Last year a movie was released called "Beatriz at Dinner" in which a masseuse played by Selma Hayek went toe to toe with a big business CEO as they discussed immigration, race, money, politics... I still remember a film critic who declared it "the first great film of the Trump era." Nonsense. Drivel. Look no further than SORRY TO BOTHER YOU, a remarkable debut by director Boots Riley to get a taste of the rebellion that is stirring in this country.
How does one even begin to describe a film so ambitious and full of ideas? It's hard to even begin. Let's talk about the movie's tone and setting, some strange breeding of Charlie Kaufman, David Lynch, and Spike Lee (and Spike Jonze for that matter). There is something so ludicrous here that I really haven't seen since the first time I saw "Being John Malkovich" (Kaufman & Jonze, of course). Here, we follow our hero named Cassius aka "Cash" (Lakeith Stanfield, who you will remember from "Get Out" last year). Desperate for work to support his girlfriend (Tessa Thompson) as they live out of his uncle's garage. Cash lands a job at a call center named RegalView. The job is lousy, commission only, dingy workplace, and shady management. Their sole mantra when it comes to productivity: "Stick to the script."
Cash takes the advice of another caller (Danny Glover) who advises him to take on a white voice when making his calls. No, he doesn't mean simply to put on a more nasal voice, he tells Cash to "act like you're going to drive off in a Mercedes when you finish the call." In one of the film's first jaunts into surrealism, Cash's white voice is none other than David Cross (how fitting a voice, indeed). Soon, Cash is rising through the ranks as a natural seller. As he is promoted, the tired workers of RegalView begin to form a riot as they begin to seek benefits. In an even more grand picture, global protests are beginning over a company called "WorryFree" which offers people lifelong housing and food in exchange for a lifetime of servitude for the company.
With each new scene, Riley creates more and more whimsey, and justly greater steaks. What I just described is basically the plot as seen in the film's trailer, but this covers no more than the first third of the picture. Cash later goes on to meet Armie Hammer (in a ridiculously coked-up role) as WorryFree's CEO. He enlists Cash to work for him after seeing his strong work ethic. Cash has also been promoted to Power Caller on the top floor, where a gold elevator takes the star employees to luxury offices where they telemarket things like guns, war, and human beings. Oh, and the elevator has a voice that encourages these Power Callers to "not jerk off" and to "build up stamina for the day ahead." Charlie Kaufman would certainly be proud.
The satire is blatant, but it feels right for this time. As Cash begins to navigate the growing concern among the everyday man as big corporations and government take over the city, we also get a peek at their television stations. One channel is a gameshow in which players get the shit beaten out of them. Can you guess the title? Another is a reality show about workers eating sludge and sleeping in endless bunkbeds in WorryFree. And the last is the news, which makes light of the most meaningless stories and washes over the dark and sinister plotting going on by Armie Hammer and his company. As the citizens in this farcical world begin to fall in over their heads, here is an outward appearance of smiles and good times.
Some people I talked to were put off by the film's final revelation and climax. I suppose that if you look at the film's first scene and then very last, you would guess that you are watching two very different movies. But as I sat there and watched this story progress, first as a man needing a job and finally open warfare on the streets of Oakland, the logical progression is smart and important. While Boots Riley has crammed in enough here for maybe 4 separate films, nevertheless this is the voice of an artist who is taking big risks with big payoff. Some might compare this to Jordan Peele's "Get Out," but I think here our story is less about race and more about American society as it stands today. Both are high concept, tightrope walks that seem on the verge of crumbling. When you see it done so well, it's hard not to smile. This is certainly one of the year's very best.
OUR RATING SYSTEM
(*****) = do NOT miss! This one is as good as they come.
(****) = Fantastic - It's worth the price of the ticket (and then some).
(***) = Average - Nothing really bad, nothing really spectacular...
(**) = Perhaps you should find another movie to see.
(*) = The bottom of the barrel. It would be hard to find something less entertaining or more unworthy of your time.
(*****) = do NOT miss! This one is as good as they come.
(****) = Fantastic - It's worth the price of the ticket (and then some).
(***) = Average - Nothing really bad, nothing really spectacular...
(**) = Perhaps you should find another movie to see.
(*) = The bottom of the barrel. It would be hard to find something less entertaining or more unworthy of your time.
John (Jo) holds a Bachelor's Degree in Nursing, as well as a Bachelor of Arts degree in Film Studies. He currently lives in Chicago, Illinois and works as a nurse. His one true obsession in life is movies... The good, the bad, and everything in between. Other than that, he is busy caring for his cat, painting, writing, exploring Chicago, and debating on whether or not to worship Tilda Swinton as a deity. John is the master and commander and primary author of this blog.
Thursday, August 16, 2018
Wednesday, August 8, 2018
McQueen (****)
MCQUEEN follows in the popular documentary trend of dead celebrities. Those especially who met tragic endings. Think "Amy." Or "Whitney." I suppose the Mr Rogers flick partially fits in. I don't think our filmmakers sought to create anything groundbreaking in their chronicle of Alexander McQueen. His fashion and impact on global style was enough to break the mold. This doesn't make "McQueen" anything particularly awful, but I sure felt like there was so much left off the table.
When thinking of high fashion, perhaps no name is as known as McQueen, and yet no physicality is more atypical. The film tracks the man's journey from middle-class Britain to the creative director position at Givenchy and beyond. His appearance was rather shocking: overweight, short hair. Bad teeth. A blue collar twang to his dialect. This is surely not what someone pictures as a designer of women's dresses and couture, but here we are. Alexander (known as Lee to friends) worked hard from apprentice to designer - an endless source of energy and ideas.
Our story is chronicled in several chapters, each bookended with home footage of the man (we have "Amy" to thank for resorting to such crude source material) and interviews of his colleagues and boyfriends. Where the movie lacks insight becomes clear near the mid-section. McQueen is at the top of his game, having won Designer of the Year several times (briefly mentioned) and working his way through more and more dark subjects for his shows. And then a close friend dies. And then he became depressed. And then things got messy. To say that a documentary needs to understand its subject isn't necessarily accurate, but here it felt as though our directors were going through the motions - hitting the chronological beats - but ultimately falling short of what McQueen was actually living through. There is little indication to show why he began to suffer depression, or why his friends did nothing about it. It just sort of... happens. And then the film ends.
Perhaps this was the ultimate goal - to show a life so full of promise cut off so soon. I don't know. For me, I found the ending quite sudden and without a deeper understanding. The footage we have (particularly of his fashion shows) is stunning, and to see the man work on individual pieces behind the scenes is exciting and intimate. I admired the movie for its approach, although the almost cliched use of Philip Glass and Michael Nyman to score a documentary (from "The Thin Blue Line" to "Man On Wire") is already beginning to feel overused. I know many people will love this film. I certainly appreciated it. Just think on this: a documentary should be an accurate representation of its main character - it's only respectful to do so. That doesn't mean the filmmakers shouldn't imbue that story with some personal gusto. Documentaries can be the most moving of all film genres - why not try to make them great?!
When thinking of high fashion, perhaps no name is as known as McQueen, and yet no physicality is more atypical. The film tracks the man's journey from middle-class Britain to the creative director position at Givenchy and beyond. His appearance was rather shocking: overweight, short hair. Bad teeth. A blue collar twang to his dialect. This is surely not what someone pictures as a designer of women's dresses and couture, but here we are. Alexander (known as Lee to friends) worked hard from apprentice to designer - an endless source of energy and ideas.
Our story is chronicled in several chapters, each bookended with home footage of the man (we have "Amy" to thank for resorting to such crude source material) and interviews of his colleagues and boyfriends. Where the movie lacks insight becomes clear near the mid-section. McQueen is at the top of his game, having won Designer of the Year several times (briefly mentioned) and working his way through more and more dark subjects for his shows. And then a close friend dies. And then he became depressed. And then things got messy. To say that a documentary needs to understand its subject isn't necessarily accurate, but here it felt as though our directors were going through the motions - hitting the chronological beats - but ultimately falling short of what McQueen was actually living through. There is little indication to show why he began to suffer depression, or why his friends did nothing about it. It just sort of... happens. And then the film ends.
Perhaps this was the ultimate goal - to show a life so full of promise cut off so soon. I don't know. For me, I found the ending quite sudden and without a deeper understanding. The footage we have (particularly of his fashion shows) is stunning, and to see the man work on individual pieces behind the scenes is exciting and intimate. I admired the movie for its approach, although the almost cliched use of Philip Glass and Michael Nyman to score a documentary (from "The Thin Blue Line" to "Man On Wire") is already beginning to feel overused. I know many people will love this film. I certainly appreciated it. Just think on this: a documentary should be an accurate representation of its main character - it's only respectful to do so. That doesn't mean the filmmakers shouldn't imbue that story with some personal gusto. Documentaries can be the most moving of all film genres - why not try to make them great?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)