Octavia Spencer

Luce

First Hit: I left the theater slightly confused about this film, and today, the following day, I’m still confused.

The confusion about this film is around the question; what was the coalesced point?

To set the stage, Luce is a young black senior in High School. His parents Amy and Peter Edger (Naomi Watts and Tim Roth respectively) adopted Luce as a seven-year-old orphan boy from a war-torn country. Amy couldn’t pronounce his name, so Peter suggested giving him a new name, they came up with Luce, which means light.

Luce (Kelvin Harrison Jr.) is smart, and from the beginning of the film, he’s shown in this light by always doing his homework, getting excellent grades, being head of the debate team, and giving amazing speeches. Despite this, there is a sense and feeling that all this is a show by Luce, that there is an underlying agenda. So what is it?

This film touches on multiple issues, but because it doesn’t focus on one, the point is never crystallized.

Is the film about Harriet Wilson’s (Octavia Spencer) perceived dislike for Luce and others? After completing a writing assignment where the students were to take on a character and create a story, Luce chose to write about revolution and violence. Upon reading this, Wilson goes into his locker, finds and removes a bag filled with illegal fireworks. Attempting a discussion with Luce turns into an antagonistic argument. Discussing this with Amy, Wilson shares her concern that something may be going on with Luce and that they need to pay attention.

Amy and Peter’s discussion of this issue leads to highlighting some of the difficulties in their relationship through how they each attempt to elicit the truth from Luce but fail. His response is that he loves the subject of the class but Wilson is out to get and demean people.

That Wilson is black, Luce is black, and Luce’s closest friends are of mixed races. Was the film about racism? Yes and no. The film talks about racism, and in a scene when Luce enters his teacher’s home, Wilson gives him a sure fired lecture on what it means to be black and black in today’s society. So is this what the film is about?

Is the film about the truth? The film addresses fact in multiple ways, from the absence of telling or sharing information to outright lies. When Amy and Peter attempt to get information about the paper, and even the fireworks from Luce, there is a dance of misguided parries of questions. That Amy and Peter speak being truthful, the not sharing of the information they know with Luce is deceitful in its own way. When Amy and Peter lie in front of Wilson and the school principal, truth flies out the window.

Is the film about manipulation and control? Towards the end of the film, Wilson brings this subject out into the open by stating that Luce might be manipulating all of their behaviors. This is a good step in the movie because I, and maybe others in the audience, suspect this from the very beginning. However, Luce, when needing to seem sincere and apologetic, he makes his behavior very believable.

There are examples (or instances) of manipulation, one being with Luce’s possible girlfriend Stephanie Kim (Andrea Bang). At one point, Amy seeks to speak with Stephanie about what happened to her that caused Wilson to demean her in class. Stephanie begins telling a story about an event at a party. Her telling the story is powerfully believable. But was it real or was this really manipulation of Amy by Stephanie? Or, was all of this created by Luce? Was any of this genuine, part of it correct, or was the subject a way of manipulating people?

When Wilson queues up Stephanie to share the truth of a sexual incident at a meeting with Amy, Peter, Luce, and the school principal, what happens appears to be manipulated. And is it manipulation by Luce when he calls Amy “mother” or “Amy” based on what is going on at that moment?

The whole film is always on the edge of sharing the truth about Luce, the strain between Amy and Peter about adopting versus having their own child. The law around the searching personal property, how some people seem to have a light shined on them naturally, or is it really earned? How race factors into perceptions of people.

The ending gives little clue to the real intent of the film and only slightly more about Luce.

Harrison Jr. is very successful at creating an enigma of a person. His smooth transitions in a single scene from accepted kindness to a penetrating stare and back again were excellent. Watts was solid in this role as a mother, protector, and caring, engaged parent. Roth was fascinating as the father who carried resentment of not having his own child but also loving his adopted son, Luce. Spencer was almost as enigmatic as Luce. At times, I believed she had a slight grudge, and at other times, she felt thoroughly sincere. Bang was convincing in her telling the story of an incident to Amy, yet also elusive in what her true feelings were. J.C. Lee wrote the screenplay from his play. I’m not sure why I ended up with confusion after seeing this film. Was the basis of my confusion the screenplay or the direction by Julius Onah.

Overall: The film had promise, and I’m not sure what it delivered.

Ma

First Hit: Moderately thrilling at times.

This is a story about someone who was bullied as a high school student and finally having the opportunity to go overboard and get back at what was done to her.

Sue Ann (Octavia Spencer) picks up the nickname “Ma” from a bunch of high school kids for whom she buys liquor because they are too young to buy it themselves. “Ma” also offers these kids a place to party and drink the alcohol she obtains for them.

Maggie (Diana Silvers) and her mom Erica (Juliette Lewis) have just moved from San Diego to her mom’s hometown in Ohio. Erica has taken a job as a cocktail waitress while training to be a card dealer at a casino.

Attending high school on her first day, Maggie meets up with Haley (McKaley Miller) who convinces her to join her and a few friends for a drinking party just outside of town. One of Haley’s friends and someone who smiled and said “hi” to Maggie is Andy (Cory Fogelmanis). Maggie joins them on this adventure, especially because Andy will be there.

Standing outside the liquor store, Maggie gets Sue Ann to buy some liquor. Sue Ann convinces the kids to follow her to her house where they can party, and she can keep tabs on them.

The word spreads around school that “Ma” will not only get them booze but let the kids drink and have fun in her basement. But there is something suspicious about “Ma” and Maggie suspects there is an underlying current of weirdness.

We learn that “Ma” went to school with Maggie’s mom and Andy’s dad Ben (Luke Evans) because the story cuts back and forth through time showing these adults as kids in high school and the mean trick they played on Sue Ann.

It is in this context that Sue Ann decides she’s going to get revenge on the people that embarrassed and humiliated her. She does this through their kids, the ones coming to her house to party.

Secrets are revealed, and the and the sick pain “Ma” feels about what was done to her expresses itself in several horrific scenes.

Spencer is rather good as the kind veterinarian assistant and the off the charts psychotic revenge focused woman in her hometown. She did a great job of changing her look as needed. Lewis is always interesting to watch on screen. She always makes me think she’s just hanging out on edge. Silvers is excellent as the somewhat shy, yet intelligent young girl. Miller is keen as the friend who creates excitement around herself. Fogelmanis is very good as the young man who cares about Maggie. Evans is terrific as the man who is the primary subject of Ma’s vengeance. Scotty Landes wrote this script that attempts to tell the darkest side of what happens to people who are bullied. Tate Taylor got strong performances from the young cast and Spencer.

Overall: It was fun to watch Spencer change her expressions from light-hearted and helpful to dark and revengeful.

Instant Family

First Hit: This was a very funny, touching, and poignant film about foster care and love.

Based partially on a true story, Pete and Ellie Wagner (Mark Wahlberg and Rose Byrne respectively) are enjoying a wonderful life together. They have built a successful business of flipping homes together. However, when they visit her family during one of the holidays, the family gets into a heated, yet hilarious discussion about kids.

They attend a Foster kid information meeting, which is hilarious, that is led by Sharon (Tig Notaro) and Karen (Octavia Spencer). As they learn more about the foster children and their needs, the more they are touched and consider adopting.

They select an older girl Lizzy (Isabela Moner) who has two younger siblings Juan and Lita (Gustavo Quiroz and Juliana Gamiz respectively). after learning that they will have to take all three the first week or so, starts off fairly well and when Pete and Ellie go to their foster support group they think, they’re “pretty good at this.” But then it happens, Pete and Ellie are faced with the difficulties, resentment, and behavior issues that foster care children can bring to the table through no fault of their own.

Watching Pete and Ellie, learn to fall in love with the kids was very well done. It was a subtly evolved piercing their outward bravado.

The scenes, although obvious in nature, allowed the actors to grow into the family dynamic and situation with both comedic and heartbreaking outcomes. When the biological mother comes back into their life, it was obvious that Lizzy hoped it would work, but the pressure overcame the mother —again. When Pete and Ellie meet with their support group, the comradery of people facing like and different difficulties with their foster children was both amusing while containing some real life challenges.

The quick quips between Sharon and Karen were extremely well timed and appropriately funny.

Wahlberg was strong as the charged up wanna be dad, fixer, and solver of problems. Although he can come off as pressing the character at times, in the end, he was perfect. Byrne was excellent. I loved her movement from reluctance to strong advocate. She showed sensitivity, warmth and strength. Moner was brilliant as the teenage girl that had been thrust into a parenting role and then had to let go and become a teenage girl learning how to grow up. The two scenes with the hairbrush were perfect: First sensitive, touched; followed by resentment and hurt. Quiroz and Gamiz were wonderful as Moner’s younger siblings. Quiroz showed a wonderful sensitive side, while Gamiz was both sweet and strong-willed. Spencer was fantastic and very funny as one of the foster case women. Notaro was equally wonderful and funny as Spencer’s straight woman and co-case worker. As a team they were perfect for this story. Julie Haggerty as Jan, Ellie’s mother, was wonderfully naïve, yet insightful. Margo Martindale was perfect as Pete’s overbearing, loud, and strong willed mother whose insights to raising children were helpful. Sean Anders and John Morris wrote a funny screenplay that made use of real-life experience. Anders did a good job of making this film work. His actual experience with foster care and adoption was apparent.

Overall: This film worked because the story had a ring of truth and the actors embraced their characters.

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...

The Shape of Water

First Hit:  Beautifully crafted and acted, and I didn’t find it all that interesting.

Although most of the scenes are dark and have a green color tint, they are beautifully crafted. The greenish tint is in the walls of the lab, the color of the hallways in the facility, the color of the water in which the beast lives and the van that was used to transport the beast. To break up this hue, color, like the deep dark red velvet seats in the movie theater, would be used to signify boldness.

The movie theater plays a role in the film because it is the home of Giles (Richard Jenkins) and the amazing star of the film Elisa Esposito (Sally Hawkins). They live upstairs in small apartments.

Sally is a mute and works at a laboratory as a janitor. Her workmate, friend and protector is Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer). One day, when they are cleaning a secret room of the lab Sally is startled by the beast (Amphibian Man / Doug Jones) when she places her hand on a chamber he's being contained in. The amphibian has been captured and is being studied by Dr. Robert Hoffstetler (Michael Stuhlbarg) who is also happens to be a Russian spy.

The US government is trying to keep the amphibian secret and has hired Richard Strickland (Michael Shannon) to keep tabs on the creature. Strickland is cruel and thinks himself superior to everyone, especially Zelda and Elisa. He shows his cruelty by carrying around a cattle prod which he uses to  control the amphibian.

Eliza’s days are monotonous and the same. After sleeping; she gets up goes into the bathroom, masturbates in her tub, makes a sandwich for herself to take to work and one for her neighbor Giles (Richard Jenkins), goes to work, cleans the lab and bathrooms, returns home and spends time with Giles in his apartment where they watch dancing films on television.

Loved the scenes when Giles and Eliza do dance routines while sitting on the couch. Sweet and touching and added a heartfelt feeling to the characters.

Dancing is nice aspect of this film and it brings a lightness to this, otherwise, heavy film. The dance routines were directly from some of the films of the 1940s and 50s.

The obvious set-up is that Eliza feels a deep connection with the amphibian partially because they both don’t speak. However, they find a way of communicating with each other. She falls in love with him and is stressed because of the cruelty Strickland imposes on the amphibian. The question becomes, will she fight for the amphibian?

One of the failings of this film were the scars on Eliza’s neck. This detail was too obvious and allowed me to see the end before it came.

This film is a love story and in many ways, it really works well. I’m not sure of the necessity of having Hoffstetler be a Russian spy and I’m not sure why the pie store owner needed to be a racist. I just didn’t think it enhanced the story.

Hawkins was perfect for this role. Her clarity of purpose, her portrayal of being mute and desire to be seen as a person, was divine.  The development of her finding the strength to act on her love was compelling. One of the best performances of the year. Just as Hawkins was purposeful in her role, Shannon was equally intense as the man who wanted to control the amphibian. His driven personality to succeed at his job, his way, was perfectly played. Jenkins was great as the scared and scarred neighbor that had been let go from his job as product illustrator. Stuhlbarg was fantastic as the Russian agent who wanted science and this discovery to prevail over the wants of the Russian Government. Spencer was great as Eliza’s friend and protector. I sensed that writer and director Guillermo del Toro wanted this film to be both an interesting and emotional journey, but I found it lacking in interesting department, except when I was thinking about how the scenes were shot and the detail of the well-crafted pictures, like the cracked tile in Eliza’s bathroom. However, the direction by him of this cadre of actors was exquisite and keep me engaged.

Overall:  Although exquisitely beautiful in its crafting, it did not leave a lasting impression of greatness.

googleaa391b326d7dfe4f.html