Greta Gerwig

Little Women

First Hit: I liked the theme of women being strong and independent and disliked the jarring time shifts.

I’ve made no bones about Saoirse Ronan is one of the very best actors in her generation and in film today. Here as Jo March, the oldest of the four sisters, she is the focus of this story and therefore, we see this story through her eyes.

She has three sisters Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh), and Beth (Eliza Scanlen). Each of the sisters has talent. Meg is an actress and in early scenes, she and her sisters are shown making a play together and Meg has the lead role. Amy is a painter and she aspires to be the best and ultimate painter alive. Beth is the youngest, is shy and more unassuming, but plays piano like she was born with one in her soul.

The girls are being raised by their mother, Marmee (Laura Dern). She’s alone as her husband, and the girl’s dad is away fighting the civil war. They live in a large home but because the father is away and cannot provide for them, money is tight which is part of the drive for some of the girls, especially Jo, to provide for themselves as they get older. They don’t want to be dependent on men.

As a strong independent young woman, Jo wants to make her living and livelihood from the stories she writes. She thinks the way women are treated and the limits put on women to be independent is absurd. There are numerous scenes where this plays out. One such scene is when she’s attempting to sell a story and the publisher/editor tells her the girl in the story has to marry and be happy in the end; that’s the only way people will accept the story. This infuriates Jo.

Jo is also stubborn, as shown in a couple of brief scenes. One such scene is when she is in New York to make her living as a writer, meets a handsome writing professor, and asks him to honestly critique her work. He thoughtfully does this, and the criticism stings, so she calls him inept and storms out of the room, blaming him for lack of thoughtfulness.

There are many acts where her feminism and stubbornness play out, and they are wonderfully done.

Meg is different in that she wants to marry. She wants to create a household with children. This is a source of disappointment for Jo; however, it also is a way for Jo to see and accept that people are different from her.

Amy is like Jo in many ways in that she wants to be the best and known for being the best. However, in a scene of self-actualization, she realizes that her perfectionist painting technique is outstanding, but she doesn’t create anything unique and probably will never be the painter she envisioned herself to be. I really liked this about Amy because the actualization was subtle yet very clear and it came through in her expression.

Beth was quiet and meekest of the sisters; however, her piano playing was extraordinary. Her weakness was that she didn’t like playing in front of anyone. She was also the weakest of the sisters physically and we watch her demise through catching scarlet fever.

All this to say, I loved each of the sister’s stories. I thought each of them was superbly acted as well. What hurt this film was the sometimes-jarring way we segued into other time frames. Watching a particular segment of a sister’s story and then boom, we find ourselves with that person in some different storyline. Sometimes it made sense and other times it was too obscure at the time to be an addition to the story or the particular sister. With the type of time jumps this film presents it is difficult to tell if they were future or past events because the actors never looked older or younger in the scenes. I just don’t think the audience needs to be trying to figure out when the previous scene happened in the overall storyline.

One particular scene when Jo cut her hair for money for the family, we see her in subsequent stages with long or short hair but the storyline at one point meant that she should have had short hair but it was long and bunched up in the back.

It also appeared that men were only used as place holders and role players to propel the sister’s stories, and this isn’t a bad thing and it came across as a bit too obvious.

Ronan was powerful as Jo. The fault I found with the film was the time jumps that diminished the storyline and had nothing to do with her performance. Watson was wonderfully elegant yet showed a side of fun and enthusiasm as well. The scene where part of her hair gets burnt off and later the vulnerable elegance of her coming down the stairs in a coming-out event showed the breadth of her abilities in this role. Pugh was the surprising actor for me. She was sublime in this role, and when she was on the screen, her look alone commanded you watch her. The moment that Amy realizes she won’t be a famous painter was genuinely inspirational. Scanlen was beautiful as the meekest of the sisters although she harbored some of the biggest talents in the family. Dern was terrific as the mother who’s compassion for others rang throughout the movie. I loved her scene with Jo when discussing patience and anger. Timothee Chalamet as Theodore ‘Laurie’ Laurence was sharp. As the rich boy neighbor who had fallen in love with Jo because of her strength and independence, he was sufficiently arrogant, boisterous, and kind. Chris Cooper as Laurie’s father Mr. Laurence, was excellent. His thoughtful kindness as the rich neighbor was well placed throughout the film. Meryl Street gave an outstanding and funny performance as the arrogant, very wealthy Aunt to the sisters. Her well placed and pointed jabs at women having careers were perfect. Greta Gerwig wrote and directed this film. I didn’t like her choice to make time jumps without giving the audience clues about the past and future. The actors never really looked different in these time sequences and that was bothersome. Otherwise, she got excellent performances from the actors and the sets and scenes were beautifully filmed.

Overall: A terrific film interrupted by time jumps that caused confusion.

Academy Awards - The Oscars

Once again it is time to celebrate a year of film watching. Here are my choices for the following awards along with a few thoughts about some of the selections and non-selections The Academy made.

  • Actor in a Leading Role – The nominees are: Daniel Kaluuya (Get Out), Timothee Chalamet (Call me by Your Name), Gary Oldman (Darkest Hour), Daniel Day-Lewis (Phantom Thread), and Denzel Washington (Roman J. Isreal, Esq.). Who else could be on this list? Tom Hanks (The Post), James Franco (The Disaster Artist), and Richard Gere (Norman). However, regardless of who wasn’t on the list, the runaway best performance is Gary Oldman for Darkest Hour. His Winston Churchill was simply sublime.
  • Actress in a Leading Role – The nominees are: Meryl Streep (The Post), Sally Hawkins (The Shape of Water), Margot Robbie (I, Tonya), Francis McDormand (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri, and Saoirse Ronan (Lady Bird). Who didn’t get nominated? Rachel Weisz (My Cousin Rachel), Emma Stone (Battle of the Sexes) and Jessica Chastain (The Zookeepers Wife). If it were up to me, I’d select Saoirse Ronan in Lady Bird because of the variety and excellent delivery of teenage emotions she effectively brings to the screen. Margot Robbie was utterly fantastic as Tonya Harding. Francis McDormand was filled with angst and fire as the woman who lost her daughter to rape and murder. Sally Hawkins was ethereal as Elisa Esposito a deaf woman who communicates with the captured creature. Meryl Streep showed the subtle development of strength as her character Katharine Graham.
  • Supporting Actress – The nominees are: Lesley Manville (Phantom Thread), Laurie Metcalf (Lady Bird), Allison Janney (I, Tonya), Mary J. Blige (Mudbound). Octavia Spencer (The Shape of Water). Who is missing from this list? Melissa Leo (Novitiate), who gave one of most outstanding performances of the year. The film wasn’t seen and that is a shame. This is a strong field but choosing from the nominees, I’d select Allison Janney. Her depiction of Tonya Harding’s mother was vividly cold.
  • Supporting Actor – The nominees are: Christopher Plummer (All the Money in the World), Woody Harrelson (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri), Sam Rockwell (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri), Willem Defoe (The Florida Project), and Richard Jenkins (The Shape of Water). A great set of actors. Missing? Steve Carell (Battle of the Sexes) gave us an incredibly life like Bobby Riggs. I’d have to say that Sam Rockwell would get my vote although each of the above deserve the recognition.
  • Best Cinematography – The nominees are: Bruno Delbonnel (Darkest Hour), Hoyte van Hoytema (Dunkirk), Rachel Morrison (Mudbound), Dan Laustsen (The Shape of Water), and Roger Deakins (Blade Runner 2049). Great list of people creating and delivering great pictures. My vote would go for Hoyte van Hoytema in Dunkirk. I admired the multitude and type of scenes that were shot and how they were made into a cohesive feeling of awe.
  • Writing (Adapted Screenplay) – The nominees are: Dee Rees and Virgil Williams (Mudbound), Michael H. Weber and Scott Neustadter (The Disaster Artist), James Ivory (Call Me by Your Name), James Mangold, Michael Green and Scott Frank (Logan), and Aaron Sorkin (Molly’s Game). My vote would go to  Michael H. Weber and Scott Neustadter for The Disaster Artist.
  • Writing (Original Screenplay) – The nominees are: Guillermo del Toro and Vanessa Taylor (The Shape of Water), Martin McDonagh (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri), Emily V. Gordon and Kumail Nanjiani (The Big Sick), Jordan Peele (Get Out) and Greta Gerwig (Lady Bird). This is probably the tightest category to be contested. Each of these stories is amazingly original. Therefore, I don’t have a single selection, they all are deserving.
  • Film Editing – The nominees are: Lee Smith (Dunkirk), Tatiana S. Riegel (I, Tonya), Jonathan Amos and Paul MacHliss (Baby Driver), Sidney Wolinsky (The Shape of Water), and Jon Gregory (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri). All very good, however the standout in editing goes to Lee Smith for Dunkirk. This is a story based film and not a character based film and because of this the editing makes this film engaging.
  • Directing – The nominees are: Paul Thomas Anderson (Phantom Thread), Guillermo del Toro (The Shape of Water), Christopher Nolan (Dunkirk), Greta Gerwig (Lady Bird), and Jordan Peele (Get Out). What is missing. To me there are huge gaps here. Margaret Betts (Novitiate), Kathryn Bigelow (Detroit), Craig Gillespie (I, Tonya), and Joe Wright (Darkest Hour) all had a great firm hand on their story's and told them with excellence. Out of the nominees, I’d vote for Christopher Nolan and Dunkirk because he made this event come alive. However, Greta Gerwig (Lady Bird) got amazing performances from her cast.
  • Picture – The nominees are: Darkest Hour, Dunkirk, Phantom Thread, Get Out, The Post, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, The Shape of Water, and Lady Bird. All these pictures, except Phantom Thread (review in process) are films I loved to watch for different reasons. What is missing? I think Novitiate, Detroit, and Battle of the Sexes were deserving as well. However, Novitiate would be my candidate for replacing Phantom Thread which I didn’t really find likable or engaging. Who will win? My wish would be Dunkirk, Lady Bird, and Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri in that order. If Novitiate was in the mix, it would be a tie between it and Dunkirk.

Thank you for visiting my site. May you all Be Well...

Lady Bird

First Hit:  A superb film because of the acting and the embracing of learning how to love, hometown, family, and oneself.

Thus far, in her short actor’s life, Saoirse Ronan has been the best young actress I’ve seen on film. Regardless of the type of role; as Briony Tallis in Atonement (young girl who changes the lives of several people), Hanna in Hanna (full on action), Agatha in The Grand Budapest Hotel  (surrealist comedy), Eilis in Brooklyn (Irish immigrant) for which I believed she had the best performance of 2015, and now as a young coming of age girl in Sacramento. She's had about 20 roles and her impact is astonishing.

Here, she’s named herself “Lady Bird” as her given name because, as she explains, "it is her given name because she gave it to herself." Her real name is Christine McPherson. Yes, she’s a kooky young high schooler who has a pressed relationship with her mom, Marion McPherson (Laurie Metcalf). There is a scene in a store where they are buying Lady Bird a dress for a special event and they are arguing. Back and forth and on and on, then mom grabs a dress from the rack and holds it up, and Lady Bird just switches to loving her mom and the dress in a heartbeat.

Her mom is always worried about money and uses passive aggressive behavior to try to control and demean Lady Bird. Her father Larry (Tracy Letts) is a quiet and kind man who has a great relationship with Lady Bird and works hard at keeping the peace in the family.

We follow Lady Bird’s antics in class, her relationship with her best friend Julie Steffans (Beanie Feldstein), her first real boyfriend Danny O’Neill (Lucas Hedges), her second boyfriend, cool band guy, Kyle Scheible (Timothee Chalamet) and an attempt to have a friendship with the coolest girl at school Jenna Walton (Odeya Rush).

We watch her bamboozle her teachers and Sister Sarah Joan (Lois Smith) whom she tricks at one point. Lady Bird lies a lot. She tells whoppers and small white lies.

The sets in Sacramento, the bridge, river, Tower tower (was once the home of Tower Records) and the various neighborhoods of fine elegant homes and small track homes wonderfully registered on film. Each of them shot beautifully and lovingly.

I laughed out-loud many times and I cried in the many touching moments, especially when Lady Bird, in New York, calls her mom to tell her that her daughter, Christine, loves her.

Ronan is superb. She makes the part come alive, fully believable and does it effortlessly. Metcalf was extraordinary as the mother. When she delivers the line, my mother was an abusive alcoholic, it’s perfect. It sets up a nugget to her behavior for the whole film. Letts is absolutely a wonder. His soft caring and, at times, enabling tone was based on sweet intent. Chalamet is oddly familiar as the brooding boy who attracts people with mood more than substance. Hedges is fantastic as the guy everyone likes who is hiding a secret. The scene talking to Lady Bird when he breaks down and cries is powerful. Feldstein is outstanding as the friend who gets shunned and then embraced again. Rush is great as the cool rich girl, she plays it well. Smith is excellent as the nun who cares about the kids and takes being pranked amusingly. Greta Gerwig wrote and directed this film. It was a fantastic effort and filled with a sense that this film was written from both her heart and experience.

Overall:  I fully enjoyed this well-crafted film.

20th Century Women

First Hit:  I liked it overall and some scenes are wonderfully funny, but it didn’t impress or stay with me afterwards.

There was something missing in this film and I’m not sure what it was. As I previously said, I liked many of the scenes individually but together as a story it just missed the target.

The basic story is that a single mother Dorothea (Annette Bening), in her late 40’s early 50’s, is raising her fifteen-year-old son, Jamie (Lucas Jade Zumann), in Santa Barbara in the late 1970’s. She lives in a large home with people who rent rooms; Abbie (Greta Gerwig) and William (Billy Crudup). Abbie, who’s in her early 20s, has come to Santa Barbara from New York after learning she had cervical cancer to be an artist. William is slightly younger than Dorothea is a handy man with cars and is fixing up Dorothea’s huge rundown house. Dorothea is stressing about her son and wants him to be a smart caring whole man who navigates the restlessness of the ever-changing world. There are peace protests, punk music is flourishing, and there is also the feminist movement.

Julie (Elle Fanning), is a neighbor girl whose mother is a child psychologist and requires Julie to sit in her youth therapy groups. She often spends the night with Jamie but only to talk and rest. She sneaks in by climbing the scaffolding surrounding the house. She comes back into the house, through the front door, in the morning and has breakfast with the rest of the household.

Always worrying, somewhat defensiveness, and not being forthcoming about her past is the byword of Dorothea’s character. Abbie is about finding peace with her life. She wants to express and settle down. William lives easily and as the dialogue stated, women come to him and he gets bored with them easily. Julie is exploring her freedom from her mother through sexual behavior and depressive based rebellion. Jamie is simply growing up and although he’s going out and experiencing new things, his mother seems to think that he needs more help.

Bening is very good, however I didn’t necessarily like her character much. There was a distant neediness to her that didn’t really work for me. Fanning was fantastic. She does the part woman/part girl nervousness with amazement. Watch her hands and feet move as when she’s nervous – wonderful subtle acting. Zumann was very good as the boy learning to become a man. Scenes where he becomes sullen and frustrated are excellent. Gerwig is wonderful. Her energy and engagement with the role and the other characters was perfect. Crudup was strong as handyman William. His soft kindness towards the women in the house and others was delightful. Mike Mills wrote an excellent script, however overall the film felt too scene based which may have been through his direction.

Overall:  Although I enjoyed many of the scenes, the overall film felt a little disjointed and scene based.

Jackie

First Hit:  It was a confusingly powerful portrayal of Jackie Kennedy during a most difficult time.

Confusing because my media biased view of Jackie consisted of a refined elegance and intelligence gained through a wealthy upbringing. This was challenged by the oddly phrased and pronounced speech along with the way she approached the challenges during this time. Although the assassination was an extremely traumatic event and the brief window this film uses to introduce us to Jackie is small, there was an oddity to the character that left me both confused and interestingly engaged.

Jackie (Natalie Portman) didn’t invent anything, didn't lead any social movements (non-profit or otherwise) and therefore her famousness comes from being a First Lady that revitalized the interior of The White House and that her popular husband was publicly assassinated in a short lived Presidency. The only visibility the public had of her was through the media. Glimpses of her as first lady, giving a tour of The White House, mother of Caroline and John, as a grieving widow, and dating and marrying Aristotle Onassis a Greek shipping tycoon. Regardless, the public had fascination about her and it is this attraction that probably led to this film.

This film’s timeframe is short. It begins with a post assassination interview by a journalist (Billy Crudup) as the vehicle for Jackie to share the truth as she saw it. To speak about the events of assassination, the funeral, and her time in The White House while hinting at Jack’s (John Fitzgerald Kennedy as played by Casper Phillipson) sexual indiscretions during their marriage. The film also interlays filmed sequences of her famous White House television tour, which gave many people their first look at the President’s famous home.

I enjoyed the way it was filmed in that the scenes were rich with the look of the early 1960s. Additionally, I liked the scenes of the tour. These scenes moved from the film’s richly colored set to the grainy and hazy black and white images that appeared on most television screens.

At times, I found Jackie to be very superficial by worrying so much about what something looked like and not caring so much about substance, to be followed by times where the complexities of her thinking came across as deep and intellectual, like the clarity of finding the right space to bury her husband. I never met her and because I only knew of her from the media, I’ve no way of knowing how closely Portman mimicked or embodied the role.

Her focus on making sure that Jack didn’t become just another “oil portrait on the wall” but that he stood for something was brought forth many times by her and Jack’s brother Bobby (Peter Sarsgaard). Supporting Jackie throughout the film was her assistant Nancy Tuckerman (Greta Gerwig), her closest confidant.

Although I wondered about the lack of tension and reasons why I was watching the film, I couldn’t wait to see what was going to happen next because there was an air of unpredictability in her voice and intention. As she states to a priest after the assassination, that her life was over and that she would spend the rest of her life waiting for it to be really over. This came across in the film and it was believable.

Portman was either amazing or created an odd characterization of this famous name. Again, I don’t know and given what I’ve seen and how Portman delivers performances, I’m going to say it was an amazing performance at an award-winning level. Crudup was interesting because his reactions to Jackie during the interview were, at times, priceless. An example was her telling the journalist that she doesn’t smoke as she lights up her 10th cigarette in a row was great. Sarsgaard was very good as Bobby. He was feisty and protective of his brother and what they were doing together, which matched my media understanding of him through the 1960s. Gerwig was very good. I loved her supportive actions including the visual reminders for Jackie to smile. Noah Oppenheim wrote a very strong script. Pablo Larrain’s direction was straightforward and no punches were pulled. The interspersed views of the assassination were excellent – especially the last one.

Overall:  This film isn’t for everyone and for people who have no connection to Jackie or didn’t live during her lifetime, it may not work

googleaa391b326d7dfe4f.html