Michael Shannon

The Shape of Water, A Filet or A Flop? (Cross Talk EP 35)

Posted on by Tim Kuefler

 

This should be a fairly straightforward post.

I’ve already written a fairly in-depth review on the movie The Shape of Water – and I made my love of the film known pretty clearly there. But too be perfectly honest, Chris doesn’t care for the movie, and I value his opinion a lot, so we decided it would be fun to put together a deep dive episode on the movie and talk about our differing opinions. Which as some of you know, is one of the reasons why I started Cross Talk in the first place.

To discuss movies, music, board games etc. and present topics in a more meaningful way then your average review or criticism video.

Don’t get me wrong, there are lots of great channels out there where the presenters have a degree in film criticism, others where the reviews are purely based on if the movie is enjoyable or not, and still others where the film is dissected and all of the symbolism is put on display. But that’s not how people really talk about movies necessarily.

When you are chatting about a movie like The Shape of Water with your friends, you’ll get lost in incidental details like the way the government facility looked, or the musical score choices, or whether Doug Jones did a better job playing Abe Sapien, the Faun, the Pale Man or  “the Asset.” And if you’re a movie geek like us, you might even start entertain interesting theories about why the movie is a fairy tale, and not an alternate reality where mermen exist.

Or maybe you’ll point out how there are so many more movies that do star-crossed lovers in a better way, with more compelling characterizations. And you’ll get passionate about it. Wondering why an amazing film like Get Out only got attention for it’s screenplay.

And so this is episode thirty five of Cross Talk.

theories Summarized

Do you think my theory about Giles having invented the majority of the story is right? Or am I completely off the rails with this one dear readers? Chris has a better appreciation of why I relate to the story so well now, but maybe I’m projecting, and the movie isn’t anything more then what you see on screen.

In that case, maybe the submerged bathroom scene is completely ludicrous.

But that doesn’t mean the film isn’t worth talking about, we managed to fill a 20 minute space talking about it, and you didn’t even see all of the outtakes we have! Until next time, please like and share the content! And subscribe to the mailing list if you haven’t yet. I’ve got a blue review on Jack White coming up tomorrow!

Tim!

In Love With The Shape Of You (The Shape Of Water review)

Posted on by Tim Kuefler

Join us for a very special film review on this week’s episode of Watch Culture.

I say this because I’m about to drop some knowledge on why The Shape of Water holds a special place in my heart, so much so that I’ll also be running a deep dive on Cross Talk with Chris later in the month (read: sooner).

The Shape of Water (2017)

Cast: Sally Hawkins, Octavia Spencer, Michael Shannon, Richard Jenkins, Michael Stuhlbarg, Doug Jones
Director: Guillermo del Toro
released on blu-ray March 13, 2018
********* 10/10

IMDB: 7.5
Rotten Tomatoes: 92%, Audience Score 74%
The Guardian: ****/*****

Guillermo del Toro is a Mexican film director, screenwriter, producer and novelist. His films have a strong fantasy element running through them, often using dark themes and gothic backdrops to convey both subtle and overt messages about human nature. Some of his more mainstream films are Pacific Rim, Blade II and the two Hellboy adaptations, but he also dabbles in spanish language focused stories like The Devil’s Backbone and Pan’s Labyrinth.

Looking back, his most recent film before The Shape of Water was Crimson Peak, a strong indicator and launching point toward fairy tale narratives.

Special thanks to Huggo for the IMDB summary.

1962 Baltimore. Elisa Esposito (Sally Hawkins), found abandoned as a baby with scars on her neck, has been mute all her life, that disability which has largely led to her not having opportunities. Despite being a bright woman, she works a manual labor job as a cleaner at a military research facility where she has long been friends with fellow cleaner, Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer), who often translates her sign language to others at the facility. And she has had no romance in her life, her major emotional support, beyond Zelda, being her aging gay artist neighbor, Giles (Richard Jenkins), the two who live in adjoining apartment units above a movie theater. Like Elisa, Giles is lonely, his homosexuality complicating both his personal and professional life, the latter as a commercial graphic artist. Elisa’s life changes when Colonel Richard Strickland (Michael Shannon) brings a new “asset” into the facility, Elisa discovering it being a seeming mixed human/amphibious creature found in the waters of the Amazon. Secretly visiting with the creature, Elisa is immediately drawn to him, and despite he having a violent side as part of his inherent being, the two find a way to communicate with each other and end up forming a bond with each other. Elisa has to decide what to do when she discovers that although the reason for bringing the creature to the facility is to test the possibility of him being sent into space, Colonel Strickland, who has always had antagonistic feelings toward the creature, ultimately wants to kill him, this following the systematic torture he has inflicted on him. Elisa may have to balance her feelings on wanting to be with the creature against what may be the greater benefit to him of being set free back into the wilds of the water. Complicating matters are that the Soviets are also aware of the creature, they having a secret agent who has infiltrated the facility.

Smarter people then I have reviewed this film to death already.

So I won’t pretend to impart the same learnings as them in my review of this film, but I will acknowledge that there is some derivation at work here. As Chris will rightly point out in his own thoughts on our upcoming Deep Dive; this is a story that effectively borrows from other films. The Beauty and the Beast story arc is the bones of this film, it also throws in homages to monster movies (Creature from the Black Lagoon), musicals (Shirley Temple, That Night in Rio) and biblical stories (The Story of Ruth).

But where the brilliance comes in is in altering the arcs of these stories. The beast doesn’t transform to be loved, the creature from the black lagoon doesn’t die AND gets the girl, the mute girl and her two minority friends save the day, and love of the arts is celebrated.

That said, even if you don’t know these things, this film challenges the notion of fearing the other – it fights fear with love, and I think it smartly uses Giles (an artist), as a narrator of this ideal, in a time when those ideas couldn’t even exist in popular culture. Giles is a closeted homosexual, someone who dreams and imagines how things could be, and I have a theory that a lot of the film actually happens in his mind.

Pros: It carefully crafts all of it’s themes and ultimately tells a universal story of acceptance, love, and celebrating what is, rather then what should be. del Toro is at his personal best, and he poses some great questions.

Cons: While beautiful to behold, and universally clear in the truths it wants to share, to fully appreciate the story, you might actually need to love all of the things it references – the subtle historical shifts at play. And if you want character nuance, the characterizations could be frustrating to watch.

Runtime: 1 hour 55 minutes

Points of Interest: Guillermo del Toro wrote lengthy backstories for each of the major characters, giving them each the option to use the information or ignore it. Some opted to take the direction, while some, like Richard Jenkins, refused it. The poem at the end of film has been paraphrased from works by Persian poet Rumi and his predecessor Hakim Sanai.

I really do see why Chris struggles with this film. And believe it or not, I’m not picking apart his thesis before he’s had a chance to defend himself, but rather I want to show you that his perspective is key in understanding my own theory.

The derivative themes, the abstracted characterizations, and the reliance on style as a vehicle for the underlying substance are important. If we consider that the whole story is told from the perspective of an artist character (Richard Jenkins) who has had to hide so much of himself in a time and space of persecution and judgment, then I think the story takes on new meaning. Not to mention the fact that his chosen form of expression, painting, is being supplanted by photography in advertising. Giles loves musicals, lives above a theatre that shows biblical films, and draws the creature he does not understand lovingly. He wants to see a fairy tale realized because his own story did not come through as he wished.

Additionally, he is the most detailed of the characters, which is often how we see ourselves, as opposed to how we simplify others in our own life stories.

theories Summarized

I think The Shape of Water is an amazing film, and to be honest, I haven’t even given you the full expression of my thoughts on it yet, but I believe that the upcoming Cross Talk deep dive episode will reveal even more about it. A fairy tale for adults is an amazing thing to behold, indeed.

If you want another fairy tale for adults, then you should check out this video review of 2010’s Scott Pilgrim VS the World, an anti-thesis to rom-coms told from the perspective of a video game geek. It’s a blast to watch, and whether you grew up between the 1980s to 1990s or not, the nostalgia callbacks are insightful.

So please let me know what you thought of our review, like and share the video, and subscribe to the channel if you haven’t already. There are even more theories coming up next week, y’all come back now.

Tim!

Tender and Resilient (Loving review)

Posted on by Tim Kuefler

 

Sometimes its the long and silent fights which are the most beautiful and real ones. Tales of genuine masculine tenderness and feminine resilience which best showcase what love and humanity should aspire to.

This is loving.

 

 

 

Loving (2016)

Cast: Joel Edgerton, Ruth Negga, Michael Shannon, Marton Csokas, Sharon Blackwood, Nick Kroll
Director: Jeff Nichols
released on blu-ray February 7, 2017
********* 9/10

loving_onesheet

IMDB: 7.1
Rotten Tomatoes: 89%, Audience Score 77%
The Guardian: ****/*****

 

Jeff Nichols is an American director and writer. He has a really clear sense of timing and genre. Having directed just five films in the past ten years, his track record is quite good and ranks him in with the best and brightest of his generation. Something that I particularly enjoy about his films is that he likes to use one of my favourite actors, Michael Shannon, in each film he directs.

Loving is Nichols most recent film, and it focuses on the relationship between an interracial couple, Richard and Mildred Loving, who struggle to fight against the state of Virginia in the validity of their marriage; this of course is a true-to-life story which happened in the 1950s when miscegenation was considered to be a taboo thing.

Richard Loving (Joel Edgerton) is a white man who works in construction in Caroline County, Virginia. He is in love with Mildred Jeter (Ruth Negga), a black woman with whom they share a mutual group of friends. When they learn Mildred is pregnant, the couple decide to marry, but go out of state to Washington, D.C. because of Viriginia’s anti-miscegenation laws. After the marriage Richard buys some land near Mildred’s family and promises to build a home.

When someone snitches on the Lovings, Sheriff Brooks (Marton Csokas) arrests them for breaking the law, they plead guilty, and are sentenced to one year in prison. However, the judge suspends this decision, on condition that they not return to Virginia together for at least 25 years. So the Lovings move to Washington until Mildred begs Richard to return to Caroline County, so that Richard’s mother (Sharon Blackwood) can deliver their first child. Arrested a second time, the lawyer is able to clear the charges one more time.

Mildred and Richard have two more children and stay in Washington for some time. Mildreds frustration with city life grows, and she writes to the attorney general for help, who directs them to the American Civil Liberties Union. Bernard S. Cohen (Nick Kroll) is assigned and believes they can take their case to the Supreme Court, and effectively remove anti-miscegenation laws nationwide. After an accident with one of the their kids, the Lovings move back home silently and live in a remote area of the state while the case moves along. Profiled by Life magazine at one point, photographer Grey Villet (Michael Shannon) captures them in an intimate moment. When the state of Virginia refuses to set aside the laws, Cohen appeals to the federal Supreme Court.

In an-ever-so subtle way, Mildred learns over the phone from Cohen that the Supreme Court unanimously has deemed that interracial marriage is legal in all states. The story closes with the Lovings at home and some titles which tell of how Richard died in a car accident in 1975, but that Mildred never remarried and lived in the house Richard built for her until her death in 2008.

Pros: This is very affecting story told delicately and choosing to intentionally focus on the relationship of the couple rather than the messy court battles. That is not to say that Nichols ever lets us forget the real endurance of time the Lovings face as they look for a resolution. Negga and Edgerton embody what a successful marriage looks like.

Cons: For all of the excellent performances, set design and cinematography, the film does lack an emotional gut-punch in the middle and at the end. Something similar to the initial conviction and arrest portrayed would have helped engage our emotions better.

Runtime: 2 hours 3 minutes

Points of Interest: Ruth Negga is a child of a mixed marriage. Nichols was able to get the details of the story directly from the Nancy Buirski documentary The Loving Story (2011) and much of the dialogue comes from the documentary which itself featured real-life footage of the Lovings.

This film is incredibly particular in what it shares with the audience. We see how their gaze holds upon each other in each instance, how carefully and comfortably they hold hands and embrace each other, the natural fit of their relationship even against all of the challenges they face in the simple act of loving.

There is one last thing I really want to emphasize here dear readers. And it is understated in the film. That thing is how despite the clearly demonstrated sanctity and privacy of a relationship which both Richard and Mildred want (and should have), they are willing to take that relationship into the public in order to fight for injustice, but whenever possible they request for opportunities to stay in their home and remind us they won’t bother anyone if they are left to their own devices. A tale of true loving.

Tim!

Toot Toot, Beep Beep (Midnight Special review)

Posted on by Tim Kuefler

Science fiction is supposed to challenge and stimulate our thoughts about life. This is usually accomplished through escapism and “what if” situations.

But what is curious is how it does it.

You see, I have this theory that one of the best ways to share new ideas is through science fiction, because the medium inherently combines the creative with the analytical. And it cuts through all of the ego, to get to the root of humanity… and what makes us special.

 

 

 

Midnight Special (2016)

Cast: Michael Shannon, Joel Edgerton, Kirsten Dunst, Jaeden Lieberher, Adam Driver
Director: Jeff Nichols
released on blu-ray June 21, 2016
********** 10/10

Midnight-Special-Poster

IMDB: 6.8
Rotten Tomatoes: 83%, Audience Score 72%
The Guardian: ****/*****

 

Jeff Nichols is an American film director known for making independant films with minimal budget. He has now directed four films total (Shotgun Stories, Take Shelter, Mud, and Midnight Special) and is currently working on a fifth movie about prejudice against interracial marriage in the 1970s. That movie is called Loving.

All of these films are dramas, though Midnight Special is without a doubt the most interesting film he has made to date. And it should be noted Nichols has cast Michael Shannon as his lead three times now, with Matthew McConaughey as an alternate and correctly chosen for 2012’s Mud.

Which came out just a year before McConaughey got his Best Actor award at the Oscars for Dallas Buyers Club. So keep that in mind.

Set in the the southern United States, I believe somewhere in Texas, Roy (Michael Shannon) and his friend Lucas (Joel Edgerton) have seemingly kidnapped a young boy named Alton (Jaeden Lieberher) – who we later find out is Roy’s son.

Roy and Lucas are on a mission to return Alton to his mother Sarah (Kirsten Dunst) and eventually get Alton to an undisclosed location by a certain date. The movie reveals information to us in pieces. With each piece of information letting us in on the story a bit more.

It turns out that Alton and his parents were part of a religious cult, and because Alton possesses latent supernatural abilities, which are also slowly revealed to us, the FBI has become involved and sent Paul Sevier (Adam Driver) to investigate cult.

To reveal more of the plot would be a huge disservice to the story, but before I move on, I will mention this, this film is grounded the grittiness of dramas of the 1970s, very slowly giving ways to fantastic wonderment of early 1980s science fiction. And it is amazing to behold.

Pros: The story manages to avoid direct violence and rely on the imagination where necessary, but also use CGI in a way that the story becomes better, rather than extraneous. The relationships between family, friends, and believers are beautifully depicted.

Cons: At times the pacing felt too rushed, while other times it was oddly slow. And so the movie often feels strange, and the tension never raises to a point where leads are in imminent danger.

Runtime: 1 hour 52 minutes

Points of Interest: Jeff Nichols wrote the film as an allusion to becoming a father himself, and it was shot over a period of 40 days.

Midnight Special is, to use a single word, special. It is an excellent example of GOOD modern storytelling in that it relies on both practical filmmaking camera work and CGI to tell its narrative. It’s cast is well chosen and the implications of the final reveal make it worthwhile on any science fiction fan shelf, but it holds a special place in the current political environment as well.

I still don’t really know why the movie is called Midnight Special, I think it has something to do with the song, but maybe that doesn’t matter. What matters is that the movie is accessible and addresses issues that we can all relate to. And so it qualifies as good science fiction.

But what do you think? See you tomorrow with some wisdom, dear readers.

Tim!