Knives Out (2019)****/5: Great mystery film but some parts are a bit too convenient.

(photo courtesy of IMDB.com)

Knives Out is a scintillating murder? mystery while offering affective family drama with a comedic touch. The film is also well written and directed particularly if you are familiar with mystery films in general. With the great mystery films things are never what they seem especially as you start guessing. Even if you guessed who did it you still will not be able to figure out how because of the layered presentation and characters going in and out of the narrative. As usual there is a big reveal but this should encourage you to watch it a second time in order piece it together.  If it is a great film then many of the clues should be there when you watch it again. Also, it must be said that the issue of murder or suicide is one of the most engaging aspects in the mystery. The motive is also important and it is here that we get a sense of the wider family drama. It is a white petty bourgeois family dependent on the patriarch who is now dead.  The introduction of an immigrant nurse from central or South America gives the film a new edge as she pierces through the cynicism with her kind heart. In that sense it is fantastical and entertaining beyond what could have been a turgid portrayal.

This film is directed and written by Rian Johnson and features an all star cast. The stand outs are Daniel Craig, as private detective, Benoit Blanc; Ana de Armas as the immigrant nurse, Marta; Chris Evans as the spoilt grandchild, Ransom Robinson; Jamie Lee Curtis, as Linda Robinson;  Michael Shannon as Walt Thrombey and Chirstopher Plummer as Harold Thrombey.

Positives

The primary positive is the murder mystery and what it says about the Thrombey family in general. This becomes apparent when establishing a motive for the murder. The Thrombey family is mostly dysfunctional and a lot of it has to do with their dependence on the patriarch, Harold, who is now dead. Another crucial element is the immigrant nurse, Marta, and her peculiar revulsion of lying. She is portrayed rather optimistically as a pure soul in contrast with the practical cynicism of the Thrombeys. Obviously this mystery says a lot about white America and their relationship with immigrants in general. This makes it a timely topic especially when considering how things unravel towards the end. In the good old days this kind of mystery film would not have such an edge with a character like Marta. It would not reflect white America accurately when their position was more secure in their hold on the country.

The introduction of a character like Marta suggests that these white ensemble films will have to account for the immigrant element in some way. The immigrant is crucial to any social portrayal of white bourgeois America because it is now a defining element in their experience.  The film smartly makes this film about a family with a small fortune as opposed to a big one and so the issues regarding inheritance are not so grave. If billions were at stake instead of millions then it would be all out war and the film would probably descend, farcically, into a shoot out. The film can then be seen as a microcosm of white America at a turning point. The mystery and how it unravels merely brings this to the fore. The film would not have been so meaningful without these wider issues to discuss.

Negatives

The primary negative is the sanctified portrayal of Marta in this cynical world. I will not reveal how the mystery unfolds but her role in it and her kind heart seem too convenient for this  plot. It is not clear why she is singled out as an invigorating factor because she is just a good nurse and Harold’s friend.  The motives of the patriarch, Harold, are also not clear cut and although things are conveniently wrapped up at the end I was not sure of his own motives regarding Marta. He laid out this grand plan on his birthday but is it because of the old adage that the 1^st generation produces and the second generation consumes. Something like that. In some sense he is responsible for the family being so dependent especially in his unwillingness to allow some of them to exercise their initiative and to thrive in some areas. It is also clear throughout the film that he uses Marta to solidify his last hurrah or middle finger to his family. How will she continue to navigate the cynicism despite what appears a somewhat triumphant end? In such a sense the emphasis on such a kind hearted Marta narrows the portrayal and limits what could have been said  without it becoming merely comedic.

All in all the presentation of this mystery is technically very impressive but I still have some reservations about the pure hearted intentions of Marta.

Ford vs. Ferrari (2019) ****/5. This is one of the better sports films to be released in awhile but too many major historical inaccuracies. Christian Bale as Ken Miles is the real standout

Ford vs. Ferrari is one of the better sports films to be released in awhile. While the film took some time to get going, and one could adequately determine the stereotypical personalities and situations involved, it did move me towards the end. For me, the performance of Christian Bale as Ken Miles, the odd man out, deserves commendation. The gravitas on display by Bale is fitting for a film shrouded in polished corporate American values and historical inaccuracies. Matt Damon is Bale’s foil as he plays the pioneer automobile designer, Caroll Shelby. With these two outstanding performances the names of the two pioneers will stick with you along with the thrill of motor car racing.  The Director, James Mangold, also got me emotional with his previous bromance, the remake of 3:10 to Yuma, which also starred Bale. Similar to that film, the situations or circumstances might be predictable in Ford vs. Ferrari but the unity between the two leads transcend this and evoke a certain eerie, historical feel that these were real people. Capturing the historical record with such entertainment value is commendable and again showcases why moments in time, regardless of the period, are transcendent. Notable historical inaccuracies are present and so I could not rate this film as highly.

This film is based on the true story of the 1966 Le Mans Grand Prix, a 24 hour endurance race, when automaker Ford ended Ferrari’s dominance of the event and thereby showcasing American capabilities in international motor car racing sport. The two individuals that made it happen were Caroll Shelby (Matt Damon) and Ken Miles (Christian Bale). The two have to navigate a web of corporate interests and subterfuge; making it apparent the interests of greed at the heart of fierce competition and the sacrifices that are made by honest working people to build something meaningful for the brand.

Positives

The primary positives are the performances by Christian Bale and Matt Damon. As Ken Miles Bale plays the odd man out but the one with more insight into the ways of the conformists represented by conservative corporate interests. Also, as the odd man out he is able to transcend the demands of corporate interests by breaking the stranglehold that tends to hold back genuine progress. In so doing that individual is able to mould a new direction for future generations by pushing the limits and making them aware of what is possible. It is no wonder that the most dramatic moments involve this character who was way ahead of his time in some respects, from an American perspective. It is even more impressive as his character is based on a historical figure. The current generation will be able to identify with such an individual who pushes the envelope whether they are from 1966 or 2019. Matt Damon does well as Carroll Shelvy who has to do the balancing act between conservative corporate interests and the more eccentric individual Miles who is his friend. He watches it all unfolds and acts as the narrator for the story.

Other perspectives include those of Miles’ wife, Mollie (Caitriona Balfe), and doting son, Peter (Noah Jupe). The supporting cast which represents corporate America also plays its part and it is no surprise that the so called villain, Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas), is within the upper echelons of the Ford bureaucracy, regardless of what the title of the film says. Beebe is not necessarily a villain in the wider sense, although being portrayed as such, because, just like anyone else he is motivated by the self-interest of his company. If he was truly this vindictive then it makes the movie even sadder by the end.

Another positive of this film is the detailed breakdown of the moments leading to the famous 1966 race at Le Mans. The structure of the rivalry is detailed first as a corporate struggle between Ford and Ferrari followed by the professionals who got it done on the ground. The owners of the two companies, Henry Ford II and Enzo Ferrari, are finely portrayed. Ford as a man trying to continue his father’s legacy and Ferrari trying to maintain his own. Ferrari is obviously more intimate with the motor car racing scene than the more sheltered Ford Jr and this is all portrayed throughout the film very well. It even becomes apparent in the final race. In the end they are the ultimate winners or losers because they represent the brand.

The last major positive is obviously the motor racing itself. I am pretty sure that Generation Z would not be disappointed by the motor racing on display in this film. Cars hitting just over 200 mph may not seem major now but in 1966 that was considered very fast. The direction of these races by Mangold captures the adrenaline rush of the sport and why it is a highly valued one with a long lived history. You do get really immersed in the races and the mindset (strategies) of the speed demons on the track and their support system in the pits. More speed but with greater control. This all suggests that the historical forces and methods of the sport have been in place for a very long time although cars have gotten faster etc. Can you imagine Ken Miles having a go with some of these modern cars? The cars of today are probably what he and Shelby had in mind all along. Probably.

Negatives

The primary negative is the biased portrayal of corporate America. Obviously, the historical record already records them as the victors at Le Mans but the film does do its part in having them portrayed as pushing American interests and values while portraying Ferrari as their bitter enemy that must be defeated. Yes, some are sacrificed along the way, and there is significant enmity within Ford itself, but in the end Ford is the victor. I found Enzo Ferrari more relatable than Henry Ford II because he lived it. He was a true sports man but his attitude to the sport is not effectively captured except in sound bites and gesticulation. In the end Ford may have won a couple races at Le Mans but if you check the records Ferrari still has more wins than Ford overall. It is true that Ford is the only American car company to record victories at the event but there is probably a reason why they have not won since the 60s. Instead of portraying it as a bitter corporate struggle we could have gotten a more balanced or well rounded film that could still assert the end of Ferrari’s dominance. A more genuine sports film. Instead we have a couple scenes where Henry Ford II speaks about the greatness of his company but Ferrari must have been great as well, so what about the  values of his company. What I see is Ford rising to Ferrari’s standards yet Ferrari is seen as the ultimate loser. I do admit that the 1966 race was special in itself but instead of emphasizing American participation only let us also emphasize that Ford are also the overall losers particularly as they haven’t really made much headway in the event since the 1960s.

The film does emphasize how the small man is sacrificed on the corporate altar but can we really be disappointed at the end. In the end Ford won in 1966 as history says. Yes, there was some subterfuge but ultimately Ford won. In some sense the added dramatic effect can shroud the overall outcome which is implied in the title. This does mean that although there is a stereotypical villain the emphasis on Shelby and Miles sort of obscures the overall objective of Ford to win the race. So the portrayal of internal enmity is unfortunate because in the end it doesn’t really matter which driver wins. I understand that as a sports film it does matter but not as implied in the title. So, if it is Ford vs. Ferrari why focus only on Miles and Shelby and not give a more accurate representation of the other interests of Ford in motor racing. The other Ford racing cars were not discussed effectively as part of the overall objective except at the end of one race.

I mention this because I am sports history enthusiast and so more care needs to be demonstrated when promoting American interests in the film.  If you look at the list of winners at Le Mans since its inception you will realize that there are notable inaccuracies in the film. For instance, Shelby is credited in the film as the only American to win the event before the 1966 race and that is not the case. The Italian born American, Luigi Chinneti, was the first in 1949 and he drove a Ferrari. LOL. The next American to win the event was American born, Phil Hill in 1958, and he drove, YES, A FERRARI. LOL. Phil Hill also won driving a Ferrari in 1961 and 1962. It makes you wonder why Ford did not turn to their fellow American lol. In 1965 a North American team won the event before Shelby got involved. The North American team won driving a Ferrari and had 2 American drivers on their roster. The North American Racing team was owned by Ferrari to promote their interests in America.  Also, in the list of winners Shelby American Inc is credited as the American team behind the victories at  Le Mans in 1966 and 1967, so why all the drama surrounding this race. Ford was the sponsor but the Shelby teams were involved with the creation of the GT40 engine for the other cars that participated in 1966. Why wasn’t this highlighted in the film? That is really unfortunate. Shelby’s team is listed on record as the ones behind Ford’s 1-2-3 triumph. Shelby was not just approached by Ford because he won at Le Mans as a driver but because he actually entered the 1964 Le Mans event with the Shelby Daytona Cobra Coupe which placed 4^th. Ford was actually trying to beat Ferrari long before 1966 but Ferrari was just very good at what it did. Credit to Shelby for having an all American team ending their dominance. It makes you wonder who the real villain is.

This is still one of the best sports films I have ever watched. The character of Ken Miles is the only one to emerge unscathed from my criticism.  I wanted to love this film more but too many major inaccuracies.

Joker (2019) ** ½/5: This is a somewhat menacing examination of the descent into madness but not much else apart from constant cackling. Heath Ledger's Joker still remains the standard not this charlatan played by Phoenix.

(photo courtesy of slashfilm.com)

Joker is a somewhat menacing examination of the descent into madness but nothing else. There is a lot of maniacal laughter or cackling but no meaningful additions about the Joker ethos. There is nothing particularly memorable here in terms of quotes or perspectives. I left only with memory of the laughter and a predictable tale of urban alienation that leads to an explosive reaction in society. The attempt to cover the Joker in blood and to tie him with the batman is especially pathetic and throws off an important timeline in the comic books. There is no reconciliation or expansion of the character’s significance despite the sense of loss and attention seeking; nothing memorable about his role  as the prince of crime in Gotham city. They paint a portrait of a pathetic individual who suffers from mental illness who decides to wear a clown mask as a form of reprisal of the perceived wrongs of society and that’s about it. There is a realistic edge to the portrayal but this bogs the film down and it meanders as we, the audience, look for something meaningful to attach to it. The film is not particularly impressive but there were moments which suggest what this film could have been. Heath Ledger’s portrayal of the Joker in The Dark Knight is still the standard.

The film stars Joaquin Phoenix as Arthur Fleck, an aspiring standup comedian with a medical condition- the pseudo bulbar affect (PBA). He eventually battles through madness and becomes known as the notorious Joker. It is a tale of urban alienation reinforced by Arthur’s interaction with several characters that deepen his sense of loss and inadequacy. Robert De Niro puts in a memorable turn as veteran comedian Murray Franklin along with Zazie Beetz as Sophie Drummond. Arthur’s mother, played by Frances Conroy, also plays a crucial role in the film.

Positives

The primary positive is the realistic approach used to developing the character of the Joker. I never knew of the particular condition that affected Arthur, pseudo bulbar affect (PBA), and that was a real eye opener. The next time one watches the joker in action this will always be at the back of their mind. Before we never fathomed that the Joker’s constant maniacal laughter could be possibly linked to a particular condition. The film also establishes that the Joker is mentally ill and this becomes clear in some of the best moments  where he develops an obsession with Sophie. His delusional episodes are a clear indicator why he should be locked up in Arkham asylum despite his savagery. His PBA condition and mental illness can be universally applied going forward because after this film most will accept the fundamentals of joker’s psychosis. This is an alienated man who is denied any form of reconciliation and his response is typically violent. This element of urban alienation, or alienation in general,  can be applied to the current mass shooting phenomenon in the USA. The clown element is one way to stand out on Arthur’s part but the main issues is whether or not it is a fundamental problem.

There is this yearning to be accepted by any means necessary and there is the concern that the more negative trends and the complete disregard for society is very attractive. In the film we hear that the wider problem is the rich and the Joker becomes a typical anti-hero or anti-establishment figure challenging societal norms embodied in characters such as Thomas Wayne and the comedian Murray Franklin. It makes you wonder how many jokers lie in wait throughout the world and just need that spark to erupt in wholesale disorder. I guess this is why we have the Batman alternative.

Negatives

The primary negative is that the character of the Joker does not come to fruition in this film. There is a descent into madness and an examination of how affecting alienation can be but nothing transcendent. This is half a film because a film about the Joker shouldn’t just be an examination of madness or PBA but about crime in the city of Gotham. Joker is renowned for his role as the clown prince of crime but this is not present here. He is presented as just a typical sociopath, or psychopath if you prefer, but not the true clown prince of crime. There is actually no real discussion of a crime problem just the hatred for the rich and a violent clown that expresses that hatred.  The standard portrayal of the Joker in film was done by Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight and it was made very clear what he represented in society, an agent of chaos. This is not evident in the current Joker where we only get an insight into madness. There are no memorable quotes to take from this film, just cackling. There is no indication in this film that the joker could actually be a major crime figure. This was very disappointing because the film meanders a lot with many monotonous or unnecessary scenes that drag out the discussion of madness. Although the Joker has to deal with a lot of social issues it is clear that one motivating factor had to be his involvement in the crime underworld, which is mostly absent; no dealings with the mob /organized crime. The character of the Joker without crime is not an effective character.

My last gripe with this film is the absurd connection with the Batman. Some may argue that it was a good thing but I thought it was absurd because it never established the joker as a crime mastermind. His limited form of social upheaval was not the motivating factor for the introduction of the batman. It is a good thing this film will not be a major cultural phenomenon because this would flip the script of the Batman origins. Many will not accept the connections established between the joker and a young Bruce Wayne. It came across as shallow and actually limited the development of the joker’s character independent of the batman. The film lost me at this point because it was more important to discuss the development of the joker independently of the batman. No connection should be established between these 2 absolutes apart from what they represent to society.  It was absurd and completely unnecessary and robbed the film of its impetus. It was probably an indicator that they really did not have much to say about the joker as a character apart from him being typically mad and alienated. I was actually looking forward to a post credit-scene where the Joker and the Batman actually meet.  Nothing doing, just songs about smiling. Lame. Are they really saying that when the joker first meets the batman he is actually an old man? The timeline for this film is way off. Actually trying to make the Joker the reason for the emergence of the Batman is even worse going forward and sets up some hackneyed revenge scenario.

All in all, I was very disappointed. They got too bogged down in the reality of it all. I want to see the origins of the real prince of crime, not this charlatan played by Phoenix.  Heath Ledger’s Joker remains the standard and he never had this much screen time. Next time the filmmakers must learn to make each second count and write a better, more kinetic script. This is the Joker we’re talking about, not some average Joe.

Sprinter (2019) ***½ /5: It is quite predictable but this is a good film based on an authentic Jamaican story.

Sprinter is one of the better films   on a Jamaican subject to be released in the last couple of years. I had zero expectations for this film but it was a genuine crowd pleaser because it tapped into the authentic elements of contemporary Jamaican culture. It is also quite predictable, and this has been pointed out by other critics, but this is an assured production. Writer and director, Storm Saulter, has clearly improved his craft since Better Mus’ Come (2010) but also shows what can be achieved in Jamaican cinema with the proper financing. Unlike other Jamaican film productions it is clear that Sprinter has benefitted greatly from sponsorship and external support with Will and Jada Pinkett Smith serving as executive producers, David Alan Grier playing the head coach and Lorraine Toussaint as Akeem’s mother, Donna.  I am not so sure about whether or not the producers are Jamaicans or have Jamaican roots but all are welcome.  

This film is generic tale, hence the title, about rising sprinting star Akeem ‘Rasta Rocket’ Sharp (Dale Elliott) as he grapples with various emotional issues, particularly with his mother Donna (Lorraine Toussaint), while trying to fulfill his potential.

Positives

This is an assured production, well financed by Jamaican standards, and showcases the potential of Jamaican cinema or the possibilities that come with portraying authentic Jamaican stories. I was impressed in parts by the acting and the expansive  scope of the storytelling. This is not to say that Jamaican audiences are not exposed to foreign or don’t travel frequently but, in recent times, rarely do you see a film based in Jamaica introducing foreign locations this convincingly in a dramatic production. Many Jamaican films are isolated and rarely connect with the outside world in such an authentic way. The external connection is important to the Jamaican experience. The idea of the Jamaican diaspora in the US is convincingly portrayed-a struggling mother seeking better for her family in the US yet trying her best to remain emotionally involved with her children- is very much a relatable topic to contemporary Jamaican audiences.  The film does embrace this diasporic connection and gives us a good interpretation through Akeem and his various struggles. Akeem’s brother, Germaine (Kadeem Wilson), also engages in transnational activity, albeit illegally, through scamming which has gained Jamaica negative publicity in the US. He too had promise as a track athlete and is world wise or world weary as he tries his best to look out for his brother and tries to expose him to various possibilities on the business side.

There is also the tension between the amateur values and the professional mindset of running just to make money. Akeem’s amateur values are reinforced by his coach, his father and, probably, his future wife, Kerry (Shantol Jackson). The amateur values keep him grounded but the allure of easy money, flashy lifestyle and the hot girls/gyals is a serious temptation. This is normally a tension seen in the sporting world. Do you run merely for glory or do you run for yourself? Being a part of a groundswell can also be rewarding but it can also leave you destitute or bellied up. Running for glory can give you notoriety but you do have to balance it with some measure of self-preservation. As a sports enthusiast and researcher I can appreciate Akeem’s dilemma and Saulter has done well in exposing these issues.

The use of Jamaican acting talent was also a positive step. Jamaica clearly has some leading acting talents, more prominent on TV shows or stage productions, which are channeled effectively here. This is more evident in the supporting cast and the attempt to go for a more authentic Jamaican sound. Although some of the US actors are clearly off in their authenticity, the Jamaican cast and extras effectively captured the Jamaican experience which made the film very relatable.  Some parts are maybe too relatable (Ward theatre as a police station?)

Usain Bolt has a great cameo in this film. You become more appreciative of his legendary status.

Negatives

The primary negative of this film is its predictability. In most instances you know where this film is headed and this is informed by a very generic title. I thought something like ‘Rasta Rocket’ would have been more distinctive. The film does not take the hard road to be truly transcendent in the world of filmmaking. Those elements which would heighten the dramatic stakes are not necessarily present. There is just not much loss along the way. How could it end otherwise! Other examples of its predictability are the impact of Usain Bolt, elements taken from Boyz ‘N the Hood and elements taken from other sports films.  This is a conservative production and going forward Jamaican filmmakers will have to be more daring in order to tell transcendent stories which will impact globally. Have to be more unique in the telling of the story although having Jamaican audiences identify with the broader canvas can be counted as success. Sponsors need not necessarily be as upfront as FLOW was here. The sponsors do have some bearing on the conservative approach taken but if more sources of financing can be identified then we will get more to the root of the authentic Jamaican experience. The predictability of the film suggests that there is a lot of superficiality here and not enough of a grounded experience. Once we don’t have to portray Jamaica with such fanfare then we will get closer to the truth. For the time being you have to accept that to promote Jamaican films abroad you have to focus on what makes us marketable( Reggae, Bolt etc).

The authenticity was lacking in some scenes and some camera shots in the Jamaican setting were not as effective especially in the open spaces like crowded downtown Kingston or the airport. Jamaica outside of the school setting or the track was not effectively portrayed. Why was the camera hanging so low in some instances? The American based actors were not as effective in portraying authentic Jamaicans although they made a good attempt (Cool Runnings has returned). In some instances the acting, generally, was not as effective especially in some of the dramatic situations and it could be argued that the effect was lost because the scenarios were so predictable.  I would actually have preferred a story primarily about Akeem’s brother, Germaine, which would certainly have been less generic. Imagine a story of Germaine, the Rasta Rocket , who entered the scamming life once his athletic career went belly up. His story was such an effective contrast to Akeem’s story and this means that it would be the more effective dramatic tale.

In the end this film had a lot going for it but going forward more authentic stories about the Jamaican experience will truly make the Jamaican film industry sustainable (The festivals which showcase Jamaican shorts are a start). It is an assured production and does give a sense of the possibilities for the Jamaican film industry to thrive in the 21^st century and to appeal to a global audience.