L&D Report

D was mentioning to me that Yesterday had a Metacritic score of 54. That sounds bad. Is Metacrtic based on a scale of 100? Let me see. … … … Okay Wikipedia says that in Metacritic if you give something an A it equals 100 and a B- is 67. Oh brother, really? The point is that 54 doesn’t come anywhere near this movie. I’m left to ask, what’s wrong with people? What do they expect and what more can they ask for? If you don’t like The Beatles, or think your brain will explode if you have to hear even one more Beatles song or hear even one more person say they are their favorite band, I can understand that. Even though it’s indisputable about The Beatles being the greatest band of all time, you certainly are entitled to poor taste and your overall contrariness — though you should get that checked out. So okay, if that is you then this film isn’t for you. There won’t be nearly enough point blank range brain spatter, sideboob or underbutt to keep you happy. Hey, I don’t understand you but Yesterday is art and the value of art is certainly still in the eye of the beholder.  

Now that that is out of the way, there is another issue I have. If you think the theme of the film is something like, “Imagine a world where The Beatles never existed”, you’d be off. Maybe not way off, but importantly off. The theme is, “What happens when bringing joy to all means devastation to you.” Okay, fine, there is probably a better theme out there but the point is there are many alternate themes. There are a lot of ways you could think about this film and a lot of ways it could affect you. Or maybe you just go for the music and to laugh and have fun? 

But do think about this. What if it was up to you to bring The Beatles to the masses? Could you think of all the lyrics to Eleanor Rigby even if you proclaim The Beatles as the greatest or your favorite band? Try it. I don’t think I can get past the first two lines. How about if it was up to you to bring Van Gogh to the masses? Could you paint The Starry Night? It would be tricky and your friends would wonder why you were up all night these days, looking like a maniac, trying to paint these odd landscapes. And though I have many favorite scenes in this film, I really love the scene where Jack, played effortlessly Himesh Patel, is standing alone in the rain, facing the precipice of the choice before him. He looks at his reflection in a storefront window and asks himself, Can you do this? 

This is a moment we all face all the time. Can we do this? Can we challenge ourselves. Fill the canvas, the page, the 1s and 0s, the sensors, transform the wild flowers. Take a chance. 

After writing this blog for two years now, it’s come clear to me that a great film must: 1. Have a heart. 2. Be thought provoking. — And I don’t mean thought provoking like, “If the concierge at the hotel in John Wick 3 isn’t a fighter how the hell can he survive all those armed storm trooper dudes shooting automatic weapons at him? …Oh because he played a cop in The Wire.” No, not thought provoking like that. Thought provoking like, What is beauty? What is talent? How do you express love? What does a Faustian bargain really mean? If you are not eating all those sandwiches can I have one? This film raises a multitude of questions about the paths we take, about destiny, about art. If Matacritic is still at 54 will it still need me when it’s 64? 

Is Yesterday a perfect film? No, but the day I see a perfect film I will stop watching films because the robots or aliens will have taken over. It is however an utterly human film. We heard a few folks clapping during the credits. I can’t remember the last time I heard that. Also, this movie made me happy about life. Like last years’ amazing doc Free Solo, about Alex Honnold, who climbed El Capitan in Yosemite without ropes, Yesterday gave back. I think of it less like a movie and more like a gift. So my advice is to go and enjoy it unless you are knee-deep in a game of Fortnite, passed out with a needle in your arm or copying and pasting bogus Metacritic reviews. Then, you know, carry on, keep calm and keep a stiff upper lip. 

Luc Besson’s Anna stars supermodel actress Sasha Luss as the achingly — in the sense that she produces a lot of physical pain for anyone she who gets on her wrong side — beautiful killer in the titular role. The part is somewhat reminiscent of Charlize Theron’s in the take no prisoners action film Atomic Blonde which recieved a double review from L & D. I was interested in watching Anna knowing it was the work of auteur Writer/Director Luc Besson. He is known for one of my favorite films, Leon: The Professional, which was Natalie Portman’s first film and had a great performance by Jean Reno. You also know his work with The Fifth Element and another one of my favorites, Lucy, starring Scarlett Johansson. Lucy is another style first, kick-ass woman in a take no prisoners role. Besson knows how to visually translate style and action from his screenplays.

I’m a fan of unmotivated elements of style in the films I make and watch. Why did the camera move that way? Well, it just felt right. Or, where did that pink light come from? Well, that pink light came from exactly where you think the music in this film came from. It’s not like there is a musician actively scoring your life. Yet music that isn’t actually in the physical reality of a scene (aka non-diegetic sound) is given a free pass in our movie viewing. It’s a little tougher to get away with unmotivated, unnaturalistic elements in terms of lighting, camera movement and editing but it’s something that I appreciate and an audience will get behind or “suspend their disbelief” if it is done well. And to answer the question, the music and lighting all come from the same place, the imagination of the Director. 

Interestingly, most Directors work in obscurity. For example, can you tell me who directed Saturday Night Fever, War Games and Blue Thunder? The answer is John Badham. You’d think that this would be common instead of trivial knowledge. To be known as a Director, it helps to have a distinct style, whether you work within a movement or blaze your own trail. And even then to say something is _________ esque means that you weren’t taken seriously at some point. But also that you stuck to what you thought was the most honest version of storytelling for you — your distinct style. Sometimes films that are made by particular directors don’t have their stamp. Perhaps it was a studio film where they didn’t have control. But in this case Anna is one hundred percent Bessonesque from the John Wick meets Hardcore Henry throwdown in the restaurant to the really beautiful plan sequence (aka oner) in the bedroom closet, which reminded me of the confessional scene in Coppola’s masterpiece, The Conversation. If you have never seen The Conversation on DVD with the audio commentary by sound editor/ designer Walter Murch on, do yourself a cinematic favor and check it out. There are other nods to The Conversaton in Anna as well.

Anna contains a lot of the scenes and elements which we have come to expect from the recent heroine driven international spy genre: the car chase in little European streets, the lesbian love affair, the plain ol’ just ass-kicking of entitled / douchey / know it all men —  and it’s all pretty satisfying stuff. It is also executed with a ton of silky yet heart pumping style. I’m already looking forward to Besson’s next offering.

I think the Taco Bell by the movie theater has finally closed down. Maybe there aren’t enough people to work there anymore? — We are winning, America! — And so it was prophesied that L & D sat in an essentially empty and quite large multiplex theater to see Samuel L. Jackson star in Shaft. The film started off on shaky ground with some intensely stiff acting and dialogue. But luckily for everyone involved it loosened up once Mr. Jackson arrived on scene. 

If you’ve ever watched any Blaxploitation films, say on the Bounce network, (which I get on TV airwaves here in Northeastern Wisconsin — though if that’s not enough for you, Bounce owns Brown Sugar, a 1970’s era Blaxploitation on demand service) there’s one common denominator, namely low production value. Bad, I mean bad! lighting, awkward, I mean distractingly awkward! editing and poor, piss poor! composition people. Is there a reason for this? I’m sure there is. The reason has to do with low budgets. Those days are gone, as the new Shaft has the production value of a James Bond film. The lighting, camera movement, wardrobe, art direction and sound are of the highest caliber. The film has enough confidence in itself to make light of the genre. For example, when Shaft is about to enter a shady nightclub, there is a blatant smoke machine hidden behind a trash can spewing way too much non-motivated smoke. It’s confusing at first until you get the joke. Then, in a most excellent scene, Shaft is in the apartment hallway of his ex-wife. He is at her door, pleading to be let in, when he is interrupted by a neighbor who gives him the stink eye. Suddenly the groovy music winds down like someone pulled the plug on the Rev. Al Green 33 that was spinning on your record player. As soon as the neighbor gets a look at Shaft’s gun, he is terrified and slams his door — the song cranks up to speed again. It’s a great breaking the fourth wall moment. 

I would be remiss in writing about Shaft without mentioning the great African-American writer of hardboiled novels and social narratives, Mr. Chester Himes. If you’ve never heard of Chester Himes, click on that link already. He delighted many readers and inspired many writers and filmmakers with his series of nine Harlem Detective novels. It’s safe to say what Raymond Chandler is to Hollywood, Chester Himes is to Harlem. And with this in mind, I really enjoyed Shaft. I have no idea if I was laughing at the appropriate places but I was definitely laughing. Even D, who was not impressed with the wobbly opening, started laughing. There is just something about Samuel L. Jackson, he really is like a funky Mr. Miyagi. After all, he has already portrayed a Jedi Master. Also, in one scene he reminds us that he is tired of the Laurence Fishburne comparisons! 

At its core, Shaft is a generation-gap-father-son film. It at least acknowledges that times have changed, even if it sticks to stereotypes. However, the stereotypes are with tongue firmly planted in cheek and with the good intention of the audience having a little fun. Of course here, the good guys win through violence, the Dad teaches the kid how to be a proper manly man and the women in the film either step aside, need to be rescued or forgive the unforgivable — or at least the truly shitty. It’s still a Blaxsploitaion genre movie but Shaft does have his heart in the right place even if sometimes his actions and words betray him. His character flaws and redeeming values are identical to Himes’ hardboiled heroes.

Yeah, it’s a family movie if your family eats expletives for breakfast, doesn’t mind people getting shot up with AK-47s and finds glitter all over a bare chest quite amusing. I’m not going to tell you if I found it quite amusing. I’m also not going to tell you where the glitter was on Shaft. In the final analysis, Shaft checked all the kick up your feet and enjoy a summertime movie for 6 bucks boxes but it wasn’t a great movie and certainly something you could enjoy in your La-Z-Boy recliner or loveseat at home. Also, motherfucker. A lot.

Booksmart is an intelligent and funny mashup whose ROFL parts don’t necessarily add up to a must see movie night. And even though my job as a high school film teacher was on my mind entering the movie (with the end of the school year upon me, as in the film). And even though the film is ostensibly about high school, it nevertheless did help me laugh. So if you want to kind of get away for a while and have a few good laughs I would recommend this film to you. But if you are looking for a solid all around film on the par of a Lady Bird or Eighth Grade, Booksmart isn’t going to cut it for you. 

As a mashup, Booksmart incorporates the awkward feeling of Eighth Grade, almost like a sequel but without the sense of predestined gloomy finality. It’s not the funniest thing you’ve ever seen (The 40 -Year-Old Virgin) or the most exploitive (Assassination Nation) or even one of the funniest things (Office Christmas Party). But like Long Shot, it certainly has its moments. There is also a feeling here reminiscent of the classic Scorsese comedy After Hours and Blockers with the primary action taking place over the course of one twisting crazy night. 

Many of the characters in Booksmart do seem familiar in spite of their one dimensionality. And the film does to its credit try to go into a little more depth with some of the characters. There is also a shout out to Gilmore Girls, which is apropos. If you’ve ever seen His Girl Friday or any screwball comedy, the lines come fast and furious, the banter withering, the re parteeing. So it’s unrealistic in that sense but some will find the style engaging. There are also just absurd moments that I loved like having fencers in the background of a scene in the high school courtyard. But this is followed up with grounded conversations about real world dilemmas. Falling off the edge of high school, like The Graduate. As I mentioned in my Eighth Grade review, it’s not easy being a kid and that certainly comes through in Booksmart as well. I found that though the film pulled from many sources and familiar storylines it also seemed to create an original synthesis. The pool scene and airport scenes were beautifually shot, the graduation scene, reminiscent of Stripes was also well done. 

There are some great cameos here by Jason Sudeikis, Lisa Kudrow and Will Forte. But I think the film is stolen by the eccentric and totally out there frenemy Billie Lourd as Gigi.

Booksmart certainly hit the 6 dollar Thursday bar, kept me laughing and thinking and covered some original cinematic ground with a strong mashup style. Do I think that you could also happily wait for it to stream on your favorite platform. Yes, I do.