Mendes

VIFF 2025 Review: Idiotka

Jon The Blogcentric1 Comment
Anna Baryshnikov plays a fashion designer looking for her big break on a reality TV contest in Idiotka.

The VIFF will be full of dramatic films this year, so it’s kind of understanding why I would want to look for a comedy break. I was lucky to get it with Idiotka. It’s an American comedic film that can make you laugh.

Margarita Levlansky is a woman who dreams of becoming a fashion designer. Trouble is she lives in the Russian section of West Hollywood where it’s hard to get notice. She also has a flimsy sewing machine. The only way she can make money from her fashions is when she sells them with a big-name designer label on them and sell on eBay. Margarita’s family are full of hard times in America. Her brother Nerses is an unsuccessful musician, het father Samuel was a doctor who spend eight years in prison because of medical fraud and was depressed enough to leave his practice, and grandmother Gita is physically unable to work thanks to chain-smoking. To complicate things, they’re waiting for a house being constructed and they’re five months behind in rent at their apartment. Their landlord, restaurant owner Vlad, is not happy at all about it.

One day, Margarita finds a chance for a big break. A fashion television channel is starting a new reality competition for fashion designers from underprivileged backgrounds called Slay, Serve and Survive. At the audition, she meets the shows top producer Nicol Garcia. She let’s Margarita know from the start that this fashion contest will involve a lot of playing to the camera. That will mean things like a likable personality, a relatable scenario and even exposing personal things about her family is she progresses in the rounds. Margarita accepts. Within time, she is one of the final five for the big prize of $100,000. The family is excited for Margarita. Finally, a chance for a way out of the financial mess for them.

At the start, Margarita is nervous when she learns who her four rivals are. They also have attention-getting backgrounds of their own. To add to it, she also learns of the flamboyancy and ego of the two other judges: Candy and Emma Wexler. The first round starts where they all have to take various types of yellow-colored pieces of clothing and work them to make something nice and eye catching. They all have a limited amount of time to make it work. At the end, all five show their works off. Then the judges decide. One has to go home. It’s not Margarita! She’s still in the running!

As each round progresses, the fashions get more and more personal and the competition gets that much tighter. They even go as far as showing off one’s ethnic background. The producers are looking for more chaos from Margarita but she’s reluctant. Grandmother Gita wants to be on camera but father Samuel is reluctant. He still doesn’t want to admit his failings. Soon bad news hits the family as Vlad is evicting them from the house and Gita has been diagnosed with lung cancer.

The two finalists have been narrowed down. It’s Margarita and Jung-soo. For the final episode, only one will walk away with the $100,000. In the days leading up, Margarita is still uncertain how things will go. Her father is still reluctant, she has no place to show her clothes, and her sewing machine works terrible. She’s just about to quit. The night before the main event, she has drinks with Jung-soo and he talks about his own nervousness for this contest. Soon things look up. Gita used her last money to buy Margarita a new sewing machine. One that works effortlessly! Vlad learned of Margarita on television and is willing to forgive the family of the money they owe as long his restaurant is shown in the final episode. Right just an hour before Margarita is to give her show, the father is finally willing to go along and be on camera.

The final show is on. Filming takes place in Vlad’s restaurant. All of Margarita’s family wear fashions showing off the shortcomings of their lives. Nerses shows himself off as the flop singer. Gita shows herself off as the smoking grandmother and tosses cigarettes to the hosts and producers. Samuel comes on with his MD uniform and takes it off to unveil a prison uniform. Finally Margarita comes out in one of her hand-made outfits with all the designer labels she uses sewn all about. Then it’s up to the judges to decide who the $100,000 winner is. The ending gives us a sense that things will get better for the family, but not without some heartbreak along the way.

It’s not that often I go to see a comedy at the VIFF. I just took the film because it was available at the time. I’m glad I did. This comedy does have a lot of relatable teams. A young budding fashion designer who longs for her big break. Her family that’s full of flaws and problems. A fashion contest/reality show that’s a chance to be her breakthrough. It gives a lot to identify with and laugh about. Especially for the young.

I know that films about a reality TV competition have been done very frequently in the past, so this comedy doesn’t offer anything too new. What this comedy does do is it gives a relatable situation about a family with problems and one person trying to find a way out of it. It will require family cooperation and it gets messy, but it does work out in the end. The story is also about how the child of the family has the biggest responsibilities with her being the breadwinner. To do all that she does and then risk it big time to win on reality TV, that is one big challenge. Nevertheless the story pulls itself off well. It may get messy at times in the story, but it succeeds in the end.

This is the first feature-length film for Nastasya Popov. She has directed short films including documentaries before. Here she delivers a compelling comedy about trying for a big break while hanging by a string. It’s a funny story, if it’s not always together. Popov has gotten some acclaim for this as she won a New Director award at the San Francisco film festival.

Anna Baryshnikov holds the film together as the protagonist. The daughter of legendary ballet dancer Mikhail Baryshnykov, she’s had a steady acting career for over eight years and she looks great here. She’s able to balance the humorous with the dramatic and be able to be the centre of a story of a messy family drama. The chemistry of the family also made the film work. Mark Ivanir is great as the father too prideful to fess up to the mistakes he made. Nerses Stamos is also good as the son who can’t get a break. Galina Jovovich often steals the film as Gita the fierce grandmother. Camila Mendes adds to the humor as Nicol as do both Julia Fox and Saweetie as exaggerated versions of themselves.

Idiotka may follow a common story line found in most comedies, but it succeeds in delivering its own story. It has a mix of relatable and unrelatable ingredients that will make you enjoy it.

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.