Another year in filmdom has come and gone, and countless movie reviewers have issued their best and worst lists for 2018. And so, with that said, it’s time to add my voice to the chorus, with my choices for the cream of the crop and the curdled cream best discarded.
In the interest of full disclosure, I must confess that I did not screen every film that was released in 2018, most notably those that were distributed through limited or select channels or have yet to go into wide release, such as a number of foreign films and a few lesser-known independent productions, like “Stan & Ollie.” However, I did spend considerable time staring at those flickering lights on the big screen during 2018, enough to make me feel comfortable in offering up my selections for the pictures that I believe represented the best and worst of past 12 months. Documentaries are treated separately from fictional releases, and links to complete reviews of some of these films are included where applicable.
As always, I’d love to hear your feedback in the comments section (be civil, please). And with that, here goes:
THE TOP 10
10. “If Beale Street Could Talk”
Director Barry Jenkins’s follow-up to his Oscar-winning masterpiece “Moonlight” (2016) comes close to matching its predecessor in many respects, though it doesn’t quite equal its forerunner. With fine performances, beautiful cinematography, genuinely evocative emotion and a skillfully crafted ambiance, “If Beale Street Could Talk” effectively draws viewers into the world of an African-American family whose lives are characterized by heartfelt love but subjected to ugly injustice. However, despite these many attributes, the film is somewhat bogged down by excessively lingering imagery and protracted dialogue that both go on a little too long, needlessly slowing the narrative’s pace. What’s more, in an attempt to avoid being too heavy-handed, the director at times uses a little too much restraint in his storytelling, keeping the picture from having an impact as strong as it might have been. In all, this is a fine effort in many regards, though it’s one that I wish could have been a little better. But, considering what it had to live up to, that would have been a tall order for any filmmaker. (Full review to come.)
9. “Mission Impossible: Fallout”
Hands down, this is one of the best action-adventure films to have come along in quite some time. Admittedly, it’s rare for me to give such high marks to films in this genre, but there’s a reason for it this time: The film’s many well-crafted action sequences aren’t the only elements carrying the story in this offering. The flashy chases and stunts are effectively balanced by an engaging narrative that, despite a few plot holes, provides a riveting tale full of twists, turns and misdirections. This is a franchise that just seems to be getting better with time. Fasten your seat belts, folks!
8. “Ben Is Back”
Why this film is being ignored (and, in some cases, unfairly bashed) surprises me to no end. “Ben Is Back” features a well-integrated fusion of family drama and crime thriller set in the world of drug addiction. Julia Roberts and Lucas Hedges turn in knock-out performances worthy of awards consideration for their range of emotion and powerful delivery, and the film’s smartly written screenplay serves up an excellent mix of heartfelt emotion, gritty intensity, shocking revelation, pointed comic relief and deftly nuanced subtlety. Sadly, this appears to be one of those releases that’s simply going to be ignored for honors and accolades, and that’s truly unfortunate, as this is quite an unexpected gem.
7. “Eighth Grade”
Despite a slight tendency toward being episodic, this insightful look at an awkward time in one’s life at an unnerving time in history wins the day with incisive humor and an ever-present though reluctantly acknowledged edginess that speaks plainly to viewers of any age. Newcomer Elsie Fisher, a Golden Globe Award nominee, delivers a phenomenal performance, backed by a terrific ensemble of supporting characters who help to bring out the best in her portrayal. The summertime release provided some welcome fresh air to a movie market dominated by action-adventure and animated releases, but “Eighth Grade” actually makes a fine viewing selection for any time of year.
6. “A Private War”
Although a little weak on back story, this gripping biopic about journalist Marie Colvin’s dogged determination to get out the wartime stories not otherwise being told sizzles with bold intensity, especially in its uncompromising depictions of the horrors she witnessed firsthand and the personal toll such events took on her physically and emotionally. Rosamund Pike’s stellar, Golden Globe-nominated performance as the intrepid war correspondent is certainly award-worthy, showing the many sides of a complex character who frequently straddled the line between bravery and recklessness. Be forewarned, however, that the graphic nature of “A Private War” makes it a questionable choice for sensitive and squeamish viewers. But, for those who like their heroic tales larger than life and rooted in truth, this one is definitely for you.
5. “Can You Ever Forgive Me?”
As biopics go, “Can You Ever Forgive Me?” is about as good as they get. This engaging, superbly written tale about a literary scoundrel and her scheming sidekick delivers a banquet of laughs and tears with a dash of inspired larceny, all wrapped up in an intelligent cinematic package. Melissa McCarthy delivers a stellar performance as talented but unsuccessful author Lee Israel, who resorts to forging literary letters as a means to support herself when book sales falter. Aided by scalliwag Richard E. Grant, this unlikely duo stumbles their way through a minefield of high-brow crime, seeking to get away with inspired but flawed acts of fraud against potential victims who are ultimately smarter than the would-be ingenious crooks. It’s nice to see a picture that refuses to dumb itself down to appeal to the lowest common denominator, serving up good fun, heartfelt emotions and a delicious twist on crime tales all rolled into one.
4. “The Favourite”
This wickedly dark, smug period piece comedy is sure to leave viewers routinely agasp at its outrageous humor, which marvelously mixes understatement with in-your-face bawdiness. The trio of protagonists brilliantly portrayed by Olivia Colman, Emma Stone and Rachel Weisz, all of whom have been repeatedly lauded for their performances, never disappoints, with each at the top of their game. The film’s smartly written script is crisp and snappy throughout, even if it takes liberties with history and occasionally falls back on director Yorgos Lanthimos’s signature penchant for needless ambiguity. Not everyone will go for “The Favourite,” but if you can imagine a mix of the cattiest moments from Dynasty dressed up in 18th Century trappings, you’ve got an idea what this one is all about.
3. “First Reformed”
This utterly captivating examination of faith, despair, the search for happiness, and the need to strike a balance between our spiritual and secular lives is far from routine fare. Even though some elements are a little dragged out, much of “First Reformed” sizzles with an underlying intensity that you can feel as the story unfolds. With what is undoubtedly Ethan Hawke’s best screen performance (though one that is being regrettably overlooked), a surprisingly strong portrayal by Cedric “the Entertainer” Kyles in a serious role and phenomenal cinematography, writer-director Paul Schrader has put together a film that gives us all much to contemplate, as well as emotional impressions that will stay with us long after we leave the theater. Handily one of the best – and most undiscovered – releases of 2018.
2. “Green Book”
This superb, fact-based road trip buddy film features two of the unlikeliest of travel companions, an African-American pianist and his New York Italian driver on a concert tour of the American South in 1962. “Green Book” hits all the right notes without belaboring its message while effectively capturing the unusual friendship that grows between the film’s two protagonists. The excellent award-nominated performances of Viggo Mortensen and Mahershala Ali are punctuated by a script that’s full of laughs, poignancy and heart. Think of this one as this year’s edition of “Hidden Figures” (2016), and you have an idea of what it’s all about
1. “Annihilation”
This mind-blowing, sophisticated sci-fi/smart horror tale is, by far, the most overlooked film of 2018. Masterfully brought to the screen by director Alex Garland, who has upped his game considerably from the success of his previous work, “Ex Machina” (2015), “Annihilation” delivers a story that works on multiple levels. The film’s richly layered, deftly nuanced, insightful script, combined with gorgeous cinematography and an inventive production design, make for riveting viewing. It’s unfortunate that this offering had the bad luck to be released at the time when everyone was preoccupied with “Black Panther” and “Avengers: Infinity War,” but, thankfully, it has begun to find an audience through home viewing options. Note, however, that this is not a picture to be watched casually or when one is easily distracted. But an attentive screening is sure to captivate, providing much to think about in terms of metaphysics, spirituality, existence and evolution – and possibly forever changing one’s views on these heady subjects. What’s more, I should add that it’s almost unheard of for me to give such high praise to a film in this genre, so, for me to do so, that’s truly saying something. If you haven’t viewed this one yet, see it – and on as big a video screen as you can find.
Honorable Mentions (in no particular order)
“Mary Poppins Returns” (full review to come)
“Tully”
“Boy Erased”
“Viper Club”
“Border” (“Gräns”)
Noteworthy (in no particular order)
“The Old Man & the Gun”
“The Land of Steady Habits”
“Sorry To Bother You”
“Leave No Trace”
“Deadpool 2”
“Await Further Instructions”
“Bohemian Rhapsody”
“BlacKkKlansman”
“A Quiet Place”
“Keep the Change”
“The Death of Stalin”
“On the Basis of Sex” (full review to come)
TOP DOCUMENTARIES
5. “Love, Gilda”
A loving tribute to an immense talent – and one who broke through many personal and professional barriers – who became a huge sensation and who, unfortunately, left us all too soon. With interviews featuring many of her collaborators, a wealth of archive footage and excerpts from her own journals, Gilda Radner comes to life once again, entertaining both those who knew her work and others who are just now discovering it. An account of her story is long overdue, but “Love, Gilda” was well worth the wait.
4. “RBG”
Despite a slight tendency to gush about its subject, this informative, briskly paced documentary presents an in-depth look at the public and private life of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Through interviews with Ginsburg, life-long friends, family members, peers and the politicians who helped shape her career, as well as a variety of archive footage and audio recordings, “RBG” presents a balanced package of information that both enlightens and entertains. What’s most impressive, though, is the detailed chronicling of the influential (though not-often widely recognized) role that RBG played in the women’s movement, particularly in the area of legally securing equal rights through a series of landmark Supreme Court rulings that she litigated before joining the bench. For those who are unfamiliar with the accomplishments of this remarkable woman, this is must-see viewing.
3. “Won’t You Be My Neighbor?”
An endearing, moving look at the life and career of a children’s television innovator whose method, approach and message was deceptively profound while being delivered through amazingly simple means. While there’s a slight tendency toward being saccharine encrusted and some slightly sluggish pacing in the first 30 minutes, the overall package of “Won’t You Be My Neighbor?” is delivered with ample humor, remarkable insights and surprising candor. A documentary well worth your time from a director who’s becoming quite practiced at this form of filmmaking.
2. “Filmworker”
A fascinating look at a fascinating collaboration whose existence is in many ways a mystery but that nevertheless brought about one of the most impressive film repertoires in cinematic history. Leon Vitali may not be a household name, but his contributions to the works of Stanley Kubrick like “The Shining” (1980), “Full Metal Jacket” (1987), “Eyes Wide Shut” (1999) and “Barry Lyndon” (1975), as well as the preservation of such pictures as “Dr. Strangelove” (1964), “2001: A Space Odyssey” (1968) and “A Clockwork Orange” (1971), is incalculable. This riveting documentary attempts to make up for that long-ignored contribution, showing the impact of the man behind the man and a treasure trove of celluloid classics. “Filmworker” is a release with widespread appeal, but it’s one sure to captivate movie buffs and fans of Kubrick’s work.
1. “Three Identical Strangers”
Expect a rollercoaster of emotions from this sometimes-intense, sometimes-heartwarming, sometimes-humorous and sometime-heartbreaking documentary about the happy reunion of adopted triplets separated at birth and the appalling reasoning behind their separation. This well-researched, meticulously crafted film tells its unbelievable story in great factual detail but in a way that also effectively evokes the emotions it was meant to engender. “Three Identical Strangers” is easily the best documentary of the year and one worthy of awards season accolades.
THE BOTTOM 10
10. “Overlord”
This is a movie that suffers from a major identity crisis: Is it a classic horror flick? A World War II drama? A campy gorefest romp? Well, it’s actually all of these to some extent or another, and the fusion never really meshes as audiences try to guess where this boring, meandering slog is going to go next. From my perspective, it works best as a campy gorefest, something it finally gets around to being about 30 minutes from the end. Had it stuck to this formula throughout, it would have been a much more entertaining picture. As it stands now, though, it doesn’t seem to know what it wants to be, and that, unfortunately, represents a major missed opportunity.
9. “The Happy Prince”
It boggles the mind how a film can take someone as witty and colorful as Oscar Wilde and make the character boring, but that’s precisely what writer/actor/director Rupert Everett has done in this misfire of a biopic. By all rights, the picture is obviously a labor of love for its creator, but, with a focus on Wilde’s last dark days, a needlessly convoluted script that’s all over the map and a noticeable dearth of the snappy banter that made its protagonist famous, the production falls flat and often confuses the viewer with its forward and backward flashes in the action. One of awards season’s – and the year’s – bigger disappointments.
8. “Isle of Dogs”
Director Wes Anderson’s latest continues his practice of creating visually dazzling offerings that are long on style, overlong on story and, ultimately, short on substance. The film’s clever whimsy is cute, warm and funny at times, but it becomes so exactingly overwhelming as the story plays out that it becomes tiresome and exasperating long before the credits roll. What’s more, the film’s clumsily structured narrative and screenplay tell the story in such a disjointed and convoluted way that it’s easy to lose interest, despite the superb stop motion animation eye candy. Meticulously crafted it is; engaging, unfortunately, it isn’t.
7. “Suspiria”
Despite considerable potential, this celluloid mess ultimately can’t pull off what it appears to promise. After a painfully slow and needlessly cryptic start, this stylish horror flick gradually and effectively begins building suspense toward what is believed will be a revelatory and stunning conclusion. Unfortunately, the film falls apart in its final act, going needlessly over the top and ultimately serving up more muddle than resolution, squandering the audience trust that the director had built up in the picture’s preceding segments. Though visually stunning and viscerally affecting, the end product never quite comes together as one would hope, leaving more questions open than answered. While director Luca Guadagnino’s release aspires to cinematic greatness, sadly it ends up yet another exercise in artsy pretentiousness in the same vein as “Mother!” (2017) and “Killing of a Sacred Deer” (2017).
6. “Widows”
The film’s strong cast aside, “Widows” is a cinematic jumble of too many plots trying to fit into one film, coupled with numerous holes in its story and an overall inherent implausibility that’s impossible to take seriously. While the action sequences are admittedly well orchestrated, they can’t make up for a plethora of other shortcomings that derail this offering from being what it aspires to be. In the end, this is yet another example of a vastly overrated release from vastly overrated director Steve McQueen.
5. “Ready Player One”
Continuing an unfortunate trend that has come to characterize many of his recent films, director Steven Spielberg’s latest big-budget bloated extravaganza dazzles visually but grows tiresome (some might even say exasperating) rather quickly. The picture plays like a glitzy, nostalgic stroll down an ʼ80s version of memory lane, chock full of nonstop references to the decade’s movies, music and memes (in itself an odd fascination for characters in a story set in 2045). What’s worse, the film lacks a fundamentally compelling story and takes about 45 minutes too long to get to a central message that becomes patently obvious early on in the picture. If you’re looking for purely mindless entertainment, you’ll probably find this moderately amusing, but, if you want something more substantive, skip this one and watch one of the filmmaker’s earlier (and much better) offerings.
4. “Colette”
Not even Keira Knightley’s fine performance and excellent period piece production values can save this cartoonish biopic, which plays more like a film adaptation of a tawdry pulp novel than a serious historic saga. This, combined with the characters’ monodimensionality and virtually nonexistent back story, expose a half-baked screenplay in need of major retooling. A genuine disappointment.
3. “The Rider”
It’s mystifying to me what so many have seen as praiseworthy in this formulaic exercise in utter predictability. This celebration of reckless uber-macho behavior as something noble to which the inner cowboys in all men should aspire is laden with heavy-handed, patently obvious metaphors that even the most casual moviegoer can see coming long before they appear on the screen. Other than some impressive cinematography and a fine lead performance by Brady Jandreau, it’s hard to understand why this otherwise-mediocre offering has garnered so much attention and so many accolades. Maybe my lack of interest in the Western genre is unduly coloring my opinion here, but, with a narrative that’s easy to figure out and a litany of increasingly archaic ideals that are questionable at best, it’s difficult to say anything positive or redeeming about this highly overrated release.
2. “Roma”
OK, I’ll say it – when it comes to this film, the emperor is indeed naked. I’ll admit that the film’s stunning black-and-white cinematography is exquisite and that the scenes introducing the picture’s final act are emotionally mesmerizing (or maybe it’s just that I was glad that something interesting was finally happening on the screen). Unfortunately, those are about the only redeeming qualities this release has to offer. The rest is a big, bloated, underdeveloped bore that tries the patience of even the most tolerant cinephile. It’s obvious this was a heartfelt project for director Alfonso Cuarón, and his personal passion is written all over it. But, given that he’s dealing with uninteresting characters in largely unexplained circumstances in a time frame for which little to no context or back story is provided, he’s not giving the audience much to work with other than a glib implication that essentially says “This is authentic – just trust me on this.” Also, the picture’s anemic attempts at incorporating philosophical and metaphysical themes show the filmmaker’s got some brushing up to do in terms of effectively conveying his meaning in a comprehensible way. If you’re willing to risk the time watching this, be sure to pack a pillow and a lunch.
1. “Don’t Leave Home”
If you’re tempted to see this one, follow the advice given in the film’s title. This atmospheric offering features beautiful cinematography but not much else – a slow, laborious story that continually promises much but delivers little, leaving viewers wondering why they should care about any of this. And, as for the alleged horror angle of this release, I’ve seen scarier breakfast cereal commercials. “Don’t Leave Home”? – don’t waste your time.
Dishonorable Mentions (in no particular order)
“First Man”
“The Bookshop”
“Chappaquiddick”
“Vox Lux”
Got a comment? Please leave one!
Copyright © 2018-19, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Sunday, January 6, 2019
The Best and Worst of 2018
Tuesday, January 1, 2019
‘Vice’ dissects the unbridled pursuit of power
“Vice” (2018). Cast: Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Steve Carell, Sam Rockwell, Tyler Perry, Alison Pill, Jesse Plemons, Bill Camp, Eddie Marsan, Justin Kirk, LisaGay Hamilton, Don McManus, Lily Rabe, Matthew Jacobs, Kyle S. More, Kirk Bovill, Sam Massaro, John Hillner, William Goldman, Paul Yoo, Joseph Beck, Tony Graham, Alex Kingi, Terri Cavanaugh. Archive Footage: Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Barbara Walters, Tom Brokaw, Mike Pence, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Jeff Sessions, Bill O’Reilly. Director: Adam McKay. Screenplay: Adam McKay. Web site. Trailer.
Power makes much possible. It can be wielded to achieve tremendous, beneficial outcomes. It can also be mangled in contorted ways to fulfill self-serving ends. But, no matter how it’s employed, power comes with consequences of either a positive or negative nature, both individually and collectively. Learning how to manage it to attain desired outcomes while avoiding unintended harm is thus crucial to make the best use of it, a challenge frequently put to the test as seen in the life of an ambitious politician, a story depicted in the new comedy-drama biopic, “Vice.”
In 1963, almost no one would have predicted that slacker Dick Cheney (Christian Bale) would ever amount to anything. The hard-drinking party boy from Wyoming was bounced out of Yale for his excessive boozing and penchant for fighting, behaviors that proved a major disappointment to his honors student girlfriend, Lynne (Amy Adams). In the wake of his unceremonious departure from the halls of the Ivy League, he returned home to take a job as an electrical lineman – and to resume his rowdy ways. And, when those reckless habits got him in trouble again – this time with the authorities – Lynne issued an ultimatum to clean up his act or else.
[caption id="attachment_10370" align="aligncenter" width="300"]
When faced with the prospect of losing the woman he loved, Cheney opted to settle down. In what many would call a miraculous turnaround, within a few years, he managed to land a position as a Congressional intern in Washington, DC, working in the office of Rep. Donald Rumsfeld (R-IL) (Steve Carell), an egocentric, Barnum-esque House member whose influence was steadily growing. The conservative, eminently demanding Congressman initially looked upon the sheepish new arrival somewhat contemptuously, but, as “Rummy” came to see what the quietly crafty Cheney was capable of, he developed an appreciation for the young apprentice, becoming a mentor and helping him climb the ladder of Washington insiders.
Before long, Cheney’s star quickly ascended. He moved up the ranks of power, joining Rumsfeld in the White House Chief of Staff’s office as his guru’s assistant. And, when Rumsfeld was later appointed Secretary of Defense in the administration of Gerald Ford (Bill Camp), Cheney succeeded his former boss as the President’s right-hand man. He was clearly on the move.
However, after Ford’s defeat in the 1976 presidential election, Cheney was out of a job. Nevertheless, the driven politico was not to be deterred; he used the opportunity to run for Congress as Wyoming’s delegate to the House of Representatives in 1978, a position to which he was elected and held for 10 years. From there he would go on to serve as Secretary of Defense under President George H.W. Bush (John Hillner). And, after a hiatus during which he was CEO of the energy industry multinational Halliburton, he would become Vice President under President George W. Bush (Sam Rockwell), a mere heartbeat away from the highest office of the land.
[caption id="attachment_10371" align="aligncenter" width="300"]
Ironically, it was his own heart that would periodically betray him. He suffered five heart attacks between 1978 and 2010, along with other cardiovascular-related health issues. Somehow, though, he managed to keep going, despite the setbacks. Yet, considering the way he typically went about his business, one can’t help but wonder, metaphorically speaking, if the underhanded methods he routinely employed to expand his powers were responsible for taking such a toll on him.
Those underhanded methods were rooted in his skillfully practiced art of manipulation. He was a master at getting his way by tactfully convincing others about the supposed merits of his point of view and making them believe that these ideas were, in fact, their own, enabling them to take credit (or blame) for what they brought about. This was particularly true during his tenure as VP, leading Bush to believe that he was actually calling the shots.
[caption id="attachment_10372" align="aligncenter" width="300"]
Cheney’s artful maneuvering, especially when he was second in command, was made possible by a number of tactics based on radical (and some would say questionable) new interpretations of what was considered legally allowable. For instance, Cheney and his lawyer David Addington (Don McManus) contended that, as Vice President, he was essentially answerable to no particular branch of government, leaving him free from oversight. His role as President of the Senate, for instance, separated him from being a member of the executive branch. At the same time, given that he did not actively participate in most Congressional activities, he wasn’t really part of the legislative branch, either. According to this interpretation of his role, such an “unaffiliated” status thus made him a free agent of sorts, allowing him to function largely unencumbered in the cracks between government branches, leaving him more or less unaccountable – and untouchable.
On top of this, Cheney managed to expand the power of the presidency (and, by extension, his own power, given the nature of his standard operating practices) by becoming an ardent advocate of the unitary executive theory. According to this theory, the President possesses the power to essentially rule as he sees fit, almost as if he were a monarch or dictator, enabling the chief executive to function in an almost Machiavellian way. After conferring with legal consultant John Yoo (Paul Yoo), who heartily gave the theory his blessing, Cheney embraced it and went on to convince Bush of its validity, leading the commander in chief to believe that he could take charge and govern according to his own prerogatives. Of course, given how the relationship between Bush and Cheney operated, the ideas that the President put forth were seldom his own, but, with the mandate he believed he possessed, he moved forward to further their implementation. Cheney thus had the means to get his agenda put into place without actually holding the title of chief executive, quite a coup if there ever were one.
[caption id="attachment_10373" align="aligncenter" width="300"]
To help cement his position, Cheney surrounded himself with advisors who zealously supported his views and who were effectively capable of countering any opposition put forth by Bush’s counselors. Among Cheney’s cronies were his old pal Rummy (in a return engagement as Secretary of Defense), as well as Rumsfeld’s deputy, Paul Wolfowitz (Eddie Marsan), and the VP’s Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby (Justin Kirk). This formidable front proved useful during controversial discussions, such as those in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, in which proponents Cheney and company met opposition from skeptics like Secretary of State Colin Powell (Tyler Perry). Those oppositional sentiments, which would later prove true, were squelched by the pile-on tactics of the VP’s posse, backed up by Cheney’s silver-tongued schmoozing to manipulate the commander in chief into embracing their views.
The unbridled ambition – some would say “ruthlessness,” as Rummy called it – were crucial to Cheney’s “success” in pushing and securing the elements of his agenda. And, in line with the principles of the unitary executive theory, he would wield that power when the need called for it. Anyone who got in his way would pay a dear price for challenging him, as was the case with covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, whose identity was intentionally leaked when her husband, Joseph Wilson, publicly blew the whistle on false administration claims about the supposed source of raw materials for Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction.
[caption id="attachment_10374" align="aligncenter" width="300"]
In the end, there was virtually nothing to stop Cheney. Given how he functioned, he fundamentally changed how the executive branch works. And, because of this, he helped orchestrate a foreign policy based on principles that served his geopolitical vision and the goals of American business interests, such as those of his former company Halliburton, which, thanks to no-bid government contracts during and after the Iraq conflict enabled the organization’s stock value to increase by 500 percent. But, in the wake of such developments, one can’t help but ask, are these the principles upon which American democracy was established? And what does that mean for the nation’s future? “Vice” doesn’t directly answer these questions, but it certainly gives us all much to ponder in its wake.
So how did we get to this point? That’s a complicated question, but, if examined in a metaphysical context, we might be able to get a handle on these circumstances. That’s particularly true if we look at them through the lens of conscious creation, the philosophy that maintains we manifest the reality we experience through the power of our thoughts, beliefs and intents. It’s an incredibly powerful means of shaping our destiny, both individually and collectively. And it’s one that carries consequences for those of us who avail ourselves of it – or who disregard its validity and impact.
Based on how he operated, Cheney was a master of the practice, even if he had never heard of it or was aware of its existence. As his story is depicted here, the outcomes he realized clearly resulted from the beliefs he held. For instance, when it came to defining his role as VP in the Bush administration and in clarifying the parameters of executive power, once he had amassed the input he needed to formulate his beliefs, he unhesitatingly embraced those intents to materialize the reality he wanted to see made manifest. He was resolute in his determination and had faith in his convictions, a potent combination for seeing his hoped-for notions come into being.
[caption id="attachment_10375" align="aligncenter" width="300"]
Cheney was so thorough in his methods that he figured out how to use his beliefs to create conditions covering all bases. This could be seen through such means as conducting focus groups to determine public opinions about policy issues for determining how to best spin them to the populace. He also believed in controlling the message by massaging the medium through which it was to be disseminated, a reality made possible by funneling carefully crafted information through such select media outlets as Fox News, an opinion-driven cable channel he championed years before it came into being when it was first proposed by his old friend Roger Ailes (Kyle S. More). And, to obtain the legal considerations he required, he actively sought to befriend law professionals like an up-and-coming young attorney named Antonin Scalia (Sam Massaro) who would eventually become a Supreme Court associate justice (Matthew Jacobs). Such a comprehensive approach proved to be a powerful combination to achieve his goals, all brought about by directing his beliefs to create desired manifestations in each of these various areas.
On some level, Cheney had to have been aware of the immense power inherent in this process, and he freely made use of it. Cheney relished this power and unreservedly availed himself of it. And that’s important for all of us to recognize, because it’s crucial to understanding how this practice works. Those who gravitate toward it tend to see their objectives materialize, while those who give their power away are left in the lurch.
That notion is significant in understanding how these conditions arose. While Cheney and his minions willingly embraced the power of conscious creation, many of the rest of us were giving it away, leaving us open to whatever fallout might come our way. Theoretically speaking, one can hardly fault somebody for availing himself of what’s accessible to all of us, even if it’s employed for purposes that many of us would find unacceptable. At the same time, we have no one to blame but ourselves if we fail to follow suit or to counter such practices. And these principles apply in both our individual manifestations and our collective co-creation efforts. In that sense, then, we should probably take this as a cautionary tale to avoid outcomes we’d rather not experience.
[caption id="attachment_10376" align="aligncenter" width="300"]
However, even those who boldly make use of the process and avail themselves of its power should be clear about what they’re seeking to create, including everything associated with these efforts. Failure to do so could lead to un-conscious creation or creation by default, wherein a focus purely on outcomes with no consideration for consequences can lead to serious deviations of what’s being sought. Serious side effects can lead to disappointments, delays and distortions of our objectives, some of which can be curiously metaphorical. If you doubt that, consider the personally ironic health issues experienced by a practitioner who became so proficient at implementing what could easily be considered “heartless” ways.
But is such a monodimensionally cold, unfeeling depiction of Cheney accurate? After all, as conscious creators generally know, we’re all multidimensional beings made up of many selves and multiple archetypes, and portraying anyone – even Cheney – to the contrary would be patently unfair. So it is through his family life that we see another side of the protagonist, someone who lovingly cared for his wife and daughters, Liz (Lily Rabe) and Mary (Alison Pill). He believed in protecting them and looking after their well-being, so much so that he wouldn’t hesitate to draw the line whenever scrutiny of his home life arose. And he held fast to that view no matter what … except, of course, when political expediency came into play, at which point compromises suddenly became possible. This issue came up, for example, when his daughter Mary’s open homosexuality ran afoul of the conservative values he publicly embraced. He always said he would consider the question of her lifestyle off-limits, but even that position became negotiable when the need arose. It might lead one to observe, “So much for multidimensionality.”
Given Cheney’s portrayal and the depiction of his typical ways of operating, it’s not difficult to imagine that the filmmakers received precious little cooperation from the picture’s subject. There’s even an on-screen statement to that effect at the outset, noting Cheney’s extremely secretive nature and the difficulty associated with obtaining definitive, authoritative information about the life of the VP. That’s where the film’s narrator, an enigmatic everyman named Kurt (Jesse Plemons), comes into play. As someone who claims to know Cheney in a highly unusual but very personal way – a relationship that goes unexplained until a critical juncture in the film – the story presented here in many ways essentially becomes Kurt’s take on Cheney’s life, a personal interpretation that would seem to be borne out by the facts but is not necessarily restricted to them thanks to the “insider” view the narrator provides.
Audiences are thus left to make up their own minds about the veracity and fairness of the depiction presented here, perspectives that are bound to vary widely based on one’s own beliefs about the man and, of course, one’s politics. To be sure, the story has a decidedly left-leaning slant to it, one that’s sure to delight the liberals in the audience but will almost assuredly stoke the ire of right-leaning conservatives. As with anything in conscious creation matters, it’s a question of beliefs. And, interestingly enough, this schism is an issue that, given the current political climate, is just as relevant in evaluating this film as it is in going back and reviewing the historical record it depicts. Even more revealing is how we got to this point and how the protagonist wrangled events in the direction that produced these conditions more than most of us would probably give him “credit” for.
Director Adam McKay’s latest is a capably made film overall, though, admittedly, it’s not as good as I was hoping it would be (and definitely not on par with his previous work, “The Big Short” (2015)). In spite of its excellent performances by Bale, Carell and Rockwell, the production tries to do too much and often gets bogged down in the minutiae of American politics, causing some sequences to become a little snoozy. Also, McKay’s attempts at incorporating cinematic asides of an analogous nature – clever though they may be – don’t work quite as well in this film as they did in his predecessor picture. And then there’s the humor, which only lands about 50 percent of the time, another disappointment. Still, this picture is an insightful look into how Cheney helped orchestrate our current conditions by working the system on multiple fronts, effectively pulling the wool over the eyes of a sleeping public more preoccupied with having its boredom killed than watching out for its best interests. “Vice” thus makes for a potent cautionary tale we should all heed if we hope for matters to improve going forward.
Despite its shortcomings, “Vice” has been widely recognized in awards competitions thus far. The picture has captured six Golden Globe Award nominations, including nods for best comedy, screenplay and director, as well as acting honors for Bale, Adams and Rockwell. In addition, Bale and Adams each earned Screen Actors Guild Award nominations for their respective lead and supporting performances. But the picture came up the biggest winner in the Critics Choice Award contest, taking home nine nominations for best picture, acting ensemble, director, screenplay, editing, and hair and makeup, along with performance honors for Adams and two for Bale (for best actor and best actor in a comedy).
British politician Lord John Acton-Dalberg famously observed that “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” That admonition is perhaps one of the wisest statements ever uttered by someone in a governing position. It’s also one that aspiring leaders need to take to heart if they hope to be of greatest assistance and service to their constituency. One could argue that it was clearly ignored by the protagonist of this film, that it was, in fact, viewed as more of a green light than an insightful caution. We can only hope that those coming up through the ranks learn from it – and from the lessons of this picture – in terms of their leadership philosophies and practices. There’s a lot riding on it – and that’s the absolute truth.
Copyright © 2018-19, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Friday, December 21, 2018
‘Ben Is Back’ explores the quest for redemption
“Ben Is Back” (2018). Cast: Julia Roberts, Lucas Hedges, Courtney B. Vance, Kathryn Newton, Tim Guinee, Michael Esper, Rachel Bay Jones, David Zaldivar, Kristin Griffith, Mia Fowler, Jakari Fraser, Alexandra Park, Jack Davidson, Jeff Auer, Henry Stram, Nigel the dog. Director: Peter Hedges. Screenplay: Peter Hedges. Web site. Trailer.
The hell of drug addiction wears heavily on those afflicted by it. The physical and psychological effects alone can be devastating, but all of the other related effects – socially, economically and otherwise – can be just as destructive. And, when the impact on those close to an addict is added into the mix, the result can be just as catastrophic (and in virtually all of the same respects). But redemption is possible, difficult though it may be to achieve. So it is with a family dealing with such a crisis in the gripping and moving new drama, “Ben Is Back.”
Nineteen-year-old Ben Burns (Lucas Hedges) wants to spend Christmas with his family, but there’s just one problem – he needs to get approval to visit them from the rehab program where he’s enrolled to treat his drug addiction. He’s made progress at getting better, but he’s only been in treatment for a few months, and his counselors aren’t sure if he’s ready to go back to where his problem arose. The ghosts of his past, as well as the omnipresent threat of temptation, could derail his efforts and lead to a backslide. But, despite the risk, he makes the journey home to see his mother, Holly (Julia Roberts), his stepdad, Neal (Courtney B. Vance), his sister, Ivy (Kathryn Newton), and his step-siblings, Lacey (Mia Fowler) and Liam (Jakari Fraser). He also looks forward to seeing his pet dog, Ponce (Nigel the dog), who saved Ben’s life by finding him when he overdosed and nearly died, the event that led to his stint in rehab.
Needless to say, the family is surprised by Ben’s unexpected visit. Holly, Lacey and Liam are thrilled to see him, as is Ponce. Neal and Ivy, however, have their doubts. And, as the details of Ben’s past are gradually revealed during his stay, they’re justified in their skepticism. Even though he’s receiving treatment, his track record of behavior before he entered rehab was quite checkered. As both a user and a dealer, he dragged many others into his dark world, in some cases with catastrophic consequences. It’s no wonder that his sister and stepdad are wary.
[caption id="attachment_10361" align="aligncenter" width="300"]
Outwardly, Holly is happy to have her son home, and she tries to put a cheery face on the situation. But, despite the appearance of unconditional motherly love and boundless support, she’s no fool, either. She knows full well what Ben is capable of, and, when she needs to take a hard stand with him, she knows what to do. Her stern side surfaces after a heated discussion with Neal, who strongly disapproves of Ben’s visit and wants to return him to his treatment facility. So, after Holly and Neal agree to a compromise of a 24-hour stay, she promptly lays down the law about the conditions of Ben’s stay. Her direct, no-nonsense explanation is full of strings, including a drug test, never leaving her sight and facing an immediate return to rehab for any violation of her terms.
To feel as though he’s fully engaged as part of the family’s holiday celebration, Ben asks Holly if she could take him Christmas shopping at the local mall, to which she agrees. However, while there, Ben encounters two old acquaintances from his drug days, as well as the physician (Jack Davidson) who, in prescribing painkillers to treat a 14-year-old Ben for a snowboarding injury, provided the springboard for his life of addiction.
The stress of these incidents is so overwhelming that Ben insists Holly take him to a local Narcotics Anonymous meeting to help ground himself. The gathering provides some comfort, but it also leads to another difficult encounter with a young woman (Alexandra Park) who’s planning to get clean but who wants to get high one last time, an invitation she extends to Ben. He’s curious why she would ask him, of all people, to join her for this, a response that surprises her, particularly when she reminds him that he used to be her dealer, something he completely forgot.
[caption id="attachment_10362" align="aligncenter" width="300"]
By now, it’s apparent that going home might not have been a good decision after all. What’s more, the incident at the N.A. meeting raises Holly’s doubts, seriously stretching her trust that Ben is genuinely able to keep his word. She subsequently tightens the leash, insisting that he follow her dictates to the letter, including her requirement that he join the family in attending a Christmas Eve church service where Ivy will be a featured soloist and Lacey and Liam will participate in a nativity pageant. It’s an experience that, fortunately, provides Ben with some much-needed solace after such a rough day. But the peace of the season is shattered when the family returns home from church to find their house ransacked – and Ponce missing.
After a thorough search of the home, it doesn’t appear that anything was stolen, but Ponce’s disappearance is out of character for the otherwise-well-behaved pooch. Ben concludes that the dog was taken, most likely by someone from his past who knows he’s back in town, a gesture meant to send a message. And, given that Ponce was the one who found Ben when he nearly died, the choice of taking the family pet now was meant to hit him where it hurts most. Upon this realization, Ben storms off to find the dog that he and the rest of the family so lovingly adore.
Of course, by leaving, Ben violates the conditions of his stay, so Holly goes after him in hot pursuit. When she finds him, he tries to send her away, contending that, as well as she thinks she knows him, she doesn’t really know him at all – and everything that he was capable of in his past. Holly hangs tough, though, vowing to help Ben in his search to find out who took the dog. Thus begins a descent into the world of Ben’s past. This journey into the seamy drug underworld includes encounters with one of Ben’s former (and highly unscrupulous) high school teachers (Henry Stram), the parents of one of his deceased clients (Rachel Bay Jones, Jeff Auer), one of his former junkie cohorts (David Zaldivar) and a notorious kingpin pusher (Michael Esper), the most likely candidate for having abducted Ponce. And, as this scenario plays out, it appears that getting the dog back will require a Herculean effort – for both Ben and Holly – a task that carries risks for success and their very survival.
[caption id="attachment_10363" align="aligncenter" width="300"]
These are circumstances no one would envy. So the question that comes up, of course, is how did these characters find themselves in such dire straits?
At the risk of sounding glib, flippant or uncaring, Ben, Holly, and the rest of their family and cohorts are going through this scenario because they drew the circumstances to them through the conscious creation process, the philosophy that maintains we manifest the reality we experience through the power of our thoughts, beliefs and intents. But why on earth, you might ask, would anyone want to create such horrific conditions for themselves? Unfortunately, there are no easy answers to this question.
Whatever we experience (or endure) in life is a highly personal matter, based on the particular beliefs we each hold. And, as outsiders, it’s not our place to judge what transpires for others, for those who create these circumstances have their own reasons for doing so, no matter how unpleasant or unbearable they may seem to us. It’s their experience to go through, for better or worse.
[caption id="attachment_10364" align="aligncenter" width="300"]
When challenging conditions arise in someone’s life, in most cases they have to do with learning some kind of significant life lesson, including those that are difficult and that challenge us to cope with them. In many instances, this may be hard to fathom, even by those who materialize them, especially when they’re characterized by particularly onerous aspects. But such hardships often serve as valuable learning opportunities for understanding certain basic truths about the nature and qualities of existence.
For example, dicey situations frequently push us to get creative in coming up with workable solutions. They urge us to look past accepted limitations and preconceived notions, to think in terms we ordinarily might not. This is especially true in scenarios like the one Ben and Holly face. As becomes apparent, tried and true methods of coping with these circumstances simply won’t suffice, so they have to think in unconventional terms to resolve these issues.
In line with that, thinking outside the box also helps us realize that, in all situations, no matter how daunting or seemingly restrictive they may appear, we always have the power of choice at our disposal. In fact, recognizing, appreciating and utilizing this capability may prove to be our saving grace when things get tough and innovative solutions are called for. Ben and Holly discover this for themselves when going through their respective and collective ordeals, and, if they hope to survive them, they had better be prepared to make the most of their options, especially those that mean seem unavailable.
[caption id="attachment_10365" align="aligncenter" width="300"]
At this point, though, one still might ask, how can such difficulties exist? It’s because the conscious creation process makes all options possible, from the happiest of endings to the most devastating of tragedies. The choice (there’s that word again) is up to us and what we seek to manifest, based on the reasons behind the hoped-for outcomes and the materializing beliefs that make them happen. One can only hope that we make the most of our opportunities and that we learn from the lessons that we seek to get. Such expanded awareness can aid significantly in the development of our personal growth, providing us with new capabilities and insights into the workings of reality, tools that we can employ in the creation of subsequent scenarios and experiences.
For what it’s worth, adversities like those that Ben and Holly undergo often are the best teachers, counterintuitive as that may seem. However, because their impact tends to be so strong and so pervasive, they frequently nudge us into expanding existing abilities or developing entirely new ones. This may be difficult to endure, but the associated growing pains usually pay off in the long run, despite the discomfort we experience when we go through such situations. We might not appreciate the benefits to come from them at the time, but, when we look back in hindsight and assess what they’ve made possible, we generally acknowledge that we wouldn’t have changed a thing, proof that what doesn’t kill us often makes us stronger. I’m sure Ben and Holly would concur with that, even if they might have heartily disagreed at the time.
This gripping film, which effectively combines a family drama with an edgy deep dive into a sinister subculture, reveals what it means to try and come back from a life and legacy fraught with baggage that resists letting go. For Ben, it requires walking a tightrope of seeking forgiveness while trying to let go of guilt, changing his dubious behavior, and fighting off the constant temptation that could easily undo all of his hard work to get clean and make amends. For those who care for him, it also requires traversing a high wire of being lovingly supportive yet skeptically vigilant, far from an easy balance to strike. And, no matter how hard everyone works at these issues, there’s always the threat that outside forces could interfere to undermine, or even negate, whatever progress has been made. It’s a challenge most of us would likely want to avoid at all costs.
[caption id="attachment_10366" align="aligncenter" width="300"]
Nevertheless, these are the circumstances in which the principals find themselves, and, if they ever hope to change them, they must do their best to cope with and seek resolution to the conditions they now face. It won’t be easy, but, considering the situation in which they find themselves, that comes with the territory. How well they succeed – if at all – depends on their resolve to see things through, to realize that change is possible, even if difficult to achieve.
One would hope that the redemption sought after in cases like this is indeed achieved. To make that happen, though, beliefs related to that goal must be established. This requires envisioning the formation, implementation and activation of thoughts and intents that make such an outcome attainable – the quest for forgiveness (including for oneself), the promise to reform one’s behavior, the release of guilt, the ability to resist temptation and the gratitude for seeing such results realized. These can be tough nuts to crack, but they’re far from insurmountable, especially when we have faith – in itself a belief – that they’re wholly achievable. The feelings that arise from such efforts can be renewing, enlightening and uplifting, offering us the chance of a new beginning – and a brilliant and bright future.
After seeing “Ben Is Back,” I couldn’t help but wonder why it’s being ignored (and, in some cases, unfairly bashed) by critics. Director Peter Hedges’s latest is easily one of the best offerings of the year, featuring a well-integrated fusion of family saga and thriller. Roberts and Hedges turn in knock-out performances worthy of awards consideration for their range of emotion and powerful delivery, and the picture’s well-crafted screenplay serves up an excellent mix of heartfelt emotion, gritty intensity, shocking revelation, pointed comic relief and deftly nuanced subtlety. Sadly, this appears to be one of those releases that’s simply going to be overlooked for honors and accolades, and that’s truly unfortunate, as this is quite an unexpected gem.
Three other points are worth mentioning. First, there have been a number of comparisons between this release and another offering about teenage drug addiction, “Beautiful Boy,” which was released earlier this fall. Some have tried to claim that “Ben Is Back” is a little more than a knock-off of its predecessor, but that’s a highly unfair comparison. True, both films deal with the same subject matter, but that’s about where the similarities end. “Beautiful Boy” is based on a true story, while “Ben Is Back” is a work of fiction. In addition, the former deals almost exclusively with the protagonist’s recurring stints in rehab over time and his parents’ attempts to get their son clean, while the latter is set over a compressed time frame and addresses all of the fallout that can accompany drug addiction beyond the obvious physical and psychological health considerations. Trying to say that these films are copycats of one another is simply a lazy comparison.
Moreover, this is the second role in as many months featuring Hedges as a teen in crisis, the first having been “Boy Erased” about the gay son of a fundamentalist preacher who undergoes conversion therapy in an attempt to turn straight. The young actor has earned considerable praise for that portrayal, including a Golden Globe Award nomination for best male performance in a drama. However, as good as Hedges is in that film, his work here is arguably even better, given that he’s required to show a greater range of emotion and to engage in a wider array of actions and activities. While his performance in “Boy Erased” is certainly noteworthy, it’s unfortunate that his portrayal here isn’t receiving commensurate recognition.
And then there’s Julia Roberts, who delivers one of the best – and most overlooked – performances of her career. As Holly, Roberts must straddle the fine line between tough love and unconditional love. The range of emotion required in that is extensive, one that routinely calls for her to vacillate between being scolding and being nurturing. In many ways, this role reminds me of her work in “August: Osage County” (2013), in which she alternated between playing caretaker and taskmaster to her terminally ill mother and her functionally challenged family. She builds on that characterization here as a mother who must do the same for a son in crisis whom she wants to trust but must ever remain suspect about as he seeks to turn his life around.
When someone goes through, or attempts to recover, from the debilitating effects of drug addiction, the challenges in getting clean can at times be seemingly insurmountable. The possibility of everything unraveling, even in the face of progress, always looms in the background. But then there’s also the possibility of hope, that matters can be worked out and restored to what existed before such ordeals arose. This truly is one of those situations where those affected need to hope for the best but prepare for the worst. And, with the right support, lots of love and a stern resolve, circumstances can be rectified. For all of those going through such suffering, be it directly or on the sidelines, here’s to your every success.
Copyright © 2018, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, December 19, 2018
This Week in Movies with Meaning
