Claire

2022 Academy Awards: Best Picture Reviews – Part Two

Jon The Blogcentric1 Comment

It’s something that if you see all ten Best Picture nominees, that means you would have seen 65 of the 125 Oscar nominations! Possibly more than most Academy members!

A single blog having all the Best Picture nominees reviewed would be too exhausting to the eyes. Makes sense to split the ten Best Picture nominees over two blogs. You read the first. Here is the second review of this year’s Best Picture nominees:

The Fabelmans – “Movies are dreams that you never forget.”

After I saw this film, I’ve been telling people this is a reminder that for every big-name director, there was a child with a dream. We’ve seen films before of children being enchanted by film. This is Spielberg’s chance to tell his own story. Essentially that story of Sammy Fabelman is the story of ‘Stevie Spielberg!’ It all started when Sammy’s parents Mitzi and Saul took him to see The Greatest Show On Earth and they told them of the magic of movies: from both the scientific and artistic side. Sammy tries to remake the train crash scene with his toy train set and film it with an 8mm camera… and that was the making! One thing I have to say is that what’s missing in the theatres nowadays are films that make people want to chase their dream. I don’t know about you but if I saw this film as a child, it would make me want to be a film maker. Even adults who grew up with Steven Spielberg movies and have been blown away by them would want to see the story of how it all started.

There are many scenes where one can see that this is how it all started for Spielberg. The scene with Sam biking will remind many of E.T. The scene where he does his war films will remind many of Saving Private Ryan and other war-themed films he’s done. The scenes where he experiences anti-Semitism will tell people of what inspired Schindler’s List. Speaking of which, it’s not to say the dream doesn’t have its rocky moments. We are reminded of times when the dream faced some bumpy paths. There was how his filming exposed Mitzi’s concealed love for Bennie and would lead to the friction in her marriage to Burt. There’s the anti-Semitism Sammy went through being the only Jew in his Northern California town. There’s that time Sam did not want to shoot a movie for years because it would mean using the camera Bennie gave him. It’s funny how when he was young, he insisted to his father “It’s not a hobby,” and as a teen Sam wanted nothing to do with it. I guess the message the film tries to give the audience is that if the skill is in you, the dream can’t die no matter how hard you try to end it.

Top admiration to go to Steven Spielberg. It’s not easy to do a semi-autobiographic story of the director without it getting egotistical. Instead of something egotistical, we get an inspiring story. On top of it, this isn’t any director we’re talking about. We’re talking Spielberg. His films have thrilled us since the late-70’s to now. The film showed he was the type who went that extra mile in adding affects to his films even when he was young. Sometimes I think this film is Spielberg’s gift to us.

Young actor Gabriel Labelle was great in his performance of Sam Fabelman. It was not an easy task playing a boy with film dreams but going through the frustrations of teenagerhood. He did an impressive job. Michelle Williams was also excellent in playing the troubled mother. It was not easy playing the mother that supports her son’s dream but going through a troubling marriage. Also great was Paul Dano in playing the father caught in the middle. Judd Hirsch was also great in the brief scene he played the eccentric uncle. In addition, John Williams gives a great score to go with the film.

Tár – This is a story that we often see of a toxic personality falling from the top of their game. If there’s one thing we all learn as we get older, it’s that if we want to excel and be among the top, we need to have some amount of arrogance and some amount of ruthlessness to get there. Lydia Tár is exactly that case. Yes, she’s condescending to those that think differently. Yes, she does get this feeling that she owns the show when she really doesn’t. And yes, her controlling personality does not leave her when she’s with the women she loves. One thing we often forget is that Lydia Tár’s toxic control-freak persona is something very common in show business. We see it time and time again. Most commonly from the men in show business. This film shows it’s even possible for a woman to be this controlling and manipulative. It’s very easy to try and go from the top of your game and then face the comeuppance of a downfall as your actions catch up to you. That’s the story of Lydia Tár. It got to the point everyone had to turn on her. The suicide of Krista Taylor was the beginning of the end.

The film is a straightforward story of a conductor on top of her game who faces a downfall and then finds new life in the aftermath. Despite that, it still has to capture the essence of the conductor and their music. Despite Lydia Tár being a control freak of a person, like most people at the top in arts and entertainment are, it also has to capture Lydia’s passion for music. The film itself has not forgotten about Lydia’s passion for music as it shows itself throughout the film. Music is a common theme throughout the film and it captures the essence excellently.

The brains behind this piece is Todd Field. Todd has had other films that looked like potential Best Picture nominees like 2002’s Far From Heaven and 2015’s Carol (which Blanchett also plays lead) that have “missed by that much.” This time, he finally gets it! While the two aforementioned films are timepieces, this takes place in modern times. It’s an excellent work about a toxic musician facing their comeuppance in modern times. Also making the film soar is Cate Blanchett. Her performance as a prima donna conductor owns the film from start to finish. She keeps her character interesting and helps the audiences into sharing her passions. Although Blanchett practically owns the film, supporting performances from Nina Hoss as her wife and Noemie Merlant as her angry assistant also add to the film.

Top Gun: Maverick – I’m sure the idea of a sequel to the original Top Gun had been an idea ever since the film became a hit. It was possible one could be out two or three years after the first. Most sequels are out in that time, and it’s mostly duds in such cases. A sequel thirty-six years after its original release seems like quite the gamble. Sure, there has been a lot of this retro-80’s stuff coming back and yes, there has been a lot of rebooting and remaking, but a sequel? Can a Top Gun sequel work with a sixtysomething Tom Cruise?

Peter Craig and Justin Marks were able to write a story to serve as the catharsis for the Top Gun sequel. The story ended up being a believable story of Maverick who’s on the verge of moving from pilot to teacher, but was born to fly. In the meantime, he has to teach a new generation which includes the son of Bradshaw. It’s a story that makes sense to have. In addition, it’s a story that gives the effects of flying a fighter jet. Most of us will never fly in one. The first Top Gun film was a hit because it gave the thrill of flying a fighter jet. This film continues to give us that feel without making us forget the physical toll flying such a jet can take on the passenger.

Top marks go to director Joseph Kosinsky. It was no easy task to direct this sequel; a sequel to a film that came out when he was 12. A director with proven work in science fiction was needed for a film like this an Kosinsky was the right one. He delivers a sequel that has a sensible story and keeps the action active and dazzling. The dream team of scriptwriters also did a very good job in delivering a story that’s believable and a story that isn’t too similar to the original film, like most film sequels are.

Tom Cruise returns to give his best acting in many years. Maverick was the role that made him a superstar in 1986. To play Maverick 36 years later was no easy task. It was not easy playing a man who has aged over time, but still had that young love for flying big. Tom did it very well. Jennifer Connelly was also good as Penny, but her role was not as developed. The set of young actors to play the new recruits were also very good. Miles Teller was not only good as Rooster, but he was able to steal the show from Maverick many times. Glen Powell was easily dislikeable as Hangman, Nevertheless the main attraction to a film like this is the effects. Again, this film delivers in its effect to give the audient the feel of what it’s like behind a fighter jet at supersonic speed. It’s what makes a movie like this!

Triangle Of Sadness – This is a rare case of a comedy with a message to deliver. There are a lot of themes in this film to take note of. One is social status. The story goes from the young model/influencer couple who debate about paying for a date to the various business people and socialites. They flaunt their riches, they enjoy their time without a care in the world, they all have their dinners of choice. The workers on the ship are just there to do their job. All that changes after the heavy rocking of the ship and its shooting down. The scene of the ship rocking is especially key as we see the Russian oligarch not only share control of the ship with the American captain, but also them shouting both anti-capitalist and anti-socialist sayings on the intercom.

In the aftermath, the eight surviving passengers are on an island with nothing. There’s also the theme of power. On the ship, the rich had it all while the workers did what they wer told and has basic living conditions. After the sinking the Filipino woman who was a cleaner on the ship is now the leader because of her survival skills. Power going from the bottom to the top. It also shows how even she can use her power to get what she wants and how power can even be an addiction for her.

The film doesn’t just deliver a message about classism and superficiality. It does so in a unique fashion. First it starts with a male model who makes less than his influencer girlfriend. Then it’s an argument at a restaurant which then leads them to this cruise with the mega wealthy. The cruise introduces us to them and their mindsets. Then the ship rocks furiously with everyone getting sick on board. Then the ship is torpedoed which leads to the eight survivors on what appears to be a deserted island. The time on the island gives a new structure with the former cleaning lady leading and the other survivors co-existing. It’s a clever arrangement of a story mixed with the bizarre and the disgusting to go along with it. Nevertheless the message doesn’t get lost. Nor does the story of the model/influencer couple lose its status as the prime story.

Top accolades to go to director/writer Ruben Ostlund. This is a unique tragicomedy that lampoons the rich but also reminds us how addictive power can be for even the smallest of the small. It has a lot of bizarre humor and even treads on the disgusting, but it all works when you look back on it. It’s actually a smart edgy comedy. Harris Dickinson and the late Charlbi Dean were also very good playing the couple. Their roles weren’t too deep, but they did well in playing the young and superficial pair. There were scene-stealers in this film. The most notable being Dolly de Leon as the cleaner-turned-leader. She was excellent in going from just a cleaning lady to becoming the leader with all the unfairness that comes with it! Also a scene stealer is Zlatko Buric as the Russian oligarch who helps endanger the ship with the captain.

Women Talking – If there’s one thing we’ve learned in 2022, it’s about how religion is often used to control women. That is one world issue felt big in 2022 with the loss of Roe v. Wade and also with the Women’s Revolution in Iran. Here we’re presented a story of a community whose religious beliefs create a community separate from the rest of secular society. It’s a community with strict values unchanged for centuries. This strictness causes a problem as there’s a rapist in the community threatening the women. The men have not made any effort to protect the women from this madman so they have to organize things themselves. It’s in this conversation that they have to decide, to stay and fight or to leave all at once before the men return? Even though leaving seems like the best choice, how will they do it? How will the children be raised properly? Will the boys be raised to treat women with respect? There is a lot to think about in this film. August, the university-educated token male in the discussion, serves as the image of hope for the women. He’s the one man in the community they can trust to raise the boys right.

The film is done very smartly. It presents the issue and the vote which leads to the discussion. It’s fair to say 85-90% of the film involves the women meeting in the hall for the discussion. That’s possibly the most critical part of it. While the men who dominate the community are away, the women finally get their moment to discuss things and make the choice to do something of their own choosing. When you hear them talk, it’s not simple common blabbing. These are the women speaking their fears, their anger, the hurts they’s endured, their passions and their families who mean so much to them. The discussions get very heated with all that’s happen, but they all have a bond that’s like a sisterhood that they show near the end. Even though it is primarily about the women, it’s also about August as he is their sense of hope to make the community better. He does it at the sacrifice of having to lose the woman he loves. It hurts him, but he knows it’s worth it.

The biggest praise of this film should go to writer/director Sarah Polley. Those of us living in Canada have seen Sarah develop over the years first when she was a child actor in the Road To Avonlea TV series, then seen as the next “it girl” in films like The Sweet Hereafter, Go and Existenz, only to drop acting and move in the field of writing and directing. She has come of age greatly over the years and one could call this film her crowning achievement so far. She does an excellent adaptation of the novel into a film that will get one intrigued of what will happen, what will be decided upon. I’ve often felt since the story is mostly in the same room, it can be adapted into a stage play. We’ll see. As for the acting, it’s hard to pick a standout. All the women here did an excellent almost-unselfish job of portraying their characters well. If I could pick the standouts, they would have to be Jessie Buckley, Rooney Mara and Claire Foy. A tough call. Ben Whitshaw also did an excellent job as playing the man watching, observing, and providing both wisdom and hope.

And there you go. There’s my second blog of my review of the Best Picture nominees. My predictions for the Oscar wins I anticipate to have by Saturday.

Advertisement

VIFF 2021 Review: The Electrical Life Of Louis Wain

Jon The BlogcentricLeave a comment
Benedict Cumberbatch plays a troubled eccentric artist with a passion for cats in The Electrical Life Of Louis Wain.

Have you ever heard of artist Louis Wain? I should hope every cat lover has heard of him. You may have seen his art in the past, but may now know it. The film The Electrical Life Of Louis Wain is a colorful portrait of a colorful artist.

The film begins set in 1925. Louis Wain is in a mental institution. On the radio is a voice giving support for the troubled Louis Wain. He talks of how Wain fascinated us all with cats. He also talks of the need to raise funds to bring Wain to a better mental institute that allows him to paint and be with cats. The film then goes back to 1880. Wain is 20 years old and his father has passed. He is the first-born of six and the only son. His father’s passing now puts on him the responsibility of being the family breadwinner.

This is not a responsibility Wain can do easily. He has a history of losing jobs and his drawings and paintings are not exactly the type that can win the general public over, nor newspapers looking for illustrators. This is troubling for all the family members, but it’s oldest sister Claire who really lets Louis know through her frustrations how much of a pressure this is. On a train trip, he meets businessman Asim Chaudhry who sees his drawings and gives him advise. Wain’s drawings do attract the attention of Sir William Ingram: the Managing Director of the Illustrated London Daily News. Ingram gives him the opportunity to draw for the paper, but on a part-time basis. This, along with other odd jobs, is enough to provide for the family and allow them to hire a governess to teach the three youngest daughters: Emily Richardson. Emily is ten years Louis’ senior, but Louis can’t help but take a liking to her. During this time, Louis also keeps his drawings of his inspirations and fears inside a personal journal of his own.

Over time, the money Wain is able to provide goes so far, adding to the frustration. Wain’s fast swimming at the Turkish Baths gets on people’s nerves, even though Ingram is willing to tolerate it. Louis keeps on having recurring nightmares of drowning in a capsized ship: nightmares he’s had since childhood and may explain the scar underneath is lip. Louis’ feelings to Emily are feelings he feels he has to keep hidden, but there’s Shakepeare’s The Tempest the whole family plans to see in the theatre. Louis invites Emily by slipping the ad under the door, and she accepts. Before the Show, Emily reads his journal and is surprised by the paintings and drawings. During the play, it goes into a scene of a story boat trip, which causes Louis to leave for the bathroom. After he’s finished, he sees Emily. Emily reveals she read his journal and understands him and they kiss for the first time!

The romance of Louis and Emily does not go well with the family. They don’t want to be the source of scandal because of the class-gap and age-gap of the two. At the same time, Louis learns of photography from a boxing match he watches with Asim. Asim tells him that photography can replace illustrations for newspapers in the future. That does not settle well with Louis not just because of his job, but he feels photography lacks the imagination and electricity of drawings. Then one day, the closeness of Emily and Louis gets to the point Claire has to fire Emily. It’s then he asks Emily to marry her. He reveals to her he doesn’t care what others think of them both. Emily accepts, revealing she doesn’t care either. The two find a home in the countryside to avoid controversy and they have a happy first six months.

Then the news come Emily has fatal cancer. Louis agrees to live with her the final years of her life. Then one rainy day, they hear a meowing out in their yard. It’s a kitten and he’s freezing. The two take him in and they make a pet out of him. Making a pet out of a cat was seen as odd in British society as cats are seen as either nuisances or only good for catching mice on the farm. However the two decide to make a pet out of the cat and name him Peter. For the next three years, it’s just Louis, Emily and Peter together. However Emily’s condition deteriorates. Louis doesn’t know how to deal with life without Emily, but Emily encourages him to continue to live on and not be afraid to make his imagination come alive.

After Emily dies, Louis secludes himself and is broke. Claire gets on his case for that. However it’s after this time, he learns the more he hurts, the better he paints. He starts creating cat drawing and cat paintings. The images depict cats as charming, cute and mischievous. The works attract many a reader of the Illustrated London News. His cat paintings start selling like nobody’s business. He even gets honorary memberships to cat societies in London who always saw cats as pets long before the mass public did. This brought him considerable fame, but not fortune. It’s after receiving a lot of debts he confesses to sister Claire he didn’t copyright his works and people are copying and getting their own piece of the action. The only way he can make money is through his original paintings. Ingram came to the rescue and gave him additional work in illustrations.

Then in 1900, Peter dies. Wain is heartbroken. Soon he learns the harder he grieves, the bigger his imagination grows. He then paints multi-colored pictures of cats that take his art in a new direction. It grants him bigger fortune, which comes in time as Marie is diagnosed as schizophrenic and needs to be sent to a better hospital. Unfortunately the luck runs out after a few years and fortune went just as fast as it came. He attempts to market his work in the United States, which attracts the attention of William Randolph Hearst and Max Case. The trips to New York give him a bigger fascination with electricity, but the boat trips also bring back his recurring nightmares of drowning on a ship.

Bad business decisions continue to get Wain sudden riches and back into debt. Over the years, Wain loses people close to him like his mother, sisters Marie and Claire and his mentor William Ingram. Then in 1925, he has a violent mental outburst that puts him in a metal hospital. Asim sees him in the hospital. He notices his drawings lack the magic he once had. Also Louis appears dead inside as there are no cats. This allows Asim to team up with H. G. Wells and his three surviving sisters to start a fundraiser to help bring Wain to a better hospital where he’s allowed a better quality of life where he can draw, paint, be around nature, and cats. The hospital where he spends his last years is much better and it allows Louis to again experience his image of paradise. The paradise he and Emily possessed together.

I’m sure anyone who’s seen Louis Wain’s art may have mixed feeling about it. Some will think it’s not for them, especially people who don’t care for cats or can’t stand them. Others will wonder how one can call cat pictures art? Some can even look at some of his more colorful pictures of cats in his latter years and even see them as ‘psychedelic!’ Hard to believe they’d have this ‘psychedelic’ look many decades before the psychedelic look of the 60’s that is iconic of the term ‘psychedelia’ would come to be.

The film also shows how Louis Wain possessed a lot of traits that are common among even the most famous artists. Firstly it shows Louis Wain’s imagination: one common artistic trait. It takes you into his love of cats and his fascination of electricity and how he turned it into his art. It shows how he used his imagination to create his paintings. The best artists always did. His imagination gave Brits a new look towards cats. No longer were they seen as good just for mousing or nuisances. They could be seen as pets. The film also shows you the eccentricities he had during his lifetime. Artsy people are known for possessing eccentricities. The film showed how Wain was both a non-conformist and what we call today a ‘slacker.’ He didn’t care what society thought of him when he married Emily, and neither did she. Artists are also still seen as non-conformists in the way they lived. He was unable to maintain a real job and a steady income sweating it out; another common trait we see in a lot of artists.

The film includes the family pressures he faced, being the oldest of the Wain children and only male. Wain had to act as a provider to his family and his artistic talents were more of a hindrance in that aspect. Especially financially as there would be times he’d starve, times he’d prosper and times when his riches were all squandered. Many of the best artists would not receive their renown in their lifetime and some like Van Gogh starved. Wain received his renown, but still had periods of poverty. The film also takes one into the heartaches he experienced in his life like the death of his only wife Emily and the death of his first cat Peter. Even though he would have many cats since, Peter would still remain his beloved and he would never get over his death. It showed the deaths of his two sisters, his mother and his biggest mentor. He noticed the more he grieved the better and the more imaginative he painted.

The film also takes you into Wain’s mental torture. It’s a common belief among people that an artist should be the type to suffer for their art. Artists have been known to be people that suffer inside and Wain was no exception. One will notice early on in the film as they learn Louis had recurring nightmares of drowning upon a sinking ship. That was a nightmare that would never leave him. Many people into art want to see artists draw out or paint out their pain. Wain reminds us that even artists that do supposedly ‘happy’ pictures like his cat paintings also can possess inner demons and they make one their own worst enemy as much as they make them an artistic genius. Being type-two bipolar himself, director Will Sharpe let it be known about Wain and what it’s like to have those troubles.

Biographical films have changed a lot in the last twenty years. Most of the time, you see the story unravel itself over time without narration. Very rarely do you see a modern biographical film go from start to finish about their lives. This film does a lot of ‘traditional’ ways of going about the biographical film, but instead of it being a setback for the film, it enhances it. Hearing the narration from Olivia Colman is a delight to hear. Also the narration of the film actually adds humor to the film and the story. Seeing Louis Wain’s life unravel from the turning point of his life in 1880 up to his death in 1939 actually helps make the film instead of hinders it. The film even includes moments in his life that become picture perfect moments for his drawings and paintings. The film even shows times in Wain’s life when it becomes moments for his best work. However it’s shown imperfectly and sometimes becomes uneven with the story. I’ve seen biographic films of artists before. Often they try to mix the life experiences and mentalities of the artist in with some of their biggest art works. This film does it very well for the most part, but there are times when it comes off as lacking consistency or out of place.

This is a very good work from director Will Sharpe. He’s co-directed two films before with Tom Kingsley, but this is the first film he holds his own in. The film he directs and the story he co-wrote with Simon Stephenson is an impressive artistic biography. It’s as much of a comedy as it is a drama. It follows the ‘traditional’ way of making a biographical film, but it’s more of a benefit than a drawback. These aspects make the film. The layout of the film also works for the most part, despite the flaws being noticeable. Nevertheless it does tell us a lot about Wain. It reminds us that he was a troubled man who did not make a lot of smart decisions, had a tough family life and was mentally troubled. However it was his imaginative way of looking at things, his view of the beauty of the world, his love for cats, and the reassurance of Emily’s love for him that gave him his drive to create.

Benedict Cumberbatch did an excellent job in his portrayal of Louis Wain. He did a great job in showing both the comical side and the tragic side of the man which made the film impressive to watch. There weren’t too many standout supporting performances, but Claire Foy was very good as Emily Wain. She was very good in playing the woman that understood his mental troubles and still loved him. She was also good in showcasing how she was the one who inspired Louis to paint his imagination and to still continue to inspire even after her passing. Of the sisters, Aimee Lou Wood was the standout as Claire: the sister who was frustrated by Louis’ misdoings, but ended up admiring him as she was about to pass. Toby Jones was also an occasional scene-stealer as William Ingram, as was Taika Waititi as Max Case and Adeel Akhtar as Asim Choudhry. Standout technical elements are the cinematography by Erik Wilson and the score by Arthur Sharpe: Will’s brother.

The Electrical Life Of Louis Wain is more than just a biographical film of an artist. It takes one into the mind of the artist in his inspiration and of his troubles. Sometimes it doesn’t make complete sense or appear all together, but it is an excellent film that will get you interested in the artist and his work.

Movie Review: Portrait Of A Lady On Fire (Portrait de la jeune fille en feu)

Jon The Blogcentric2 Comments

Portrait Lady Fire
Portrait Of A Lady On Fire is a story about a painter, played by Noemie Merlant (right) and her hurting subject, played by Adele Haenel (left).

With all this free time thanks to the COVID pandemic, it gave me a good chance to catch up on a lot of things undone. One of which was write reviews for films I didn’t review soon enough the first time. One such film is Portrait Of A Lady On Fire. I saw it in its entirety shortly after the Oscars. It’s a film that’s intriguing to watch.

The film begins with a painting class for young women. The teacher is Marianne, an acclaimed painter. The students are to paint a portrait of her. One of her students notices one of her paintings: that of a woman with her dress on fire. She asks Marianne what it’s titled. She responds “Portrait of a lady on fire.”

The film flashes to years earlier, when a man in a rowboat rows Marianne to a remote island in Brittany. She is commissioned to paint a portrait of a noblewoman named Heloise who is to be married off to Milanese nobleman. Her mother, the Countess, will allow her to stay in the building and be served by the maid Sophie. Painting Heloise will be a tricky thing. She does not want to pose for paintings as she does not want to be married off. She attended a convent, but her sister’s suicide prompted her return and her engagement.

Marianne decides it is possible. She just has to act as her companion and remember her features in order to paint her in secret. However Marianne notices the hurt inside Heloise as Heloise tries to jump off a cliff to her death. Marianne successfully stops her. Over time, Heloise learns of Marianne’s artistic passions including playing on the harpsichord. Marianne plays her the Presto of summer for Vivaldi’s Four Seasons. Heloise is captivated with it.

Marianne finishes the portrait, but feels she has to let Heloise know the truth of why she’s here. Heloise is critical of the painting and Marianne destroys it promptly. To the surprise of her mother, who is about to leave for Italy for some time, Heloise is willing to have Marianne do a portrait of her.

Over time as Marianne paints the portrait of Heloise, their bond grows. Especially over the reading of Orpheus and Eurydice. The maid Sophie reveals she’s pregnant and doesn’t want the baby. The two help her have an abortion through violent exercise. Sophie is included in the friendship with the two. The three go to a bonfire surrounded by women as they sing. It’s there Marianne sees Heloise with her dress on fire. Overnight, Marianne is haunted by images of Heloise in a wedding dress.

It’s when the two are alone together in a cave that Marianne confesses her love to Heloise. The two share their first kiss. The romance grows as Marianne continues with the portrait of Heloise. Marianne does other artwork too like sketching the performing of the abortion on Sophie and even sketching a naked picture of herself on page 28 in one of Heloise’s books, by her request. However the fun is cut short as Heloise’s mother returns. The portrait is completed and both Heloise and the Countess are happy with what they see.

SPOILER WARNING: Ending Revealed In This Paragraph. Marianne is about to leave with her work being completed, but then sees Heloise one last time: in a wedding dress just like in her dream. Marianne says she did see her twice since. The first time in a painting of her with her child and a book open to page 28. The second time was from a distance at a symphony concert. She could see from a distance she was overcome with emotion when the Summer suite of Vivaldi’s Four Seasons was played.

There’s no question the film is LGBT themed. The film is a fictional story. Nevertheless it does tell a lot in what it shows. It’s a chance meeting between a painter and her reluctant hurting subject. It’s after the mother leaves that the place goes from a place under control to the place the three women can live out the lives they were meant to live. It’s there Heloise can reveal she’s a lesbian like Marianne and she loves her. It’s there when a pregnant Sophie can have her baby aborted at her will. It’s also a place where the common women all gather together at a bonfire and sing. It almost feels like a ‘womyn’s’ film. However it tells more. The women know that once the mother returns, everything will be back to the way it was. Marianne knows her love that was meant to be can’t be. And so does Heloise. We shouldn’t forget that even though this is a fictional story, this was a time when same-sex love was criminalized and abortion was illegal.

Another element of the film is how the story tells itself through art. It may be about a painter who’s hired to paint her subject, but it’s like art of all kind is important for the storytelling. It’s also music that stirs emotion. It’s the discussion about Orpheus and Eurydice between the two. It’s the various drawings Marianne did. It’s of the painting of Heloise that would reveal who her true love was. The mix of various forms of art and feeling, both of passion and of hurt, come into telling the story of this film. Even the bonfire song where the women celebrate, but Heloise makes obvious is still hurting inside, plays an important role. The scene where Heloise’s dress is burning, but she acts like she’s unaffected will remind you why it’s not the dress on fire but the lady on fire.

This film was out during the VIFF. I only saw the last half of it because I was busy during ushering during the first half. That’s why I don’t include it as part of my VIFF reviews. It was only in February just after the Oscars that I finally saw it in its entirety. I’m glad there was a second chance to see it. It’s too bad it was completely snubbed out of the Oscars. For those wondering what France’s entry for the Oscar of Best Foreign Language Film was, it was Les Miserables and it was nominated. This film however was a nominee for the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival and won the Best Screenplay Award.

Top acclaim should be given to director/writer Celine Sciamma. A lesbian herself, she did a very good job not just bringing her story to life but also creating an array of imagery and adding an atmosphere to it. It’s quite an experience to watch. The acting from the two main actresses, Noemie Merlant and Adele Haenel were excellent too. You could tell as much from their moments of silence as you can from their moments of dialogue. It will also leave you undecided which of the two is the lead actress, or if they’re both the lead actresses. Luama Bajrami is also a good addition to the film. She slowly makes her presence in. The biggest quality of the film is the cinematography from Claire Mathon. Her cinematography added the color and the feel to the film and has a lot to do with its excellence.

Portrait Of A Lady On Fire is a one-of-a-kind film that showcases great cinematography and allows for the images to contribute a lot to the storytelling. It’s a fictional story that’s very picturesque and worth admiring.

Oscars 2019 Best Picture Review: 1917

Jon The Blogcentric1 Comment

1917 Chapman mackay
A journey to deliver a message to stop a battle during World War I leads to an intriguing drama in 1917.

There has been a lot of anticipation of what will win Best Picture for the past two months. Lately the recently-released 1917 has become the front-runner. Does it have what it takes to win it?

One thing we should keep in mind is that this is not a completely true story that takes place during World War I on April 6, 1917. This is a story about a messenger delivering a message during the war. According to Sam Mendes, this is a story that has been lodged with him as a child. It’s quite likely the stories came while listening to the tales his grandfather, Lance Corporal Alfred H. Mendes, would tell. In fact he dedicates the film to him ‘for telling us the stories.’

Another thing we should remember about World War I is not just how it would be the most brutal war in history before World War II, but also of how it changed how wars are fought. In the past, soldiers would fight on horses with swords. Here in World War I, it was mostly ammunition related which made horse fighting useless from this point on. Also with the airplane being invented back in 1903, this was the first war ever that would involve airfighting. That would present a new danger for soldiers fighting on the ground as they would also have to avoid shooting from the air.

We should also take into account that despite the advances in warfare, communication between infantries were limited. It seems odd to see the need for a message to stop a battle to be sent through two men. I remember seeing messages submitted in such fashion in Lincoln which was set during the Civil War. One in today’s modern world would find ‘walking’ this message from the trenches to former enemy territory to the infantry to be an odd thing, considering the technologies we now have. We shouldn’t forget that during World War I, the most communication they had was either Morse Code or landline telephone. As you would see when the scene approaches, the infantry of which the leader would need to receive the message would have no access to any of those forms of communication. Telephone lines were cut out in the field and ‘walking’ the message to the infantry would be the only way they can be reached.

We’ve seen war movies in the past. Most war movies consist of frequent battles and action scenes. Mostly to stir up excitement for the purpose of being an action movie. This is a different story. This is a message of two men who are given the responsibility to deliver a message to a battalion to cease fighting and prevent huge loss. This is not just a message a soldier has to relay to prevent a devastating battle, but one in which threatens his brother. Blake not only must deliver the message but have someone else as the second should one die. He chooses his best friend Schofield who’s reluctant at first. The two put themselves out in the mission but encounter danger after danger. Blake is stabbed to death and then it becomes Schofield’s mission to deliver the message. This is a story that focuses less on battles and more on getting a task done. If you get into the story, you will see this is a task which will put one in the middle of the horrors of war. This being a war movie, there are scenes of action and intensity. Those are scenes that can’t be compromised in a war movie and there’s no compromise here. This film also shows a lot of the horrors and devastations caused during World War I like a devastated town, a brutal plane crash, rat-infested areas, bodies left around decaying, and even how every soldier had to see people from another army as the enemy. No exceptions. This story is a telling account of what those fighting in the war had to deal with.

I know I’ve seen many films by Steven Spielberg where he not only tells a war story but also shows how the war was done back then. Often when he does his story that occurs during times of war, it’s like we receive a lesson of how war was done and are even reminded of the politics and hostilities of the time. Sam Mendes takes a different approach in telling his story in 1917. It’s not as telling as how World War I was done as a Spielberg movie would be, but it does remind you of many horrors a soldier would endure. Keep in mind, this is a single story of a message to be delivered and the treacherous journey to deliver it. One can go through enough horrors in that one journey to know how much war is hell. Even the stories from one person is enough to be a telling account.

Mendes does do something in which Spielberg never did in any of his war movies. Mendes makes this a ‘follow-around’ story. I’ve seen films which have been cases where the story is told by following the lead protagonist around. It’s added to the story in most cases. Here in this film, it not only tells the story but makes one part of the journey. It makes the audience experience the horrors and dangers as they happen. Another addition to the story is how it makes like this film is all one take. It’s not really a single take for almost two hours. In fact I saw in Birdman how they’re able to make a film set in real-time appear to be only one take through some cinematography and editing angles. This is the same here where it does an excellent job of making it look like one take from start to finish. There are many times in which the story is done in real-time and there are time elapses where the audience won’t notice. Nevertheless it works for the film and for the storytelling.

Top acclaim has to go to Sam Mendes. I have something to tell you all. Back when I first arrived in Vancouver, I celebrated my first weekend there watching American Beauty in the movie theatres. It left me captivated from start to finish and I never checked my watch once! Which was rarely the case for me back then. That film, as well as other films that made 1999 a landmark year for film, and the Oscar race that followed would kick-start my enthusiasm for film and the Oscar Race.

Mendes does an excellent job in directing the story and using multiple angles that add to the story instead of distract. The story in which he co-wrote with Krysty Wilson-Cairns is actually the very first feature-length film script both have written! Wilson-Cairns however has had more experience as she’s written for television and various short films. This is a unique story and a unique way in filmmaking of telling the story. The story succeeds in delivering excitement and intensity as the viewer watches it. The journey ends in a manner different from how the viewer would expect it to end, but it ends on the right note. It even ends on a personal note as Schofield confronts Blake with the bad news. The ending is possibly the most human note of the film and it reminds you of the dignity of the soldiers who sacrificed their lives to fight or prevent tyranny. I admire Mendes and Wilson-Cairns for incorporating that in the story.

As for acting, this is a film that doesn’t allow too much in terms of a developed ensemble cast. Many action films and war films usually don’t have room for well-developed acting; it’s mostly action-oriented. Even the role of the protagonist Schofield, played by George MacKay, is not exactly a role with too much dimension. I do give it credit as the film is more about the story than it is about the characters. Nevertheless I do admire for MacKay delivering a solid performance with a role that lacked dimension. Actually he succeeds in giving the role its most feeling at the very end. The acting of the main supporting role of Dean-Charles Chapman was also very good. His role was given more feeling as this was the character’s brother he was most concerned about. Chapman also does a good job with his role. Most of the other supporting roles had minimal screen time in the film. Nevertheless the performances of Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch, Robert Maaser and Richard Madden were well-acted despite how limited their roles were.

The film also has a lot of stand-out technical efforts too. First is the cinematography of Roger Deakins which is unique for a war-film and it adds to the thrills and excitement. Next is the film editing by Lee Smith who successfully makes it look like a single take. Next is set designers Lee Sandales and Dennis Gassner for recreating the trenches, battlefields and sunken bridges of the war. Another of top acclaim is the score from Thomas Newman. Newman has composed scores for six of Mendes’ seven films and this is his fourth Oscar nomination for a score for a Mendes film. The score fits the intensity of the story and moments of action. Finally the visual effects team did an excellent job of recreating the war and the battle scenes.

1917 isn’t your typical war movie. It’s a movie that takes you on the journey and involves you in the drama. It even reminds you of the horror while restoring your belief in humanity.

And there you have it! That’s the last of my reviews of the Best Picture nominees! This makes it nineteen straight years of seeing all the Best Picture nominees before Oscar Night! Just a review of the Oscar Shorts and my Oscar-winner predictions yet to come.