• credit: Warner Bros Studios
    movie reviews

    Review: My Fair Lady (1963) ****

    Next time you watch this, I challenge you to see it as a deliberate gay farce. Henry Higgins is clearly a drag queen teaching a lower class Eliza Doolittle, cis lesbian, how to femme it up for high society.

    I’d like to argue this was entirely deliberate: the movie is entirely too funny to be unselfaware about the impact of Rex Harrison swanning through a song like “Why Can’t a Woman Be More Like a Man?” when he’s been wearing crushed purple velvet and flapping his hands at the wrist like he’s swatting rainbow gnats.

    This man dismisses beautiful young Eliza when he first sees her because he can’t wait to get home with Colonel Pickering, who Higgins seems to live with, and who is the target of this song pining for more masculinity in women.

    Pickering and Higgins together are the bitchiest old queens. They are the arbiters of femininity. Though they are both obligate bachelors (expressed in the same coded language once used to describe aging gay men), Pickering knows the good dress shops. Why, Higgins asks? With different performances, we might think Pickering is treating his many lovers, but in this performance, it’s easy to think Pickering likes to dress up himself. Eliza even asks if Pickering will expect to have her dresses when she leaves (because he bought them, of course, but even so–)

    This doesn’t substantially change the relationship between Higgins and Eliza! Queer relationships are complicated. There can be intense intimacy without following the linear treadmill of heterosexual relationship milestones (courting, engagement, marriage, children, MONOGAMY, lifelong, etc). When a fabulous, larger-than-life, legendary-in-society drag queen takes humble little dyke Eliza under her arm, who is to say Eliza can’t fall for Miss Higgins? and vice versa?

    Indeed, Eliza expresses the opposite of desire for sex with Higgins. She says she doesn’t want to make love to him. She wants to be close to him. She sees the grand, fabulous, worldly beauty of Miss Higgins. Eliza is genuinely grateful for the embiggening of her life with this fancy fussy fellow who wears a *lot* of purple velvet. She has no use for Freddy. She’s not into *guys* like that.

    Higgins is head over heels for Eliza too. It is this obsession that makes their relationship compelling in this performance: Eliza is a doll for Higgins and oh boy he needs to be able to act out his queer dress-up gender affirmative urges on her. Once he knows that she can read him as well as he can read her, that’s it. Miss Higgins cannot *breathe* without Eliza.

    Hence, both of them are happy with the slipper situation at the end, uneven as it seems, because both of them have what the other wants, and they’re fine with the status quo (as long as Miss Higgins stops being such a bitch *sometimes*).

    I’d also like to add that Eliza’s speech about her aunt’s straw hat while Higgins dances around, dying in the background, is actually the funniest speech in cinema ever.

    Image credit: Warner Bros Studios

  • image credit: Miramax
    movie reviews

    Review: Kate & Leopold (2001)

    Floating on the sheer youthful effervescence of an eager Hugh Jackman, Kate & Leopold is a parable about the sacrifices we make to thrive in capitalist discomfort, and the fantasy of having somewhere to escape it.

    This analysis doesn’t work on a rational level; this old timey rich dude hooking up with an account executive is not exactly the most fertile ground for a literalist anticapitalism commentary. I’m also not entirely convinced that the writer would claim a darn thing to say about That C Word, but I’m using it because what we see Kate struggling in is American capitalism when its shine is wearing off.

    In order to excel in business, Kate has sacrificed something soft & slow to masculinize herself. She dresses in suits and does not waste time with feminine frippery that would make others judge her. Everyone she spends time with are men. Presumably, it’s some kind of victory that her boss thinks she’s as good as a man; unfortunately, he also keeps making aggressive passes at her too. Sacrifice has given her success but not safety or satisfaction.

    We may then see Leopold as a figure representing her alternative. He is disappointed to marry for money, preferring to shun such maneuvers so he can nerd out about elevators and erections. And it’s his disappointment in Kate’s willingness to shill a subpar product that shakes her out of her “this success is everything for me” to realize “actually I don’t want this??”

    More than offering Kate a vision of a slower life de-prioritizing profits, he provides gender affirmation to Kate by treating her like a ~lady~, while also loving her for the intelligence and passion she shows. Kate has formed herself into a storm and Leopold loves the power. Old Timey Nerd Himbo stans a strong futch bitch.

    It might seem like a regressive ending, but it’s really Kate moving away from deep dissatisfaction with capitalism’s shallow rewards to try something…else. Something genuine. Love is a good start.

    I remain convinced that the ending isn’t how the couple ended up, but only a stepping stone to further fabulous time travel adventures.

    The time travel mechanic only works in a way that specifically serves the story; you shouldn’t come to K&P hoping for a more romantic Back to the Future. A lot of the story doesn’t really work if you take anything too seriously. The heart of the movie is carried by the performances of actors who understand that this is about some kind of longing for Better, not just in love, but in life.

    image credit: Miramax

  • movie reviews

    Review: Sabrina (1995) ***

    The Sabrina remake is a lot like Snow White and the Huntsman. There’s a lot of enjoyable movie scaffolded upon a miscast lead. In this case, it’s not the charisma-void of Kristen Stewart mumbling reluctantly through Snow White’s lines, but a 53-year-old Harrison Ford playing a character clearly written to be about 40 years old opposite a 30-year-old woman written to be maybe 25.

    Based on their ages, and the way (a very lovely) Julia Ormond seems constantly controlled by a man old enough to be her father, should call for a different Sabrina/Linus dynamic. It’s like they cast Harrison Ford and then rewrote nothing, expecting to get a relationship more akin to that between Cher and her stepbrother in Clueless. An older brother vibe, yes. “You would have dated my mom,” no.

    Ormond’s Sabrina seems sort of baffled by him, and overwhelmed, and just ends up going along with everything all the time. Ford is so rigid. He puts a tremor in his voice when talking about Sabrina that should be endearing, but he’s kind of a brick wall opposite Ormond. The actual chemistry isn’t there.

    Romantic movies are lovely character pieces, but you can’t have a movie without the most important character, which is the relationship between leads.

    I love the music, the silly humor, the dreamy atmosphere, the Cinderella story. It’s a nice vibe. I always enjoy myself watching it. I also throw popcorn at Linus and tell him to take his creepy hands off that poor girl.

  • movie reviews

    Review: Batman (1989) ****

    It’s fun watching a Batman that is gritty and grounded in bleak 80s aesthetic as a response to the call of Adam West’s Batman. On this revisit, I was surprised how much it felt like the Nolan Batman in places, and less like a Burton project. I always prefer the inquisitive, playful quality to Burton’s early works, but he’s especially sober here to stand apart from the joyful camp of its visual predecessor, and I think it drove Burton toward such interesting choices!

    Joker is really the star here. These days we talk more about the character work on Ledger Joker because he’s more in step with contemporary interests, but Nicholson’s got a razor-edged perspective on a Dick Tracy-esque villain that absolute matches Ledger in craft.

    I love this decentered Batman who is revealed through Vicki Vale’s investigation. He is often background to Gotham’s crime economy—a reflexive reaction from a sick city, serving to frighten criminals and stymie law enforcement. He is painted in simpler beats than Joker. Bruce Wayne is a boy who lost his parents, but through the loving care of his father-butler, seems to have grown up well adjusted for a rich guy…if you don’t know about the fact he is also Gotham’s immune response to the mafia’s cancer because his grief is so huge, it has become a monster.

    This is a marvelous interplay of sick antihero versus sadistic villain inside an institutionally rotten city, which is quintessential Batman, to me. Reeves’s The Batman digs hard into this from a more Bruce Wayne-oriented perspective, but a lot of that scaffolding is owed to Burton’s work here.

    It’s easy to see why this hit so hard back in the day.

  • movie reviews

    “Oppenheimer” shouldn’t exist.

    So here is the reason that I am an incredible killjoy about Oppenheimer and think it should never have been made, no matter how good the movie is, and that everyone involved is kinda total bullshit.

    My stance is that there is zero reason to humanize the few people behind producing and benefiting from the bomb. In fact, it perpetuates white American attitudes about noble sacrifice, makes one of the greatest crimes against humanity ever committed sexy with sexy actors and sexy cinematography, and generally gives ample room for reinforcing the lies of imperialism among a populace with low literacy for even identifying that kind of propaganda.

    I believe there is no artistry good enough to make up for centering people like Oppenheimer instead of the communities actually impacted.

    Congolese miners were exploited to get the uranium to build the atom bomb.

    New Mexico Hispanics were bodily removed from their lands to make a testing site for the atom bomb.

    More than 200,000 innocent Japanese were killed when the atom bombs were dropped. Cancers and related illnesses have continued en masse in the decades since.

    Cutesy bomb advertising became common, particularly in conjunction with Barbie. You cannot have a movie of this scale and budget without marketing that is wholly inappropriate for the crimes committed.

    The movie and its creators had zero interest in engaging with the above, or seeking ways to remedy the crimes committed against those communities. They considered themselves to have no real responsibility to make real gestures of healing toward the communities, but without that responsibility, I argue they then have no right to any story surrounding it.

    I am aware the story “grapples with the ethics” in its centralized white imperialist characters, but they frankly just aren’t members of the impacted community. Whatever they felt about the crimes they committed doesn’t deserve to be aired (to the profit of few) when moviemakers were so disinterested in all of the above.

    Oppenheimer was made because a white guy who thinks he’s a genius wanted to dwell on a white guy tortured genius who he related to. That’s the only reason. We don’t need more such vanity projects. And I don’t think it’s historically significant to keep telling stories about war crimes from the perspective of the criminal.

    “Oppenheimer” shouldn’t exist.

  • movie reviews,  reviews

    “The concept of progress acts as a protective mechanism to shield us from the terrors of the future.”

    I made the mistake of watching Lynch’s Dune two days before Villeneuve’s Dune was released. Months later, I still find myself unable to decide which is the “better” movie. I suspect it’s Villeneuve’s. Certainly, Villeneuve’s is much more successful in the box office. Yet I can only think of Villeneuve’s Dune in terms of how it lacks compared to Lynch’s Dune.

    Dune is largely considered impossible to adapt, which is silly, because Lynch did fine adapting the whole book. Turning half of the book into a montage may not be what certain fans prefer, but if you watch the movie for itself in Watsonian fashion, it makes sense: Paul Muad’Dib is created by the events in the beginning of the movie, and we see his creation being the downfall of his enemies when he fights Sting And Friends at the end. It is a story at mythic scale that does a “one two, skip a few, ninety-nine, one hundred” approach to the plot. You can try to argue with Lynch’s approach, but there’s no point, because this is David Lynch we’re talking about.

    Villeneuve’s Dune isn’t a complete story in itself. It ends halfway through the book, in a fashion both anticlimactic and abrupt, and does not attempt to construct a standalone story out of that material.

    In the meantime, the movie drags us through many long, slow scenes that amount to little more than concept art while establishing world and mood. I genuinely believe that the amount people enjoy this movie is dependent on how likely they are to repeatedly peruse an Art of Dune coffee table book. Although I love concept art, this isn’t in a style which appeals to me. It’s minimalist, geometric, and nearly monochromatic to almost a comical degree – as though Villeneuve was making a deliberate move away from the lush Baroque world Lynch built.

    What do you think the future will look like after humans have spent a couple thousand years trucking around the galaxy? Will we have ancient structures that glory in the accumulated wealth of our empire, or will we be utilitarian?

    What do you *want* the future to look like? If you think, “I hope the future has a lot of sheer sandstone faces,” then I bet you will love to stare at Villeneuve’s Dune.

    Similarly, I found the actors’ performances less compelling than in Lynch’s adaptation – probably because many of them were flown in for a partial movie shoot, whipping out a few scenes under the promise they will have a lot more scenes in the second half of the movie that has yet to be made. But Villeneuve’s vision for this movie also involves making Paul Atreides a “normal boy” who is moody and irritating, completely unlike Lynch’s Paul Atreides, who feels like he was born a legend and will die a legend and belongs to the mythic forces surrounding his life. The sense of drama is so different.

    I could continue enumerating the elements of this adaptation which I found to be inferior, simply because they are so much less *interesting*, but I think I’ve said enough to make it clear I’m more of a Weird Movies Person than a Whatever Villeneuve Was Trying To Do Here person. I can’t evaluate this version of Dune on its own merits, and I don’t want to. The fact I sat through it for so many hours isn’t just because Oscar Isaac is one of the hottest people on the planet. I was clearly some kind of entertained. But it will never be anything but the Lynch’s Dune turned down from 11 to a 4.

  • reviews

    Matt Bellamy and Sarah Brightman Should Be BFFs

    A Review of Two New Albums

    I have no idea if these two individuals know each other in reality. I suppose I could Google it. For all I know, Matt Bellamy and Sarah Brightman are already dear friends, and a search would yield entire coffee table books of the two dancing through the bluebells with linked pinkies.

    I’m sure if they met, they’d be best friends. The kind of love that they write epics about.

    They have so much in common.

    Sarah Brightman’s Hymn is the latest in her one-word album titles opening with a dreamy instrumental building energy into a crescendo of upbeat pop-like music (in the way that only Sarah Brightman does pop-like music). She dips into crooning melodies and soars into belting arias and leaves you with a track so upbeat your dentures might pop out when you ask Iris to start the record over.

    Are we ever tired of listening to Sarah Brightman’s operatic blasts? She remains, decades after playing the ingenue in her then-husband’s Phantom of the Opera, a voice to be reckoned with. She hasn’t lost an ounce of her power. She also hasn’t gained an ounce of power—or ambition, for that matter. To be fair, it’s hard when you start out in pop music with an anachronistic hit as divine as I Lost my Heart to a Starship Trooper, and songs like Fly to Paradise just don’t stand a chance. They lack the gusto.

    I don’t think Sarah’s recurring vision is without self-awareness. Hymn ends with yet another iteration of Time to Say Goodbye—distinguished from previous outings of this (fantastic, amazing, flaw-free) song only by the fact that it’s entirely in English this time. She knows what people want from her, and she’s happy to deliver it again. And again. And again.

    Matt Bellamy, with Muse, is much the same on a shorter time scale. He has remade the same album for the last four albums, proving that you really shouldn’t fix what isn’t broken. The Resistance was prescient for 2009; it remained timely when his electronic beats, melodrama, and anti-establishment brand of orchestral pop-rock turned into 2012’s marvelous The Second Law. It felt a little tired by the time that his one and only style of modern album was reincarnated in 2015’s Drones, but it’s fresh again in Simulation Theory. Still, the only real addition is jumping feet-first into synthwave—half the songs would sound wholly appropriate on the soundtrack for next season of Stranger Things—whereas the remainder of the auditory elements are shamelessly rehashed. Listen to Madness (off The Second Law) and then Propaganda (off the new album). They strike different emotional notes, but it’s impossible to ignore the similarities, even when you’re rocking the eff out to the splendiferous drama of Propaganda.

    Like I said, if it’s not broken, you don’t have to fix it. These two musical artists know what they’re offering. You can see it as good branding. You can see it as overproduction. You can see it as loyalty to style. However you like to view it, I bet Matt and Sarah would have a great time talking about their reincarnated-into-infinity artistic style over drinks, and I really hope it happens someday. What I’d give to be the fifth generation of a near-identical fly on the wall for that conversation.