Fences (2016) ****/5: Great dramatic performances by Denzel and Viola although Denzel does go over the top.

I must have been really out of it for 2016 to miss a film like Fences. What a great example of layered dramatic acting by Denzel Washington who plays the bitter, brow beaten Troy  and Viola Davis as Rose, his long suffering wife.  The film also has a lot to say about the black working class family, particularly their struggles to emerge from the desperate poverty that afflicted most black folks for much of the early 20th century. This was because of the racist white institutional structure that kept them down in a state of abject dependency. I’m not surprised that Davis won the Oscar for best female supporting actress and I wouldn’t have been surprised if Denzel won  for best actor although a nomination was a given.

The film, which takes place in the 1950s,  is basically about Troy Maxson (Denzel Washington) who is bitter about his missed opportunity of being a professional baseball player because he was considered too old when the major leagues started accepting blacks. He then became a lowly sanitation worker but the pain of his missed opportunity eventually takes its toll on his family life which is held together by Rose (Viola Davis), his long suffering wife. Troy’s bitterness extends to his son Cory (Jovan Adepo) who he denies the chance to meet a football recruiter from college because of either his own fear that his son will fail or that he will be jealous of his success.   This film or movie play opens with Troy towards the end and how he deals with things as they fall apart and how his loyal wife Rose keeps everything afloat so that there’s a chance that things can come back together again. Putting up the fence is one way to ensure that things will hold together and the sanctity of the family will be preserved.

Positives

The performances by Washington and Davis are real standouts here although it becomes a bit wordy on Washington’s part. His bitterness  becomes wearisome and makes you really wonder how Rose put up with Troy for so long. Troy is the seed which would not bloom from the cold dry earth. Denzel does capture the anguish of Troy really well because I have some experience with a patriarch who missed his chance at becoming something major in life for various reasons.  I am also aware of what it can do to the household. As Rose says Troy had a big presence and you do get the sense he was made for more than lowly sanitation work. His presence is all pervasive and his sons find it difficult to escape his shadow. Rose is a quiet presence in contrast to Troy’s loud one. She quietly moves and keeps things together while the loud man talks and talks and even messes up from time to time.  Rose does make it clear in the end why she stuck with Troy. They filled gaps. It’s what Rocky would say explaining why he and Adrian were such a good fit. Yes they are different but they complete each other in a real way as opposed to a romantic one.

The supporting cast is very strong and this is a good example of the great talent among African American actors. From Stephen Henderson as Bono, Mykelti Williamson as Gabriel, Russell Hornsby as Lyons and, one for the future, Jovan Adepo as Cory. The strong supporting cast of black actors does provide some much needed perspective about the lives of black folk during the 1950s. In this case it’s a black working class family trying to keep its head above water. Any slip up and it’s down to a life of bitterness, madness, despair and starvation. Rose is so important in keeping things together that it’s not funny because most of the men around her are failed products of society, including Troy. Their dreams shattered in some form or the other. Her loyal son, Cory, does make something of himself and you get a sense that it’s because he was very close to his mother. You also get a general sense of the struggles of black folk in the early years of the 20^th century. When Troy and Bono get together to reminisce on their struggles as young black men growing up in the white man’s world  like loose cannons you do get a sense of how they were drifters or petty criminals before they were finally grounded. Many elements contributed to them being grounded but the most important is major failures and small successes. Small successes like buying a house, building a fence or buying a refrigerator. Major failures like the inability to fulfill your potential and being restricted to a domestic space like it’s a prison. A lot of this is revealed in the very meaty dialogue and one can obviously see elements of the Broadway play in it. Only actors on stage are as verbose as the characters in Fences who inhabit such a tight space. The verbosity is compensated for because it’s very layered and the dramatic performances are strong enough to make this seem like an everyday part of life.

There is also the generational shift which is so important.  Troy, Rose, Bono and Gabriel are like the first generation followed by Lyons and then Cory and Raynell (Saniyya Sidney). There are layers to the family structure and this is always important in moving forward. Despite the struggles they must learn to stay together through the sun and  the rain. If they hold on and stick together then there will be some progress.

Negatives

The primary negative is that this is like a movie play. It’s structured like a play. Nothing much seems to happen beyond the original text of the play. Why is Troy’s mistress, Abigail, off screen all the time? She could have given much needed perspective and Troy wouldn’t have to talk so much. A little deviance from the original play structure would have worked wonders in such a case. Most of the action and dialogue takes place at home and we do get some sense of Troy as a working man but for the most part it’s at home. Cory’s story could have been expanded considerably, as well as Lyons, but this would have taken away from Troy and Rose. It could have been a better film though if these other lives were given more attention. It also would have brought more perspective to the generational shift.

Denzel does go over the top with his performance for me and maybe that’s because he has to incorporate so much into the dialogue. In a film you would expect some of that dialogue to be diffused by imagery or a more expanded setting. Some flashbacks wouldn’t have been so bad. I would have gotten to visualize some of the struggles Troy was always referring to especially his life as an aspiring professional baseball player.

Apart from that it’s a good film but could have been expanded  a bit more to incorporate the other characters better.

Get Out (2017) ****/5: This film is effective as a social critique of racial relations in the US. I was not scared though.

 

(photo courtesy of Imdb.com)

Get Out has probably made a lot of black people feel uncomfortable when surrounded by a sea of white people. It has visualized our worst fears about racism or racial exploitation and the lengths that white people will go to maintain their hegemony as the dominant racial group in America. This is despite some of these whites trying to appear progressive and liberal when it comes to accepting the material progress of some blacks in society. In the culture of the US black culture is very much mainstream right now with a half black president, in the form of Obama, just demitting office. Get Out is making a certain statement that black people should be wary of how much they allow themselves to be caught up with the fact that they are now accepted in a lot of states by white America. If you allow yourself to get caught up as a black man you will become absorbed by the whites because they are still the dominant racial group in the country. With black culture now mainstream the liberal whites are just jumping on the bandwagon and in typical white fashion exploit the natural talents of black people. This is the case being made in the film. So watch out or Get Out.

This film is about the black man Chris (Daniel Kaluuya) going to meet the parents of Rose (Allison Williams), his white girlfriend, somewhere in the American heartland or the white American heartland. The weekend getaway turns sour for Chris because of some very disturbing discoveries and he realizes that his only option is to get out or be put out.

Positives

I was more impressed by the social critique than the horror element. I’m not a big horror film fan because I’m rarely scared and this film is no different. The social critique however is very important. This film is clearly one for the integrationists who call for closer cooperation with the dominant white racial group in America. Closer integration with the dominant white racial group comes at a cost. Obviously this film blows it up from an emotional point of view but when you seek to integrate as a black man or woman you definitely become increasingly isolated in their company. Fitting in becomes even more difficult and in a lot of cases black people merely adapt and begin to act like their white counterparts. They begin to lose their identity and find it even more difficult to interact with their fellow blacks. A lot of them literally believe that by acting white they will be taken more seriously and they become an important instrument in the domination of their own brethren as they are culturally absorbed by the dominant white racial group. Obviously I can’t spoil the mystery elements of the plot but a lot of the horror in Get Out is based on how disgusting black integration with white culture can be. Obviously in this case it is not entirely Chris’s fault but the important message is that you must stay black and preserve your essence or it will be taken or absorbed by the dominant white racial group. An audience member said it perfectly ‘Him nuh black’ or ‘He’s not black’, referring to Chris. The audience member picked up immediately on what the film was trying to say. It’s when Chris starts to act ‘black’ that a lot of the audience members began to cheer. In Jamaica most of the audience members are black or mulatto/ brown people, a mixture of black and white. This is why Chris’s best friend, Rod (LilRel), a TSA agent, is such an important figure in this film because he stays to true to his blackness and this is why he picks up immediately that something is wrong. Credit must go to the character Chris though because he can’t have lost all his blackness if he’s still friends with Rod. So in this film you either Get  Out or be put out. The film reminded me of a quote by Marx when he said that the rule of the dominant class becomes more solid and dangerous the more they can absorb the best and brightest from the dominated classes.

There is also an important psychological element in this film that made the story a bit grounded and made the Chris character more sympathetic. He’s the most developed character in the whole film as a result. This does make the film more than just straight horror. Chris has buried a secret deep in his brain and when it’s unlocked and revealed it brings to the fore all the trauma he experienced on that tragic day. It’s also important how it’s used against him.

I also enjoyed the mystery elements. I was not scared  but the elements in the plot justified its horror film status. The one horror film Get Out reminded me of is Rosemary’s Baby. I found a lot of parallels.

Negatives

Since Get Out is effective as a social critique it can also be challenged on these grounds. I’m not going to get into that debate now but suffice to say one could say that the idea of how integrated blacks get with whites can be exaggerated and Jordan Peele could have balanced it by referring to the role some blacks play to get themselves caught by trying to act white in the first place. Chris does not represent the extreme of some of the oreo cookies out there. Initially I thought Peele was going that route in the film but when the mystery is revealed I realized that it wasn’t the fault of those black individuals why they acted in a particular way.  Also when you look at the fanatical white secret society Peele could have examined the extent that these societies are spread throughout the US. It would show that the struggle goes on despite minor victories. This would mean that there was the big picture. The big picture would have made a sequel possible especially when it comes to getting to the root of these fanatical secret societies. You do get a sense that some characters will never get out but that should also apply to the big picture.

 I also thought that Rose could have been more effective as a character. Even before the big mysteries are revealed she doesn’t seem very engaged or involved from the beginning and that sort of gives her away. She does act naïve initially but when we see the real  Rose she’s not very effective. 

when the mysteries are revealed it becomes a racial slugfest lol. This is why i wanted to see some genuine oreo cookies in the mix.

I wasn’t scared and I don’t blame this film in particular because I’m not usually scared by horror films. The attempt to make things appear horrific and scary in Get Out seemed formulaic to me. You literally expect to see some horrific things or to be manipulated so that you’ll feel scared.

Overall the film was very effective as a social critique. 

Why I like watching the closing credits at the end of a film?

(photo courtesy of Dailymotion)

I just want to briefly explain why the long list of credits at the end of a film always fascinated me. Marvel studios has gotten people to stick around and watch the end credits roll simply because they are waiting for the post-credits scenes. In a lot of cases while they wait for the post-credits scene some people normally talk while the credits roll on. I credit marvel for getting some of the average movie goers to appreciate watching the long list of credits even if they aren’t interested in the various names and positions that helped to make the film possible. I loved watching the long list of credits at the end of the film since I was a very young boy of 8 or 9. One reason is that I simply fell in love with movies after cable was first installed in my community during the mid 90s. HBO was my favourite channel and with lax parental supervision I watched all kinds of films. I became so in love with movies that by the end I would just watch the end credits roll as I digested the film experience. There was a time where I thought every film I watched was a great film; that’s what happens when you’re in love; you embrace everything with desire. This doesn’t matter even when on closer inspection a lot of films weren’t worth the time. One reason I am able to predict a lot of films is because I watched so much. Eventually the all embracing love became more selective and my love was directed at the better films or the ones that had much more quality. These better films made me appreciate the end credits sequence even more. The better films had such an impact on me emotionally that I would normally just watch the end credits sequence trying to process all that I just watched and then build anticipation for my next viewing. The film’s score and music also became important to me, and still is, in allowing me to continue to appreciate the film on an emotional level as it lingered in my head while watching the end credit sequence. I forgot to mention that my appreciation for the better films started in my teen years.

As I got older and left the teen years behind I came to admire the personnel that was being identified in the end credits and would start to marvel at the significant amount of people involved in the production. Creating a film is truly a massive undertaking. In the superficial world most people only focus on the stars because that’s who they see when they watch the films. Some people even have a vague idea of the Director and the Screen writers. Some films get people to appreciate the process by making a film within a film.  In the superficial world however the stars matter the most come awards time. To their credit the stars do carry a gigantic technical apparatus. They are the subjective element that makes all the technical output matter. Without the stars the technical aspects of the film are dead. The stars channel the creative energies of the numerous people behind the scenes so that they can create something distinctive. So I’m not taking anything away from the stars. In the end credit sequence they are truly the first names that the audience sees particularly in the open credit sequence along with the director, producers, screenwriters, cinematographers and editors. These are generally considered the more prestigious occupations in the film industry. The end credit sequence however did give me the opportunity to appreciate the other more technical operators like the stunt men (apart from Jackie Chan films lol). Obviously they are not grand on their own or there wouldn’t be so many and a lot of them are just assistants but the best ones in their field should be known throughout the film industry. This vast number of technical operators makes the creation of a film such a massive undertaking that at times I just have to say out loud ‘look how much people involved’. The vast number of technical operators also reveal how much things have changed. If you watch some of the older films you’ll realize how short the end of credit sequences are and obviously the major additions to the end credit sequence reveals how much the visual component has been enhanced. Visual and 3D effects, Cinematography, Music,  Sound effects, Sound mixing, various designers, art direction, camera men, etc demonstrate that the visual element of film has been considerably enhanced from the days where toys or small models of some structures were a part of production design. The increase in the end credit sequence also reveals that that the average level of investment in a particular film has raised considerably unless it’s primarily a character drama where most of the emphasis is on the actors and their acting ability. The scale of the blockbuster has raised the standard level of investment and the increased visual effects play an important part. So now I have moved from appreciating the amount of people involved in a film production to the amount of investment it takes to just to get a film made unless it’s primarily a character drama of course. When it’s a bad film it must be painful to sit through the end credit sequence because so much work went into producing a product that won’t be embraced by the market and so the investment won’t pay off.

End credit sequences therefore can make us appreciate the film even more from an emotional point of view as well as an appreciation for the numerous people involved in the production and the high level of investment. It all comes to the consumer in the form of a ticket price at the cinema or the price for a DVD or Blu ray. It is these end credit sequences that make it difficult for me to buy pirated material. You’re really playing with people’s livelihood when you do support the illegal activity but it’s such a costly affair to watch a movie at the cinema or buy the original Dvd or Blu ray that some people give in. Kudos to those that make watching the good films a great experience.

La La land (2016) ****½ /5: Suffers from the same limitations as most musicals but this is one of the best musicals ever made. It's right up there with the greats it pays homage to.

La La Land is one of the best musicals I’ve ever seen. For me it’s right up there with Singin’ in the Rain and West Side Story. Visually La La Land is way more advanced than any of the musicals it pays homage to. I’m not really a fan of musicals. I usually tolerate them. The Sound of Music, for instance, is tolerated because of the usual annual viewing. When I was younger everyone was talking about Chicago except me and a few like minded people. I normally find musicals excessively dramatic with their musical and dance numbers. The exceptions for me are Singin’ in the Rain, West Side Story and now  La La Land because there is some genuine dramatic heft in these films, something that resonates with me beyond the music and the razzle dazzle. For the first couple of minutes while watching La La Land I thought this would be another empty bourgeois spectacle but by the end I obviously changed my mind. I’m not here to debate whether this film should have won the Oscar for best picture because I have not watched the more contemporary Moonlight as yet. Like I said I have been a bit late with films released in the latter part of 2016 and I’m not getting paid lol. It’s another foolish dream of mine to write about films and to be taken seriously just like the protagonists in La La Land decide to follow their dreams before waking up. Whether or not the musical genre is dying La La Land will go down as one of the greats. Any musical after this will have to be really good. Musicals are a very elite category now which means one is released every 5 years or so. 

La La Land is a musical about two dreamers trying to make it in sunny California; LA to be exact. One, Mia (Emma Stone), is an aspiring actress and the other Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) is an aspiring jazz musician in the old fashioned way who wants to open his own jazz club. Their dreams bring them together but it also tears them apart: The bittersweet price of following your dreams.

Positives

There are many positives about this film especially as I have now called it one of the all time great musicals. The question is: Does that make it a great film? Only time will tell. This film is right up there with the best of its genre. It clearly pays homage to the genre as a whole. I’m not that familiar with the names of the choreographers and musical composers so don’t expect a history lesson from me. If you ever watched a classic musical before though you will understand while watching this film that it’s paying homage to some bygone era. There is a clear historical current particularly with the opening musical number. When I saw that opening musical number I said to myself ‘Not again please. Not in the mood for this.’ Let’s just say I thought I was going to slog through this one as I did with other musicals. There is something else to the film though particularly its contemporary vibe. The Artist was so disappointing for me because it didn’t have a contemporary edge. For me it’s one of the great travesties that The Artist is listed as a best film winner at the Academy Awards. La La Land does pay homage to the musical genre but because of its contemporary vibe it does transcend it in some way. Yeah, the protagonists are actually living in the era of smart phones and so how does the film adapt. Damien Chazelle knows what he’s doing here. He also did some serious research. Yes he just won the Academy award for Best Director and yes it’s fully deserved. He used the historical basis of the musical genre and he transcended it and made something his own. The film actually has something to say about California and how to carve out your own niche in the midst of rapid modernization.

The primary theme that got me is not the one about pursuing your dreams but how important it is to lay a foundation so that you can pursue your dreams. For the majority of the film what we see is a foundation being laid as Sebastian and Mia come together and then drift apart. In the initial stage, or the year they found love and lost it, both characters romantically pursue their dreams. This  is when we hear most of the musical selections for this film and the accompanying choreography. In the romantic pursuit you can see that something is being built, that a foundation is being laid. Their coming together is an obvious part of that foundation. In order to seriously pursue your dreams a solid foundation has to be laid one way or the other.  I also saw a bit of Annie Hall in this film. Apart from the musical numbers and the accompanying choreography we witness some fantastic visual sequences as a result. Things are happening as they try to figure it out. There are the obvious speed bumps along the way but things are still happening and so once the foundation is laid then there is take off. The bittersweet moment comes towards the end though because we witness the price of following their dreams and actually being successful at it. ‘Feels like Old Times’. I have only been moved by two other musical films Singin’ in the Rain and West Side Story. Those films were released decades ago and now there’s La La Land. Does this mean La La Land is a great film? In the context of musicals it does. Others might not see it that way. I have to be emotionally moved by a film to consider it worthy. It should tug at my heart strings a little or resonate with me on a serious level i.e. get me thinking. The bittersweet scene towards the end is probably Chazelle making peace with a genre he loves but is now accepting that times have changed and we have to change with it. If other filmmakers want to bring back the good old days then La La Land has shown them how to do it. Don’t follow The Artist.

I liked some of the musical selections in this film. They do reflect Mia and Sebastian’s story. I particularly like the one where they were referring to the waste of a lovely night. Something like that. I wasn’t keeping track. Mia’s final song was pretty good as well. Overly dramatic but pretty good. 'City of Stars' is pretty good as well.Some of the musical numbers without the lyrics were more up to date

This film really captured the look and feel of sunny California, particularly the Hollywood aspect of it.

Negatives

The primary negative for me is that all the limitations of the musical genre are here as well. The superficiality of the choreography and the music to say something meaningful means that there is no need for dialogue in certain areas. This leads to a lot of exaggerated elements and a sappy attempt to recreate the good old days. It’s a pity that some of the choreography wasn’t more up to date. Tap dancing? Really? In one scene Mia literally swaps her heels for tap dancing shoes. Oh dear! This is where the nostalgic vibe held the film back. As with most musicals there are some empty areas when there isn’t some razzle dazzle. It’s as if they say enough so they can get to the next musical selection. A lot of musicals are guilty of that. The opening number was a bore for me as well as the 2^nd one. I get that the opening number was to introduce us to La La Land. It’s a musical after all. I only really got into some of the musical elements when Mia and Sebastian got together; that’s when there was some magic.

 Initially I thought where is the struggle here? The pressure and pain? It just seemed like some petty bourgeois folks trying to identify with some struggle but not necessarily engaged with it. This is another reason why the musical genre died a slow painful death. All the singing and dancing can be very distracting at times. Distract from the real issues. If someone is down hearted they sing a song or dance. At times it comes across as too upbeat and annoying, too artistic, denying the cold, hard reality. La La Land is guilty of that in the initial stages. Fortunately, the best musicals also have a really good story to tell and that saved  La La Land from ignominy or the shame of basking in its own superficiality. If you’re a contemporary observer who is not a fan of musicals you will only get into this film if you can trudge through the opening 20 minutes or so. 

Still well done to Damien Chazelle. I’m not saying that this film can bring back the genre but it deserves its place among the stars.