Wish Dragon" (2021)!

The premise of "Wish Dragon" is that, after losing touch with his childhood best friend Li Na (voiced by Natasha Liu Bordizzo), Din (voiced by Jimmy Wong) hopes to reconnect with her using a magical teapot gifted to him by a god (played by the Daily Show's Ronny Chieng) containing a wish-granting dragon (played by John Cho).

Interestingly, the film bears many structural similarities to Disney's "Aladdin" (1992) that any millennial will instantly recognize: a young, good-hearted, plucky, poor yet resourceful hero gets access to a magical, wisecracking wish-granting entity straining and eye-rolling against the bonds of servitude.  The hero aims to use his three wishes to win the heart of a beautiful and strong-willed young woman of higher status, be it a princess (as with Jasmine in "Aladdin") or the famous daughter of a titan of industry (as in "Wish Dragon" with Li Na).  There are even the same constraints on what wishes can be granted: no making people fall in love with you, for example.  Villains closely pursue our hero, hoping to claim the power of magical wishes for their own greedy and megalomaniacal aims.  The hero uses at least one of his wishes to assume the identity of a wealthy, flashy would-be suitor, and with all of these promising plot elements, adventure ensues.

While "Wish Dragon" seems to owe a healthy helping of inspiration to "Aladdin", it successfully repurposes this basic structure into something delightfully new.  Dimension is added by the fact that Din and Li Na have a history going back to childhood.  This allows the movie to mercifully sidestep a protracted mistaken identity arc, which cannot be said of "Aladdin".  While Princess Jasmine only briefly departs her cloistered and privileged palace life and the movie concludes with Jasmine and Aladdin, presumably, with a luxurious future ahead of them, Li Na fondly recalls her childhood in the poorer shikumen houses where Din, his mother (played by Constance Wu), and their neighbors still reside and longs for the sense of community she felt as a girl and lacks as a feted but lonely young woman.

Additionally, "Wish Dragon" benefits from extremely fun and well-animated fight sequences that follow Din's first accidental wish to know how to fight.  He uses his newfound incredible skill in martial arts to both dramatic and comedic affect for everything from defending himself against his adversaries to quickly setting up his single-room apartment to make it appear to his mother that he's been home studying all night.  Intriguingly, the foremost villain, Pockets (voiced by Aaron Yoo) fights exclusively with his hands sheathed in his pockets until the battle at the movie's climax.  This lends a menacing fascination to his character as we watch him navigate the world and battle competently with Din using only his feet.

The character arc of the titular dragon, Long, further enhances the film.  We learn that Long's state as a wish dragon is actually the result of a curse from the gods, who are punishing him for his heartless greed and selfishness in his human life by requiring him to serve ten masters with three wishes apiece before he can enter paradise.  Because Din is Long's tenth master, Long is initially--and perhaps understandably--extremely impatient for Din to use up his wishes so his sentence can finally be served.  However, as Din and Long form a friendship, Long finally learns the value of caring for others before oneself and in fact uses his own misspent human life in an attempt to dissuade Din from misusing his final wish for wealth.

After being trapped in his teapot for a thousand years, Long also has moments of learning about and enjoying modern life that are sweetly silly, but also serve to further open him up to rethinking his views of the world and therefore further round out his character.

Long's discovery of a deeper meaning of life is mirrored by Li Na's father (played by Will Yun Lee), who has striven so arduously for success that he misses his daughter's birthday celebration and entirely misses the fact that Li Na wants not wealth and status, but simply to be with her dad.  Thankfully for both of them, Long is able to intervene at a crucial moment to give Li Na's dad the second chance Long never had in his human life.

The greater theme of "Wish Dragon", that what matters most in life is our connections to other people, is thusly beautifully emphasized in moving moments, but also alluded to in more subtle ways.  I knew right away I was going to like this movie because a sequence early on features moments of everyday life mirroring the advertisements for luxury goods that form their backdrop.  It's a clever and effective signal of the core message of the movie.

All this to say: I absolutely adored this movie.  It is charming, beautifully animated, funny, fully child-friendly,  and has heaps of heart.  I gave it a 5.

{Heart}