Art I Consumed in September 2020

Books

The Overstory
by: Richard Powers
7.5/10
A lot of the time, "The Overstory" is a better piece of activism than a novel.
Richard Powers strikes me as someone who feels very close to the characters in this book (there are about a dozen of them and they're followed over about 45-50 years, in one case a family line is followed over about 200 years). I believe that he had an artistic vision about how to introduce these characters and where they would end up, as well as what thematic niches they'd fit in to, but the connective tissue between these two things were less clear to him. I have to believe this because the first and last parts of this novel are very intriguing, elegant, and have emotive and poetic prose, but the middle lacking in all of this and appears to privilege environmental messaging and activism over every other element of the novel.
Initially, this book blew my fucking mind. I feel like it is at its best when it is being personal and scientific. When I was learning about new ways to look at plants and witnessing pivotal moments in character's lives where they, too, were swept away by this same knowledge, it was a magical experience. There are chapters in the first part of this novel that had me suddenly fascinated by computer coding, macro-photography, and compelled me to do independent research on how to identify local plants and trees in national parks around me. Every character is introduced and tied in to the subject of trees in a unique, surprising, and engaging way which builds off of the chapter before it. It is really really well done and I felt like I immediately knew what all the hype about this book was. However, after all of these characters are introduced, it's not long before Powers somewhat awkwardly forces their stories to intertwine.
It isn't always awkward. Some of the links and relationships feel natural and their collective activism compliments their background. However, I am sorry to say that this isn't always the case, and the once powerful and artistic prose turns in to a pretty ordinary and unremarkable narrative. I think that the reason this book received so much critical praise and attention is due to its political and environmental messaging in these weaker parts of the novel. It is very blunt, very ham-fisted, and rarely impressive in any way other than it being obviously good to be anti-capitalist and speak up for the environment. In addition to this, it becomes uncomfortably obvious that this guy has some exotic kink for girls peeing, and after the 10th time this is brought up you can't really excuse it just because he is making good points against Capitalism. It was just fucking weird. Powers very clearly knows his stuff when it comes to biodiversity but really stumbles through some female perspectives and fails horribly at making the video-game designed by the coding character at all believable or anything like real video-games. I think Powers just watched his son play Minecraft and assumes he knows what video games are and how they're made. It's pretty cringe.
The thing is though...while I do think this novel is highly over-rated and should be viewed more as a great piece of activism rather than anything else, there are a handful of moments even in this middle part which hold genuine profundity. The exploration of decades of anti-capitalist attitudes, environmentalism, and the lives of his characters is intertwined with vibrant meditations on the philosophy of slow growth, adaption, and interdependence. One particularly effecting bit focused on a man having a stroke and how the brain damage branched out like the trees in his overgrown backyard. Powers really sticks the landing in "The Overstory" and I was relieved to find myself back lost in daydreams of wonder and gazing out the window like I was seeing something new that hasn't been there my whole life. At its best, it is a profoundly trans-formative novel and even at its worst, a well-rounded and intensely researched piece of environmental activism.

From Here to Eternity: Travelling the World to Find the Good Death
by: Caitlin Doughty 
8/10
While this often just felt like bonus material to Doughty's debut, "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes", I was nonetheless once again totally engrossed with Doughty's brave stance against the Western capitalization and distancing from death. Ever since her first book came out in 2014 and I've heard her on dozens of podcasts, I have grown ever more invested and furious about my options for my body and my loved ones when I die. In a just world, there would be space for grieving and natural burials, open air cremations, and all of the loving and cost effective means of processing a death and dealing with a dead body would be legal in this country. But we do not live in this world. We live in a world where there has to be some means of paying for and capitalizing off of you and your family's grief, even after you've died.
Anyways, this is another fascinating rendition of Doughty's endless anthropological knowledge on death rituals, embalming, burials, and cremations, though significantly shorter than I expected. This one is a little different from "Smoke" in that the focus is more on how other cultures treat their dead and grieving in juxtaposition to North America, but the thesis is still basically the same. Like "Smoke", reading this book had me doing that thing where I'm frantically hovering over my husband in the kitchen, sloshing tea all over the place, gesticulating wildly as I try to condense and summarize all of the things I've just learned. Doughty's work is so universally interesting that it just begs to be shared. Over the week and a half I was reading this, I must have independently opened up the conversation of death and the funeral industry at least a dozen times. Seriously people, why do we go through all the work of embalming the dead (literally identical to mummifying a corpse) only to toss it in to the ground a handful of hours later? It is bonkers.

It Didn't Start With You

by: Mark Wolynn

6/10

I was pretty disappointed with this one, but it didn't happen right away. Initially, I was amazed. This was the kind of book whose knowledge irrevocably changes the way I look at people and our relationships. For at least a solid week, I was falling down daily rabbit-holes related to epigenetics and prenatal development, looking back at the things I'd learned while studying FASD in a whole new light. I was probably annoying my friends and loved ones with new facts and concepts that the first 3 or 4 chapters of this book introduce. How is it I've gone my whole life believing that 50% of the DNA comes from my mom and 50% from my dad? How is it that I've learned and understood neuro-plasticity and epigenetics but never considered that these same processes happen in-utero? 

I began re-examining my own life and family, considering that my own anxieties and trauma related to preservation and survival may be encouraged by genes that had been "turned on" from generations of broke teen moms all on their own, all with 2-4 daughters in tow. I considered if my "seriousness" that I displayed in childhood came from the stress transferred to me in-utero and I grew new and cathartic empathy for my mother for her own stress and traumas. It was mind-blowing, and I assumed (based on this opening and on what I knew of the book going in) that what would follow would be psychological and empathetic examinations of how trauma effects parent/child relationships through generations and how we can reconcile with this and understand each other better. 

This isn't really what happens. Technically, I guess Wolynn does address how to better understand our family trauma and he does offer a firm approach to healing from it, but it just wasn't what I was looking for. I wasn't looking for Freudian Visualisation Therapy and nothing from the book summary or first couple chapters led me to believe this is where it was going. 

While I value visualization techniques and I have to believe they must work sometimes, as per the cases cited, they are not helpful or applicable to me and a solid 75% of the book covers these techniques in a really repetitive and uninteresting way. Every chapter after a certain point has the same formula. Wolynn explains that someones grandmother watched her brother die in a snowstorm, and so the grand-daughter's "core sentence" that is something like "I want to die. I want to let the earth take me" has everything to do with this, and having an imaginary conversation with the grandmother suddenly solves her migraines. I'm more privy to believe that recognizing family trauma and how it effected this person's mother, mothering skills, and subsequently her childhood, is what actually has the effect of "healing" her and providing stress relief, but this book is not interested in this and is very focused on the power of visualization. 

While I was very briefly receiving professional help for my PTSD I did some visualization techniques. While they did help, what I discovered was that it wasn't the visualization itself that helped me- it was recognizing the patterns and knowing *when* to step in and out of meditative techniques that helped. I have heard that EMDR therapy is invaluable for some, but this was my experience of it. 

So, essentially, I just wasn't interested in or engaged with the majority of this book, which swiftly steps away from neuroscience, genetics, psychology, and sociology and toward Freudian examinations of erectile dysfunction and how it has everything to do with a man's grandfather's emasculation. However, even if I were in to this kind of thing, the book is honestly just really repetitive and basic. The chapters go through concepts one at a time like "The core language of relationships" and "the core language of success" and it repeats the same very basic concept over with only the tiniest change in perspective. It was gruelling and I ended up skimming over the majority of the exercises because doing a push-up on a tiled floor is the same as doing it on carpet, grass, cement and so on. 

This feels like it could've been a couple of chapters in a larger and more expansive book, but instead choose to fluff the shit out of it's initial concept so it could stand on its own. 

Film & TV

Nightcrawler
Directed by: Dan Gilroy
8.5/10
Jake Gyllenhal is one of the greatest actors of our time and the "Gyllen-saunce" as we call it peaks with this unforgettable psychological thriller. This film has a lot of potential to be good in basically any hands. The subject is niche but accessible, Gyllenhal an obvious talent, and the plot/thematic ideas can be moulded to fit basically any conclusion. What makes this particular rendition uniquely unsettling and riveting is that the protagonist gets away with everything and the film direction is not shy about reminding you that he is doing exactly as Capitalism intends of us.
Lou Bloom is an ambitious, determined, and individually motivated person who is constantly working hard on learning more, working harder, and employing countless skill-sets and economical philosophy to get ahead in life. Boomers be damned, Lou proves that handing out resumes and calling the manager is in fact not the best way to attain meaningful employment. Lou finds a niche, exploits it, and works constantly to manipulate others to rise himself up. While he is clearly taking advantage of his partner and blackmailing his superiors, he is also using precise language to make him appear genuinely invested in forming professional relationships and encouraging the investment of others in their own ambitions. Whether his social applications and relationships are genuine or not is up for debate, though it certainly seems like "Nightcrawler" wants you to examine this character from a more nuanced perspective other than "is this guy a sociopath or not?".
This must have been a dream role for Gyllenhal. Lou is an incredibly demanding character for any actor and to interpret his enormous dialogue and specific body language is a huge risk. At best you have an enigmatic, unsettling, and powerful character with superb memetic potential, but at worst he could come across as callous without depth, unnecessarily cruel and thoughtless, and rigid. Even his sense of fashion and man-bun, alone, run the risk of distracting from his rich characterization.
Everything hinges on Lou. Other characters are fine but really serve only either to contrast him and Gyllenhal's performance or to contrast Lou's successful philosophy. One of the greater lines in this film comes from the regular every-man who works at the news station, desperately and all too late positing that the truth in news is the story, not what is being fabricated by Lou and the news team to suit a social agenda. This entire conflict was great in 2013 but hits even harder now as America spirals further and further in to an anarchic simulacra of it's former self. Lou and this societal conflict are the outstanding strengths of this film, and it doesn't really matter that nothing else is too special or remarkable.The film shoots for the moon with laser precision and it directs the audience's attention to this very well.
Whether you are laughing tersely at Gyllenhal's unique line delivery or you are disgusted and uncomfortable with the conclusion drawn by this film, at the savagery of Capitalism and the 24 hour news cycle, you will leave this film impressed. This is a very impressive and engaging thriller.

Gap-Toothed Women
Directed by: Les Blank
10/10
I have discovered an obsession.
Les Blank is a documentary film-maker whose main focus appears to be on Cajun & Creole cuisine and musicians, and yet he also does films on gap-toothed women, garlic, polka music, Werner Herzog's magnum opus, and hippies. They aren't always "feature length" as this one, for example, is just over 30 minutes long, but they always cover their subject with depth. His films have an admirable dedication to capture the joy and naturally optimistic aspects of his subjects and "Gap-Toothed Women" is certainly no exception. "Gap-Toothed Women" is more than just a documentary about societal emphasis on "beauty" and how young girls navigate this. In addition to all that, it is a collection of charming portraits on dozens of women and their individual journeys to self-esteem and confidence.
I'm not sure if this is more a result of the innate human psychology behind witnessing hundreds of images and video of women smiling, laughing, and outwardly happy, or if it's more creative direction and intent, but I had a grin on my face for the entire run-time of this little documentary. This is the feminism I love; depicting women as confident and happy without assertion of power or makeovers. Self-esteem is not only acceptance but embrace. It is cliche but always said best by those who genuinely come to this conclusion- beauty is an abstract word, but the collective joy and beauty we feel and see in women comes from their own fulfillment and happiness, not from adhering to what is and isn't considered "beautiful".
I love the woman who discovers her passion for drawing comics after realizing that she was unhappy, unfulfilled, and that her social and romantic life was lacking and failing because of these deficits in herself, not because of her gap tooth or any failing of "beauty". I love that she feels exhilarated and empowered in her art, like so many other women depicted in this film. I cannot help but adore such a warm-hearted yet not at all preachy piece of feminism and optimistic art. Every image and video of these gap-toothed women fit together like a cheerful symphony and I felt lifted up by it, moved and placed back in this world with a renewed sense of wonder and awe for the potential of men and women alike.

Garlic is as Good as Ten Mothers
Directed by: Les Blank
9/10
Often, I turn to documentaries which feature something I am recognizably ignorant about. The thought process is usually "Wow. I know almost nothing about that, I am curious" or "That is a fascinating topic I always love to learn more about". The inciting feeling of curiosity was something else entirely with this Les Blank film. I went in assuming I knew pretty much all there was to know about garlic, having watched it grow in my mother's garden growing up, cooked with it all my life, and enjoyed it often. It turns out, I was mostly right. I didn't learn much more about garlic than I didn't know going in. However, I did think a lot about garlic, consider it more, and I found myself drawn in to this very humanistic obsession just as Les certainly intended. I left with a warmth in my heart and a craving for garlic, but not in the same way cooking shows might leave me about the ingredient. I suppose the effect was more like that of hearing a group of people sing a song you already know by heart. It isn't something new, but the community experience of it enriches your love for it.
It was very engrossing to watch interviews with people who were studying garlic medicinally, growing garlic, cooking it, eating it, dancing with it, harvesting it, painting it, just totally and completely obsessed with and paying tribute to these delicious bulbs. This will sound insane, but I also grew to love the garlic-themed song which plays throughout. Most of the film has an Italian/Spanish folk-guitar soundtrack which is very lively and engaging on its own, but the garlic song is special. Hell, garlic is special. Garlic is infinitely more special than I had ever previously considered.
For instance, Werner Herzog chimes in for a moment to discuss garlic and its association with vampire lore. Vampires are essentially creatures which long to be preformatively human, but without the vanity of seeing ones self in a mirror or the essential human love for garlic across all cultures, vampires are lost. How have I lived my life not considering this? In my 20's I have been exploring the social remedies of food; the way people universally sigh with contentment over the aroma of roasting garlic, how we always must share bread after we have tenderly nursed it to life, how the harvest is always celebrated as a community even when Capitalism begs for us to abandon these traditions.
This documentary drives all of these ideas home, with the added benefit of being delightfully playful with its subjects, whether they are wearing garlic hats or participating in sensual garlic festivals.

Burden of Dreams
Directed by: Les Blank
9.5/10
Werner Herzog and his overly ambitious film made in the Amazon jungle is an absolute dream of a subject for any documentary film-maker and I can only imagine that Les knew he had struck gold with this one. The linear progression through the doomed production of "Fitzcarraldo" is consistently entertaining and it never feels like it is skimming over anything or slowing down too much on any given subject. The never-ending avalanche of disastrous information given by the narrator is almost humorously consistent and whether it was intentional or not, I believe it has great comedic timing. Every new piece of information is equally devastating as it is kind of humorously exasperating. I mean, of course the ship gets stuck. Of course tensions are high. Of course nothing can go according to plan.
The whole thing lends a great symmetry to Werner Herzog's vision. "Fitzcarraldo", the production of "Fitzcarraldo", and the inevitable misery resulting from both all reflect this Sisyphean tragedy and Les Blank skilfully navigates this whole thing in ways which continue to draw back to this tragedy and the burden of Werner's dreams. There are several haunting interviews in which Herzog explains why he feels compelled to do this outrageously impossible escapade and in doing so he reveals that he genuinely believes in dreams, movie magic, and the essential misery of film-making. When he is asked if he still feels passionate about this and if he is still going to go through it considering all of the financial, emotional, and production disaster, Herzog says "How could you ask that? If I were to give up on this, I would be a man without dreams. I do not want to live like that. I can't.". In the end, after all is said and done, Herzog delivers this incredible monologue about the jungle, misery, and the nihilism behind his whole dream. Essentially, Herzog expresses his belief that no matter how this film is received, how good it looks, how perfect it is an actualization of his vision, he cannot feel good about it any more. Ultimately he feels "Fitzcarraldo" will only be a testament to the misery he and all of the cast and crew were subject to for his dream. Herzog delivers lines which can only come from a man who has faced the essential fatalism of art and creativity head-on for 4 years in the jungle.
I love that this documentary really made me consider the enormous effort that goes behind any film, especially ones like this. To birth an ethereal vision in to enormous physical reality takes sacrifices and thousands of people cooperating. Yes there is outrageous money behind all this, but even more than that this documentary suggests you consider the crushing human cost behind these things. The compounded stress, misery, and hopelessness behind productions such as this shine a potent and uncomfortable light on the artistic passion of our dreams.

i'm thinking of ending things
Directed by: Charlie Kaufman
8/10
Somewhere in the first third of the film we get a scene of our protagonist explaining that her landscape artwork is about emotion and realizing that whatever you feel when you look at it is regarding you, not the landscape itself. Her work is like a mirror- you see yourself in it. "i'm thinking of leaving things" is a mirror, too, in this way. Whatever you feel haunted by as you watch this isn't really coming from the film, it's coming from you. The film is just very good at drawing you in and paralyzing you, watching you sink with that stunted, distant, repressed expression Jesse Plemmons is burdened with the entire film.
Honestly how do I write about this thing? I have more quotes than notes, more guttural experiences than coherent thoughts, more haunting images I don't understand but feel like I know intimately...and how does one write about that? You'd have an easier time writing poetry about this thing than any kind of essay or review. The film itself very much embraces poetry and disorganised prose. More than a dream-state, this film feels like desperately swinging your arms in to the void, reaching and straining for answers and comfort and slipping more and more in to its murky waters.
Where does one life experience separate from our collective confusion, hope, and doomed existence? Why do we see ourselves in everything? Why are we constantly getting tangled in each other's lives only to age and lose grip on it all? How do we face the overwhelming monotony of life and endless pointless relationships? Have humans invented hope because we need a means of coping with our unique understanding of death, demise, and decay? What is brutal to us is only inconceivable reality to an animal.
There are so many incredible quotes, monologues, and bits of dialogue in this film. My favourite may be regarding the lack of agency we have over time/ageing: "We are stationary. Time blows through us like a cold wind, stealing our warmth".
This film feels a little bit like if "mother!" and Kaufman's earlier work, "Synecdoche, New York" were combined in spirit. It isn't my favourite of Kaufman's by any stretch (these are "Being John Malkovich" and "Eternal Sunshine") but I do think this is the one (possibly along with "Synecdoche, New York") that would be the most rewarding to re-watch. There are so many thematic balls being juggled, so many disturbing and unsettling recurring images, and so little concrete thread of plot, you can read in to so much and it may change with every viewing. At the very least, it'd be worth it to see Jesse Plemmons and Toni Collette's performances again. They are incredibly unhinged but in opposite ways- where Toni is screaming off the edge of reality, Jesse is allowing the snow drifts to consume him completely.
Oh yes, that's the last thing I'll say. The overwhelming oppression of prairie winter in this flick did not make me particularly happy about the leaves changing colour outside my window. I haven't made hating winter a sport, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't gritting my teeth in the scenes involving the icecream parlour in the blizzard. Absolutely fuck that, maybe even more than the horrors of dementia and a life wasted on monotony.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Directed by: Rupert Wyatt
6.5/10
It was striking and kind of exciting to see a truly modern rendition of the "Apes" series. While there are certainly real drawbacks to this more modern film-making approach, that being the uninteresting and generic aesthetic, soundtrack, and performances, the pay-off is incredibly realized special effects and motion-capture technology. The special effects in this film are nearly a decade old but they hold up astoundingly well. The apes all look more than real, but grounded and heavy in their environment. They look incredible but its the weight which impressed me the most. Often, special effects like this can look great but still feel "flat" especially when they interact with the environment. This is not the case here. Genuinely, some spectacular work done in the special effects and motion capture department.
The transition from hard sci-fi to adventure film is pretty abrupt here but I actually really enjoyed the short but sweet sequences with James Franco and Ceasar growing up. Also, as this film and presumably future films have just about zero political agenda, it was interesting to see a revolution of apes rise up purely of animal-related injustice. This is really a film about apes and from an ape's perspective, not a film which uses apes to deepen a humanistic metaphor. While I'm not a fan of the intelligence of apes being a simple cliche'd matter of lab experiments instead of this grand historical and evolutionary thing, and the revolution is a lot more simplistic and one-note, the action scenes behind all of this were super fun and cinematic. The "no" moment is another example of something that may not carry the intellectual weight of its predecessors, but doubles down on the cinematic punch. This is a genuinely exciting and entertaining rendition of this story.
After 6 films, it feels like we deserve a fun blockbuster, and in that respect I loved this film for what it was.

Mysterious Skin
Directed by: Greg Arraki
6.5/10
I go out of my way to recommend this flick to people and it isn't necessarily because it is a great film, though I do think there are some incredibly warm and sentimental shots done bravely and with great care. Rather, I want people to see this because from a neuroscience and psychology level, it is the most accurate depiction of trauma (and, in particular, childhood trauma) that I've seen and I kind of feel like its my duty to promote it. Mark Wolynn's book "It Didn't Start With You" touches on the unconscious human effort to protect and rewrite our traumas. Most of the time, we see PTSD depicted with flashbacks, nightmares, and a struggle to keep it out of reach because acknowledging it is impossible or too painful. We also see some of what one boy in "Mysterious Skin" suffers from, which is the body protecting those exposed to trauma by completely wiping memory clear of it. Evidence suggests that it isn't just the ability to recollect being affected with these traumatic memories, but that while a trauma is happening the brain may shut down and not "record" what is happening like how it performs when someone blacks out from excessive liquor consumption. What is really interesting and admirable of this film, though, is it's depiction and voice given to Joseph Gordon Levitt's character (Neil).
Neil looks back on the trauma with an uncomfortable affection, nostalgia, and pride. It is natural for us to feel upset with this but the reality is that this is yet again evidence of the body and brain protecting itself from the trauma. Neil's childhood perception of what happened is different than what an objective adult perception of it would be. Near the end of the film, we see him processing this trauma from a more understanding perspective as an adult, but still he struggles to demonize it until he has seen another victim. I have never been sexually assaulted, but this direction and analysis of a trauma victim really hits home for me. I distinctly remember the sharp denial and feeling offended at a therapist identifying something as trauma in my life with sympathy and empathy. I thought to myself "You don't have to feel sorry for me. That wasn't trauma. That was perseverance. It was meaningful to me. How dare you!?". Neil displays this exact same resistance to labelling his trauma as something "bad". In the end, he recognizes that it harmed him, but wants others to know that despite this, this part of his past is a very important part of him and that doesn't change even if he can accept the pain and grief now. Just because something was traumatic, this doesn't mean it wasn't trans-formative and integral to who a person is. You can heal from a trauma but you cannot decide that you are "done with it". It is an essential part of who you are and your journey.
Many pieces of fiction would shy away from this uncomfortable reality of Neil's memories being bright, happy, and empowering, even while being sexually assaulted. Perhaps the most disturbing part of child sexual abuse is that the innocence and childhood need for love and intimacy is taken advantage of first and irrevocably betrayed. I love that "Mysterious Skin" focuses on this more than demonising the attacker. When the focus is turned on demonising the attacker, you are not giving the victims justice. You are making their story about him now.

What They Had
Directed by: Elizabeth Chomko
7/10
Like a lot of family dramas, the weakest part of these films is that they are very forgettable. Though I feel invested and moved as I go through the film, within days it has left me. Though they are often well written and feature strong performances, they put too much weight on writing and emotional storytelling with little to no care about engaging any of the senses. Soundtracks, visuals, cinematography, set design, shot composition, framing, the list goes on and all of these things are neglected here. What sets most good family dramas apart from a great one comes down to whether they use the film medium to its advantage at all.
Anyways, this is a good family drama. "What They Had" dissects a complex and defeating issue which affects many families, and it does so with empathy for all involved. Dementia and how best to prepare families and individuals for its slow, agonizing take-over is controversial and a highly emotional subject. On one hand, we all want our loved ones to be safe and experience as little stress as possible. On the other hand, it isn't easy to determine when the harsh (but usually necessary) transition needs to be made for an individual to move in to assisted living. To move someone in to a memory care home is to do make a compassionate and difficult choice while also actively accepting that you have lost the person that is attached to their lives and your lives in any way now. I really appreciate one scene where the father is advocating for his ability to care for his wife, claiming that "All over the house there are pictures to help her remember things. I've been with her for the last 40 years of memories, and I've heard the stories of the other ones at least a hundred times. She knows me, she trusts me, and I know her. *I* am the best memory care in all of Chicago". I think giving the stubborn father a voice of reason, even if it is still emotional reason, is a good call. He may be fighting against what may seem obvious to the rest of us, but he is grieving in a way nobody else can understand. He cannot accept that his wife doesn't need the love he can offer, she needs the emotional consistency.
Every piece of this story is agonizing and thoughtful. Firstly there is the mother with dementia. We see her stress as she is losing grip, we see her guilt and confusion, and most importantly as the film moves on we see that she is more cognizant of her disease than we may think. She knows, for instance, that there is a blessing to a loved one dying before she could forget them but not so early on that she would miss them. It is hard to grapple with, as it is natural for us to cling to and honour our memories and concrete relationships to others, but the reality is that people who suffer from dementia eventually transition in to a completely different state of being- one which may not honour the same things we do. It is heartbreaking but this film carries this realization to you with great care.
Many family dramas fail at being consistent- tensions over multiple generations may not add up from a psychological or emotional level and it can seem like certain conflicts and personalities exist only to serve the plot and character development of the main protagonist. This film is not like that. There is a clear attention to detail within the relationships in the film and which ideas pass down through generations. For instance, we see Hillary Swank's character trying in vain to save her daughter from what she sees as poor decisions, to try and help her and diagnose the problems in her life. Later in the film, we see a conflict with Swank and her father where she despairs and asks him "How do you know what my problem is?" accusingly.
Hillary Swank is an incredibly scientific character in this film, despite her problematic relationship with her daughter. Throughout the film we see her juggling 3 stubborn personalities and trying endlessly to appease all parties, to ease the pains of everyone, to support everyone even when situations seem to insist on betrayal. I don't know that I've ever really considered Hillary Swank to be a great actress before, but she really gives this film a full spectrum of emotional acting.
If this film wasn't so boring to look at and listen to, I think its dedicated performances and writing could really hold it up. Unfortunately, not one scene sticks out for me other than the dialogue within it.


The Naked Gun
Directed by: David Zucker
7/10
This is a good comfy chuckle and it was a pleasant surprise to see how lewd and delightfully horny it was. I don't know what I thought "The Naked Gun" was, but I think I basically expected "Airplane!" which I also haven't seen and may also be horny as fuck for all I know. Another pleasant surprise was that it wasn't offensive at all, despite being a slapstick comedy that is over 30 years old which features a lot of sex jokes. I think I expected this to be like "Police Academy" and/or have at least a couple poorly aged jokes at the expense of people on the LGBTQ spectrum, racial minorities, and fat people. Honestly its kind of a crowning achievement for a film like this to age so well. I was really impressed with how universally funny so much of this flick was.
It didn't blow me away on an artistic level or anything but it was just good fun. My favourite bit is the one where the cop is bribing the criminal with 20$ bills and the exchange ultimately ends in the criminal being out 20$ even though they were bribed. Yes. This the gold standard of comedy. It is never trying too hard, it is never winking at you, and it is always having fun.
Also, horny. Very horny.

Interstellar
Directed by: Christopher Nolan
9/10
Well it looks like I'm facing inconceivably upsetting doom again, less than a month after watching "Titanic". Again I approach a huge film that I had some implicit bias towards. I had the impression that it was overly long and boring, that it would be like "The Martian" which I really didn't like, and that it was some sort of corny romance because love ends up being the answer or something. These ideas I had going in were wrong. This movie is anything but boring, pretty much nothing like "The Martian", and I genuinely feel that every emotional beat was done with incredibly balanced cinematic power and great character motivation.
There are so many things I loved about this movie. Obviously, there is the enormous and supernaturally cinematic soundtrack, constantly enticing our imaginations and sweeping us in to these moments of near unbearable intensity. It legitimately moved me to tears at one point and not even necessarily out of emotion for the scene, but it seemed more like my body just reacting to the overbearing tension and scope of the musical moment. The world-building and aesthetic is bravely minimalist and very effective. Though the film doesn't spend too long in any given environment, I felt intimately engaged in each of them. This may be the only movie I've ever seen with a dedication to a grey colour palette that actually uses it in an interesting and meaningful way. The colour scheme and environments of the film are both familiar and alien, dystopian and yet emotionally intimate, philosophically comforting and threatening, always in the grey areas between these two things- always with Matthew McConaughey as he struggles with his desire to save his children's future and the sacrifices this requires of him. All of this, not even in consideration of the plot, creates this dystopian atmosphere that feels notably "real" and believable. This particular dystopia feels more like the natural sigh of the end of our world than most other films, whose intent is to interest you in something new or political instead of something universal and sentimental. Instead of something happening or war turning the world to ruin and chaos, this world has moved backwards to a slow death from multiple angles. The film explores the innate human will to learn, adapt, grow, and explore, and implies that what makes this world dystopian is just as much the stagnation of humankind as it is the threat of food extinction.
I'm honestly really shocked that this movie has a reputation for being one of Nolan's most boring films. Never mind the non-stop threat and action sequences in the space exploration, the dialogue and character-focused drama is also really tight and well written too. Through character dramas and conflicts Nolan explores what a functional society is versus an idealistic, inventive, and curious society can be. Nolan manages to present moral and ethical questions to us without bringing any of the action to a halt. Curiosities and nostalgic wonder are paced out thoughtfully and intentionally so that we are never stuck on any one idea too long and the scientific jargon never pulls us too far away from the humanistic issues of preservation and sacrifice at hand. So many powerful and overwhelming emotions come to life on the screen through a handful of spectacular performances and every single character motivation is compelling and uniquely involved.
I know that the "love is the answer" thing has made many people roll their eyes, but I actually feel it was done elegantly and barely imposes on any of the dozens of other ideas in the film either. When the movie starts to get a little ambitiously cerebral and conceptual, I think weaving this idea of human love and attachment as an anchor in time unique to us is a really powerful and clever way to keep the audience grounded in our reality. I genuinely loved this even if I can see how it could be seen as corny. Maybe I just love the idea that the further you go in to space, in to conceptual theories and the bare and threatening philosophies of mankind, the closer you get to this idea that such an unknowable and constant idea like love is the most powerful thing we could ever hope to wield and understand.

The Dark Knight
Directed by: Christopher Nolan
9/10
I had the privilege of seeing this absolute giant of a film in theatres this month. I have very fond memories of seeing this in theatres twice the year it came out- both times with my friends, feeling very grown up and independent for attending the late showings of this and walking home at like 1am. While I have seen "The Dark Knight" at least half a dozen times since then, it is a Christopher Nolan film and thus infinitely greater as a theatre experience. For the first time since 2008, I felt genuine terror while watching this. For the first time since 2008, I realized that guns can sound as heavy as their effect is. This film demands an impressive sound system with no chance of distraction.
Really, what can I say about this that hasn't already been said? Is it even worth discussing Heath Ledger or the Joker? The absolute presence of this character is near supernaturally tense and its just as much Nolan's direction as it is Ledger's prolific performance. As soon as the Joker enters a scene, be it physically or just his voice, there is instantly a terrified hush. As soon as the Joker is done his speech, this tension is immediately cut with an urgency and panic, then a scramble to evacuate or control the masses of civilians freaking out. The Joker always involves civilians in his threats because chaos and fear builds exponentially in groups. When the Joker says "Do I look like a man with a plan?", I think what he is actually saying is "Do I look like I have a predictable plan?". Part of the reason he is regarded as one of the best Batman villains, and in my opinion certainly the most threatening, is because he genuinely makes Gotham and those who try and protect it helpless and hopeless to his villainy. The city is so inherently corrupt and The Joker so interconnected and clever, the chaos he orchestrates so disruptive and terrifying, Batman and Gotham's police force have no choice but to busy themselves putting out fires and controlling the panic before they can even think of pursuing The Joker. 

It has to be a testament to Nolan's spectacularly tight execution and universally terrifying villain that you can absolutely see this film having no knowledge of the first film in the trilogy or of Batman lore at all, and still leave having witnessed an intensely moving and cerebral story.
Aaron Eckhart is also incredible in this film and doesn't get half the credit he deserves, undoubtedly because of his co-stars. There honestly isn't a weak performance in this film at all, but I want to speak to Eckhart's emotional power for a minute. I know Ledger's monologues are legendary and done with a great deal of Brando-esque physical technique, but I believe the best delivered line in the film is Eckhart saying "Lie to him. Lie like I did". For the first time in years, this line brought me to tense, uncomfortable, angry tears. I did not feel sad, exactly, so much as I felt frightened and emotionally raw. That is the power of this film and that performance.
I recall "The Dark Knight" winning about 500 Oscars in 2008, specifically for sound design and it's soundtrack. This aint no joke. This film absolutely deserves the recognition it gets there. Car chase and crash scenes are so much more physical, brutal, and noisy than others. The screaming of metal crushed and torn against the harsh concrete environments of Gotham, or blown up with explosives, these all sound and feel so uniquely intense and destructive. No other film has scenes of destruction that hit and crush with the same visceral weight as "The Dark Knight" does. This also applies to guns. Bullets sound sharper, louder, and it seems like you can feel them hit your chest with the violent bass that accompanies them. Even fistfights are tangibly more blunt, heavier, louder. Everything sounds heavier and "larger than life", all acts of violence are designed to be felt just as much as witnessed. Certainly I am predisposed to this kind of thing, but I left with genuine chest pains as we were driving home that night.
One last thing. I don't know that I'd ever considered the power of the imagery Nolan focuses on in this film. Associating terror with burning buildings, firemen and large structures in complete destruction at ground level, civilians panicking and scrambling for a safety that doesn't exist under a threat they hardly understand, all of these things seem very reminiscent of 9/11. This felt bold now. I can't imagine how this felt to American people back in 2008.

Martyrs
Directed by: Pascal Laugier
8.5/10
You have to understand, I anticipated it being a very different experience than it was for me. I settled down gritting my teeth in preparation for gore, torture porn, and gross stuff. I ended up watching this because a good friend of mine earnestly recommended it and generally I trust this man. Though I went in prepared for all of the above, I did trust that there had to be more to the film because otherwise he would not have wasted my time. Would he set me up to suffer? Maybe. Would he set me up to waste my time? I didn't think so. 

I was right in that regard. This was an excellent use of an afternoon and contained a surprisingly small amount of gore, arguably no torture porn at all. The "grossest" part of Martyrs isn't the gore at all but is possibly the avenues of thought you inevitably go down as a viewer, thinking to yourself about all the times pain, depression, and trauma have been romanticized and fetishised like the villains do in the film. The biggest cringe of all didn't come from staples being pulled out of a skull or women being beaten senseless, skin being pulled off of a body, or scenes horrific self-harm. The biggest cringe from me comes with the repeated monotony of this abuse. I've been told this film was made while the director was in a deep depression, and this shows. Nothing spells "depression" like waking every day to a dark, hopeless place where you are helpless to having the shit beat out of you every day and your pain and suffering is framed as something noble, character-building, and what brings you closer to God. Do I believe great pain, depression, and grief inevitably connect people to abstract concepts in ways you can't really access outside of your "pain body"? Yes. Do I think that this makes suffering a necessary component to enlightenment, nevermind something we should impose on people against their will? No. I see this all the time in my circles too. Overcoming adversity is astounding and deeply meaningful, but imposing it on others and romanticizing their experience of it is cruel, not in any way helpful or appropriate, and fucking gross. 

Martyrs has a lot going on. The first two thirds is almost an entirely different movie and story than the last third. While "Martyrs" opens up and establishes the bulk of its thematic angles through an empathetic and traumatizing story between two close friends, the third act abruptly and brutally switches tracks to consider the role religion and a cult-like worship of pain have played in the villainy we've witnessed. This third act is what makes "Martyrs" a much more complex and intellectual art & discussion piece, as much can be said to the lengths religion and spiritual traditions will go to normalize their own brand of suffering, to divert attention away from the disenfranchised and toward the abstract divine, but my primary interest and engagement lies in the first two thirds of the movie. 

It became clear to me pretty early on that the people who made this movie were either very well educated on (or, at the very least, very understanding and sympathetic to) the effects and manifestation of trauma in a person's life and behaviour, particular in childhood trauma. Lucie can never feel safe again after what she experienced as a child. The survivors guilt is carried with her and manifests despite even the most dedicated of support she receives from her best friend, Anna. The supportive component of loving friends and family is a bit of a tricky one when discussing severely traumatized individuals. While valuable supports are invaluable in attachment disorders and in promoting individual resiliency, supports can never "repair" the wounds of trauma. I am a huge advocate for the uncomfortable and potentially heartbreaking discussion to be had with the support systems of victims of trauma which stresses the reality that you can love, support, and meaningfully engage with a person in their recovery, but this is never going to be a relationship where you can "fix" and assert any kind of "moving on" with this person and their trauma. You may have to continue this level of love and support for the rest of their lives, so decide now what role you are comfortable having in all of this. Many people discover this too late, deep in the throws of denial and despair. We see this realization in Anna when she finds another victim and tells them, helplessly upset and burdened by what she has seen, "I can't help you". Crucially, we see Anna utter these words and yet continue to help and do her best anyway. In saying "I can't help you" Anna isn't admitting that she literally cannot help, but rather she is saying "I cannot take away the trauma, I can only help you in your minute to minute pain". Oof. Get me a fucking drink for that one. "Martyrs" is hard to watch in many respects, but hardest of all for me was this progression in Anna from someone who hopes she can save her friend, to someone who realizes she is useless to anyone in the face of these levels of trauma. Anna just wants to help, just wants to care and love these people, and she is only now realizing that "recovery" in the way she hopes to support these people in achieving will never be possible. 

People heal from trauma every day, but they are irrevocably scarred and damaged by the effects their trauma has on their ability to behave, react, and operate in assumptions and survival instincts. Another detail in "Martyrs" which had me thinking "yes, this guy gets it" is the reveal that the "beast" has not been physically attacking Lucie at all. Lucie has been self-harming this entire time. This wasn't a particularly surprising reveal, I definitely saw it coming and I suspect most people would. What is significant and meaningful about this is the idea and intent put forward by the director/writer that while Lucie's experience of trauma and frightening delusions may not be "real", the wounds absolutely are. A person suffering from any mental illness can tell you this- what's going on in their head "isn't real", but the effects absolutely are real. The pain, suffering, and scarring is real. Lucie's self-harm can be interpreted as her meeting her needs to feel physically what she is tormented constantly by emotionally/spiritually. Self-harm is an incredibly diverse and fascinating human behaviour but so often in media we see it done only as a release or in suicide attempts, when the reality is that the majority of self-harm is supposedly done so that those suffering may feel control over their lives and bodies where previously (or consistently) they are being held completely against their will by their mental illness or trauma. 

So, I loved "Martyrs". I would absolutely watch it again, but not any time soon. I didn't leave this film feeling grossed out or numb like many strictly horror films may do to me, and I didn't leave feeling haunted or repulsed like psychological horrors have been known to do. Certainly, I didn't feel great afterwards. More than gory or physically uncomfortable like I'd been lead to believe this would be, I just left feeling deflated and depressed. Another thing I felt, which will sound completely insane at first but hear me out, was inspired. I want more films to discuss trauma like this. I have seen great leaps of progress in the way films are portraying addictions and trauma, and "Martyrs" gives me hope that I may someday see more thoughtful and empathetic depictions of self-harm and PTSD, as well as giving insight into the lives and psychology of those caught in the endlessly depressing world of loving people who are victims to these things. 

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

Directed by: Matt Reaves

7.5/10

This is my favourite of the new trilogy. Though the human bits suuuuuuuuuuuck, the apes get exponentially more interesting and sympathetic as the series and this film in particular goes on. I love that the conflict within the community of apes arises so organically and from disagreement on threats that can't just be boiled down to "human bad, ape good". Sure, that definitely is a component to the driving force between Ceasar and Koba's respective camps, but I like that there is even just a little bit of extra thought put to it. Ceasar doesn't trust humans, and in that way him and Koba have similar views. What makes them different isn't necessarily that Ceasar has some sort of love for the human race, but that Ceasar is making leadership choices based on what will reduce future conflicts with people. Ceasar's motivation is mostly to avoid war, to avoid fatalities, and to establish peace so that future generations will be safe. Koba's motivations aren't as simple as they seem either. Koba isn't just pro-war, but he fundamentally believes that peace is not an option, cannot be achieved no matter what room we make for it, and that the only way apes can be safe is to exist in a world without humans. Koba cannot forgive Ceasar for bending over backwards for the same people that enslave/d them and hurt them for all of history, and Ceasar cannot reconcile with Koba's willingness to sacrifice ape lives in a war. I think this is a much more interesting conflict and approach to "the human problem" than what I expected going in, which was essentially "Ceasar loves humans and is not one of us, fuck him". 

Honestly, Koba is just a fantastic villain. Koba may not be particularly intellectually engaging, but his aesthetic and screen presence is undeniable. Koba's inherent menace and threat is established and elaborated on constantly as he grows more and more unhinged and powerful. There are several scenes involving him that give me chills just thinking about it. He is fantastic and dearly missed in the next film. Ceasar is also growing in an interesting and sympathetic way. I found myself a lot more emotionally invested in this Ceasar than OG Ceasar. He may not be nearly as politically motivated, clever, or interesting, but his emotional arc and leadership is hugely sympathetic and moving. Honestly, this is a pretty fair trade off in my book. The new trilogy isn't trying to be hard sci-fi or deeply political- it sets its sights on a visually stunning action franchise with a heart and uniquely sympathetic premise, and I think it succeeds at this. 

Finally I have to say that I find it hilarious that the female monkeys have invented jewellery and braids. I guess the director needed to have some way to distinguish male and female apes, other than having penises in broad daylight (this would've been very based though), but still I think it's funny. I don't know why this particular detail just gets me, but it does. 

War for the Planet of the Apes

Directed by: Matt Reeves

6.5/10

This film has a ton of great ideas, imagery, and a well written plot. However, and I cannot stress this enough, there is not a single scene (from about 30 minutes in to the end of the movie) that isn't bloated and dragged on at least twice as long as it should be. Once you notice its huge over-use of the slow music, slow movement, close-up on incredible mo-cap work scene, you cannot un-see it. These scenes are everywhere and at first they feel emotional and moving, but they quickly become overbearing and boring. This film is 2 and a half hours long. This film does not know what it is. Is it a Vietnam film? Is it a prison break? Is it a Western film, or the Passion of the Christ? It is all of these things. This isn't inherently an issue but it does add to it feeling so stretched out and unfocused. 

The villain this time is Woody Harrelson, who I have a hard time disliking because it's Woody Harreleson, but nonetheless his villain his pretty terrible. He is only a threat in that he leads the concentration camps, but he has no gravitas at all and mostly just stands there with those badass glasses. I really just feel nothing towards him. He is a villain because we hate him because he is doing evil things. He has next to no character, but this could be because he is human. In this newer trilogy, basically everything surrounding humans sucks. James Franco was fine I guess, but its like the series knows that people are boring and disposable because they never stick around longer than one film. This one makes the common mistake of assuming that slow music and a slow-motion shot of violence will automatically register emotion, and they make this mistake over and over again. There are some genuinely moving scenes in this film, but the token Dakota Fanning girl plucking flowers out of a tree is not one of them, and every subsequent attempt to make this character meaningful in any way is just an enormous waste of time. If we cut the girl out, the film could be at least half an hour shorter and lose virtually nothing. 

Alright, but enough of the negativity. There were many things I liked about this movie. Though this was more common in the OG series, I love how these films create and work with ape lore. I love the meaning behind the "apes together" salute and it kind of harkens back on the brilliant N-word thing in the original series. I also love the re-imagining of ape slavery in this trilogy and the Holocaust imagery is gut wrenching and super bold. I have to appreciate Ceasar's crucifixion and the whole "lets get back to work, rebelling is too dangerous" thing. Perhaps most of all, I liked them bringing back the mute humans and restating this idea that speech is what makes us human. While the idea is flawed and the "it was part of the virus" thing is kind of a cop-out, it actually adds an interesting piece of history to the original series. I like that this trilogy didn't try to follow in their footsteps, but instead rewrote itself and even threw in some additional lore which fits in both realities. I am fascinated by the relationship these films have to each other. 

Finally, I have to talk about the special effects again. The motion capture technology in this bitch is unbelievable. Fuck the Lion King remake- this should be the standard for humanizing realistic animals. Fucking incredible. 

Jaws

Directed by: Steven Speilberg

7.5/10

I was told that this film eerily depicts the current status of our world and COVID. I thought to myself, ha, sure, the movie about a big shark? Yes I bet it does. Sure. 

I was wrong. It is uncanny how well this interpretation lines up. Allow me to explain:

1. The mayor covers up shark-related deaths in an attempt to keep the issue from interfering with the summer season

2. The mayor encourages citizens to sacrifice their lives and safety for tourism/ the economy. Once a few people are seen swimming again, the masses flock to it and get empowered by this shared idea that they are safe

3. Huge resistance to the beaches closing, citizens crying out "we didn't agree to this!?" while at the same time being outraged that the problem still exists

4. Protag suggests they take precautions now, close beaches, and maybe they can save August as the threat only stays here so long as there are masses of people in the water. Everyone, especially the mayor, refuses to do this because they would rather ignore the danger completely in favor of the economy (not realising that the longer this goes on, the more tourism is threatened) 

5. Experts are ignored by the mayor because of his interest in Capitalism and regular citizens ignore the experts because they are inconvenienced by them

6. "If we do this, the rest of the summer may be saved and lives wont be lost" followed by the response "Hell no, what about 4th of July!? This is America!!!"

So yeah. It adds up. 

As for the movie extricated from all of this super relevant political discourse, I liked it a lot! The climactic action on the ship as it is sinking and the shark is going full predator is riveting and the underwater stuff was really cool. The shark obviously looks really fake when its above water, but I was impressed with how great it could look when it was framed right. I was actually impressed with a lot of the framing in this film- nearly every shot is framed very deliberately and has a personality on its own. I loved the detail of the ocean almost always being present in some way in each scene, looming in the background or threatening and imposing. The ship stunts were all incredible and have aged super well too- the rocking and chaotic struggle with the ocean and shark all looked very real and harrowing. Honestly, boats are just brilliant platforms for threat; a boat is precarious, isolated, and limited, and the people aboard it are helpless in the water. I understand why this was shown in my film studies class and I regret skipping out on it to dick around in a Superstore. We all make poor choices when we are 17. 

Finally I just wanna talk about that incoherent fisherman for a moment. Even when his words were technically english and I understood them, I do not at all understand what they mean. What kind of toast is "Here's to swimming with bow-legged women"? Its a great one, objectively, but what does it mean?! All of his vague instructions about manning the ship were hilariously incoherent and his sea shanties are legendary. I found this man genuinely hilarious and engaging in all the best ways. I realize he mostly exists as an ego foil to the shark expert, but I choose to believe even Spielberg could not resist his charms, and thus felt compelled to give him such a platform for his incredible stage presence. 

Fight Club

Directed by: David Fincher

9/10

It's difficult for me to discuss this film without also discussing its cultural impact. Having just recently read Neil Strauss's "The Game", I can safely say that all pick-up artistry and incel culture can trace its roots directly back to "Fight Club". It's kind of embarrassing how much of a rip-off Project Hollywood is to Project Mayhem in "Fight Club". The strange irony of it all is that "Fight Club" addresses the fact that what started out as male empowerment quickly gets out of control and devolves in to what is mostly just unfocused and chaotic violence and/or acts that are meaningless to the philosophy which began it all...and "The Game" does not. It is even more embarrassing when you realize that part of this film's cult status must come from the masses of men who completely misunderstood the whole thing. Nothing in this film should be emulated in real life and this isn't because it is messy, violent, or crazy, but because in doing so you're completely ignoring the character development and emotional maturing of the protagonist. Fight Club, Project Mayhem, and Tyler Durden all existed to push the protagonist to the realization that male empowerment doesn't come from beating each other up and destroying property, it comes with identifying yourself outside of the capitalist regime that has imprisoned you. The protagonist isn't really empowered through anything Tyler Durden directs him to do, in fact Durden literally says "self improvement is masturbation, now self-destruction... (is good)". Tyler is not interested in helping the protagonist, he is interested in avenging him. Durden was necessary for pushing him through the repressed anger and in to a place where he can feel confident, meaningful, in control of a dynamic existence without all of the violence and self-destruction that took him there. 

I feel strongly about this idea that men in particular should be given the space to go through these angry phases of male empowerment. I do not think it is good or healthy to force men in to situations where they must repress their anger, dissatisfaction, and frustration. All that this can ever result in is repressed men who will suffer and eventually lash out directionless and violently. The issue is that it can be challenging to allow male empowerment to be left unchecked before the collective frustration and increasingly radical ideologies we often see behind these things manifest in to things like Project Hollywood/chaos. If regulated, there is nothing inherently wrong with men engaging in a fitness club where they consent to being beaten up. However, that son of a bitch Jordan Peterson and other libertarian philosophies are so much more insidious than they first appear. The focus of Fight Clubs turns away from a space where men can unleash pent-up frustrations in a healthy way, and toward a space where men get together to worship what is considered "strong" and destroy everything in sight that appears "weak". Visually, we see this in the juxtaposition with the support groups the protagonist attends which look sedated, stagnant, weak, and feminine, and Fight Club which is virile, loud, aggressive, and masculine. "Fight Club"s perspective on women is not particularly feminist, though I'd argue that any anti-feminist views are again more attributed to the character development of the frustrated protagonist than it is a genuine perspective on women. Marla is said to be kind of a "fake gamer girl" as she attends support groups for reasons identical but less valid than the protagonist's and Tyler rattles on at least half a dozen bits about the pussification of men and why women have no place in Project Mayhem, but in the end the protagonist embraces Marla and she is framed as the only real "sane" perspective in the entire film. I think this is a very interesting way to involve feminism in to a film about toxic masculinity because the film never outright says "y'all need feminism" or posits that men are lost and only women can save them, but rather it puts Marla in a position of existing amongst all of this toxicity and in the end still having open arms for the man who gets through it.  

It is also challenging for me to discuss "Fight Club" without just listing off hundreds of iconic lines. It is truly a testament to this flick that it holds up so well after over 20 years. Every scene, bit of dialogue, and change in style/direction is purposeful, interesting, and powerful. Every ten minutes Tyler's philosophy evolves, picking up and dumping things on a whim so it may suit whatever action he brings to the story. Tyler Durden has certainly become a bit of a neo-liberal incel icon, and I'd hate him for that but again I think these people are missing the point about Tyler Durden very obviously being the antagonist of the film. Tyler is not the hero. Tyler represents the toxic person a repressed society makes of otherwise regular men, but whatever, sure, you can't stop people from worshipping Brad Pitt in that jacket. In fact, I hate to say it, but even I am privy to adoring this wild sunglasses anti-capitalist man. Brad Pitt is on fire in "Fight Club", more a force of nature than a human being, absolute madness through and through.

In conclusion, I guess we have Chuck Palahniuk to blame for incel culture and pick-up-artists, though (in the case of Fight Club, anyways) I think this is mostly because the toxic culture who worship Tyler Durden are more interested in what is cathartic and sexy than what Palahniuk's actual point is. 

(See my post on "Little Women" for more of my thoughts on the issues behind female empowerment, as men do not have a monopoly on problematic empowerment)

Bicentennial Man

Directed by: Chris Columbus 

4/10

My husband and I have this tradition of periodically showing each other films that we are vaguely fond of from our childhood, and then seething in embarrassment as we sit through it and realize how much of these films we had forgotten and often, how hilariously bad they are. In his case, these films are usually dumb action flicks or comedies that have aged like milk with their racist undertones and whatnot. Whenever it is my turn, it ends up being something like this- a film that has the skeleton of something interesting but is weighed down by the fatty flesh of live action 90's Disney and their tendency to create soap operas for young children.  In my memory, this was a sweet film which engaged me in "Baby's first AI discussions" with my step-dad. I did not remember how horny it is. I did not remember how obsessed it is with the penis and orgasm. I did not remember how corny, cliche, and boring most of it is. Most of all, I did not remember how long it takes for the robot to become Robin Williams nor did I realize at the time that Uncanny Valley Robin Williams is actually even more unnerving. We had a great time watching this and laughing at how unforgivably horny it is and how casually it just tosses around Asimov's super interesting questions on the human rights angles of artificial intelligence. My husband had a great time accusing me of pushing my Oedipal propaganda on him, something that surely has been on my mind lately since reading a weirdly Freudian psychology book earlier this month. It was a great time and a bad movie. 

I think it is interesting that the film refuses to villianize the family who got mad at this robot and kicked him out for his having the audacity to ask for freedom. "What!?" they protest "Don't we treat you well? We never order you to do anything any more! Do you not like being owned by us?". At no point is any assertion really made that the robot (Andrew) has every right to make the distinction between being treated nicely and having actual freedom to leave and have free will. The family is seen as the good guys in this scenario, rightfully scorned by a dude who thinks he is better than being their slave! This gave me mad "Gone with the Wind" vibes and this kind of sentiment carries throughout the film. Just when interesting dialogues and ideas are presented on the legitimacy of AI humanity, Disney bakes cupcakes with it and reminds us not to think too hard about all this, lest we step out of this vacant and comforting patch of sunlight in an otherwise dark and complex valley. 

Video Games

Paratopic
Developed by: Arbitrary Metric
9/10
This game will make you uneasy. There isn't always tension and it is probably only "scary" or even tense for 10% of the play time. Most of your time spent playing Paratropic will be spent observing and hearing things that have that "not quite right" uncanny valley feel to them. I have never played anything which has made me feel as vaguely uncomfortable as this game has, and the vagueness is absolutely essential and uniquely disturbing as an asset. When people speak, it is warbled in a way that has your subconscious catching tiny bits and trying to make patterns of it, but ultimately failing and leaving you in a confused and lightheaded state. The faces you see occasionally distort and snap even if the dialogue seems normal. That being said, even the dialogue fits in to this unnatural and uneasy feel, as topics of the paranormal, depression, and confusion are constantly woven in to the narrative.
Scenes suddenly cut from one place to another and the three separate but unnervingly similar stories are cut together such that you feel like you are constantly slipping and tipping in to insanity.
The plot of Paratopic reminds me of "The Crying of Lot 49" in the sense that you work steadily to piece together a picture but it is always just out of reach, one essential piece away from getting a firm grip on anything that's happening. The branching dialogue and choices allows for multiple play-throughs which will give you a few more answers, a few more Kafka-esce scenes, a couple more angles to the horror of stumbling in to something you know you shouldn't have seen.
It is a short game, probably under an hour long on my first play-through. However, in that hour, you will feel fully immersed in the horror. You will feel oddly nauseous. You will chuckle a little at the absurdity. You will feel like you've lost your footing in the woods, like you're second-guessing yourself when you shouldn't be, but there's something not right nonetheless, and you will feel vaguely unsafe. It is an experience unlike anything else I've felt in gaming and I love that it could achieve that in so little time.

Sagebrush
Created by: Redact Games
8/10
Another walking simulator horror game, but this one has no branching dialogue.
This heavily atmospheric game about exploring the abandoned site of a suicide cult spooked me right out. The imagery is intense and jarring and as the night grows darker you are forced to rely on just a flashlight at times. If you leave the lights on in the buildings you visit, they glow eerily in the distance as you explore the rest of the grounds later on. Though 45 minutes to an hour in length, the story is pretty tight and comprehensive nonetheless. There is a smidgen too much backtracking and trying to locate things in the dark at one point for my liking, but the concluding climax is one of the greatest I've ever seen in a walking simulator. A nice touch to the atmosphere is that you are constantly hearing doors close behind you and there are naturally loud noises such as creaky stairs and chains rattling, all making you paranoid someone will hear you snooping around. The art style feels like cut-scenes from old 90's games or "scary minecraft" as I once put it. The sky darkening is also really atmospheric. All in all a great story and I felt genuinely tense and frightened at some of the religious cult imagery.

Florence

Developed by: Mountains

7.5/10
"Florence" is an incredibly endearing experience and easily the best "phone game" I've ever played. It uses the medium of a touch screen in many appealing and interesting ways and the art style is incredibly pleasing to look at. It's wonderful that a game and story with no dialogue can evoke such recognizable emotion. The game doesn't just show you obvious happiness, sadness, joy, anger- it shows you scenes that many of us can know and connect with intimately with a mix of emotion. For instance, there are chapters where you are making room for your new partner's belongings in your home, eager and excited for them to move in. There are scenes which depict "drifting away" with really meaningful and creative tools, while never explicitly saying or spelling out any given emotional state. It's really an incredible game in that sense. Overall, a charming and empowering story about meaningful relationships, the transitory nature of your 20's, and the trans-formative power of self love. 

Mark of the Ninja

Developed by: Klei Entertainment

8.5/10

This is basically the perfect game to introduce people to the stealth-game genre because as you unlock new gear and abilities, you can customize your build such that you can ease yourself in to as little or as much stealth as you are interested in. Some builds allow you to take greater risks, be bolder and louder, and take more hits, while others allow you to use more distraction items than usual. Both of these allow players to bypass the hard stealth elements if they so choose, while still making you feel like a sneaky bad-ass. My personal favourite build involved the ability to cause terror in guards through a variety of methods so that guards ended up killing each other in chaotic friendly fire as I could sneak by undetected. "Mark of the Ninja" really empowers player choice and every level has a variety of goals and options that encourage experimental play styles. There are probably a dozen or so levels and each one introduces new concepts which challenge you to be constantly adaptive. There are only a couple of instances when we (I played with my spouse) found new conceits to be irritating or exhausting. As a general rule of thumb, avoidance is only interesting if it can be done while thinking on your feet. Being forced to have perfect timing and to memorize long patterns of movement got draining after a while, but luckily this was only really an issue with one enemy type right near the end. 

This game is also visually satisfying and has a uniquely sharp aesthetic. The way light and shadow is used in "Mark of the Ninja" is super inventive and I love the two-dimensional paper-puppet look to everything. Movement and action is very fluid, possibly the best I've seen all year, and the sound design is deliberate and precise. 

We really enjoyed playing through this game and my only real complaint against it is that the story is so cliche and forgettable.