The Brutalist

The Americans Dream?

Listen to me. Everything we see that is ugly- stupid, cruel, and ugly.  Everything is your fault…

But especially the ugly.

That is the best punch line of The Brutalist, Director Brady Corbet’s epic exploration of the Affluent Society.  It is also, arguably, the thesis of the film.

I loved watching this film on the very big Marcus screen.  People often say this about movies shot in Montana or Australia, big landscapes, blue skies, astonishing weather fronts, that sort of thing.  Remarkably in The Brutalist, many of these landscape views are scratchy stock film from the ’50s heralding the post-WWII industrial boom.  The stock film is often co-narrated by the guy from the school movies of your childhood, and backed by the gasp of an accordion, or some pulsing, syncopated beats. 

Meanwhile, much of the main action is shot with what is — gosh, I don’t know, where is L when you need him? — maybe a hand-held camera?  The effect is this disorienting and sometimes suffocating intimacy that pervades the movie.  There were times where I swear I could see two sets of eyes on characters bouncing up and down in their cars. But it seems like it wouldn’t work as well on a television. 

Anyhow, this is a very long movie, clocking in at over 200 minutes, so hunker down.  About 15 minutes in, the cacophony of visual and aural and intellectual stimulation was so overwhelming that I knew I wasn’t going to be able to process and put it all together in real time. So the four-hour theater experience, including a 15-minute intermission, was not one of your relax-at-the-movie experiences.

And the film takes on the Big, Big issues, the Holocaust, the camps (the main characters are survivors), remorseless capitalism, immigration, assimilation, covert and overt anti-Semitism, and, perhaps least of all, the place of art and architecture in the emergent industrial age. 

The main character, protagonist, possible hero, and subject of the movie is László Tóth (Adrien Brody), the brutalist himself.  His journey is Brady Corbet’s characterization of America. 

Tóth makes it to America in the opening scene and the first outdoor American shot in the film is an upside-down Statue of Liberty.  (Could this possibly be a metaphor of some sort?). His first stop is the City of Brotherly Love to live with and work for his cousin, Atilla (Alessandro Nivola).  Atilla is the proprietor of a small furniture business and  has reimagined himself as an American Catholic named Miller!  More foreshadowing here as the cousins converse about what is expected in America, what it takes to be accepted in America.   

Tóth isn’t impressed.  He doesn’t seem like the compromising type, and certainly not one to compromise his vision for the sake of bean counters or pencil pushers. Yet, he is also pragragmatic about some of the ends to get to his means, particularly with respect to the use of abundant and inexpensive concrete!  And so away we go.

Much of the movie involves Tóth’s relationship with his new patron, Harrison Lee Van Buren (Guy Pearce).  These patron-artist relationships are always a dicey and touchy area for the artist. Who is paying and what exactly are they paying for? What if they want you to comprimise? What if they delegate oversight to some penny-pinching philistine?  But Van Buren’s real role is that of the industrialist archetype. He represents the post-war economic and construction boom that’s helping Pennsylvania and the United States into the modern age. 

Van Buren’s son, Harry Lee (Joe Alwyn), also features prominently for plot-related reasons, but ultimately he represents the financiers. At one point László asks him, “how does that work exactly?  The company paying themselves to finance?”  

As it says on our masthead, to ask the question is to answer it.

So the politics of the movie aren’t altogether complicated, but László’s relationships with his wife and niece certainly are.  Right off the bus in Philadelphia, Cousin Miller tells László that he has received word that they are alive!  So throughout the first few hours of the movie there are repeeated voiceovers back-and-forths between László and Erzsébet in an attempt to get her to the states.  I must admit that I don’t watch trailers, so I wasn’t entirely sure that she would ever really make it. 

But, spoiler alert, the intermission credits provide a decisive wedding picture that helps secure her immigration visa, so Erzsébet (Felicity Jones) and their niece Zsófia (Raffey Cassidy) make their way over to join László at the Van Buren estate.  There is a lot going on here in terms of the state of their marriage, the state of their Jewish faith, their places in America, to name a few.  There is no easy way to characterize Erzsébet, she understands ambition and ambitions, but she also is reflective and shows gratitude in spots where I’m not sure you would expect it. She is definitely an interesting add and a welcome riposte to Corbet’s otherwise simplistic American caricature.   

The other main and recurring character is Gordon (Isaach De Bankolé), who László meets in a food line early on in the movie. Gordon’s role seems to be to provide opportunities for the script to explore László’s character and humanity. He often shows up right as László is responding to a new plot development. 

And what of the Brutalism?  Huh.  I guess I will continue to reflect on that question as I continue to process all of this.  My big takeaway is that the movie is a commentary on the economic and cultural response to World War II coming to a close.

I think the acting is splendid, Brody really is great.  I’m not sure who else might have pulled this off.  Felicity Jones earns her money, too.  I also loved Salvatore Sansone as Orazio in the Italy scene –– “dangerous work.”  The entire sequence in Italy is just remarkable.  There is so much to like.

The verdict. I thought this was a great movie to watch, though it isn’t a great movie.  I do recommend you head to see it on the big, big screen if you can.  It was loud in there, too!  Make a day of it.   

A shout out to Dr. B for braving this one with me.  He didn’t get up and leave or doze off, so I think he liked it, too.

Anora

If the opening scene of Anora doesn’t get your blood moving one way or another, I have terrible news for you. You have died. … The silver lining is of course that even as a dead person, you’re still able to watch movies and read movie reviews. That opening shot, tracking across a line of guys getting lap dances, drops you right into the world of eponymous heroine, Anora, with no apologies. It’s made apparent quickly enough that for these working women, it’s just another day at the office. Except that in this career there is no 401(k), health insurance or paid time off. This is the world of men. If you don’t like it, there’s the door. 

It’s within this milieu that Anora, who shares an apartment with her sister and brother-in-law, takes on escort work. Back at Headquarters strip club, as a Russian speaker, she’s assigned to entertain the son of a wealthy oligarch, who asks if he can see her outside of work. Here the so-called fun and games of the story ensue. And they do ensue, extending Act I almost uncomfortably. Has the director lost control of this story? — Or what you realize later. You’ve been wonderfully set up.

Act II takes you into the realm of comedy but with the real threat of violence underpinning every moment. It’s unnerving but you settle into it. The strength of Anora is that it simultaneously holds what could be an absurd Eastern European folktale within the bounds of a tangible New York City universe. Here, broken noses are felt. As our friend B., who’s an M.D., leaned over to give us a real-time diagnosis of one of the characters. The prognosis wasn’t good. The severity of the mounting symptoms meant that the other characters needed to rush the injured one to the ER. STAT.

And broken dreams are deeply felt as well. Disappointment is the millstone that’s anchored around every neck in Anora. And one apparent theme is that just because you wish something to be real, doesn’t mean it is. 

There are a few outrageous and memorable scenes in Anora. The Coney Island tow truck scene stays with you. And the haunting final scene reveals the depth and complexities of the characters. Cutting to a silent credit sequence gives you no reprieve and invites reflection. A perfect antithesis to the chaotic euphoria of the opening shot. 

It doesn’t surprise me that Director, Sean Baker, a kid from New Jersey, walked away with the Palm d’Or at Cannes for Anora. He has a track record of fearless filmmaking, expressing himself by any means at his disposal. In the character of Anora he found a kindred spirit. 

The Return

I stayed alive for this?!?

The odyssey. Odysseus. Ten years away at the Trojan war, ten years to get back. Past the Cicones, the Lotus Eaters, the Cyclops (“Nobody” tricked him!), the Wind God, Circe’s Island, to Hades and back, the singing Sirens, through Scylla and Charybdis, on to the Isle of the Sun God and to Caylpso’s Island. What a trip!

Ithaca. Queen Penelope raising the son, Telemachus, keeping the many suitors at bay. Famously weaving a funeral shroud by day, covertly undoing it at night. For 20 years! The suitors weren’t the sharpest group.

Setting the stage for the return. Just not setting the stage for The Return.

While Penelope was unwinding, Odysseus found his way to Phaeacia, where he recounts his tales to King Alcinous and the Phaeacians — I actually wrote a college term paper on how this penultimate stop served as a transition from the fantastic back to the more mundane toil of life in Ithaca (not exactly an original thesis, I know). It was the sea-smart Phaeacians that help Odysseus find his way back to Ithaca.

None of this makes it into The Return, unfortunately, especially the part about Odysseus talking a lot. Instead, The Return focuses solely on Odysseus (Ralph Fiennes) back in Ithaca to (presumably) reunite with Penelope (Julia Binoche). I say presumably here because Odysseus of The Return is a troubled, broken shell of a man, and not at all in a talking mood. He has misgivings about his time as a warrior and his heroics in the Trojan War. He can’t muster up the courage to confront the suitors and reunite with Penelope. He is seemingly all alone — there is no sign of the goddess, Athena, who has been his #1 fan and protector over the past 20 years. The entire movie, in fact, is a godless affair, and not in a good way!

The movie does capture Odysseus’ renuion with his loyal dog, Argos. My recollection is that Odysseus passes by on his way back to the palace and Argos looks up from the dung heap, notes his master’s presence, wags his tail, and passes on from this life. The Return doesn’t let him off that easy, instead extending into several minutes of pointlessness before finally letting Argos go. Even so, on behalf of L&D, I will say we wish we would have checked out of the theater when Argos passed on.

Revisionist Odyssey didn’t work for us. If you are looking for action, drama, intrigue, tension, emotion, suspense, you best look elsewhere. This is one of the worst viewing experiences in the L&D canon.

Gladiiator

Is that Siskel or Ebert?

Did you notice the title has the Roman numeral II in the middle of it? Indeed, that is about the most subtle part of the Gladiator remake. This is the second Ridley Scott project in recent memory — Napoleon being the other one — where it seems like it would have worked better as an eight-to-ten part Max or Netflix series. But instead we get sloppy storytelling that sets up a variety of spectacular visual sequences.

If you are familiar with Gladiator, you can see where this movie is going from the length of the Roman empire away. The charasmatic warrior Lucius (Paul Mescal) is captured by legions led by General Acacius (Pedro Pascal) and then sold into gladiatorial servitude to the enigmatic Macrinus (Denzel Washington himself!). Lucius turns out to be exceptional at killing man and beast and makes his way to the Colloseum. General Acacius and Macrinus have sketchier motives, I guess we’ll have to see about all of that. And we are introduced to the decadent emporer tandem, Geta and Caracalla. Lucilla (Connie Nielson) shows up and seems concerned about the fate of Rome. Contrived drama. Big finish.

With Gladiator, we all knew Maximus (an in-shape Russell Crowe) was pals with Marcus Aurelius and had been unjustly railroaded. He reluctantly did his killing to get his chance for vengeance, “in this lifetime or the next.” The big difference here is that there is some mystery surrounding who the actual protagonist is — is it the gladiator? General Acacius? Denzel? Lucilla? The fratelli imperatori?

The bad news is that if you haven’t seen Gladiator, it might be a little difficult to follow along. The good news is that it doesn’t really matter. This movie is the battlefield and the Roman Circus. Ridley Scott gives us a naval assault and a great siege to open the movie. He gives us a gladiator mounted on great rhinosoraus (hat tip to a classic Bugs Bunny short for the rhino’s fate). He turns the colleseum to a great, shark-infested naval theater. This is definitely one of those “see it in the theater” type movies because they spent a lot of money making this look spectacular.

That is, if you want to see it at all.

Conclave

Conclave is a surprising film. In fact, its theme is don’t be confident that what you think is true. The question is posed and answered by Cardinal Lawrence (Ralph Fiennes), the Dean or manager of the conclave to elect a new pope, “If we were certain of the answers, why would we need faith?” 

Although I wasn’t thrilled with the plodding pace of the film, the plot got more intriguing as the story grew more complex. A solid performance by Stanley Tucci (most recently seen eating his way through Italy in a Max series) and star turns by Lithgow, Sergio Castellitto, Carlos Diehz, Lucian Msamati and Isabella Rossellini leave a lasting impression on the viewer.  

As usual, your faithful correspondents, L & D could be heard laughing at all the wrong places and zinging away with our zingers. But there were quite a few other folks in the theater (another surprise) and so a little restraint by us was in order. 

The film really got interesting when D. started applying his “This Film is like The Shining” theory on the fly. We recently watched the 40th anniversary release of The Shining on the silver screen (I’m still processing) and lo and behold the analogy between these films can easily be made. The cardinals are sequestered in a hotel with long hallways. There is a room that no one is allowed to enter, which the pope died in. There is intense cello playing throughout. The footprint here is indeed one of a horror film. The horror being that the Church may decide to turn its back on the progress it’s made in becoming a voice for peace.

I won’t say more except Conclave is well worth the watch and way over the $6 Tuesday bar. Be prepared to check your assumptions at the church steps.   

Kinds of Kindness

 

Director Yorgos Lanthimos must have the strangest dreams. At times during the triptych of shorts that is Kinds of Kindness I inadvertently said, “What the Fuck” out loud. D leaned over with a, “Yeah, we could have left after the first one.” But I wasn’t thinking we should duck into Inside Out 2 or Despicable Me 4. I was thinking, these shots are so inspired. Where is he getting these from? The way Yorgos uses the wide shot, it’s like Bob Ross dipped his patented Number 2 Landscape Blender Brush into liquid LSD.

There are flashes of Wes Anderson in these films: The reeling off of items in a hand written note, the robotic gait of an actor, the traditional literary narrative structure of the stories, and their titles, working like chapters of the same book — the use of Willem Dafoe!

However, Yorgos does have a specific visual language and thematic preoccupations of his own. And they’re often revolting in a riveting, I know I’m going to feel nauseous/possibly hurl/maybe be too amped and have to write about this film at 1:00AM, but I can’t look away, kind of way.

The great Senegalese Director, Djibril Diop Mambete (check out Touki Bouki or Hyènes immediately), once said that he was against the Hollywood system because it asked you to believe that the actor you saw in a movie last week was now a different person in a movie you are currently seeing. But Yorgos proves that an audience can indeed suspend disbelief in this regard. In these back to back movies, it’s easy to buy into the imagined world with these great actors in complex stories. It reminds me of the sleight of hand I saw Piff the Magic Dragon perform at the Flamingo in Vegas. Before everyone’s eyes he changed one playing card into another by rubbing his finger over it. The trick was being transmitted live on screens in the auditorium, as a close up. So how did he do it? The term movie magic typically refers to cheap tricks in special effects or editing. But I would posit that there is a much deeper level where we can talk about movie magic as the transformation of these talented actors, like chameleons, changing colors right before our eyes.

The stories are all absurd parables, that harken to the literature of Kafka, Dostoevsky and Marquez. Stories that draw a murky line between no one to root for and everyone to root against. But to say they are dark would be simplifying unfairly. Yorgos does have his own signature. Yes, it’s written in the blood of the nearest available animal or human internal organ —but it’s nevertheless his. And I believe what redeems his films are that he is coming at these motifs with a critique of how we treat one another. He looks unflinchingly at the deformity of the human soul as it leverages wealth to debase even genuine miracles themselves. He makes us ask honestly, is anything sacred?

Yorgos loves to reveal human avarice and unspool it to its logical final conclusion. If you don’t mind being disturbed in a similar way that Poor Things disturbed you, I highly recommend Kinds of Kindness. For your efforts you will be rewarded by witnessing a tennis racket, whose head John McEnroe destroyed in a rage in 1984, preserved under glass, illuminated by a spotlight.

 

The Iron Claw

I initially stayed away from The Iron Claw because it seemed to be a sports satire à la Will Farrell in Semi-Pro. But as the other $6 Tuesday offerings at Marcus Cinema got dimmer and dimmer, the spotlight on The Iron Claw intensified. A strong nudge came from my friend Bob, a former Incredibly Strange Wrestler in San Francisco and host of the insightful and hilarious podcast, “Old Movies for Young Stoners”. After this, I read that the film was based on a true story, also intriguing. The Metacritic score, for whatever that’s worth, was off the charts. I was finally ready to give The Iron Claw a chance. 

As a child of the 80s I was as geeked up as any kid about pro wrestling, using living room furniture to springboard on an already subdued opponent and land a victorious pin. However, I had never heard or at least not remembered the Von Erich family. Their story had an eerie familiarity but was still obscure to me. Some words I’d use to describe The Iron Claw are unsettling and disturbing. It at times elicited in me feelings of a horror movie like Final Destination or Midsommar. The drama suffocating, every early scene recognizable as foreshadowing, all the fun and games leading to inevitable disappointment if not demise. However, the film never goes full Aronofsky, who I’ve said, should really clean up his shock directing schtick. The Iron Claw never feels like it’s putting the audience through an emotional grinder just because it can. It always feels like it’s telling you an improbable yet simultaneously plausible story.

The questions provoked by the film included, how do you define bad luck vs ill fate? Free will vs determinism? Self-sabotage vs destiny? People have been debating these questions since before the Greek stoics codified them thousands of years ago. And leaving aside the theological conundrum that if the creator knows all, including what you will do with your so-called free will, do you even have it? Determinism could simply be related as, if you engage in high-risk activities then chances are greater that you will have poor outcomes. You could blame it on bad luck or fate. Or you could stop wrestling, as friend of LnD, B, who sat next to us, kept yelling at the screen. All to say, this film fulfills one of the criteria I have for a good film, that it’s thought provoking. 

Another movie that The Iron Claw reminds me of is the great, I Tonya. A story about a struggling family, graced with immense athletic talent, that’s pulled by dark forces around them. The difference here is that the dark force emanates from within and spreads like a low speed lava flow, slowing destroying everything in its path. Holt McCallany is rightly cast as the patriarch who leads his flock into a metaphysical desert. And I found Zac Efron’s performance compelling as he traversed love and tragedy. I was at times as frustrated by the choices of his character, Kevin Von Erich, as B was. However, I could understand his case of Stockholm syndrome and feel sympathy for these brothers who were convinced they were on a righteous path. A notable performance was turned in by Aaron Dean Eisenberg who was totally convincing as an unhinged yet sympathetic “Nature Boy” Ric Flair. He steals every scene he is in. 

I should add, there is plenty of fun in this film, scream at the screen and laugh out loud moments to go with the intense drama. Watching someone’s head get dragged along the top rope will produce some reaction from you, one way or the other. Both D and I found the scene that brothers David (Harris Dickinson) and Kevin (the aforementioned Zac Efron) share with a toilet bowl mesmerizing and funny at the same time. 

If you’re interested in a well-crafted film, with strong performances, that will take you down memory lane while instigating self-reflection on a few of the Big questions, I highly recommend The Iron Claw to you. 

It will drop kick you in the solar plexus in the best way possible. 

Ferrari vs American Fiction

Although Ferrari and American Fiction are ostensibly each about difficult families, these two films couldn’t be further apart. After hearing an interview with Adam Driver, who plays Mr. Ferrari, I broke my own rule and went into that movie with high expectations. Driver described how director Michael Mann was so into detail that he would put nine microphones on a car to get the exact sound. That may be true, but great engine revving sounds don’t excuse the many sins of this forgettable, formulaic film.

My first issue is with authenticity. Why did all of the actors have to speak in English with bad Italian accents? The only person who really pulled this off in any way was Mr. Driver. A combination perhaps of his undeniable talent and the fact that he doesn’t speak so much. When Shailene Woodley tried this trick, I had the visceral reaction of hearing nails on a chalkboard. Instead of making me think that this was an Italian story, I just kept thinking, “Why are all these actors speaking English so poorly?”

It didn’t even seem that Penélope Cruz tried, instead relying on her natural Spanish accent. That didn’t work for me either. I heard Sean Penn praising her performance recently and had to wonder if he had seen the movie at all. Cruz does play her part admirably but the entire time I was thinking, “Isn’t Penélope Cruz a great actress?” She cried and screamed and shot a gun in this flattened melodramatic one note of a character, trapped in two dimensions.

After an illustrious career, it may be time for Michael Mann to hang up the directing megaphone. Especially if he is going to be phoning them in. Even the racing scenes, which had their moments, didn’t expand on the cinematic style we saw in Ron Howard’s 2013 film Rush, starring Chris Hemsworth. Meanwhile, one of Mann’s contemporaries, Ridley Scott, convincingly pulled off Napoleon this year. I enjoyed that film. But we were given a heads up by our friend F to read Napoleon as a comedy. And it was funny. Including plenty of slapstick. Maybe Mann was just taking everything too seriously? 

Unlike Mann’s portrayal of the Ferrari famiglia, the characterization of the Ellison family of American Fiction is far more nuanced. The film, based on a Percival Everett novel, explores the loyalties, alliances, jealousies, secrets and not-so-secrets amongst the parents and children, who have a difficult time simply communicating, showing vulnerability.

Although the children are each ‘doctors’ (a GP, a plastic surgeon, and a professor), professional achievement doesn’t necessarily translate into familial harmony. Indeed, according to the youngest son, Cliff (Sterling K. Brown), “This family will break your heart.” Cliff delivers the line as he makes his way to a taxi in the rain, having had his own heart just broken in at least two different ways. And the line and sentiment just hangs in the theater, sending a chill down your spine.

The drama unfolds with a focus on the precarious trajectory of Cliff’s brother, Thelonious “Monk” Ellison (Jeffrey Wright). Monk is a professor and a writer, who takes a leave of absence in Boston to work through some professional and personal issues. A dominant issue for Monk and for the film is trying to navigate the increasingly opaque state of American race relations as a Black American.

Remarkably, this all adds up to being an at times fun movie. The laughs are inspired from a wide spectrum of humor including awkward situations and biting social commentary.  

D brought up one of my favorite movies in relation to American Fiction, Robert Townsend’s classic Hollywood Shuffle. I remember working as a camera assistant on a TV series called South of Nowhere. The directors for the series changed for each episode, and one week the great Robert Townsend took the helm. I remember that he was always whistling or singing. He seemed happy, like a man with a song in his heart. In Hollywood Shuffle, Townsend used humor to capture the pain of black people who are not taken seriously as actors in stories other than those solely depicting stereotypical, impoverished, ghetto scenarios.   

I thoroughly enjoyed American Fiction. Like the novel, it plays in a realm of metanarrative, it deals with current social issues with humor, care and poignancy. But like any great movie, the characters become alive, the characters become real. The alchemy of the written word synthesizing with inspired performances is magic to behold. I hope you can get to the theater and check it out.

The Holdovers

When I was at UCLA Film School we always talked about Alexander Payne with such reverence. One of us. Who broke out to make real films. Films that mattered and dealt with human emotion. And that could make you laugh out loud. But we never felt he had a sense of grandeur. Alexander Payne would come back to his alma mater. Talk to the students. Give them editing notes on their films. His legacy was also that he cared. In The Holdovers, Payne taps Paul Giamatti for the second time and they, like in Sideways, cover ground that is esoteric, of the elite, yet somehow completely relatable to anyone. 

I grew up in a large East coast city in the United States, with a huge immigrant population, to which my family was one. When I chose a liberal arts college in Western Massachusetts, I don’t even think that odd was the first word out of peoples’ mouths. And at this small school I met a certain type of person I had never met before. The sons and daughters of business magnates who had shipped their kids off to boarding schools. I’m not here to judge because I know that at least some of those kids are proud of their schools and have made lifelong friends. Even go back to visit! But for some of the others, anyone could tell that it was also a slow motion wound, the pain of forced separation from home and family. What I really learned firsthand was that in life, just coming from money isn’t everything. What I love about The Holdovers is that it reveals how: rich people are people too, the workers at the school are people too, nerds are people too, jocks are people too, exchange students are people too, teachers are people too and even parents, yes parents, are people too. Who’s not a person? The headmaster. That would be bridge too far. As the song goes, “Belligerent ghouls / Run Manchester schools / Spineless swines / Cemented minds.” And there is a very great zinger towards the end of the film that I won’t ruin for you. 

The Holdovers seems like a film I may have worked on in my own Hollywood career. Or even a very well done UCLA film. And I mean that as a high compliment. It’s a natural and raw film. Of course, there are things in the film that happen that would never happen in a totally low budget film. Again, it’s not about the whiz-bang or dazzling you with spandex outfits while zooming towards the cosmic horizon of outer space. It’s a 1970s period piece shot in a 1970s style, right down to the zoom lens. It leaps off the foundation of films like Truffaut’s The 400 Blows, (which if you have never seen, please go watch immediately) and more particularly, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and Harold and Maude. There is also a cameo by The Newlywed Game. 

The Holdovers is a holiday film, with all the baggage that implies. It takes on difficult topics, in ways that seem familiar but are actually original. It dives deep into the lives of its characters but at its core, it’s a buddy movie. And it’s about how change is not just scary and inevitable but also necessary for growth. If you’d like to see a film that has some teeth, with great performances, that’s not above a fart joke and that if you’ve read this far I’m sure you’ll enjoy, check out The Holdovers

Stop Making Sense

Our guest reviewer, Sharad Shanbhag, plays keyboard & guitar for the rock band The Beams.

I was 13 years old in December of 1983 when Stop Making Sense was filmed. I knew the Talking Heads existed, since “Once in a Lifetime”, “Psycho Killer”, “Life During Wartime” and “Burning Down the House” were in rotation on FM rock stations in the NY metro area where I grew up but wouldn’t say I was a fan in those days.  So, I have no real memory of the film’s initial release in 1984.

Fast forward to 1989. By this time, I am a fan of the Talking Heads. Remain in Light remains a fixture on my turntable in my dorm room for weeks. I’m discovering the African influences on their music. And I finally watch Stop Making Sense on a rented VHS tape and, if memory serves me correctly, it gets screened at my college at some point. Looking back, I recall the film being absolutely entrancing while also wishing that I’d had the chance to see the band live.

The recent release of a new digital transfer of the film for its 40th anniversary allowed me to both go back in time as well as marvel at just how well the director, Jonathan Demme, captured a band in its prime. And what I hadn’t realized when I was younger was the sheer joy the band displayed in creating music. The core of the band – Byrne, Harrison, Frantz and Weymouth – are clearly immersed in their performance. And you see just how much fun they are having with their interactions with the musicians brought on their 1983 tour – percussionist Steve Scales, guitarist Alex Weir, vocalists Ednah Holt and Lynn Mabry, keyboard player Bernie Worrell. The group, having rehearsed and toured with the material for the better part of the year, is in top form.

You don’t see the audience that much, apart from some shots at the start and end of the film. The effect is that you, the viewer of the film, feel as though you are the audience (with a much better view of the onstage action than if you were in the venue in 1983). Perhaps it is a bit of the pandemic hangover, but I found myself experiencing the same regret at not having seen the band in person during their heyday. It highlighted the communal aspect of creating and experiencing a musical performance that cannot be underestimated. Stop Making Sense is as close as you’re going to get to seeing the Talking Heads live, and it is not much of a compromise. Go see it in a theater if you can. You might find yourself dancing in the aisles with other fans as you are caught up in the fun “onstage”.