Hollywood During the Holidays

In preparation for this festive season of giving, receiving, and giving your mailman a work out in carrying your latest Amazon purchases, nothing beats sitting down after a long day of shopping, caroling, and baking to watch a good movie. With award season looming over us, there has been no short of cinematic treats for us to indulge in as we drink our eggnog (or you know, a beer) and turn on the Christmas Tree lights, because everyone else in the family always forgets to. Here are some of my thoughts on recent films that I've watched this past merry month.

1. Marriage Story (2019) 

While not exactly the Kramer vs. Kramer (1979) of our generation, Noah Baumbach's drama about a playwright and actress struggling to find common ground amid a tumultuous set of divorce proceedings sometimes feels tonally unaware of how it is coming off to the audience. This is a time where you don't have to look far in terms of cinema or television to find an outlandishly loud argument scene between two white, middle-aged adults. Johansson and Driver often lack unified coherency as they exchange verbal blows back and forth, and one can't help but wonder if these tense scenes would've played out just the same if the actors had shot each of their respected material separately. When it comes to grandstanding, Driver is the less guilty of the two leads in terms of working off his scene partner rather than just himself. Still, the film boasts some great monologues and sequences that have the theatrical touch one would expect from Baumbach's work and is bolstered by fantastic supporting performances by Laura Dern, Ray Liotta, and the always delightful Julie Hagerty. The film takes the time to explore what divorce looks like in the modern age, especially among the privileged upper classes of American society. Liotta and Dern alternate from hospitable to hostile in a matter of seconds during each and every scene they participate in, and this helps illustrate the complex dynamics that go into getting what's rightfully yours after the disintegration of a marriage, along with perhaps just a little extra. No matter how many accolades it accumulates during award season, Baumbach and co can find solace in the fact that this film has at the very least been solidified into meme history thanks to Twitter's relentlessly clever users.

2. The Irishman (2019)

Though a miniseries might have functionally been a more ideal route to take, the pacing is undeniably a strong suit of Martin Scorsese's latest cinematic venture. The Irishman features everything one expects from a Scorsese film, violence, witty voice-over monologues, and engrossing visuals of human depravity in its various facets. These essential components alongside a reunion of Robert De Niro, Al Pacino and the greatly missed Joe Pesci don't break new ground but do re-explore the beautiful caverns of stunning artistic prowess that made Scorsese the beacon of Hollywood reverence he is today when he's not insulting Bob Iger's work. It gives an interesting, if not a scandalous interpretation of one of American cultures' greatest historical mysteries; what became of Jimmy Hoffa? Despite upset from some viewers, I personally found Anna Paquin to be incredibly impactful in her mostly silent supporting role as De Niro's character's daughter. Her face emotes so much raw tension that adding dialogue to it would just have been a moot point. Scorsese understands that the visual will always outweigh the auditory when done correctly, and there is so much about The Irishman that is correct, so much so that we can easily forgive the parts that appear reductive or overly familiar. Whether digitally de-aged or layered in geriatric prosthetics, these artists in front and behind the camera prove that their crafts have only ripened with time passed.

3. Hustlers (2019)

A good heist film is not always easy to come by these days, and ones whi features strong and believable female characters are nearly impossible to find. Oceans 8 (2018) managed to have some fun but hardly contained even a quarter of the character development available within this film's ensemble cast. Constance Wu leads the film in a role that feels like she's flexing new acting muscles in every scene and Jennifer Lopez, who manages a striking balance between conniving and compassionate throughout the entire film. This is the first time in a long time that Lopez has been able to play such a dynamic and multilayered character. The film takes the time to develop the core friendship that ultimately leads the two desperate but cunning women into a life of crime. A disappointing fact of the plot is that other potentially interesting female characters disappear halfway through, such as those played by singer Lizzo, and rapper, Cardi B. These characters are replaced by stick-figured drug addicts who echo a shallowness one normally associates with poorly written female characters that come from the minds of misguided men. Julia Stiles feels oddly cast as a journalist who is piecing the whole narrative together via an interview with Wu's character, but her presence is welcomed nonetheless. Despite a majority of the film being set at a strip club and featuring half-dressed women, the camera never feels like it is objectifying them but rather observing their actions and misdeeds like a Nat Geo cameramen observes a lion mauling a zebra to survive. In this case, the women are the zebras, but they are the ones mauling the lions now. The film sheds light on unlikely victims of the economic crash in 2008. It looks to unveil harsh truths about the lustful and greedy society we live in rather than make easy excuses for our protagonists' questionable actions. Hustlers is a film that is freshly invigorating from start to finish. Director/writer Lorene Scafaria is likely not going to get the recognition she deserves for making a film so undeniably sexy without it being at the expense of the personal integrity of its female characters.  

4. A Beautiful Day in The Neighborhood (2019)


Those who haven't been paying close enough attention to this film's ad campaign may be surprised to find out that Mr. Rogers is not the main character. Instead, the film follows a surly journalist who is forced to do an op-ed on everyone's favorite neighbor. The film contains many visual homages to the transformative children's show that its story is set around, making the viewer feel as though they are reentering childhood even if you aren't especially familiar with the original television program. Tom Hanks, of course, shines in the prominent role. Still, actors like Matthew Rhys, Susan Kelechi Watson, and the ever endearing Chris Cooper add additional tenderness to the story. The film somehow manages not to oversaturate us with sentimentality, because it is well aware that most childhoods are far from a walk down a quaint suburban street. It isn't afraid to let us feel pain and sorrow but is instead interested in exploring how we survive and thrive despite these difficult emotions. It is in every way in line with the original manifesto Mr. Rogers had. He wanted to show children that they could be heard, and the film makes us not only want to speak out for ourselves but listen more to those around us as well. 

Charlie's Angels (2019): The Good, The Bad and The Bosley

There are certain "disclosures" I should make before getting deep into this film review. First and foremost, I have an affinity for "spy films," not to be confused with whatever the Mission Impossible Franchise has currently become. Spy films have mystery, gadgets, charismatic characters, and high stakes goals. They are sleek with just the right dose of sexy. They remind you that around every corner, something exciting can await you. By the looks of it, society was ready for a reboot of Charlie's Angels. Feminism has made leaps and bounds since the original 1970s series (which I have admittedly haven't watched yet, again full disclosure), and even the two entries from the early 2000s were pre-MeToo era cinematic ventures. The last few years have indeed belonged to strong, fearless women, especially in Hollywood. With a successful woman at the helm of this specific project (Elizabeth Banks, wrote, produced, directed, and co-starred in the project), it seemed like a no-brainer for the new Charlie's Angels (2019) to be a sure-fire blockbuster hit. As this past weekend's dismal returns point out, it was anything but. The film is dead on arrival, a shame since a sequel would have likely improved the flaws present. Everyone seems to be obsessed with evaluating why Charlie's Angels failed at a time when bad-ass women doing bad-ass things on the big screen should be in high demand. I believe it is a combination of many different factors being presented by many different sides, including by Banks herself.

The film has the look of a summer blockbuster and yet was released in the middle of November for no discernible reason. Its marketing campaign, which includes a disappointing, stitched together theme song, was poorly constructed and executed with little to no gusto by Sony Pictures. It relies on the star-power of only one of its three female leads, and that star herself has been mostly absent from mainstream commercial films for several years. Make no mistake, Kristen Stewart is a breath of fresh air in this film. However, she still doesn't possess enough of the necessary charisma and genuine appeal on her own that Drew Barrymore, Lucy-Lui, and Cameron Diaz were able to delve out in spades as a buoyant trio. The other two stars, Ella Balinska and Naomi Scott, are competent, both in terms of acting talents and combat capabilities, but neither can produce meaningful on-screen chemistry with Stewart until the final few minutes of the film. By that, I mean during the end credits sequences!

Bank's bet too much on nostalgia, in terms of the IP and in the casting choices. While Charlie's Angels was a massive success in the '70s and '80s, audiences eventually dwindled as they found the premise increasingly tiring and sexist. The reboot in the 2000s brought some sparks of life back into the franchise. Still, it couldn't convince global audiences definitively that women receiving commands from a mysterious man on a voice box were a healthy profession. The latter wanted to kick butt and take names on their terms, not someone else's. In terms of casting, these days, we are happy to see Patrick Stewart do something other than giving soliloquies from a wheelchair. Still, that doesn't mean casting him against-type is going to prove successful or even mildly believable to a wide audience accustomed to seeing him as an endearing and gentle prophet. The other two Angel films have such memorable; albeit camp-filled performances from their heroes and villains alike, this film can't conclusively find its footing tone-wise in order for the actors to produce the same entertaining results. Balinska's character Jane, a former MI6 Agent, fares the worst of the three lead actresses. Her character is supposed to be a type-A, no-nonsense personality who has just gone through a serious loss. Yet she shamelessly flirts with a young and handsome research assistant (played by a wasted Noah Centineo) while in the middle of a mission to avenge the very person she lost. It makes no sense in terms of character arc and makes the character appear inconsistent and needlessly vampy. Many of the intentionally comedic moments fall flat or produce minor chuckles when they are clearly meant to be seam-splitting moments of hilarity, and they are coupled with fight scenes that often end unnecessarily violent. While the film doesn't sport much visible blood-shed per se, it certainly contains a sizable body count. Bank's script thinks that topical references to things like Ben Affleck's portrayal of Batman will give her work relevancy, but all it will do is likely badly date the film's dialogue in the years to come. The film concludes with a seemingly feminist twist. A woman (I will not name her here) is behind Charlie's voice box now since he has since passed away (RIP John Forsythe, whom this film should have been dedicated to), but this revelation lacks logic and context. Why is this woman still using Charlie's voice rather than her own? Why should we be proud of the idea of a woman co-opting the male persona in order to achieve dominance, perhaps because that is actually what men have been doing for years behind the scenes with the Angels themselves? They bellow about female independence while forcing these women into skimpy disguises to solve problems in the world that men have mostly started. It's muddy waters that Bank's script shows no interest in exploring, which is again why it is likely saved as a last-minute throwaway during the end credits.

Again comparisons to the film's failures can be easily made to its ho-hum theme song "Don't Call Me Angel." The song was advertised as a once in a lifetime collaboration between three megastars of the pop world. The song is really just three different singer's separate recording sessions sewn together without any account for style or consistent tone. This film throws a lot at the wall hoping it will stick, and some of it does quite well, but not enough to warrant its existence in a time when old IP is being revived faster than an Angel gets its wings in the Heavens above.

All of this set-aside, the film was extremely fun to watch. If it didn't have a legacy to live up to, it likely would have fared far better with critics and audiences alike. It's action sequences are aplenty and feel well ingrained in the narrative rather than obligatory, and the cast seems to be having a genuinely good time exchanging puns and kicking ass. The film struggles to balance its comedic and dramatic elements into a harmonious whole. The comedy at times feels forced, basically when anyone but Stewart makes a joke, and the drama isn't given a chance to be adequately explored by its cast. Every time the film is close to showing genuine emotion, it sugarcoats it with a glossy aesthetic and off-time comic relief. We don't see a meaningful arc built throughout the film in which these three women learn to trust one another and become a real team. That is a shame because the fact that they are new to working together is one of the biggest differences between this film and the previous two. It does some interesting things in terms of elaborating on the existing mythology of the Townsend Agency, expanding it to an international scale, and clearly advocates for diversity as seen by the numerous women of color present in the film as background Angels and their allies. Still, the film feels mostly driven by the same white feminist perspective that has always dominated Charlie's Angels. It is about beautiful women using their beauty to undermine dastardly men. At the end of the day, this premise is just too dated for a majority of audience members, even if its rebranded somewhat and given a pro-feminist spin. Bank's gave it her all to try and provide a fresh spin on this franchise. Still, several poor filmmaking choices, coupled with other contributing factors working against her success, led to this failure. These factors include a studio that felt as indifferent to the product they were supposed to be trying to sell as audiences who were supposed to want to see it. This has led me to believe that this is the final time we will get to see the Angels fly for quite some time.

Joker: It's No Laughing Matter

Joker (2019) is not a film for children. The sheer fact that I have to write that sentence as an opening line to my review is atrocious, but so are the choices parents sometimes make for their children. I saw too many children in the movie theater when I went out this weekend to see the seventh live-action iteration of an infamous comic book villain be brought to life once more. By too many children, I mean, I saw any children at all. With that being said, who should be seeing Joker? DC Comics fans, of course, Joker is a rare golden ticket in what has been mostly a barrage of flimsy plastic impersonators that have made up the DCEU thus far. It is an achievement and possibly a new strategic approach to storytelling that Warner Brothers will be taking in terms of how they structure DC stand-alone properties going forward. Rather than being preoccupied with an extensive continuity spanning across several different films like Marvel has successfully done for years. 

Who else should see Joker? Well, it might be easier to tell you who shouldn't. Those who have a mental illness, incels, abusers who may gain easy access to firearms, and dozens of other subgroups who may watch this movie and feel emboldened instead of disturbed as the majority of the population have been by the time the credits roll on this dark, uneasy narrative. This film is not entertaining, nor is it enlightening; it falls somewhere in the murkiness of the in-between. This indifference feels more dangerous than if it had made any out-right declarations through its themes and subject matter. 

Joker takes on an ambitious premise. How do you craft an origin story for one of the most vilified characters of modern fiction? The trick is, you don't, at least that is what the last few minutes of the film seem to insinuate depending on how you interpret them. The film has several plot holes throughout that you could drive a clown car through, but most of them can be covered up using the same reasoning a person may apply when they find themselves sympathizing with its profoundly flawed protagonist:

"Well, he's just so sick."

I couldn't help but think in the middle of watching the movie that the entire plot would have functioned just as well, if not better, had there not been a mental illness aspect. The film doesn't even take the time to have an intelligent conversation about what Arthur's mental health issues may precisely be. He is just given the generic label of "troubled soul" who takes a bunch of unnamed medications and goes to mandated therapy to cope with his undefined instability. While it is somewhat clever to use a brain injury as justification for Fleck's use of laughter, often inappropriate, in his life, the film doesn't seem interested in discerning the difference between organic mental health problems and neurological issues derived from physical trauma. He stops taking his medication and almost instantaneously becomes violent, an extremely problematic misrepresentation of the relationship between mental illness and violence. Fleck's darkness should derive from something more than a chemical imbalance in the brain or several severe blows to the head. Still, Todd Phillips seems to go out of his way to acknowledge that Arthur is gaining autonomy by exclusively ignoring his fragile mental state. Why should he take care of himself when not doing so is bringing him strength and notoriety? This is the question that seems to be posed to the viewer. We aren't critiquing Arthur's choices as much as we are watching them be justified through ongoing exposition and plot revelations. The script at times wants to have brief discussions about topics that feel far more interesting and relevant to the degradation and deterioration of the human spirit than why Arthur Fleck can't flirt with women properly. Subjects like class inequality, healthcare and gun control are forced onto the back burner so that we instead are made to focus on a story of a man who simply lost his way because he decided to embrace his damaged psyche instead of fight against it. This misguided sympathy echoes the continuous mistakes the media makes in representing white mass shooters as "misunderstood loners" rather than the heartless, hateful murderers that most of them are. It is right for the film to vilify the environment around Arthur that failed at stopping his ascension to madness, but that barely does any good if it is coupled with the suggestion that Arthur would have become what he was regardless of how society treated him. That is the precise notion I had several times throughout my viewing of the film. Arthur was destined for disaster; society just sped up and exacerbated the process by treating him poorly.

It isn't that mental health should be ignored as a plot point altogether; it just shouldn't be the defining driving force that leads Arthur to a life of crime and deviance. Every other contributing factor to Arthur's decline as a decent human being is treated secondary to what is going on in his head. "If only he had the right state of mind, he would make the right choices." Life isn't that simple, whether it is life on the big screen, in a comic book or even in reality itself. Arthur's behavior is more likely a result of the violence he was exposed to as a child and from growing up in a crime-ridden city, but these are not the factors that are visually fetishized. Instead, the filmmakers rely on the arcane trope that crazy people simply do crazy things. 

The film has its definite triumphs. Phoenix gives a raw and intense performance of a character whose multitudes are never fully explored and perhaps never should be. He never phones it in, and his performance is innovative as opposed to a derivative of the many talented performers that preceded him in the role. Frances Conroy and Brett Cullens give strong supporting performances with the latter portraying Thomas Wayne in a way that de-sanctifies someone that we've always viewed through the eyes of a mourning son. Zazie Beetz does her best as a potential love interest for Mr Fleck, but her character all-together leaves something seriously to be desired in terms of depth or substance. However, this seems to be a fault of the writing and not the actress herself. Robert DeNiro's presence feels more like an enlarged homage to Taxi Driver (1976) than anything else. He is still a welcomed inclusion to an already competent cast, and his character also provides most of the genuine humor present within the film. One scene involving a character who is a little person seems to challenge the audience to laugh at the uncomfortable. This scene is one of the only moments in the film where I felt as though Phillips had something compelling to say about how we view the world and use humor to cope during times of stress. The acting, cinematography and even the editing are all successful in creating a distinctive, gritty, realistic aesthetic to the film, but the story is where the project most falls short of sure-fire success. It argues complexity but doesn't contain the tools or the sheer willingness to support its case. It makes some good points but leaves them to be overshadowed by insufficient and inaccurate declarations. Joker is a film that deserves to be discussed rather than derided or applauded in any conclusive kind of way. It is a film in which context is incredibly important. How do we explore subjects like mental instability, moral deplorability and societies many institutional failures without misrepresenting, insulting or worse psychologically harming individuals who may share attributes with our troubled on-screen protagonists? How can we avoid inflating ideas and preconceived notions and instead offer audiences something more communicative? Todd Phillips doesn't have many answers, but his film does pose many good questions, whether it is consciously aware it is doing so or not. However way you look at it one thing is for sure, it is no laughing matter. 

Hocus Pocus: What are the Bewitching Ingredients to this Halloween Hit?

Those who do not enjoy or choose to celebrate Halloween should still be grateful for the pagan holiday. Without Halloween, Christmas music would be permeating through every department store by mid-September, hell in some places it still does. Halloween is a buffer, a transitional holiday of sorts, one that allows us to dispel any leftover summer energy in the form of joyful dress up and frightening or comical make-believe. 

Most people would argue that horror movies are in themselves by design, Halloween Films. I disagree with this notion because it is simplistic and creatively narrow. A Halloween Film should be considered any film set on or during the Halloween season. Not all of these movies are horror movies. Some of them are children’s films, comedies and even romances. Halloween movies need exude not only horror but also hilarity as well. The best kind, in my opinion, is able to exude both. 

This is why Hocus Pocus (1993) has stood the test of time. It exists both as a film to watch with your family as well as with your friends. It is a film you can laugh at while still finding moments that leave you genuinely unsettled. Hocus Pocus was not a box-office success; on the contrary, it lost Disney a substantial amount of money upon initial release. Why then do we continue to watch, reference and place acclaim on it to this day? There are numerous reasons why Hocus Pocus has cast a spell on its audiences throughout the years, and they can only be explained like a recipe from Winifred Sanderson’s spellbook:

How to Make a Halloween Hit

1. Fill a cauldron with a talented cast. 

Hocus Pocus was originally envisioned as a tonally darker television movie until it underwent significant rewrites to enhance its comedic potential. What got it from the small screen to the multiplex you may ask? Its three female leads, all of whom were riding career highs at the time of the film’s production. Kathy Najimy had just gotten off the immense box-office hit Sister Act (1992) while Sarah Jessica Parker had just done Honeymoon in Vegas (1992) with James Caan and Nicholas Cage. It was Bette Midler’s interest in the project; however, that truly got it off its feet and into the air on a broomstick. The film lives and dies on the performance of its lead antagonist who defies convention to embrace instead an infectious campiness that makes her hysterical and horrifying all at the same time. Parker's sex appeal and Najimy's comedic timing also deserve due recognition, but it is Midler who keeps the audience transfixed from beginning to end. Credit should be given to the younger cast members as well, however. Omri Katz portrayal of our lead protagonist Max is sympathetic and charming in all of his teenage rebelliousness. His relationship with his sister Dani played wonderfully by a young Thora Birch further gives the film added depth and emotion. Vinessa Shaw is the least interesting admittedly of the three young heroes, but still does a fine job as Alison Witt. She downplays the class disparity between her and her suitor and never playing the damsel in distress but rather a competent ally to Max in his adventure throughout the film. Even the voice work done by Jason Marsden as Thackery Binx, the pilgrim turned feline evokes believable emotional investment, especially in his interactions with Dani. A funny cameo by Garry and Penny Marshall, brother and sister duo who play wife and husband in the film add further respectable gravitas to an already stellar ensemble. Overall if the cast had not been so dedicated to bringing the script to life in a way that was unique yet accessible, Hocus Pocus would be largely forgotten as a cash-grabbing Halloween flick better left to the cobwebs of cinematic history. The performances hold the test of time, however, each year when I watch it, no matter how many times I’ve seen it before, the energetic performances of each and every cast member reinvigorate my interest into following along with the dazzling tale once more. 

2. Dice up and add in a handful of musical numbers. Stir until sizzling with catchiness. 

Any good movie, from any genre of film, has to have at least one signature scene. It’s typically the first image that pops in your head when someone mentions the title. Many films have numerous ones such as The Godfather (1972), in Hocus Pocus, it's hardly a debate, however. Bette Midler’s take on Jay Hawkins classic “I Put A Spell on You” is enthralling, entertaining and undeniably toe-tapping. It is a large contribution to why the film has a special place in the gay community as the Divine Miss M shows off her vocal skills to cast a spell on the unsuspecting adults of Salem. Though Sarah Jessica Parker has stated in interviews that she and Najimy, competent singers in their own right, also contributed vocals to the track, it is unfortunate that they are not audible in any audio version I have ever come across. Regardless, while some may find the scene to be a crudely disguised excuse for fanfare, as a writer, I appreciate how the performance is integrated into the plot structurally. When Max excuses the Witches of being who they are on-stage at the Town Hall Halloween Party, how else are the Sanderson Sisters supposed to distract a room of partygoers and ensure that their young and helpless prey cannot be given any assistance or protection? They must cast a spell, but reciting some cleverly worded phrases does not an exciting scene make, so the sisters improvise, mocking the modernity of society by using their culture and music against them in the guise of a performance on their behalf. It is ingenious, credible and incredibly fun. The scene could be written twelve other ways, and none would hold a candle to the theatrics that Broadway legend Miss Midler and her two costars give in this unforgettable moment in childhood history. It is another example of how the film blends fear and comedy so well. While the performance itself is humorous and delightful, the intentions behind it are nefarious and deadly. This spell will cause these people to dance to death if the witches are not stopped by sunrise. It is an execution dressed up as a showstopper. The second, more understated musical performance is, of course, is Sarah’s bewitching original song “Come Little Children”. This leans heavier into scary Halloween territory as the witch is using this mesmerizing lullaby to lure the children of the town to their certain death. In fact, in the opening sequence of the film, it accomplishes just that with Binx’s sister Emily. The performance is brief, but it raises the stakes perfectly as the film enters its third act. The witches are armed and ready and will stop at nothing to achieve immortality, including infanticide. Again, the music plays a crucial role in supporting the plot, not just to adhere to the talents of the actresses or the desires and expectations of the audiences watching. That is why these songs and renditions linger in our heads long after we’ve first heard them. Their implications deepen as the years press on, and we understand the plot better. 

3. Aged Millennial Loyalty (locally grown preferably) 

At the end of the day, a cult film is only as strong as its followers will allow it to be. While Freeform’s constant October reruns certainly are a factor into Hocus Pocus’s longevity that doesn’t hold a Black Flame Candle to the devotion children of the 90s have towards this film. Coincidentally the film was directed by Kenny Ortega, who would go on to direct the High School Musical franchise, another staple of millennial nostalgia, particularly in the world of Disney. Hocus Pocus fans often associate the film with their fond memories of childhood. Watching it on VHS after trick-or-treating and laughing along with their parents and older siblings at the film’s many moments of adult humor. The film helps remind us of the simpler days we’ve left behind in which stories of witches coming back to life to haunt and hunt us felt like a viable fear to have alongside monsters hiding under our bed and impending acne. While there have been rumblings of a potential remake in the works for years, any such project would miss a crucial element that the original has in aplenty. That is the presence of nostalgia itself. The film was made at a time when Disney and children’s content creators, in general, were far less concerned with offending parents and guardians with troubling imagery or plot points. You could say the word "virgin" repeatedly in a film and even allude to its context. The use of practical special effects and limited CGI capabilities actually allows the film to reside in a more tangible and realistic level of existence than many similar cinematic efforts conducted today. When the Sanderson Sisters go on their broomsticks, they really are up in the air and not suspended a few feet off the ground with a green screen behind them. It is set in a time before you could use your Smartphone to inform your parents or friends that 300-year-old witches were after you or Tweet a selfie of you and your new lady friend hanging out at the Sanderson Museum on Halloween night. Hocus Pocus if made and set in contemporary times would no longer be Hocus Pocus, at least not the one so many of us connected with as children. Film historians likely won’t be speaking about it in 40 or 50 years, but those of us still alive more than likely will, especially during October. We will pass it down to our children and loved ones even if their love or admiration for it will be distinctly different than our own. It didn’t garner any acclaim during the Award Season of 1993, and yet it is critically acclaimed in the hearts and minds of us fans who watch it now as an escape, as a way back into a world we’ve long ago left behind. This is the most key ingredient in making a Halloween Hit; creating a film that will still entertain the trick-or-treater long after they’ve become the homeowner who answers the door on October 31st who worry about having to go to work the next morning. 

While many deride Hocus Pocus as overrated, overacted and underwhelming in terms of legitimate chills or chuckles, the film has an unquestionable appeal to countless people, specifically millennials who were of cognitive viewing age around the time of its release and soon after. The film’s interior is unapologetically campy, protected by an outer shell of positively ghoulish storytelling. A virgin lighting a candle and causing a trio of witches be resurrected with their sights on murdering hundreds of children doesn’t exactly sound like the feel-good film of the year, and yet for so many, it has become the film that has defined All Hallows Eve Cinema. Set on Halloween night, we follow Max, Dani and Alison every year if for nothing more than to be reminded that there was a Halloween before jello shots and self-imposed curfews. It was a film that was unafraid to challenge expectations of what children could handle and what adults would tolerate. Love it or hate it, we should all respect cinema capable of having such a lasting impression on our hearts, minds and even wardrobes. It’s more than just a bunch of hocus pocus, but even if it isn’t that for you, I certainly hope you have some piece of spooky childhood cinema or even television that you hold dear to your heart this time of year. If not, damn, damn, double damn!

"The Hunt": Who's Really on the Prowl for Controversy?

One cannot judge a film only by its trailer, though plenty of people do every day all around the world. Just look at the outrage over the upcoming cinematic adaptation of Cats (2019). Who knew a feline Jennifer Hudson warbling a famous Broadway tune could cause such enragement? Enragement has become almost a default setting for so many of us these days, which such atrocities as two mass shootings occurring within days of each other being just two of the likely culprits behind such unbridled unrest. Who fans these fires and who puts them out? This is not an easy question as it more than likely has no singular answer. People who often believe they are defusing a situation are often actually only exacerbating its results and those who wish to make it worse even more often succeed in their endeavors as well. 

The Hunt (2019) is a film from the producers of Get Out (2017) and the Insidious franchise at Blumhouse Productions. In the film, several strangers awaken in a clearing on a lavished estate and soon discover that they have been kidnapped by psychotic wealthy socialites who are paying good money to hunt them like animals. The film is obviously inspired by the beloved American short story "The Most Dangerous Game" by Richard Connell in which a big game hunter is trapped on an island with a crazed Russian man who intends to hunt and kill him for the sheer pleasure of it. I had not heard of this film before today after I saw it passively referenced in one of the President's tweets. Apparently, it has garnered some serious outrage from many conservatives over its apparent depiction of liberal elites senselessly murdering those from Middle America for fun. Many are calling for it to be pulled from its expected late-September release date. They are arguing that this is not an appropriate time for such a violent film to be released, following two horrible mass shooting in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio, respectably. The film's marketing team has already pulled several ads off of television out of respect for the victims of the shooting and their loved ones. However, this is not the only reason people are upset. Many people, including the President of the United States, believe that the film is specifically targeting Trump Supporters as its intended demographic in terms of its body count. Now, this is an argument we've been having in this country for a very long time, violence in media, and it is one we will likely never completely solve. What impact does violence in cinema have on us as a larger society? I'm not sure about the answer to this. As long as humans have existed there has been violence and excuses have been made to precipitate it. What is it about this film than, at this particular time in history that has people so riled up? Are these conservatives justified in their anger? I give you the age-old diplomatic answer:

Yes AND No.

Of course, no one wants to see themselves vilified on screen in front of thousands, potentially millions of people across the country, or even the world. Unequivocally it is not permissible to advocate for the deliberate harm of any particular group of people, whether they are coupled together by race, religion or even political affiliation. On this subject, I believe many of us on both sides can agree.

The problem is, from my perspective, after watching the film's trailer, that does not seem to be what is going on here. 

Watch the trailer for yourself and consider what is laid out for audiences. In the trailer it is made abundantly clear that the protagonist of the film is those that are being hunted, the Middle America citizens who are just trying to live their lives in peace. They are kidnapped and transported to an unknown place and face a terrifying and uncertain future. Gee, I would hate that to happen to me, especially in the so-called "Land of the Free." Isn't it a shame that we are currently inflicting such similar pains onto immigrants, including small children? Of course, we aren't hunting them for sport. Still, we do treat their lives with a degree of carelessness that makes one question the moral high ground a society really has to argue what is and what is not appropriate for entertainment consumption. We watch the news and hardly blink, and yet some of us watch fictional events in the form of a film trailer and go on a Twitter tirade.

Anyways, the point is that immediately the trailer establishes the "heroes" of the narrative to be the oppressed, not the oppressors. I've been reading online that the protagonists in the film are referred to as "Deplorables" a reference to a statement Hilary Clinton made on the campaign trail regarding those who applaud and accept Trump's perverse ideology. I've watched the trailer three times, I have not heard this reference explicitly in the dialogue, but that does not necessarily mean that it is not there. If it is, in fact, true, I believe this to be in extremely poor taste on the parts of the filmmakers. It is this kind of overt gaslighting that divides us further as a nation rather than unites us to have a useful and substantive discussion on anything. A film can be political, but not for the sake of a pointless jab that only gives the opposition more leverage in the form of pity points. I'd like to think those in the industry are better than that, but I'm sure that some are not. Whatever the main characters are being called, the film's central plot seems to involve them getting revenge on their aggressors and doing so in a violent fashion. The "elite" are clearly being punished and criticized in this trailer for their actions, not praised or sanctified. Though it is difficult to tell for sure as the character development available in the trailer is minimal on both sides of the fight. I doubt the film will end without the victims getting some justice, much like the conclusion of the original short story itself, sorry for the 50+ year old spoiler. 

So what is my primary issue with the outpouring of visceral outrage thrown towards this film, which has not even been released yet? Those who claim that the film is divisive to people with unpopular political views and insulting to survivors of recent violent shootings may seem admirable in their righteousness until you examine their anger under a closer lens. They don't seem to be upset that the film perpetuates violence, only that it points this violence towards them. They fear for their safety, for their place in the world being disturbed and displaced. They don't want to be the protagonist, even if that means being the "good guy." Good guys hold little power at least not until the end of a film, and they do not intend to wait that long to cash-in on their privileged existence. They want the cozy security of being the antagonists right now. If the roles were reversed there would still be an uproar from the right, but this would merely be a mask of discontent. At the end of the day as long as they are being perceived as powerful, who cares if the depiction is less than flattering. It's not like they are going to pay money to see it anyways, so they say. If conservatives had a serious issue with cinema endorsing violence against mass populations, where was this onslaught of outrage when The Purge franchise began? If I had to guess the reason certain conservatives are complaining about this film is that it places them in the seat of the oppressed and not the oppressor. When The Purge films depict the continuous torture and degradation of countless black, Hispanic and lower economic class people there was no Fox News special dedicated to deriding the filmmakers. 

I wonder why?

The message at the end of the day isn't really "can't we all just get along" its "can't we all just stick to the status quo."

That all being said, this film's trailer undersold and underwhelmed me. It seems like a tawdry survival flick with two-dimensional heroes and villains that will likely have little to no depth to their overall character arcs. It will likely have a predominate focus on its action and underutilize the thematic material that is present within its intriguing, scandalous premise. The Hunt may be a blip on the screen, but the bitterness in opposition to its release will remain palpable for years to come. While we all are arguing about what should and should not be put on the big screen another hateful soul is plotting, another firearm is being purchased, and another news crew is on the way to cover the horrifying scene. Blaming the blood on screen is not going to cease the bloodshed in reality, but that's not the conversation everyone wants to have yet, because it's so much easier not to.

Update:

Since beginning to work on this blog post, it has been announced that The Hunt has been pulled from Universal Pictures release slate. The studio is citing the recent mass shootings as their reason behind opting not to release the film at this current tumultuous time. While their respect for those grieving is admirable, one can't help but be slightly disturbed at the notion that is Big Brother Wannabe President has the standing clout to complain a film off of the box-office market. Had there been no uproar, the film likely would have been released to mild reviews and ho-hum audience numbers. Now it will live in infamy, regardless of its artistic merits and whether or not it ever even graces a movie screen. 

Toy Story 4: You've Got a Friend in Yourself

Yesterday was my last day of being 23 years old. Something felt incredibly appropriate about going to see the latest and potentially final installment of one of the most entertaining and impactful film franchises of my entire childhood and likely my life. I knew Toy Story 4 (2019) had gone through the ringer pre-production wise with the constant script, directing and casting changes plaguing the film throughout its development phase. I was still nonetheless eager to see what was in store for these characters that I had believed I had already said goodbye to almost ten years ago.

One of the first things I knew about this film was that it would reintroduce Bo-Peep, a character that was extremely poorly utilized in the franchise prior. Bo-Peep was the embodiment of the damsel in distress trope. She had little to no autonomy and was all look and no substance. Well in this new age of feminist cinema it is no wonder why Pixar, who continues to work towards having more progressive and inclusive depictions of the world we are living in, would choose to give her character a serious reinvention upon her reintroduction. This film isn't about Bo's character arc; however, not really. By the time we meet her, she has already gone through her self-transformation. She is enlightened and tough, while still having the caring and affectionate nature that made Woody and us fell in love with her all those years ago.

Toy Story 4 is very much Woody's film, even more so than the second entry in the franchise in which he learned about his past. Plot-wise, this actually works to Buzz's disadvantage as his subplot about listening to his inner consciousness comes off as more of an afterthought than a fully emotionally effective character arc. Jessie similarly has little to do in this fourth chapter, and the worst thing about that is we don't get a team-up between her and Bo-Peep that no doubt would've been on par with some of the great action sequences Buzz and Woody got to partake in during Toy Story (1995). This film is a character study, one that consistently does not have to be as deep or profound as it is. It may not feel as memorable in terms of witty dialogue that derives endless laughter from both adults and children alike (although there is still plenty of that to be had here) and its plot occasionally underserves many franchise favorites, but this film presents a serious dilemma that can impact a person of nearly any age. At what point in life do we tell ourselves that it is time to stop always taking care of "them" and start taking care of "us?" Toy Story 3 (2010) was very much about letting go, but Toy Story 4 shows us how so many of us in life are so preoccupied with what others have, we don't realize what we are losing in the meantime. The scariest thing about this notion is that while Woody and the gang will likely live forever, we are not as fortunate. So the film tells us to go out and make a change today. Make a choice, and for once in life know that it is alright to choose yourself. Those that truly love you, those that you have cared for, will continue to love you to infinity and beyond.

Forky's plotline adds another psychological layer to the film as a whole, presenting us with a humorously relatable existential crisis about discovering one's identity in an ever-changing world. It is also through him that Woody comes to make such courageous decisions about where his life should go from here. For many people, they never get to the place, mentally that Woody is able to tap into by the film's conclusion. They lack the support system and essential life skills that help a person realize when it is time to leave the past behind and take steps towards an even brighter, and yes a little frightening, future. In many ways, Woody's story in this film can be seen as advocating for all those suffering in life, be it from poor mental health or other everyday hardships such as addiction or grief. We recognize that if Woody can take the difficult first steps that are necessary towards self-improvement than we all certainly can. It is never easy, and Toy Story 4 never feels like it argues that change has to be, and that is one of the greatest life lessons it invokes throughout. It is acceptable to hurt, to lose and to not feel good enough, but only for a certain amount of time. At some point, we have to stop seeing ourselves as "trash" and start seeing what others find so enriching. We have to find our inner "Friend" to trust in alongside all the physical ones that surround us every day.

While Toy Story 4 will be hailed for its lively voiceover performances, immensely impressive animation and an overall atmosphere that celebrates all things that made the original franchise so great, it should really be lauded for its thematic statements about self-love. We spend our whole lives living for others without ever giving ourselves a chance to live for ourselves as well. Woody has always been a source of comfort for children, he certainly has been for me, but now more than ever I saw him as a true hero, someone to admire and aspire to because through his bravery I saw hope for my own.