It does seem awkward for me to do five blogs of Best Picture contenders. It’s all about my writing. Last year my writing was so over the top, I had to post individual reviews instead of all ten within three blogs. This time as I was writing, I felt doing blogs consisting of two reviews each is a nice steady dose of my writing. Hope you like them. Now on with my next two reviews:

I’ve seen musicographies before. I’ve seen how they told the story of the musician or even show one part of the musician’s life. This film is a case of telling a part of Bob Dylan’s life. It tells of how he goes from an unknown folk singer in Greenwich Village to being part of the main folk scene of the time to branching out on his own. One thing we often forget about is that in the early-1960’s folk music was seen by many young people as the antidote to Rock ‘N Roll. Rock ‘N Roll music was seen by them as filled with scandals, fabricated acts, and music done for money’s sake. Folk was regarded by them as the opposite. It was regarded as self-composed music, honest feeling and even having a word to say to the powers that be. Bob, having a liking to Rock ‘N Roll, did not sit well with fans of folk music. To add, the Folk scene was becoming as much like showbiz as Rock ‘N Roll itself. You could easily see why folk fans would be outraged by his Rock ‘N Roll schtick. Looking back, it leaves me wondering after that moment did Rock ‘N Roll change Folk or did Folk change Rock ‘N Roll? Neither genres have been the same since.

The unique thing about this film is that it’s as much about the person as the musician. Most of us have known Dylan through his music. He always spoke his mind in his music. The film shows things most of us have overlooked. There’s the time Bob is torn between the love of Joan Baez and Suzy Rosso and finds it hard to hold a relationship with either. There’s Bob desire to expand and grow as a musician while the folk scene wanted to her him perform his more legendary hits. There’s how Bob found guidance from Johnny Cash and regarded Woody Guthrie as a musical father figure. There’s how the folk scene became just as much of a clique as even the most commercial music scene. We see that in how the folk scene was all about those connected to Pete Seeger and the shows he helped organize. You can understand why Bob would rebel and do his electric show. Bob always wanted to do his own thing. At the end of it all, he was still Bob.

This is quite possibly the best work from James Mangold. For so long he’s created films in which have received Oscar nominations and wins, but left him empty handed. Films like Girl, Interrupted, Walk The Line, 3:10 To Yuma, Logan and Ford vs. Ferrari. He did get a scriptwriting nomination for Logan but it’s this film he finally gets nominated for Direction. Having directed Walk The Line, Mangold knows how to direct a musicography. With the story he co-adapts with Jay Cocks, Mangold shows Dylan as a musician, artist, flawed lover and rebel. He also captures the essence of what folk music was to do about, the folk music scene of the 60’s and the times very well. It’s easy to see why he has received this acclaim.

The film also excels through the excellence of the performance of Timothee Chalamet. I’ll admit I first thought Chalamet playing Bob Dylan was a bad idea. I could not see him doing it. He accomplished it very well by making it a three-dimensional performance when it could have been wooden or cartoonish. I’m impressed with his work. Also really great is Edward Norton as Pete Seeger. I know Edward knows how to get into character. Here he makes a very convincing performance as Seeger. Newcomer Monica Barbaro is also excellent as Joan Baez. The film is, in a way, also showing us the Joan Baez we never knew. Very different from her on-stage persona we’re so familiar with. Elle Fanning was also great as Sylvie Russo who faces a hard time trying to love Bob as his fame was starting to take off. Boyd Holbrook was also very convincing as Johnny Cash and Scoot McNairy was also great as woody Guthrie. Even though both performances had a short amount of screen time, they were still both good and convincing.

A Complete Unknown is not your typical musicography. It presents a Bob Dylan we never knew, a Joan Baez we never knew and a folk scene different from what we thought it was. It’s as revealing as it is great.

There has been a lot of unhappy talk from a lot of Catholic people about the film. One thing we need to talk in mind is that this story is a fictional story based on the adaptation of a book. Watching it, the cardinals did not act very priest-like. It made the whole conclave look like a joyless sect. Throughout the film, there’s hardly any focus on the spirituality of the cardinals. As the election of a new Pope is happening, it appears they are all rivals against each other with animosity. It almost makes the election of the Pope look like a political election where candidates look to expose the dirt of their rivals in order to win votes. Maybe that’s the point of the film. To make a papal election look similar to that of a political election. Although they do a good job of making that connection, I’m still unhappy about how the bishops and cardinals were portrayed.

Although I was unhappy of how the conclave is depicted, I am not angry as I am well aware this is a fictional story. Besides none of us knows what goes on behind the scenes of electing a new Pope. One thing the film does do well is that it shows the complications of being inside the Catholic Church. Although the film doesn’t know much about the faith of the bishops and cardinals and makes them look similar to dirty politicians, each of the bishops and cardinals represent ways of thinking most common among Catholic leaders. I myself have complained that the Catholic Church feels more like an institution than a church, but we forget how big the Church is. The Catholic Church is almost 2,000 years old and has 1.3 billion members and has churches on all the world’s continents. In some nations, Roman Catholicism is the religion of the majority. With a church that big, there is bound to be differing opinions on various issues. Some have Bible-based answers for various issues, some base their opinions on Church-based teachings, and some just give their own rational thought. You can understand why a church this big will have a lot of conflicting opinions among its members and leaders. The various debates among the College of Cardinals are reflective of that. Then there’s the powers that be. As you can see in the film, the electing of a new Pope is not an easy thing. There’s knowing that the Pope they elect with become the epitome of the image and the morality of the Catholic Church. You can understand why choosing the right bishop or cardinal to be Pope will be a difficult.

This film is good at making the election of a new Pope look like an intense drama. It succeeds in doing it by inventing a clever ‘behind the scenes’ story and making it into an intense drama that will keep you focused. It may overdo it in terms of the various conflicts between the bishops and cardinals but the conflicts reflect the common mixed beliefs held by Catholics. Sometimes the squabbles over certain bishops in the running are reflective of squabbles of the various beliefs of many Catholics. A Church of 1.3 billion is too big to have everyone believing the same thing on each issue. Also the film reflects on difficulties, scandals and controversies that the Church has left unfixed over the years. Even how secrets unraveled behind the Church walls are representing how the Church has a lot of hidden secrets. The film also succeeds how getting the problem of the Papal election solved is best assisted by two people least expected. It’s first done by Sister Agnes who, by being a nun, is to exist in the background but she can’t hide her silence anymore on all that has happened. The second is Cardinal Benitez who seems like the candidate least likely to win, but after he made his powerful speech, he appeared to be the best choice to be Pope, only for his secret to be revealed after his election. The film gives an ending that leaves us with questions of what will happen next. That’s what a film should do.

This film is an excellent work from Edward Berger. With the script Peter Straughan adapted from the novel, Berger directs a film that takes a world event and turns it into a behind-the-scenes drama that will keep you intrigued in the drama more than you thought you would be. Although it’s off in its depiction of priests and bishops, it’s still a great work.

Also great is Ralph Fiennes as Cardinal Lawrence. He performs the role of a priest whose spirituality is clashing with his role of leading the College Of Cardinals. He makes the stress look obvious. The performances of the various bishops from John Lithgow, Stanley Tucci and others were very good, despite more focus on the Cardinals’ arrogances. Isabella Rossellini is the surprise of the film. Playing Sister Agnes who can’t hide her silence anymore, she really provides needed impact to the story and her silent moments are as good at storytelling as her talking parts. Carlos Diehz is also great as the Cardinal who’s the best most mortal choice for Pope, but has a hidden secret. The film also has a lot of great technical merits like set designers Suze Davies and Cynthia Sleiter for creating a set that looks very much like the Vatican, costuming Lisy Christl in making the clergy costuming look perfect and composer Volker Bertelmann delivering a score that adds to the intensity of the drama.

Conclave may be off in their depiction of cardinals and the Church itself but it succeed in bringing up hot topics surrounding the Church as it succeeds in making an intense drama of a Papal election.

And there you go. Those two films are my second look at the Best Picture contenders of this years. More reviews of Best Picture nominees to come.