CODA 

Released Aug. 13, 2021

Directed by Sian Heder

Starring Emilia Jones, Marlee Matlin, and Eugenio Derbez

Currently streaming on Apple TV+

Whenever K says that she’s read a good review about a movie, I get concerned. I suspect she’s setting me up for something she knows I won’t cotton to. So, when she told me she’d read a good review about CODA last week, I must have shown a little skepticism in my eyes. She followed up by informing me that it was nominated for several Academy Awards. And then she gave me a choice: “Or would you rather watch some dumb movie you randomly come across clicking on your idiot wand?”

So, we watched CODA. And, sure enough, it was a chick flick! Well, not a chick flick exactly, but a genre every bit as uncomfortable: a coming-of age story about a teenage girl!

As one critic (whose name I forgot to hold onto) put it:

CODA begins as “a pleasantly familiar coming-of-age tale, following a talented small-town girl from modest means with dreams to study music in the big city. There’s an idealistic teacher, a winsome crush, moving rehearsal montages, a high-stakes audition, and naturally, a family reluctant about their offspring’s ambitions. Again – and only at first glance – you might think you already know everything about this feel-good recipe.”

And I did feel that way. But then I kept watching. And although nothing about the plot or characters defied those conventions, I found myself gradually falling for this story.

As the credits rolled, K asked, “So?”

Me: “I liked it.”

K: “Okay. Now admit you were wrong!”

Me: (sheepish look)

K: “Don’t give me that sheepish look. Say it out loud! I want to hear the words!”

Me: (wincing)

K: “I….”

Me: “I…”

K: “Was…”

Me: “Was…

K: “Wrong…”

Me: “Wrong.”

K: “That wasn’t hard, was it?”

The movie won me over. Not because it broke any teenage-girl-coming-of-age conventions, but because of how well and subtly they were scripted, directed, and performed.

There was also what I thought at first was going to be a too-clever directorial conceit of shooting many of the conversations in sign language (with subtitles). It didn’t feel too clever. It felt clever. The experience was very different from watching foreign movies with subtitles (in which you can hear the actors speaking, but in another language) or silent films (where the blocking and acting and photography are designed to supplement the printed text). Observing a heated conversation that is played out silently with hand gestures gave me a sense of what it was like to be deaf. Evidence of how well this trick worked is that in the third act, two of the most emotionally compelling moments in the film were done this way.

The Plot 

Ruby is the only hearing member of a deaf family in Gloucester, MA. At 17, she works mornings before school to help her parents and brother keep their fishing business afloat. One day, she impulsively decides to join the school’s choir club, and she’s smitten by her duet partner’s looks. Sure enough, a romance blooms between them, but a passion for singing also blooms in Ruby’s heart.

What I Liked About It 

* The acting of the principal cast was good and believable throughout.

* The set design worked well with the storyline.

* The cinematography was restrained in deference to the story, but conveyed the atmosphere of Gloucester very well.

* As mentioned, the decision to do so many important parts in sign language was brave, and a risk that succeeded brilliantly at the end.

 What I Didn’t Like So Much 

The character of Bernardo Villalobos, the singing teacher, is a bit overdone. Eugenio Derbez was tasked with not only playing the prototypical hard-love/inspirational teacher, but also the fey arts teacher and the failed star all at the same time, and with the most banal and predictable lines. The result is artificial, but Derbez inhabits it with such commitment that it was only a small problem for me.

Critical Reception 

* CODA had its world premiere on Jan. 28, 2021 at the 2021 Sundance Film Festival and became the most awarded film in Sundance history. It has won or been nominated for multiple Golden Globes, Screen Actors Guild awards, Critics’ Choice awards, and Oscars.

* The movie scored 95% on Rotten Tomatoes’ Tomatometer (based on 262 reviews) and had an Audience Score of 93% (based on 1,000+ ratings). The site’s critics consensus: “CODA’s story offers few surprises, but strong representation and a terrific cast – led by Emilia Jones’ brilliant performance – bring this coming-of-age story vividly to life.”

* “No theatrics, no gimmicks – just a wonderful coming-of-age gem that aims directly at the heart and hits the bullseye.” (Mara Reinstein, US Weekly)

* “By twisting the formula and placing this recognizable story inside a new, perhaps even groundbreaking, setting with such loving, acutely observed specificity, she [Sian Heder] pulls off nothing short of a heartwarming miracle with her film.” (Tomris Laffly, RogerEbert.com)

I wondered how CODA would be received by the deaf community. From what I found, reviews were mixed. Some applauded the casting of so many deaf performers in key roles. Others felt the film didn’t go far enough in advocating for authenticity in media representations of deaf and CODA culture.

You can watch the trailer here.

Monsters Inside: The 24 Faces of Billy Milligan 

Written by Olivier Megaton and Brice Lambert

Directed by Oliver Megaton

Season 1 released in 2021 – Available on Netflix

An interesting look at dissociative identity disorder (a.k.a multiple personality disorder) via the life and death of Billy Milligan, a rapist and (probably) murderer who evaded the criminal justice system and jail time by claiming to have multiple personalities.

Through interviews with him, his parents, his siblings, and the many people that prosecuted, defended, and treated him, the documentary asks two questions:

1. Did he have dissociative identity disorder or was he faking it?
2. Is dissociative identity disorder a legitimate mental disorder at all?

To the director’s credit, no definitive answers are given. But this limited series does manage to shed light on the corruption and bullshit of the psychiatry industry in the US and the effect of media-inspired hysteria.

What I Liked About It 

* The video footage of Milligan was riveting.

* The probing into the psychiatry industry was thought-provoking.

What I Didn’t Like So Much

* The directing and editing were a bit too artsy for my taste.

* It could have been an hour shorter.

Critical Reception 

* “Billy Milligan is an interesting character…. The mistake, and it is a massive one, was the endless repetition of interviews that had already proven their point, whatever it might have been.” (Easy Reader News)

* “At the center of this overlong, occasionally fascinating four-part documentary series is the question of whether you can be a dangerous, sociopathic narcissist and not be harboring a boatload of stowaways inside your head.” (Wall Street Journal)

You can watch the trailer here.

Despite having a large attendance and performers such as Stevie Wonder, Mahalia Jackson, Nina Simone, The 5th Dimension, The Staple Singers, Gladys Knight & the Pips, Blinky Williams, Sly and the Family Stone, and the Chambers Brothers, the 1969 Harlem Cultural Festival was seen as obscure in pop culture, something that the documentarians investigate.

Watch the trailer here.

Nightmare Alley (1947)

Available on several streaming services

Directed by Edmund Goulding

Starring Tyrone Power, Joan Blondell, Coleen Gray, and Helen Walker

Genre: There is a sense of mystery to the way Goulding directed it, but it’s not a mystery movie. It has all the expected noir elements, but it’s more than just noir.

Plot: Generally, the same as the book. (See above.) But with a few important plot points left out.

Themes: Class is destiny. Life is about hustling. Hubris. Humans are easily corruptible.

What I Liked About It 

* It preserved some of the best elements of the book: the noir style, the key relationships, the carny vernacular, and the basic plot.

* The casting was perfect. (Especially compared to the 2021 version. See below.)

* The acting. All of the main characters lit up their parts.

* The photography – grim, stark, shadowy.

 What I Didn’t Like 

Several of the strongest scenes of the book, including the depiction of the freaks and particularly concerning Stan’s bad treatment of Molly, were left out. But I forgive Goulding for this. This version of the story was made at a time when these scenes would not have been allowed.

Critical Reception  

* “Although Nightmare Alley may have been slightly unsexed to fit it for the screen, there is still enough raw, red meat on its eight reels of ragged bone to satisfy all save those who wallowed deliriously in the book’s more turbulent episodes.” (George Burke, Miami Herald, 10/31/47)

* “To many film-goers Nightmare Alley will be too unpleasant in subject to please as entertainment. However, the acting is first rate, although the photography is too murky for a clear idea of what is going on.” (Marjory Adams, Boston Globe, 11/7/47)

* “The hoodwink-picture genre doesn’t have a whole lot of peaks to choose from, but Nightmare Alley is one of the few.” (Elvis Mitchell, New York Times, 1/28/20)

You can watch the trailer here.

Nightmare Alley (2021)

Now playing in theaters; available on several streaming services 2/1/22

Directed by Guillermo del Toro

Starring Bradley Cooper, Cate Blanchett, and Toni Collette

Genre: It’s hard to define the movie exactly. Except for the music, most of the noir elements are absent from this version. I’d say it was a stylized psychological thriller.

Plot: The plot is roughly the same as the 1947 movie, which was roughly the same as the book. But key scenes were missing. And I was disappointed to discover that some scenes that had been omitted from the 1947 movie because they would have been censored were left out of this one.

What I Liked About It 

* The music was good and noir.

* The cinematography was visually arresting throughout.

* The set design was very good.

What I Didn’t Like 

* The casting of all the principals was a huge disappointment compared to the 1947 movie. The idea here seemed to be to go for the draw of big names like Bradley Cooper and Cate Blanchett, rather than trying to find actors that could match Tyrone Power and Joan Blondell.

* The fatalism that was essential to the book and 1947 movie was gone.

* Stan’s character was trivialized by making him more sympathetic, by excusing his bad behavior with contemporary pop victim psychology. The same criticism could be made of some of the other principal actors.

Critical Response 

* “While del Toro’s update adds details from the novel that wouldn’t have passed censors in 1947 and closes with more of a gut-punch, on a bleaker line (while overelaborating much else), the 1947 version is still the definitive one, leaner and meaner.” (New York Times)

* “Hypnotic with its increasingly tense slow-burning plot progression and alluring atmosphere, Nightmare Alley drags the viewer down with its self-destructive lead.” (Carlos Aguilar, Roger Ebert.com)

* “Though it never runs out of gas or even shows signs of sluggishness, del Toro’s Nightmare Alley runs out of importance about a half-hour before the finish. But it’s still an entertaining movie by a distinctive filmmaker.” (San Francisco Chronicle)

You can watch the trailer here.

The Hand of God 

Written, directed, & produced by Paolo Sorrentino

Available on Netflix

Starring Filippo Scotti, Toni Servillo, and Teresa Saponangelo

MM recommended it to me. He said he selected it because the trailer suggested it was about Diego Maradona, the famous soccer player. (MM was a talented soccer player in high school.) But 15 minutes into the movie, he realized it was something else entirely. It was an artsy movie, of some kind. “Not the kind of movie I would have watched,” he said.

But he said he couldn’t stop watching it. And he wanted me to watch it so we could discuss it. And so, I did.

The Story 

This is a coming-of-age movie, set in Naples in the mid-1980s. A young man, Fabietto, lives in an apartment with his father, Saverio Schisa, and mother, Maria Schisa. He is a solitary teen, spending most of his time listening to music, reading philosophy, and watching sports. But he attends family events, including parties and picnics and boat outings. And that is where we get to see the colorful lunacy of the Schisa family. When tragedy strikes the family, Fabietto comes of age.

 What I Liked About It 

* I love Fellini. The Hand of God was, in part, an homage to him, and included many Felliniesque touches.

* The cinematography was just plain delicious.

* The talent. First and foremost, Sorrentino’s scriptwriting, direction, and imagination. Then there is the fantastic acting, starting with Filippo Scotti in the lead role, and including Teresa Saponangelo and Toni Servillo, who play Fabietto’s parents, and Luisa Ranieri, who plays his voluptuous and aggrieved aunt.

Critical Reception 

The Hand of God won the Grand Jury Prize at the Venice International Film Festival and was selected as the Italian entry for the Best International Feature Film at this year’s Academy Awards.

On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 83% based on 140 reviews, with an average rating of 7.3/10.

* “The Hand of God is filled with the kind of detail that could only have come from observation and memory. That one family could contain so many unique and peculiar people is a reminder that truth is almost always stranger than fiction.” (Leonard Maltin)

* “This is a deeply affecting coming-of-age story that doubles as a movie about the movies themselves.” (Robert Levin, Newsday)

* “The film has the vividness of memory, but also the structure of memory, which is to say no real structure at all. Visually, though, the movie is of a piece; it’s Sorrentino’s eye that holds it together.” (Mark Feeney, Boston Globe)

Click here to read a good review of it by A.O. Scott.

Interesting Facts 

* This is an “auteur” film, written, directed, and produced by Paolo Sorrentino. It’s both a Portrait of Sorrentino, the Filmmaker, as a Young Man, and an homage to Federico Fellini – in particular, to Amarcord, Fellini’s 1974 film about his own adolescence.

* There are several fun little bits in the film that you might not notice on the first viewing, such as Fabietto’s teenage sister, who, because she is always in the bathroom, is not seen until the end.

* The title refers to an irony in the story when it turns out that Argentine superstar Diego Maradona “saved the life” of Fabietto.

You can watch the trailer here.

The Alpinist (2021)

A documentary by Peter Mortimer and Nick Rosen

Available to buy/rent on several streaming services

I climbed Mount Kilimanjaro. (I wrote about it here.) And I’m proud that I did. But I’m not a mountain climber. I’m not even much of a hiker. When K asks me if I want to accompany her on one of her daily hour-long treks along the beach, I tell her, “No thank you. I’ve achieved my quota of walking for life.”

So why did I decide to watch The Alpinist the other night? It’s not as if I didn’t realize I would be anxious throughout the film. I’d sweated through Free Solo, the award-winning documentary about another climber – rock climber Alex Honnold – when it came out a few years ago.

The Alpinist is a documentary about Marc-André Leclerc, an unassuming and, for most of his life, relatively anonymous mountain climber that may have broken more climbing records than any climber to date.

In contrast to Honnold, who did his most famous solo ascents alongside a camera crew, Leclerc did most of his climbing on his own, in obscurity. With no ropes, no media attention, and no mountain he wouldn’t try to scale, the story of Marc-André Leclerc – despite its angst-inducing aspects – is worth watching.

What I Liked About It 

* The humility and audacity of Leclerc

* His graceful athleticism when climbing

* The majestic beauty of the mountains

* The awe-inspiring ascents

I also appreciated the approach taken by the filmmakers, Peter Mortimer and Nick Rosen, both veteran climbers who’ve spent 20 years documenting the sport. As noted in a review of the film on the Roger Ebert website: “They make no pretense of impartiality, whether stressing that they spent two years filming Leclerc or expressing their anxieties about the fact that he could have fallen to his death at any moment.”

Critical Reception  

* “[The Alpinist is] an intriguing insight into a particular kind of obsessive drive, and a portrait of a man who, as one of his contemporaries remarked, feels almost too comfortable on the side of a mountain.” (Wendy Ide, Observer [UK])

* “The film is too pedestrian to really share Leclerc’s spirt – but it captures some of his ascents in scenes both hypnotic and terrifying, and in those you sense you glimpse the essence of him, wholly in the now.” (Danny Leigh, Financial Times)

* “The film-makers’ enthusiasm for his clarity of purpose is all well and good, but it does leave the film prone to hyperbole.” (Leslie Felperin, Guardian)

Interesting Facts About Alpinism (Mountain Climbing) 

From the MountainHomies website:

* Everest is the highest open grave in the world. As of January 2021, 305 people had died on the mountain, and an estimated 200 bodies were still there.

* Annapurna is the world’s deadliest mountain, with a fatality-to-summit rate of 32%.

* The Matterhorn is dangerous, not because it is especially difficult to climb, but because of its popularity. Due to the sheer number of people trekking up and down the mountain, it has a high injury rate.

* You enter the “death zone” at 8,000 meters (approx. 26,000 feet). Above that elevation, there is only about one-third of the oxygen that you find at sea level – not sufficient for humans to breathe.

Blade Runner (1982)

Based on the book by Phillip K. Dick

Available to buy/rent on several streaming services

Directed by Ridley Scott

Starring Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, and Sean Young

A few weeks ago, I watched Apocalypse Now, a genre-expanding movie classic. As I wrote in my review, it exceeded my expectations.

Still in the afterglow of that experience, I decided to watch another breakthrough film from the past. My choice was Blade Runner.

I loved Blade Runner when I first saw it. I loved the imagined future – a steampunk devolution of Los Angeles – created by Ridley Scott and company. And I loved the story – the quirky, noir, sci-fi plot about a cop (Harrison Ford) assigned to eliminating errant robots (“replicants”).

I wondered, before watching it again, whether the special effects would still work. The movie is almost 40 years old. Ancient by technology standards.

And yes, the special effects were dated. But the set design and the photography and the sound effects and score more than made up for that. Those were – and still feel – brilliant. And Harrison Ford played his role pretty much perfectly.

Critical Reception 

As noted in Wikipedia: “Initial reactions among film critics were mixed. Some wrote that the plot took a back seat to the film’s special effects and did not fit the studio’s marketing as an action and adventure movie. Others acclaimed its complexity and predicted it would stand the test of time. Negative criticism in the United States cited its slow pace. Sheila Benson from the Los Angeles Times called it ‘Blade Crawler,’ and Pat Berman… described it as ‘science fiction pornography.’ Pauline Kael praised Blade Runner as worthy of a place in film history for its distinctive sci-fi vision, yet criticized the film’s lack of development in ‘human terms.’”

Over the years, appreciation of Blade Runner has grown and its influence has spread. It currently has an 89% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes (based on 125 reviews) and an Audience Score of 91% (based on 250,000+ ratings).

You can watch the trailer here.

Interesting Facts 

The eventual success of the film brought Phillip K. Dick, author of the book it was based on, to the attention of Hollywood producers. Several of his other books were then made into big movies, including Total Recall (1990), Minority Report (2002), and A Scanner Darkly (2006).

A sequel, Blade Runner 2049, was released in October 2017.

Shtisel, Seasons 3 & 4 

Available on Netflix

Created and written by Ori Elon and Yehonatan Indursky

Starring Doval’e Glickman, Michael Aloni, and Neta Riskin

I recommended this TV drama in April. At the time, I was just starting Season 3. I wrote the following:

The word that comes to mind when I try to describe how I like this series is “delicious.” I don’t watch it. I consume it. And it gives me the sort of aesthetic pleasure that can best be compared to a bar of Hershey’s chocolate. No, not Hershey’s. That’s too American. It’s like biting into a Toblerone.

Since then, I’ve devoured the rest of that season and all of Season 4. I’m happy to report that they were every bit as good as – maybe better than – the first two seasons. So, I’m recommending Shtisel again.

Shtisel is an Israeli television drama that tells the story of an ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) family that lives in the ultra-orthodox Geula neighborhood of Jerusalem.

It’s great TV on several levels. For starters, it provides an intimate view of a group of people that are, on the one hand, very dissimilar to us and, on the other hand, so relatable in their thoughts, feelings, and actions that they become almost like family.

Another reason Shtisel is great: Other dramas of this type struggle after a season or two to come up with new problems for their characters to solve. But the Haredi community, as journalist Allison Kaplan Sommer wrote in the Israeli publication Haaretz, “provides [plenty of] them ready-made.”

A third reason: The themes are at once universal and personal – the bonds of family, the pursuit of love, the relationship between the living and the dead, etc.

This quote from a fan summed it up for me: “I’m a Norwegian Christian, and watching Shtisel makes me long for my childhood in Geula.”

Critical Reception

The first season of Shtisel was nominated in 12 categories (and won 11 of them) at the Israeli Television Academy Awards. In the US, its reception has been as good if not better. (Its Average Audience Score on Rotten Tomatoes is 99%.)

Interesting Fact 

I’m not sure if this is good news or bad, but an American remake of Shtisel is in the works. It will be written by Lauren Gussis (known for the Showtime series Dexter and the Netflix Original Series Insatiable) and directed by Oscar winner Kenneth Lonegran. The question is whether the US even needs a Shtisel adaptation. In Treatment and Homeland (both of them originally Israeli series) were successfully adapted for US audiences. But in the growing new world of international television, maybe the original of Shtisel is all we need. It’s certainly enough for now.

Apocalypse Now 

Originally released in 1979

Now available on various streaming services, including Netflix and Amazon Prime

Directed by Francis Ford Coppola

Starring Marlon Brando, Robert Duvall, and Martin Sheen

“Why would you watch a movie you’ve already seen?” K asked me.

Sometimes she does that – asks me questions that leave me temporarily speechless. I gathered my thoughts.

“For the same reason I have read Sapiens twice and Lolita three times.”

“Don’t be snarky,” she scolded.

I get it.

There are so damn many good and even very good new movies being produced. More now than ever. And many times more than one could possibly view. Why waste precious time watching something for the second time?

My answer is simple: There is a huge difference between very good and great.

The first time I saw Apocalypse Now was the year it was released, 1979. I was 29, working as a journalist in Washington, DC. It was soon after I had returned from a two-year stint in Africa as a Peace Corps volunteer, and 12 years after I was called to serve in Vietnam by my local draft board. (Another story for another time.)

Apocalypse Now is a three-hour war drama, a brilliant reimagining of Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, and probably Francis Ford Coppola’s best film. It’s also one of a dozen movies I’d take with me to the proverbial “desert island.” (We can talk about the other 11 in a future post.)

The photography and the musical score are brilliant. The sets, scenery, sound effects, and editing are superb. But it is the script and the acting that bring an otherwise very good war film to the level of greatness.

Critical Reception 

In reviewing Apocalypse Now in 1999, Roger Ebert encapsulated my thoughts:

At a distance of 20 years, Apocalypse Now is more clearly than ever one of the key films of the century. Most films are lucky to contain a single great sequence. Apocalypse Now strings together one after another, with the river journey as the connecting link.

The whole movie is a journey toward Willard’s understanding of how Kurtz, one of the Army’s best soldiers, penetrated the reality of war to such a depth that he could not look any longer without madness and despair…. It is the best Vietnam film, one of the greatest of all films, because it pushes beyond the others, into the dark places of the soul. It is not about war so much as about how war reveals truths we would be happy never to discover.

Interesting fact: At the time of its release, the producers were criticized for paying Brando a million dollars for what amounted to about five minutes of screen time. How wrong they were.

You can watch the trailer here.

Bright Star 

Initially released in 2009

Now available on various streaming services, including Netflix and Amazon Prime

Directed by Jane Campion

Starring Abbie Cornish, Ben Whishaw, Paul Schneider, and Kerry Fox

I was in a certain mood. It got a certain review. I read Keats’ poetry in college and graduate school and I remembered admiring it. I remembered that he died young.

Bright Star is the story of the relationship between John Keats and Fanny Brawn during the last several years of the young poet’s life.

What I Liked 

The best thing about Bright Star is that you get to hear some of Keats’ poetry. And hearing it read aloud, as it is in this movie, is worth doing. It got me back to reading Keats. For that reason alone, I’d recommend it. Another positive is that it reminded me of how many of our greatest artists died before they were 30. Keats was obsessed with achieving immortality through his poetry. He died thinking he had failed.

What I Didn’t Like 

Bright Star doesn’t teach us much, if anything, about Keats’ life or the world of poetry in England at the time. It raises some interesting questions about 19th century English society, but answers none of them. It is a movie about a Romantic poet, and it is done in a romantic way. The lead actor (Ben Whishaw) is beautiful and has a beautiful voice. I don’t know anything about Keats’ voice, but there are many painted images of him that make him appear to be a few points lower on the good-looking scale. But, you judge for yourself:

John Keats 

Critical Reception

* “Director Jane Campion’s most enthralling film since The Piano.” (Caryn James, Marie Claire)

* “Wonderful attention is paid to detail, including clothing, furniture and highly-stylized behavior. What is missing is emotion.” (Ed Koch, The Atlantic)

* “Yes, it is a thing of beauty and, yes, things of beauty are joys forever, but we can also probably say this about them: they don’t always add up to the most affecting movies.” (Deborah Ross, The Spectator)

You can watch the trailer here.

Note: If, as happened to me, watching Bright Star spurs you to know more about John Keats, there are many good books available. But since this is a movie review, you might want to check out a one-hour documentary about Keats produced by Encyclopedia Britannica. There are also several little videos available on one of his most famous poems, “Ode on a Grecian Urn.”