“[The late] Agnes Varda used to say, ‘I’m not a female director. I am a woman, and I’m a director. Please, never pick up a film because it’s directed by a woman. Pick up a film because it’s a good film.” — Cannes Film Festival director Thierry Fremaux to Indiewire‘s Eric Kohn in 4.20.19 interview.
Eliza Hittman‘s Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Always, a teenage abortion drama, will debut at next month’s Sundance Film Festival. Focus Features will open the British-American co-production on 3.13.20. Hittman’s film shouldn’t be confused, however, with Carl Hunter and Frank Cottrell Boyce‘s Sometimes Always Never, a British-produced comedy-drama that opened a year ago. I’m not sure what Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Always alludes to exactly, but Sometimes Always Never, which is about a London tailor, refers to three-button suits.
In her 12.12 N.Y. Times review, Manohla Dargis calls Josh and Benny Safdie‘s Uncut Gems “fun if also wearying and at times annoying.”
I know Manohla to a certain extent and I know what it’s like to to write for the Times, and one of the basic rules is “always project a reasonable and moderate attitude…don’t allow feelings, particularly negative feelings, to overly influence your views or prose.” So when Manohla writes that Gems is “fun”, she’s trying to sound like a good sport and a fair-minded cineaste. Because her primary reaction, trust me, was basically “Jesus H. Christ, give me a fucking break already!” Distill that down into measured Times prose, and it comes out as “Uncut Gems is wearying and at times annoying.”
Posted by yours truly on 9.19.19: “Uncut Gems is a full-barrelled, deep dive into the realm of a manic, crazy-fuck gambler (Adam Sandler), and yes, it ‘feels like being locked inside the pinwheeling brain of a lunatic for more than two hours,” as Peter Debruge wrote. And guess what? It’ll make your head explode and drive you fucking nuts. By the time it’s over you’ll be drooling and jabbering and gasping for air.”
Manohla again: “It’s easier to admire than to love, and I hate the ending, but the Safdies clearly like working your nerves.”
Really, Manohla? I loved the ending! I’m not going to say what happens, but it’s the one thing in the film that made me go “yes!” and “thank God!”
Another Manohla excerpt: “The dusty, enigmatic opener in Uncut Gems drolly echoes the start of The Exorcist (’73), where a priest at an archaeological dig in Iraq unearths the demonic relic that sets off the ensuing horror, the possession and spewing vomit. The magical discovery here is made by two Ethiopian miners, who sneak away from the bedlam to dig out a huge black opal that soon ends up in [Sandler’s] possession, though not for long.”
After reading this I was inspired to re-watch the Exorcist‘s Irag prologue. The craft levels alone — photography, editing, dusty atmosphere — are at least 16 or 17 times better than the opening of Uncut Gems. The simple truth is that early ’70s William Friedkin kicks the pipsqueak, nickle-and-dime asses of both Safdies…forget about it. Sandler and others have affectionately called the Safdies “crazy.” Well, so was Friedkin during his heyday, but he was also a craftsman of a much higher order.
Sometime later today, right? I distinctly remember watching the House Judiciary Committee vote on one or two articles for Nixon’s impeachment. There were three votes, in fact, in late July 1974 — On 7.27, 7.29, and 7.30. The articles were for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress. These were reported to the House of Representatives for a vote, but after the release of the “Smoking Gun” tape Nixon’s Senate support collapsed for the most part, and he resigned on 8.9.74.
Trump’s impeachment will definitely be passed by the House, but Mitch McConnell and his fellow Republican slimeballs have no intention of even holding a Senate trial, much less coming to the obvious conclusion that Trump is an unfit sociopath and needs to be removed. Senate Republicans want to hold “a short impeachment trial early next year that would include no witnesses,” according to a 12.11 Washington Post article by Seung Min Kim, Paul Kane and Rachael Bade, because they believe “it would be better to limit the trial and quickly vote to acquit Trump.”
I’ve asked before if this or that classic film of the ’60s, ’70s or ’80s could be remade today. Most of the time the answer is “no, it probably couldn’t be.” Because the stories are too dated or present-day culture might find the premise unwelcome or out of bounds. And so it may be that John Boorman‘s Deliverance (’72), released 47 and 1/2 years ago, will never be remade. It’s a film that was right…hell, perfect for its time, but would probably not be right for ours. Sometimes it’s better to leave well enough alone.
[Click through to full story on HE-plus]
I’m getting a queasy feeling from this trailer for Emerald Fennell‘s Promising Young Woman (Focus Features, 4.17.20), which will debut at Sundance ’20. Some kind of dry, deadpan satire about…what? A woman (Carey Mulligan) who brings pain into the lives of average schlubs who take an interest in her…something like that? Humiliation? She’s marking off what in the little book? All the guys look and talk like jerks, but why the disproportionate decision to make them all pay for what happened to her in med school? There’s definitely something “off” about this film…something not right.
The N.Y. Times‘ Megan Twohey and Jodi Kantor are reporting that Harvey Weinstein and the board of his bankrupt film studio “have reached a tentative $25 million settlement agreement with dozens of his alleged sexual misconduct victims.”
These are civil cases that have no apparent bearing on Harvey’s still-pending criminal cases, which may or may not fall by the wayside also. Who knows?
The deal “would not require the Hollywood producer to admit wrongdoing or pay anything to his accusers himself, according to lawyers involved in the negotiations.”
“More than 30 actresses and former Weinstein employees, who in lawsuits have accused Mr. Weinstein of offenses ranging from sexual harassment to rape, would share in the payout along with potential claimants who could join in coming months. The deal would bring to an end nearly every such lawsuit against him and his former company.”
Who knows what “more than 30” means but let’s say there are 35 alleged victims/plaintiffs at the end of the day. $25 million divided by 35 = $714,285 per victim.
Times: “The settlement would require court approval and a final signoff by all parties. It would be paid by insurance companies representing the producer’s former studio, the Weinstein Company. Because the business is in bankruptcy proceedings, the women have had to make their claims along with its creditors.
“The payout to the accusers would be part of an overall $47 million settlement intended to close out the company’s obligations, according to a half-dozen lawyers, some of whom spoke about the proposed terms on the condition of anonymity.”
How could a Star Wars devotee — someone who identifies with the rebels and despises the empire — be a Trump supporter? How could anyone imagine that Trump, a thick-fingered vulgarian full of arrogant swagger, be analogized by Stars Wars fans as anything other than a Darth baddie?
And yet there seems to be a fair number of Trump supporters who believe in The Force, and have lately taken offense at Daisy Ridley for saying that “everyone has an issue with Trump — every sane person anyway.”
“In this economy, the only thing that can stop a bad old white man with a penchant for incoherent rambling is a mediocre old white man with a penchant for incoherent rambling.”
So reads an excerpt from a 12.11 Intelligencer piece by Eric Levitz, titled “If Biden Is Too Old to Serve Two Terms, He Shouldn’t Serve One.” It was prompted by a just-posted Politico report that the 77-year-old Democratic front-runner “has reportedly informed his closest advisers that if he is elected in 2020, he will not seek reelection in 2024.”
Given that “Uncle Joe won’t linger too long after solving the White House’s pest problem,” Levitz reasons, “[why not] let him put up his feet and catch his breath for four years? And then he’ll be out of your hair, and your favorite youngish Democrat will have his or her run of a de-Trumpified Oval Office.”
This is basically what Biden supporters have in mind. Just put Joe in so we can get Trump out — period. That’s all they’re really saying.
Joe in the White House will allow everyone to simmer down and collect themselves in a reasonable way. President Joe will try to restore a mild-mannered Obama atmosphere of yore, and thereby allow Americans to try and heal some of the damage caused by The Beast. And then some moderately liberal Democratic heir (Mayor Pete?) will start running for President in ’23 or perhaps earlier.
Levitz retort #1: “In the immediate term, leaking word that you expect to be unable or unwilling to fulfill the duties of the presidency in five years raises the question of how you can be sure you’ll be up to the job in four [years]?
“Which is to say, by letting his plans slip to Politico, Biden’s campaign has accentuated the candidate’s core weakness: that he is 77, but doesn’t sound a day over 86.”
Levitz retort #q: “If Biden wins the nomination, he will have to combat the perception that his age has rendered him unfit (or, in our spritely 73-year-old president’s phrasing, too ‘sleepy’) for the presidency. That’s going to be harder to do when you’ve already signaled that you’re so concerned about your own stamina, you’ve resigned yourself to being a lame–duck president from the day you take office.”
But Joe is locked in regardless, and we all know why. Because the African American community is squarely behind him. Because he served as Obama’s vp. Brilliant!
Rep. Eric Swalwell had a big Congressional testimony moment yesterday, clarifying Perry Mason-style what Donald Trump knew and when he knew it in terms of the whole Ukraine mishegoss. I think this definitely cancels out the MSNBC Chris Matthews fart thing, which happened about three weeks ago.
As Rep. Swalwell notes, nobody asks “what did Trump know and when did he know it?”
He knew everything, he directed everything, he was at the center of everything. pic.twitter.com/2c8SGrpdg7
— House Judiciary Dems (@HouseJudiciary) December 9, 2019
Reaction #1: The Outstanding Cast noms (SAG’s equivalent to Best Picture) went to Bombshell, The Irishman, Jojo Rabbit, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and Parasite. Sincere HE question: What happened to Little Women? I’ll tell you what happened to Little Women. A percentage of SAG/AFTRA members found it a bit precious, studied, curious and “meh”, and they didn’t like Florence Pugh‘s Amy, and they liked Bombshell a lot more.
HE journo pally: “No Little Women = total rebuke to progressive film twitter and the woke Robespierres! And four nominations for Bombshell, which, even though it’s the cinema’s first major #MeToo statement, the wokesters have put on their list of books to be burned, along with Joker and to a lesser extent Marriage Story, etc.”
2d HE pally: “I don’t think it was a rebuke so much as proof that the Twitter world, as in politics and the Oscars, is a bubble, And I don’t agree that wokesters are going after Marriage Story. Noah Baumbach deserves to have his feet held to the fire for making a total lie of a movie — a cowardly self-pitying lie.” HE retort: Within its own realm, Marriage Story felt honest, vulnerable and forthright to me. Just because Noah didn’t specificqlly dramatize the (alleged) real reason why his real-life marriage to JJL ended in divorce…that doesn’t mean his film isn’t honest in its own way.
3rd HE pally: SAG’s Outstanding Cast ensemble award “is still Once Upon A Time in Hollywood‘s to lose. The film critics have been misleading everyone with their picks because they don’t want to be seen as voting against the progressive wokester agenda, so they put out a mixed message about what is actually good.”
HE exception: Except in the case of Diane‘s Mary Kay Place, who actually gave the Best Lead Female performance of 2019.
Reaction #2: “Remember that SAG isn’t SAG anymore,” a friend remeinds. “It’s SAG/AFTRA.” Or a combination of Chateau Marmont and Walmart.
Reaction #3: HE is down with Best Actor noms for Joker‘s Joaquin Phoenix, Ford v. Ferrari‘s Christian Bale (if you insist), Once Upon a Time in Hollywood‘s Leonardo DiCaprio and Marriage Story‘s Adam Driver…fine.
But I’m rendering a hard ixnay on Rocketman‘s Taron Egerton. Reason #1: He’s too tall and muscle-bound to play Elton John. Reason #2: I never felt Egerton was truly channelling John; he did his best to imitate his singing, but it always sounded like an effort rather than an owning. Reason #3: Egerton needs to be punished and punished again for making Otto Bathurst’s godawful Robin Hood.
Lament: SAG/ATRA thought Egerton delivered the current better than Uncut Gems‘ Adam Sandler? AS gave a much more dynamic and transformative performance as an insane gambling junkie, and yet SAG/AFTRA preferred Egerton’s good-but-no-cigar performance? This is the Walmart side talking.
Reaction #4: I’m going to say this again and again in order to atone for my feelings of guilt. IMHO and due respect, Diane‘s Mary Kay Place gave a much deeper, grander and more deep-drill lead performance than any of SAG’s Best Actress nominees.
Otherwise you can jump up and down all you want about Us‘s Lupita Nyong’o delivering a half-and-half genre performance (half maternal scream queen, half raspy-voiced zombie), but the Nyong’o clamor is thin as a Saltine wafer. If you want to get excited about the doppleganger aspect give a pat on the back to Jordan Peele — it’s his idea.
I am therefore obliged to regard the Best Actress SAG race as being between Renee Zellweger, Scarlett Johansson or Charlize Theron. Until recently I would’ve said Zellweger has it locked up, but lately I’ve been leaning toward Theron and/or Johansson.
Two months ago I caught Bombshell at a packed guild screening in Westwood. The crowd loved it. Gleeful whoo-whoo ovations when Charlize Theron, Nicole Kidman, Margot Robbie and John Lithgow took a bow. Ever since I’ve been presuming it would do pretty well commercially.
A couple of HE commenters recently predicted otherwise, I realize, but I couldn’t forget that ecstatic early reaction. I recommended it to everyone who asked. “Not a great film”, I would say, “but a pretty good one…sharp, fast moving, well layered and aggressively cut.” 9:10 update: I just saw Bombshell for the second time, and it totally holds up. It’s a satisfying, fully believable corporate thriller.
But when the reviews appeared yesterday, I suddenly realized it might not go over as expected. Aggregate averages in the mid ’60s usually means trouble.
<div style="background:#fff;padding:7px;"><a href="https://hollywood-elsewhere.com/category/reviews/"><img src=
"https://hollywood-elsewhere.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/reviews.jpg"></a></div>
- Really Nice Ride
To my great surprise and delight, Christy Hall‘s Daddio, which I was remiss in not seeing during last year’s Telluride...
More » - Live-Blogging “Bad Boys: Ride or Die”
7:45 pm: Okay, the initial light-hearted section (repartee, wedding, hospital, afterlife Joey Pants, healthy diet) was enjoyable, but Jesus, when...
More » - One of the Better Apes Franchise Flicks
It took me a full month to see Wes Ball and Josh Friedman‘s Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes...
More »
<div style="background:#fff;padding:7px;"><a href="https://hollywood-elsewhere.com/category/classic/"><img src="https://hollywood-elsewhere.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/heclassic-1-e1492633312403.jpg"></div>
- The Pull of Exceptional History
The Kamala surge is, I believe, mainly about two things — (a) people feeling lit up or joyful about being...
More » - If I Was Costner, I’d Probably Throw In The Towel
Unless Part Two of Kevin Costner‘s Horizon (Warner Bros., 8.16) somehow improves upon the sluggish initial installment and delivers something...
More » - Delicious, Demonic Otto Gross
For me, A Dangerous Method (2011) is David Cronenberg‘s tastiest and wickedest film — intense, sexually upfront and occasionally arousing...
More »