Film – No lipstick! Book & Film Reviews

Books: The Lying Life of Adults. A Novel by Elena Ferrante, 2019

I have previously had mixed feelings about the writings of Elena Ferrante. My esteem of her rose after the film adaptation of “The Lost Daughter” by Maggie Gylenhaal, a truly original and thought-provoking film. My initial complaints about her fiction were related to the first part of the Neapolitan quartet – “My Brilliant Friend” which I found cliched and uninspiring, especially her very traditional class-struggles approach. In contrast – I was impressed by “Those Who Leave and Those Who Stay” which is an example of an in-depth look into the motherhood and womanhood themes of her previous books and a sort of more incisive continuation of “The Lost Daughter.” In the former, I enjoyed the string of character studies – contradictory and complex, the prose – dense and subtle, the non-judgemental representation of opposing kinds of “femininity,” the ambiguity of female strife for independence as a mix of libration and egotism. “We all narrate our lives as it suits us.” writes Ferrante. This is the powerful message of “Those Who Stay and Those Who Leave” – and it is the meta-revelation of the first-person narrative in that novel.

In “The Lying Life of Adults,” this principle is taken to a level of arbitrariness. An exceptionally smart girl, the author wants us to believe, is debunking the “narrative” of the adults that surround her as lies. Doing that she builds her own, supposedly innocent and honest, narrative. Not a new thing, by the way (i.e. What Maisie Knew) . The problem with the narrative of the coming-of-age girl, is that at some point the “disbelief” cannot be suspended. It becomes impossible to give credit to her unusual for her age intelligence, her interest in higher matters of politics and philosophy, the impression she creates for adults and peers, and her supposedly penetrating representations of the adults in her life. This time, Ferrante is invested too much in binary oppositions: ugly-beautiful, dreamy-cynical, rich-poor, entitled-self-made, so that instead of transforming into psychological “depth” the oppositions come across as confusing and arbitrary. In the main character’s narrative everything becomes possible and hence — not engaging.

TV: Ripley, 2024, Dir. Steven Zaillian

Hands down – the best thing about the new version of “Ripley” is its black-and-white cinematography – kudos to Robert Eslwit!

Otherwise – it seems that the driving force behind the making of a new film version of Patricia Highsmith’s novel was Andrew Scott who so badly wanted to play Ripley! And there is the rub…because he is not for that role, he lacks the “charmer” aspect (even though we found him very charming in Fleabag.) And you wonder what draws these people to him?! Why would Greenleaf senior ask this particular man to persuade his son to come back from Italy? Scott (and the director) obviously emphasize the class aspect of the character – a person from the lowest strata of society, who wants to become one of the high society, who mimics their tastes, aspires to appreciate art and enjoys being surrounded by beautiful objects but at the same time has the audacity to criticize his wealthy companions for being too bourgeois (the whole line with the ice-box). So, Ripley’s is a story of hatred for the upper classes but also a deep desire to join their ranks. Scott also focuses on the sinister aspect of the hero. He is sinister even when he plays nice, of he just can’t do the latter…

Comparisons with Matt Damon and Alain Delon are inevitable and don’t go in favor of Andrew Scott.

The series becomes tedious at some point because of the lot of “fluff” in the footage just meant to turn this into a series (with a second season probably coming up, on top of that…) There are some ridiculous parts in the film – one that stands out is the “analogy” with the criminal Caravaggio! An episode that was original and striking, mostly because of the cinematographer, was the one about Dicky’s murder, an elaborate and haunting nail-biter…

TV: Feud: Capote Vs The Swans, 2023, Creator Ryan Murphy, Dir. Gus Van Sant, Max Winkler, Jennifer Lynch

Unfortunately, the second installment of Ryan Murphy’s “Feud” is not as good as the first one. The dramatization of Betty Davis’ and Joan Crawford’s conflict was really great! It involved the manipulated context of this feud, the role of the media and the industry, and two great characters – it was a really demo of dramatic writing and a great pleasure to watch with the excellent performers!

“Capote Vs The Swans” lacked the dramatic energy that draws you in, the “feud” was illustrated, not acted out. The focus was on Capote’s idiosyncrasies, his loneliness, self-destructive behavior, narcissism, relationship with his mother, etc. (Tom Hollander was great playing Capote.) But the characters on the other side were underdeveloped, they were an illustration of an age long gone now, they were the “swan song” for the socialites of 1950s New York. The series strong point was the nostalgic feeling it induced despite the intended “criticism” of the New York high society from that time. An elegy for the women who were buying their “gardening hats” at a particular time of the year or who were fussing about the perfection of the edges of the invitation cards …was that ironic or sad or glamorous! It seems – the latter…And you could sense it in the way the “swan” performers enjoyed playing their roles – Naomi Watts, Diane Lane, Calista Flockhart, Chloë Sevigny….

Film: Poor Things. Dir. Yorgos Lanthimos, 2023

Unfortunately, the film is not as good as its costume design and its production design! Comedy it is not, as it has just one witty one-liner: the prostitutes going to a socialist meeting remarking that “they own their own means of production.” This director is entirely lacking a sense of humor, unless you consider humorous some CGI images of pig-birds, or a scientist slicing brains…

The rest is at times confusing and at times very flat and didactical one-dimensional allegory of a woman’s “story of liberation.” And no, Mr. Lanthimos, the clitoris is not the fountain of a woman’s power or freedom or whatever it is you want us to believe it is. Things are a little more complicated than that…Even as an allegory, the film does not make much sense or impress as an original or cogent conceptual piece. A sort of a “Frankenstein” woman, gets her unborn child’s brain implanted in her own head. She is robot-like and “soul-less”, she “discovers” sex and pleasure in an appropriately robot-like and soul-less way, then she discovers social injustice, but then this story-line is not taken any further as a philosopher (of sorts) tells her that there is no way of making the world a better place. Regardless, she tries to improve the world by becoming a prostitute, and then after being claimed by her former husband who caused her death returns to him only to discover (again) that she is free and can kill him. Finally, the heroine finds solace in science?! The key allegorical figures – the father, the lover, the husband, and the nice guy – are made up of banalities and utter banalities to the most boring effect. Emma Stone definitely has better roles. I felt sorry for her being limited to performing so “physical” a role — playing a brainless robot in the first half of the movie and during one third of the film being engaged in graphic sexual scenes. Talk about women’s liberation! This is the deepest irony of the film. The director’s obsession with sex has been demonstrated time and time again in his previous films- and it does not go beyond that, a mere obsession, because the representation of sex in his films does not transcend anything or explain, or enlighten, or analyze… It is disturbing because it is too literal. I wonder how he is getting away with this. There is no lack of snobs in the audience and the industry, I suppose…

And a wonderful actor like Mark Ruffalo, has to play this ridiculous character, a simplistic puppet — that is almost a cinematic crime perpetrated by Mr. Lanthimos. But he has done it before — to Olivia Coleman and others…

Film: American Fiction. Directed by Cord Jefferson. 2023

I loved that film! It is the bold, fresh, original, well-made cinema that has become so rare recently. When is the last time you saw a film whose main characters are upper middle class educated African Americans?

The film turns upside down all the stereotypes of blackness. It is a satire addressed to the liberal whites who actually promote these stereotypes, or what they think as the “raw” truth about the “underrepresented voices” — their subconscious main motivation being to feel better about themselves. It exposes progressivist attitudes as a therapy for liberal guilt…

Without becoming the feel good lemonady film about race, “American Fiction” ironically reminds us through its original ending that race is a problem which cannot be easily brushed aside. But the way it has been treated recently is not beneficial for the black community.

The performances of the entire cast are great. Jeffrey Wright and Sterling K. Brown deserve to get the Oscars they are nominated for. Loved Erika Alexander’s subtle and intelligent presence.

Film: Killers of the Flower Moon. Directed by Martin Scorsese. 2023

I will call this: Eight problems I have with this film:

It is too long. It could have been at least 3o minutes shorter.
It is predictable because the villains are clear from the start, and the victims are helpless till the end.
It is a straightforward illustration of the intrinsic nature of white men’s capitalism/imperialism as crime. As an illustration of a thesis, it is less of a work of art than a piece of propaganda.
Leonardo De Caprio’s character – it is not clear whether he is an evil conniver or an idiot because the actor switches between these two interpreations of his character’s personality sometimes especially indulging in portraying the physical mannerisms of the “dimwit” aspect.
Lily Gladstone’s character – her behavior seems inconsistent. After realizing that a massive crime is being perpetrated against the Osage Indians, and going to Washington to seek help, she still trusts her husband’s caring for her and administering her insulin injections. This type of “devotion” seems to defy credibility.
The Osage Indians are denied any agency. They are depicted as prone to alcoholism, submissive, and naive. Their reaction to the murders is expressed through tribal superstition and dreams (e.g. the sequences involving Molly’s mother). They are described as big children who are helpless and easy to be taken advantage of, thus promoting a stereotype instead of undermining it.
Robert De Niro plays the sociopath that he has played many times before.
The script in general does not have a solid dramatic structure – that is, it does not obey the rules of drama, rather – it illustrates time and again the greed and evil nature of white men conspiring to commit murder after murder and never quite getting the just retribution for their crimes.

Film: Anatomy of a Fall. Director Justine Triet. 2023

With high chances of getting an Oscar and having won the Palme D’Or the film deserves some special attention. It is definitely of higher quality than some recent Cannes awardees. It does not merit descriptions like “thriller” of “court drama” even though it strives to be one.

Its failure of checking the boxes for court drama has been discussed already (in The New Yorker.) The part of it that explores the husband/wife conflict is probably its most banal aspect – there is a rivalry between the husband and the wife, the husband is of course the less successful one, he is week, he is jealous of his wife’s success, he is to blame for the child’s accident – too many cliches in one place to make up for an original analysis of a relationship gone wrong. The forensic aspect (angles of “the fall” being examined) does not really become relevant in the film – it is just the director playing the “court drama” part. The blind child as the unreliable witness - really?

It gradually becomes clear to the viewer that they are not going to get a clear answer in the who-done-it situation. And that is the most important feature of the film – its original conclusion. The child is made to realize that the world of the adults is complicated, that there is no real “truth” about who is to blame in a Fall – symbolically speaking. He realizes that he needs to “choose” what he is going to believe has happened since he would not be able to understand what has actually happened. The son choses to save his mother. And he does so by providing the decisive testimony that exonerates her. The final sequence of the film is its best – we see a tired mother, a deeply, existentially tired human being forever locking inside a secret impossible to ever share, embracing her child. A bond that transcends truth.

The best thing about this film is Sandra Huller’s performance. Formidable!

Film: Don’t Look Up. 2021. Directed by Adam McKay

This film, supposedly a satire of America, is like a film made in the Soviet Union in the 50s. It employs the devices of anti-Americanism of a now-defunct socialist aesthetics.

Its problem is not that it compares the inevitable catastrophe of a meteorite about to hit the earth to the problem of climate change (a problem of immense complexity) as one serious critic of the film pointed out. Its real problem is that it portrays the “villains” of the US government as complete idiots and then claims that this is a satire. You can’t make the object of your satire a complete idiot in an attempt to prove that they are an idiot. It reminds me of the manipulative aesthetics of anti-semitic German films before the Second World War.

And what a pity that some great actors obliged.

Satire is a very difficult genre!

Film: The Lost Daughter, 2021, Directed by Maggie Gyllenhaal

Maggie Gyllenhaal has created a great European-style film in the best traditions of European cinema. This is a very refreshing achievement given that the current European cinema has started to resemble one very long and predictable Romanian film.

The film pulls you in slowly into its psychological web of relationships and nuances. In Gyllenhaal Elena Ferrante has found an excellent match for her literary style. This is a film without a “message” (and in my world that is a big plus) – it is subtle and questioning.

No need to say that Olivia Colman is great as the main character. The whole cast is superb but if I am to rank the performances, I would put Dakota Johnson and Peter Sarsgaard as my second favorites. Jessey Buckley as the young Leda is good but the two actresses are so different it is hard to believe the “evolution” of the young woman into the old one. They are like two different persons and may by that was a saught effect.

If you have seen the film, you already know it is about motherhood and womanhood. But it is also about class. There are two distinct groups of characters in the film – the primitives and the intellectuals. The primitives (the Greek Americans) are aggressive, patriarchal, threatening – their latent violence is suggested constantly. Motherhood is about “nature” and “submissiveness” in this milieu. The intellectuals are subtle, torn by conflicting desires, selfish, autonomous. Everything is hard in their world – including motherhood and love. And the children are a class of their own – they parade their “natural” unmitigated by education and culture inherent cruelty, aggression, and love. They are innocently cruel and constantly and aggressively demanding love and attention. Seemingly, the cliche of the joy and bliss of motherhood is completely shattered here. But is it? Leda’s parable looks pretty ironic at the end. She is portrayed as suffering for having missed something. She seems to have been punished for having left her children- the sense of regret prevails eventually. Leda’s sexual freedom and intellectual accomplishments – were they worth it? The answer is in Peter Sarsgaard character – this caricature of an intellectual, the unabashed academic narcissist who uses flattery to get sex! Was he worth it? Or the pseudo-intellectual puns passing for literary scholarship at today’s humanities conferences? What could be the price of feeling “accomplished” in this kind of field? Maybe melancholy – the kind of melancholy that can be crushing.

Gyllanhaal has achieved a level of complexity that can make Ana Karenina’s story look didactic.

Film: The Revenant

What a shame! At the BAFTA awards director Inarritu had the nerve to define the film as a “tender story” about a father-son love. Whom are you trying to fool Mr. Inarritu? The film lost so much money while in the making so that now the producers are ensuring some big awards for the film so that they can force-feed it to audiences throughout the world and try to recover some of this money. The award system is so rigged! Now we will have to watch the same circus at the Oscars…George Miller is ten-times better director than Inarritu and he does not even get nominated. What about “Trumbo” – no nomination for film at all, just for Cranston? The Revenant is such a boring film – no characters, no dialogue, simplistic and violent… Poor DeCaprio – he is being awarded for enduring hardships while shooting the film – because there is no real role worth mentioning there…The visuals are of course “inspired” or rather “copied” from the great Tarkovsky, Urusevsky, etc. Boycott this film, don’t bail it out.