I hope you had a wonderful food-based holiday with your loved ones and friends!
I am honestly pretty exhausted on this particular evening but am also stubbornly resolute in writing at least one post per month, as I am perilously close to actually writing at least one post per month this year. So damn the tired torpedoes!
Reasons I am tired:
Long workday. Happily, "long" only in the literal sense and not in the emotional sense.
Very recent return from an incredible overseas trip with husband.
Ongoing emotional processing of a disastrous presidential election.
Last year, I commented with genuine gratitude that I was not experiencing the intense burn-out-y fatigue of years past. I'm happy to say that the trend continues; although new job has been demanding in ways I could never have anticipated, I feel that I'm getting solid footing, enjoying the fruits of significant labor, and benefiting from truly special and wonderful colleagues. I'm really glad to come out the other side of my admittedly arduous transition into my new role feeling proud, accomplished, and gratified.
So there is that. That is of course significant.
I'm also humbled by my gratitude for the new life I have with Husband in our new city. New City may lack much of what I miss in Old City, but for that trade, it has given us a beautiful, spacious, peaceful home in a neighborhood we cherish for its sweetness and quiet. I feel held by my home and my new little community in a way I did not in Old City. I'm so grateful that we can finally step into a phase in our lives in which our material needs are meetable. Grad school aggressively robs you of that, and it is taxing on a level that is extremely difficult to tolerate. Because of the amelioration of that burden, we are happier and better able to turn toward pursuits that bring us happiness, including the wonderful trip from which we just returned.
That has an immensity of value I cannot calculate.
Then, nearly half of my fellow citizens made the potentially literally catastrophic decision to elect our future president.
Maybe at some point, I will have the strength to write about this at greater length. As a psychologist and a citizen, I am overwhelmed by the number of ways in which this outcome could be processed and understood. I am still very much in the midst of my grief process, as are so many of the people I love. There are times when my horror, despair, and devastation are so vast I lose my ability to articulate its textures and its objects. I struggle to understand what may come to pass and how to confront it.
Consistent with Halloween Sampler protocol, movies will be rated with both my usual 1 - 5 rating scale and the scary/intense rating system of 1 - 5 exclamation points (e.g., ! = not at all scary, !!!!! = so scary!).
Chauvinists beware: by honest coincidence, all except one of this year's selections are influenced by my feminist rage. Just fyi.
Commence!
"Amanda Knox" (2016)
Rating: 4 Scary Rating: !!!
This year's documentary entry! In case you are sadly unaware, Netflix is kiiiind of kicking butt in the original content generation department. Their documentary series and films are beautifully shot and intelligently assembled. Between this film documenting the infamous case(s) trying Amanda Knox for the murder of her roommate while studying abroad in Italy and the widely heralded and discussed "Making a Murder" series, Netflix also appears admirably committed to exploring possible miscarriages of justice.
The film opens with the unsettlingly cold and vacant-seeming gaze of its titular figure, making the audience immediately ill at ease and seemingly confirming the ghoulish aura surrounding her. The movie nevertheless then succeeds in weaving a thoughtful tapestry of narratives that coalesces into a pretty alarming picture of a series of dramatic (mis)trials by court and media.
Part of what earned the movie its scary rating is the lingering impression it created of the dangers of men in positions of power who fail to understand their own deeply internalized misogyny. Definitely scary!
"Westworld" (1973)
Rating: 3 Scary Rating: !!
One of two throw-backy entries this year!
"Westworld" is fun in a goofy and campy way. It's also fun in a clear-Crichton-precursor-to-"Jurassic Park"-just-minus-the-dinosaurs-and-plus-Yul-Brynner way. It's got a decent amount of tension and anxiety to it, but it's by no means overwhelmingly terrifying. I would recommend it as a fun exploit into 70s thrillers, but even more so as a primer for HBO's AMAZING new series of the same name, which the movie inspired.
GUYS SERIOUSLY WATCH "WESTWORLD" I CAN'T STOP TALKING ABOUT IT.
"Gett: The Trial of Viviane Amsalem" (2014)
Rating: 4 Scary Rating: !!!!
This year's you-wouldn't-expect-this-movie-to-be-scary-and-yet-it-is-TERRIFYING entry!
"Gett" documents the years-long process an Israeli woman must go through to secure a religious divorce from her cruelly stubborn estranged husband. The entire film unfolds without ever leaving the court in which Viviane, played with gorgeous subtlety punctuated by moments of gut-wrenching desperation by Ronit Elkabetz, doggedly pursues freedom from a suffocating marriage. She endures legally mandated humiliation at the hands of male judges, relatives, and acquaintances alike who persistently undervalue her time, belittle her suffering, hold her up to intolerable scrutiny, and undermine her agency. The terror this film instills is therefore 100% terror of the patriarchy.
"Blow Out" (1981)
Rating: 1 Scary Rating: !!!
Our second throw-backy entry this year!
Real talk: I found this movie to be pretty terrible. It pretty blatantly exploits the Ted Kennedy Chappaquiddick incident, includes some perhaps predictably not-great John Travolta acting, and feels abrasively wanton in its victimization of its female lead, played by Nancy Allen. That latter point is kind of the point of the film, I guess--it attempts to skewer our societal lust for female suffering-induced titilation. This may just be a product of the movie's age, but it falls flat in this endeavor. "Blow Out" nevertheless manages to sustain a persistently sense of dread and tension, so at least there's that.
"The Witch" (2015)
Rating: 5 Scary Rating: !!!!!
As a significant tonal shift from our last selection, I REALLY loved this movie. It's beautifully shot, moodily atmospheric, wonderfully acted, and has an awesome sticks-with-you ending. The film is skillfully carried by Anya Taylor-Joy in what is hopefully an early career-making role.
Delightfully, "The Witch" is seriously scary. I am slightly embarrassed to admit that this is one of the rare movies I researched before seeing because I was worried it would be too intense. Having an inside scoop definitely helped me feel ready for it, but didn't undermine how enjoyably frightening a film this is. I highly recommend it!
And with that: I hope you have an excellent Halloween, dear readers!
I've made the near-tragic decision to yet again wait until the end of a month to write a post. Doing that on a Friday is particularly treacherous, as my brain is 87% fried. I may actually finally break my years-long streak of imperfection in writing at least one post per month this year, though, so I will write a damn post if it kills me. SUCH IS MY COMMITMENT.
But don't expect too much because my brain is feeling squishy.
So let's get down to it: I didn't really like "Don't Think Twice" (2016).
THAT'S RIGHT.
I SAID IT.
YOUR WACKY-YET-SOULFUL HIJINKS DON'T FOOL ME, MOVIE.
Mike Birbiglia makes me gag a little bit but actually a lot.
This is both a shame and a surprise, because I used to like that guy. He's had some great appearances on This American Life that I have genuinely enjoyed.
Unfortunately, his cinematic collaborations with TAL host Ira Glass have been disconcertingly underwhelming. Contrary to its intention, I'm sure, "Sleepwalk With Me" (2012) is what soured me on Birbiglia. I went into the movie completely ready to be Team Birbigs, and came out thinking he was kiiiiiiiiind of a cheating-minimalizing douchebag.
I then listened to a long-form interview with him on a podcast I enjoy as well as some of his standup and came somewhat unhappily to the realization that he's a bit of a sexist hack. I now can't handle hearing his stupid voice without wanting to barf just a smidge.
His character definitely does not help things, as 1) his character is an embittered, petty never-has-been-y shlub who somewhat predatorially sleeps with younger women who are also his improv students and 2) I am convinced this is pure type-casting.
Gross.
Cringe-y your dad had a horrible accident humor is NOT ACTUALLY FUNNY YOU GUYS ARE KIND OF TERRIBLE FRIENDS.
I really love Chris Gethard, especially in his role on one of the best comedy shows currently on television. In "Don't Think Twice," (spoilers, but can you really spoil a movie you maybe shouldn't bother seeing?) Gethard's character's dad gets in a terrible motorcycle accident and suffers severe brain damage. Everyone goes to visit his dad in the hospital, where he feebly and effortfully tells his son "Thank you," presumably for making the trek out to visit him.
...All of the other characters then proceed to mimic that "Thank you" on the painfully long car-ride back to New York City from Philadelphia. And it's kind of the worst, because they're kind of the worst.
Gillian Jacobs is all about throwing around Del Close quotes about the impermanence of improv yet is a stage 5 clinger to the past.
In many ways "Community's" Gillian Jacobs is the best part of the movie. She has some moments of sparkling humor and is generally fun to watch.
However, her character is a living contradiction in a difficult-to-tolerate way that sums up the ham-fisted tone of the movie. She opens and closes the movie quoting Del Close, emphasizing the emphemerality of improvisational comedy, yet clings to her very evidently dying improv troupe to the extreme detriment of her career and personal life. It doesn't feel believably human, it just feels annoying.
That is quite the lazy ending.
It's pretty irritating to watch all of these building conflicts only to have filmmakers yadda yadda yadda their way to an abrupt "X months later..." ending. It really irks me.
Also (again, spoilers I guess?) there's a break-up scene that is just... no. That just would never happen. Please don't strain my credulity so much.
AND THEY THROW BACK TO THAT AWFUL BRAIN-DAMAGED DAD SAYING "THANK YOU" JOKE.
Mike Birbiglia x Lazy Ending = UGH.
Are we seriously supposed to believe that that guy magically reforms just because he finally bothers to experience interest in a same-aged lady? And are we seriously supposed to believe that said lady would put up with his extraordinarily protracted adolescence nonsense?
UGH.
So I originally gave the movie a 3. Now, a few weeks later and clearly swimming in end-of-week grouchies, I'm further downgrading it to a 2.
New job (and bonus private practice) have fully taken off since starting a few scant months ago, and things have been feeling very busy. Given how much things have already fluctuated and shifted in my first 3.5 months, I've been trying to stay in observation mode as I watch my reactions throughout my days. So many things are very good about work, yet I'm still struggling to balance work against my need (and increasing ability) to actually have a life outside of work.
One clear victory in that endeavor is that I've found a new go-to movie theater! I LOVE IT SO MUCH. Parking is only $3 and tickets are ONLY $11. FOR GROWNUPS. ON WEEKEND NIGHTS.
I feel like I'm getting away with highway robbery every single time. I'm also falling into a habit of buying the most expensive things on the concession menu, because with tickets that cheap I'm concerned the place will close. Also it seems like no one goes to movies in New City, as the theaters are sometimes oddly empty. But then, I went to a museum yesterday, on a Saturday, and it seemed like no one was there, either.
Party Location: Clearly elsewhere
Party Invitees: Everyone but me and like five other people
It's very possible that Old City, while I miss it so very very deeply, has skewed my sense of how many people there are. It's kind of a relief to not get elbowed out of the way while I try to look at oil paintings or independent films.
Anyway! All my expositioning aside, I'm going to try to write a relatively brief (ha!) review of a movie I saw over the weekend. We are over a yearoverdue for a snapjudgment!
Tonight's film: "Hell or High Water" (2016).
Five bullet points: commence!
"Let's talk about our backstory, shall we?!"
We're starting with my non-favorite elements of the movie.
One of my admittedly many pet peeves with movies is when dialogue serves a painfully obvious expository function. I know the audience has to be given at least some information at the beginning of a film to have any idea what's going on, but there are subtle, artful ways of accomplishing that. "Hell or High Water" didn't do a great job pulling that off, and instead, the timing of some of its expository information was particularly distracting.
I wouldn't qualify the following as spoilers because I don't think you can call something a "spoiler" if it occurs within the first 10 minutes of a movie, but in any case take that caveat for what it's worth as you read (or don't) the following: So at the outset of the film, you see brothers and main characters Toby Howard (played by Chris Pine) and Tanner Howard (played by Ben Foster) rob two banks in rapid succession. They then speedily return to their family's Texan ranch, bury their getaway car to conceal it from authorities, then unwind with a few beers.
Once somewhat inebriated, Tanner begins poking around inside the family home and asking about the passing of the Howard brothers' mother as if this is the first time they've ever spoken of it. The brothers have just commenced a plan to save their family ranch from foreclosure that clearly took a lot of strategizing and forethought. The development of that plan was spurred by the death of their mother and the subsequent aforementioned looming foreclosure. ...And yet we're only just now talking about mom's death? The timing of this conversation is so distracting in its inauthenticity it's kind of stunning.
Other informational issues/plot holes (with actual potential spoilers): The brothers' plot is to steal from the bank that is foreclosing on their farm with the long-term goal of not only paying off the outstanding debt on the farm, but also putting the farm into a trust in Toby's sons' names to ensure they are broken out of the inter-generational cycle of poverty that has ensnared their family for generations. It is a surprisingly complex and sophisticated plan. So how the hell did two poor, presumably under-educated brothers (at least one of who has a lengthy prison record) figure out this scheme? I don't even understand how trusts work, let alone lien transfers or how to find an attorney who is a sufficient balance of corrupt and competent to pull this plan off. It all pushes the boundaries of reasonable credulity just a tiny bit.
Also this isn't exactly related to my overly-obvious expository beef and also spoilers (but again not really given the fact that this is a nouveau Western): one of the characters gets shot in the abdomen and is clearly not doing so hot but then I guess either gets treated or spontaneously heals because it's later totally unaddressed? But that's a thing you can just rub some Texan farmland dirt on and walk off, right?
Storytelling by billboard
Another somewhat ham-fisted device is the film's insistence on establishing the context for its narrative through deliberate drive-by shots of billboards proclaiming the region's financial destitution and resultant housing instability by shilling various debt relief services.
The first time they throw in one of these shots, it's like, "Oh hey I see what you did there! You're telling me these people live in an environment of pervasive desperation and disempowerment wrought by unfeeling, insatiable, bloated, and unethical institutions that feast off the wreckage of ruined American dreams!"
The next time you're like, "...Yes, okay I get it."
Then they do it like two or three more times, and it's a little over-killy.
Landscape as a character
Overly obvious billboard shots notwithstanding, there are gorgeous vistas of the Texan landscape peppering "Hell or High Water" that let the arid, vast landscape stretch and breathe as a very strikingly present character in the film. Throughout the movie, Texas radiates heat, foreboding, mercilessness, strength, and imperviousness to the whims of man. It's an at once beautiful and stark canvas on which the characters' story unfolds.
The terrain is given a voice through various secondary and tertiary characters who speak to what it means to be Texan with notes of enduring pride that are surprising and compelling especially in a story driven by humiliation and need. At one point the Howard brothers' corrupt-yet-capable attorney recaps their plan to pay for their family's farm with money they robbed from the bank attempting to foreclose on the farm as "the most Texan thing I've ever heard" (or something along those lines).
Then, as Texas Rangers Marcus Hamilton (played by Jeff Bridges) and Alberto Parker (played by Gil Birmingham) stake out the location they suspect will host the Howard brothers' next heist later in the film, Alberto offers a different, older perspective on the history of the land that surrounds them. By speaking to Native People's more long-standing relationship with the land, Alberto offers a needed counter-narrative to the otherwise pretty much uniformly Caucasian experience of what it is to be Texan and inhabit that land.
Laugh lines
In its efforts to capture the Texan spirit, there are several unexpected moments of humor in "Hell or High Water." One of my favorite scenes is when the Rangers stop for lunch in a tired-looking steak restaurant while zeroing in on the Howard brothers. No spoilers this time, but hilarity ensues via the grouchy old lady waitress, and it's delightful.
Grouchy old lady waitresses FTW!
Predictable, and yet
So this movie is a Western about brothers robbing banks while being actively pursued by two officers of the law. It is obviously highly predictable that things don't go swimmingly. And yet, when things very abruptly take a turn, I felt my heart clench as I gasped and my hands flew to my face. It happens so fast, and even though some form of doom has been threatening from the first moments of the film, I still felt caught unawares and I still dreaded the inevitable fallout to come.
There is something so indisputably special about a film that can be very clear about precisely what it is and still surprise you. "Hell or High Water" is full of different surprises that strike a symphony of emotional notes. It's funny, it's beautiful, it's thrilling, it's devastating. It has moments of melancholic sweetness and uneasy, temporary peacemakings. Each actor melts into his or her role, aiding in transporting you directly into the heart of West Texas. It's a really wonderful film.
Take a peak at the trailer and see if it's playing near you!
I recently watched "The Lobster" (2015). The decision to watch that film ran strongly counter to the counsel of my mom, who will henceforth be referred to as PsychoCineMom, and who hated, HATED "The Lobster."
After seeing the movie and formulating my own strong opinions, I decided to check in with PsychoCineMom to discuss.
LUCKY FOR YOU DEAR READERS, I recorded that discussion. Below, please find, for your immense reading pleasure:
"The Lobster": A Discussion with My Mom,
Who Hated It
Needless to say: this post contains spoilers. Spoilers galore. Spoilers contained herein largely concern "The Lobster," obviously, but also another of director Yorgos Lanthimos's films, "Dogtooth" (2009). And kind of but not really "In Bruges" (2008). As a result, this post also includes another PsychoCinematic first: a jump! (See the fancy html coding IN ACTION below!)
I know I just said that henceforth mom will be referred to as PsychoCineMom, but for shortness-of-title-in-the-interview-transcription's sake, she will henceforth be referred to as PCMom.
Because the interview was thorough, you will note that I have also included subheadings for anyone who's interested in hearing PCMom's perspectives on various "Lobster"-related topics. Those headings include:
PCMom Summarizes "The Lobster"
PCMom Rates "The Lobster"
PCMom Identifies the Only Parts of "The Lobster" She Liked
PCMom Discusses the Aesthetics of "The Lobster"
PCMom Discusses Her Absolute Least Favorite Part of "The Lobster"
An Assessment the Main Character's Motivation
I Reveal My Feelings About "The Lobster"
I Put My Feelings About "The Lobster" In Context Given that "Dogtooth" was Worse
I Acknowledge My Capacity to Revel in Sadistic Humor
An Assessment of the Main Character's Character
I Reveal My Rating of "The Lobster"
PCMom Should Maybe Not Be Allowed to Interview Yorgos Lanthimos
An Assessment of the Use of Animal Cruelty in Cinema
