The Favourite

First Hit: A stark, intense musical score underscores the bizarre and tension filled interrelationships between the queen and her court.

The film is bizarre in that it always feels like it’s on the edge of chaos in both the way the film is presented and in its content. There are a couple of dance scenes, where it appears that the dancers are doing very traditional 18^th century dance, then there are moves that are contemporary in nature.

Would one really believe that a queen would purposefully throw herself on the floor, cry and scream, in front of her government? Would the queen purposefully fall down and fake a fainting spell while addressing Parliament because she doesn’t know what to do?

These on the edge of reality scenes are mixed with scenes that reflect the time period. Yet the costumes are angularly odd in their accurateness, restrictiveness, and color. The use of blacks and dark colors in odd angles for the Queen and her immediate court were inspired and pointed in the feeling they created for the audience.

Under it all was this music. Sometimes it was just two notes, one sounding like it came from a keyboard and a dissonant one from a violin in a scratchy intense tone. Back and forth these notes went while growing in volume creating tenseness.

Queen Anne (Olivia Coleman) is a mixed-up individual and leader of England. She’s ill-informed, helpless, petulant, inquisitive, always  feels victimized, a baby, and a physical wreck.

In odd scenes we see her stuffing her mouth with cake, throwing up, all while playing a game of solitary. Or deciding to build a huge palace for her right-hand woman Lady Sarah (Rachel Weisz). The palace she wants to build for Sarah is huge and in celebration of winning the war with France. When Sarah indicates that England has only won a battle not the war, the queens states “oh, I didn’t know that.”

Sarah cares about the government, makes most all the decisions, is strong willed, cares for the queen, driven to keep the queen’s childish ways from ruining England, and sleeps with the queen providing her with sexual pleasure.

Abigail (Emma Stone) enters the court early as a kitchen worker. She was once a Lady of fine standing, but her family fell on hard times, and since then she’s been tossed around the country as sort of a homeless rag doll. She's all about self-preservation. She knows Lady Sarah from her prosperous earlier times and when Sarah discovers that Abigail is part of the queen’s home, Sarah decides to keep tabs on Abigail by making her a personal servant.

Abigail, we learn early on, is out for herself and discovers that she likes the queen, sees that the queen is manipulable, and knows that if she can get in the queen’s good graces, she will make a better life for herself. When Abigail manipulates the queen into letting her marry one of the queen's court, we see how interested she is in loving her new husband on their wedding night as she services him while dreaming up new ways to cement her relationship with the queen.

The battle lines are drawn between Abigail and Sarah; who will become the queen’s favourite?

Coleman is unbelievable. Her ability to show compassion, petulance, chronic illness, being uninterested, and all the time being head of state was fascinatingly amazing. She will get an academy award nod for this performance. Weisz continues to show me, time and time again, how powerful she is at carrying an underlying tones and feelings while outwardly showing something different. Her performance here is outstanding and deserving of an award nod. Stone is sublime in this quirky role of self-preservation. She is both raw and sweet while being kind and conniving. Another award-winning performance. There are many other actors in this film, all giving wonderful performances. The wildly quirky and strangely interesting screenplay was created by Deborah Davis and Tony McNamara. Mixing this brew of a bold visionary story, powerful music, and a cast of gifted actors was the clearly deft hand of direction by Yorgos Lanthimos.

Overall: This was a strange brew of color, sound, and dialogue in scenes that seemed to always teeter on the edge of sanity.

Disobedience

First Hit: Extremely well-acted film about how antiquated thinking can split families and a loving relationship.

Ronit Krushka (Rachel Weisz) is a photographer in New York City. As we meet her, she's photographing a tattooed man.

She suddenly has to leave New York and we see her as deeply anxious. She arrives in a small town Orthodox Jewish community in England because her father, Rabbi Rav Krushka (Anton Lesser) has died suddenly. She did not know he was ill with pneumonia. The mystery is set with this scene; as she enters Dovid and Esti Kuperman’s (Alessandro Nivola and Rachel McAdams respectively) home where they are honoring Rav’s death, there is a strong silent judgmental air as she enters the house and each room.

The way this movie is filmed, we see her both as slightly detached from the people around her and intensely engaged. There is a depth of sadness in her character.

There is an especially strong sense of a subject not discussed when Ronit and Esti are together. Dovid was Rav’s specially selected heir apparent to be head rabbi of the local temple. The audience slowly learns that Ronit’s absence and rejection by the community is partially due to a lesbian romance with Esti when they were very young.

Scene after scene the community rejects Ronit because of her past and their passive aggressive closed-minded behavior is a key subject of the film.

The stark, clean way this film is shot adds to its intense beauty. The slow building of the way we learn about their previous relationship, how the community saw this forbidden relationship, and how the love still burns for each of them is outstanding.

Although their hotel lovemaking scene is what is advertised, it’s the entire story around it that makes this scene and this film work.

This film also exposes the lack of acceptance of human love by her family and friends and the Orthodox Jewish community.

Weisz is amazing in this film. She is an incredibly strong actress and she puts herself into roles that challenge her and the role of women (think My Cousin Rachel and this film to name two) in their communities. McAdams is a revelation in this role. Her subtly in revealing her love in this film was fantastic. I loved how she fiddled with her wig as it showed a level of unsurity. Nivola was wonderful as the conflicted rabbi who loved his wife Esti, Ronit, and his Jewish faith. Sebastian Lelio and Rebecca Lenkiewicz wrote an detailed and effective screenplay that got to the spirit and heart of the matter is a wonderful way. Lelio had a clear vision in his direction of this story and cast. It was clean and was based on characters that had depth.

Overall: This is one of the best films this year.

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...

My Cousin Rachel

First Hit: Although the story was telegraphed from the beginning, it almost worked.

Ambrose Ashley (not credited) owns a large estate on the Cornish coast of England. He’s kind hearted and is guardian to an orphan boy who is his cousin Philip (as an adult Sam Claflin). Because Ambrose is sickly, he goes to Italy to heal in the sunshine.

There Ambrose meets Rachel (Rachel Weisz) who he falls in love with and marries. We know this through the letters he sends some to Philip. Then the letters get fewer and far between but each letter that comes through tells a tale of Ambrose thinking Rachel is poisoning him.

After Ambrose’s death, Philip swears he will kill Rachel if he ever see’s her. Because Ambrose never signed a new will, Philip inherits the estate but will not have sole control until he’s 25. Prior to his 25th birthday Rachel shows up to his home. Instead of disliking her, Philip finds Rachel appropriately humble and thoughtful.

It is obvious that she is not really being kind for the sake of kindness but because she has a plan. This is the failing of the film. There are too many obvious hints that Rachel is at Philip’s estate to make money. There is nothing really hidden. I don’t know if it was the script or acting but I didn’t buy the premise and therefore the ending seemed obvious.

Weisz was strong, beautiful and seductive; however, I think the script had too many breadcrumbs to make it mysterious. Claflin was OK as Philip. He was naïve enough, but again I think the script was overtly obvious and therefore, knowing the story before it unfolds in not a good trait for a film. Iain Glen was strong as Nick Kendall, the role of Philip’s Godfather. I liked the way he carried the aristocracy of his position. Holliday Grainger as Louise Kendall was the best of the lot. Her desire for Philip was perfectly subdued and obvious. Roger Michell wrote and directed this film. It was a mediocre attempt to create suspense and mystery.

Overall: Despite being a good idea, it didn’t quite make it.

Denial

First Hit:  A strong and heart felt story about a truth.

Has anyone ever denied something you and everyone else you know to be true? For me it is deflating and hurtful to have the truth be ignored by ignorance or ego driven insensitivity. I can only imagine what it might have felt like when Deborah Lipstadt (the real person), a noted historian and writer, was challenged by a denier that the Holocaust had actually happened. Being Jewish historian, she wrote a book called “Denying the Holocaust” in which she indicate that Irving was a liar by denying the holocaust had happened.

This film attempts to share this powerful story when Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz) was confronted by David Irving (Timothy Spall), a holocaust denier, while she was teaching a class. Irving said that he'd give anyone $1,000 if they could prove that holocaust had taken place. She was so incensed that she called him a liar in public along with a few other assorted things which gave Irving the forum he needed to have Lipstadt sued for libel thereby having his cause heard. By having his cause heard, he would become more famous, validated, and rich. The forum he chose was the English court system. In this system, the defendant (Lipstadt) had to prove that Irving was a liar, which is different than the US court system where the prosecutor has to prove they were libeled. Living in the US Lipstadt didn’t know this and took the case straight on.

Her English Barrister (the person doing the lead research) was Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott) and her Advocate (the person arguing the case) was Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson). Together they spent years and millions of pounds detailing out a case, in front of a judge, to hopefully show that Irving was lying.

The arguments on both sides were interesting. One of Irving’s beliefs that stood out reminded me of the OJ Simpson trial. In the Simpson trial Johnnie Cochran came up with a catch phrase that swayed the trial, “if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit”. In this film, Irving and the press came up with, “No holes, no holocaust”. What it referenced was the issue that no one had been able to show that were holes in the ceilings of the gas chambers where the poisonous gas materials were dropped into the chambers. If there were no evidence of holes in the ceilings, then how could have gas pellets been dropped into the chamber?

On the other side arguments brought forth by Rampton were aimed at having Irving box himself into a corner showing that he knowingly lied about his research. By doing this, he would be admitting that he was a liar on his own accord which would then support Lipstadt’s original statement, that he was a liar. This was a difficult challenge and Rampton, who threw himself fully into the task. But one thing he insisted on was to ensure that the arguments were not emotional. Therefore, he insisted that neither Lipstadt nor any survivors take the stand to make an emotional case. He wanted the case decided on logic and true information so that this issue wouldn't ever again be questioned.

With this set-up , the film deftly brings this story to light. The English Court system, the pain of the holocaust, and a way to commit to the truth without the display of emotions.

Weiss was very good as Lipstadt. Her drive and dignity of the character were well delivered. Wilkinson was wonderful as the Advocate. His humanness and logical drive were strongly present through the entire process. Spall was amazing in this unlikeable role. The ability to take on a role like this despite your beliefs is challenging and he did it extremely well. Scott was good as the Barrister who wanted to right the wrong. David Hare created a wonderful and intense screenplay. The dialogue exchanges between Lipstadt and Rampton were wonderfully written. Mick Jackson did a wonderful job of directing this courtroom thriller. Some of the scenes at Auschwitz were amazingly and deftly shot.

Overall:  This was a strong film about a deeply emotional piece of history.