Whodunit murder mysteries and movies used to be very popular a long time ago. Can it win crowds again? Knives Out is willing to take that risk.
This film takes the common classic styles of the ‘whodunit’ murder mysteries that used to be very common in Agatha Christie mysteries and in classic movies and television of the past. The film reminds you of that charm. It keeps you intrigued from start to finish of the whole story. The film also provides some comedic twists whether it be the main protagonist’s illness, the eccentricities of the late millionaire in his lifetime, or the characters of the family members Marta has to deal with. However the film does an excellent job in taking this classic style of thriller film to the modern world. It presents a situation in today’s world of a rich eccentric man who dies and people don’t know whether it’s a suicide or murder. To makes things even crazier, the deceased had willed everything to the nurse, leaving the family to suspect the nurse behind this all. It’s a difficult mix to do, but Johnson succeeds in delivering such a film.
One of the things I like about this film is that it’s a ‘whodunit’ film that succeeds in being comical. We all know it’s a suicide, but we are intrigues when we see Marta follow all of Harlan’s instructions so that she’s not framed for his death, that really is a suicide. It presents a bizarre situation where one wonders if Marta really does deserve all the money and the house in Harlan’s will. Over time, you learn that the Thrombeys are first-class lowlives. Even the most liberal of the Thrombeys are ready to exploit Marta’s status as the daughter of an illegal immigrant to get their piece of Harlan’s will. It’s easy to see that at the very end as Ransom is arrested and the whole family watches him being taken away while Marta watches from the balcony of the mansion. By that time, you can understand why it’s Marta looking down upon the surviving Thrombeys. They’re first-class vermin!
The interesting thing about this story is that it not only mixes in the modern along with the comical, but it has something political to say too. With the exception of Great Nana, it appears all of the Thrombey including the in-laws have been spoiled because of their father’s wealth. Linda may have become wealthy on her own, but she did it on a loan from Harlan and her husband is unapologetically adulterous. There’s Walt who’s a fail and feels he has to threaten Marta outside her apartment to get anywhere. There’s Joni, the widow of his son, who embezzled Harlan’s money from her niece’s education fund. There’s Donna, who tags along with Walt and appears to speak a lot of ‘Trump talk’ about illegal immigrants. And then the grandkids. There’s Meg who appears liberal, but becomes two-faced with Marta. There’s Jacob, a masturbating incel who speaks his alt-right mind, when not obsessing over his phone. And then there’s Ransom: the most irresponsible of the bunch and the lowest of all. He’s immature and incompetent and he’s willing to commit murders and even mix up drugs for the death of his own grandfather to get Marta framed.
Now there’s Marta. At first Marta is beloved by the family as she’s the one taking care of Harlan during his last days. She was actually the one most loyal to Harlan during his last days. Then he dies. The family becomes comforting to Marta. But when it’s learned that Marta is the one person who will get Harlan’s major inheritances, the family either turns on her, backstabs her or attempts to blackmail her. She even gets hateful racist text messages from Jacob. The family knows they can get the inheritance is they expose Marta’s mother’s immigration status or if they expose her as committing medical malpractice, which she things she has. Even if Harlan committed suicide, the toxicology results can go against her and she could lose it all through the slayer rule. It’s funny how even the most liberal of the Thrombeys let their true colors out when they’re on Marta’s case. In the end it’s the housekeeper Fran who knows the truth and it’s the detective, whom ironically was hired by Ransom to expose a possible murder, that comes to the truth about what happened. It’s funny that it took a dying housekeeper and a detective from Texas to be the ones that knew Marta’s innocence.
That sends a message that’s fit for the time right now. There may be a lot of sacking of illegal immigrants, but this sends a message about illegals who do work heard in a society full of lazy entitled white people. The daughter of an illegal is the one who was most loyal to Harlan, while money has gotten to the heads of even the most liberal of Harlan’s family. You can see why Harlan would want to will everything to Marta. Money made his family privileged and entitled lowlives, and Harlan knew it. Marta was the only one he knew that worked hard. In the end, you are convinced that Marta, and only Marta, is the one deserving of the inheritances.
The top accolades has to go to writer/director Rian Johnson. He creates a story that reminds us of the charm of the ‘whodunit’ and even remind us that it can still win people to the box office. That’s a remarkable thing especially when it became newsworthy this year of how so many Oscar contenders spent a brief time at the box office and then made its way to NetFlix. As of now, it’s already grossed over $150 million in North America. It takes the ‘whodunit,’ gives it a modern twist, adds a social message and comes off entertaining. It also possesses a unique classy style about it that not even Marta’s vomiting problem can ruin the classiness of the story.
The film possesses a great ensemble of acting performances from all who were involved from major roles like Marta and Detective Blanc who carried the story the most to Great Nana and Jacob who had very little screen time, but make you like Great Nana and hate Jacob. The two biggest standouts were Daniel Craig as the detective with a Texas accent. That’s a surprise; James Bond with a Texas accent? But he succeeds in being the main protagonist that holds the story from start to finish. Also adds a unique twist to the story how a Texas detective could be the one that sides with Marta. Ana de Armas is also excellent as Marta. She starts out well as the one most troubled by the death of Harlan. Then she becomes the victim, only to end up as the one that triumphs at the end.
In terms of supporting performances, the first of the two that stood out the biggest was Christopher Plummer. He was excellent as the millionaire who appeared eccentric, but actually had a brain to know what was going on and have the heart to find Marta the only one deserving of his wealth. The other supporting standout was Chris Evans. He really makes Ransom look like someone without a single positive quality and a complete lowlife who was easy to hate. Top technical accolades go to David Crank and Jeremy Woodward for the production design, Jenny Eagan for the costume design and Nathan Johnson for the musical score.
Knives Out is a modern day whodunit murder mystery that succeeds in charming people and keeping people intrigued. It also has a surprising social message to say, if you look close enough.
Joel is a family drama from Argentina. It’s based on an adoption scenario that tells more about the society than about the adoption process.
Cecilia and Diego are a couple in a small Argentinean mountain town of Tolhuin in the Patagonian forests. Cecilia is a music teacher and Diego is a successful forester. They’ve been hoping to start a family, but it hasn’t worked out. They decide to pursue the Argentinean adoption system. They’ve received news their request from the government has been granted. They also learn about a boy who is up for adoption. They’re told he’s eight years old and his name is Joel.
They are informed that Joel is actually nine years old. Joel comes from a troubling family background in Buenos Aires. His mother died and was soon looked after by his uncle and grandmother. His uncle soon ended up in prison and Joel had since been committed to institutions. Cecilia and Diego are both excited and nervous about taking on Joel. They look forward to being his parents, but are cautious about what they might have to deal with. The two meet Joel for the first time. The two are both excited and nervous while Joel is quiet and shy.
Cecilia and Diego make the efforts to be parents to Joel. They give him his own room and allow him to pick out his own clothes. There’s a party to introduce Joel to the family. Samuel and Virginia, a religious couple whom they are friends with, are pleased to meet Joel. Cecilia and Diego also enroll Joel into the town school. They have a lot of high hopes, but are nervous.
One day, they find a cellphone in Joel’s drawers that’s not his. They return it to the school but the people aren’t happy. Then Cecilia receives word that Joel will have to be given a teaching schedule different from the other students and separated from them. The reason why is made unclear to Cecilia at first. The teacher reveals that Joel has been telling the children stories about doing drugs.
This is alarming the parents. The outrage has gotten to the point that the parents do not want their children to be around Joel. This is having a strain on the relationship of Cecilia and Diego. Those close to them, including Samuel and Virginia, are distancing themselves from them. Even Diego’s boss weighs in about what is to be done with Joel. Cecelia is even told if she gives up on Joel, he could be sent back to the institutions where he eventually grows up to live a life of crime and die young.
There’s a school meeting about what is to be done with Joel’s educational setting. The meeting is fiery with many parents speaking out their hostility. One of the mothers confronts Cecilia and tells her that she was adopted too and the attitudes that are happening are similar to what she experienced. Then the teacher and school director finally meet with Cecilia to discuss their final decision. It’s a decision they’re optimistic with. They have decided to have Joel spend six months in a ‘special school’ up in the mountains where they believe he will be better-adjusted in time to have him brought back to the school. Cecilia is not happy with the result. Diego insists she goes along with it because his boss believes it’s the right thing. As Cecilia is about to drive Joel to his temporary school, she makes her own critical decision on the matter.
This film tells of an adoption story in Argentina. However the film does show a lot of elements that one anywhere in the world can identify with. There’s the legal process which is common in most countries; there’s the fact that Diego and Cecilia will be parenting for the first time ever; there’s the adoption of a boy from a troubling background from the big city; there’s trying to get the boy to fit into a smalltown setting. There’s even the mission of the Argentinian adoption system: “Our aim is to find parents for the children, not children for the parents”.
Here in North America today, adoption should be a non-issue. Some countries or cultures may have a negative stigma about adoption whether it be the adoption process or about the children adopted. I’m not knowledgeable at all about how most Argentinians view adoption. All I know is the laws stated in the film and nothing else. However I did see a theme that we commonly see even in towns or villages of developed countries like Canada and the US. A city kid is taken into a home in the countryside to be given a life and a family. What happens is ostracism not just of the kids, but of the parents too. Even a client of Diego’s weighs his own opinion on this. The film shows a common theme of smalltown narrow-mindedness where they can be hostile to outsiders. In this case, we have the children, parents and teachers that are mostly against Joel being in the town and schools. Lines like “Our children are pure and live in a lovely town. Why should they have to put up with him?” sound like they’re echoes from common-talk. That scene of the mother who was adopted and faced similar flack says a lot about these attitudes.
The quality of the story also gets the audience involved and gets them wondering who or what to side with. Joel appears harmless, but he comes from a troubled background in Buenos Aires. Cecilia and Diego took Joel away to give him a family life and to take him away from the inner city threats that could endanger him, including from his own blood-family. Joel acts harmless around the house, but the teachers, parents and students all tell a different story. You even see things that make you wonder like how Joel arrived with a packet containing a lighter, money and a toy, or even the cellphone he either found or stole. You never see Joel do any of the things those parents say he does, but even if Joel said those words or stole the phone, this is very common among children his age. Wrong, but common among boys his age. It’s the people’s overreactions that are causing the problem.
In the meantime, this causes problems with both Joel and the family. They’re undecided about what to do or what actions to take. It’s right at the end where Cecilia makes her decision. I think that’s the biggest quality of the film. The film is about a story that’s very down to earth and is something a lot of families can relate to. It’s about facing the difficulties of doing the right thing. It’s about trying to give love to a child with quite a backstory, but trying to be a parent and doing what’s right. It’s about trying to get acceptance in a place where the hidden narrow mindedness comes out. I don’t think the story is meant to defame Tolhuin in any which way, but it presents itself as a story that can happen in any Argentinian town. It’s a story the audience can easily put themselves in the shoes of Cecilia and Diego. What would they do? What’s the best thing for Joel? It even gets the audience asking what would you do?
This film is a very good film from writer/director Carlos Sorin. Sorin is one of the most renowned directors from Argentina. 2002’s Historias Minimas is his most renowned work to date having won him many film festival awards including the FIPRESCI Prize at the San Sebastian Film Festival. What he delivers in Joel is a film that lacks the envelope-pushing and artistic daringness that one expects to have as film festival fare. Not every film at the VIFF aims to be artistically daring or provocative or experimental. Sometimes the films at the VIFF are films that are among the best their country has to offer. Sorin is a director with a reputation. He places reality on the film screen and tries to make a statement with the story. He succeeds in doing so in Joel. He presents an example of a situation and gets one thinking of the attitudes that he sees in Argentina. There was a lot of good acting, but it’s Victoria Almeida that is the centerpiece of the film as Cecelia. She holds the story together as it mostly revolves around Cecelia and her desire to be a mother and to do what she needs to. Especially for Joel.
Joel is a family drama that tells of an adoption story in Argentina, but there are many elements of the story that one can see happening close to home. The story succeeds with messages that cross borders and cultural barriers.
This year seems like the year I’ve seen more experimental film at the VIFF than ever before. The latest experimental feature I saw was Forest Movie. It was shot all in Vancouver and it does a lot with the 65 minutes it has.
The film begins with images of a forest and then phases into a young woman sleeping. The young woman was actually dreaming of the forest. She sends a text message to her friend that she can’t meet up: she’s sick. The friend accepts.
What she does right after is put on a jacket and bring along her bag and portable chair. She simply leaves from her apartment suite near Powell St. and Nanaimo St. and walks to a forest inside the city. The visit is simple as she walks across the paved trails over the rocks and branches with her cellphone turned off. A complete getaway. There are times she takes breaks like for when she eats something or feels she needs to write poetry or prose in her notebook. Other than that, just simply walking through the forest.
Then she finds a grassy spot that’s open and surrounded by the trees. She uses that spot as a place to set up her chair and relax. There’s a twenty-minute shot of the area of the forest she witnesses from her chair. It just consists of that view, changes of sunshine or cloud, and the surrounding sounds of the outdoors or her dealing with her chair, bag or notebook.
Night soon falls. She actually fell asleep during her time sitting in the forest. Night approaches. She’s all alone in the dark relying on her cellphone as a flashlight. She rushes to find the exit to the forest, but is lost. Images of her attempt to exit consist of her cellphone light shining or complete darkness with nothing but sound. Morning breaks and we see her walking back to her apartment as if nothing dreadful happened.
No question this film can be defined as experimental. The film is what it is. It’s a story about a young woman seeking tranquility in a forest and is willing to deal with whatever comes to her. The director Matthew Taylor Blais was in the audience and would later hold a Q&A after. Before the film started, he said: “No two people will have the same impression of this film.”
I got what he was after in this film: he wanted us to create our own thoughts, impressions and opinions about this film. That explains why actress Ana Escorse is given no dialogue at all in this film. The film is all about what we see and what we hear. I was open to this. The film gives us images and scenes that try to get us to form our own opinions. For starters, I actually thought the woman really was sick from the texts she sent. I though she went to the forest possibly for natural healing therapy. That scene in her apartment that shows an Aboriginal dream catcher could may have made some, including myself, believe she’s into Aboriginal spirituality and may see the forest as the medicine she needs. Even the scene where you see trees just outside a condo leads you to think this is an urban forest close to downtown Vancouver in Stanley Park, when it’s actually shot in Pacific Spirit Regional Park close to UBC.
Later shots add into the opinions we form about this film. The scenes where she takes out her notebook and writes or draws might get one to think she’s using the forest for creative inspiration. That twenty-minute shot of the forest’s view is an attempt to get us to rely on the background sounds to form our own opinions about what’s happening from this view. The end scene of her trying to leave the forest at night is also one that gets us to rely on our thoughts of what’s happening. The scene with the biggest impact is the scene where the camera makes like we see her escape through her eyes. It consists of the background sounds and the cellphone light cutting in and out. It’s actually the scene with the most drama as one would wonder will she make it? Will she get lost?
Matthew Taylor Blais does a very good job with this film. I was more welcoming with the experimentation in this film than I was in PROTOTYPE. I think Blais’ intro before it began helped me to be more welcoming. It’s an experimental film that pays off and allows the audience to create their own impression. It allowed me to create mine. However it is to say that it does take some creative risks that would be questionable. I welcomed that twenty-minute shot of the forest scenery, but some were not so welcoming. In fact I saw a few people leave the theatre during that scene, including a group of four. That’s one of the risks of creating an experimental film like this. Not everyone is as welcoming as me to such experimentation.
Forest Movie is an experimental film that allows the audience to exercise their imagination and make their own judgements about what’s happening in the story. This is experimental film that pays off greatly.