More stories

  • in

    ‘Food and Country’ Offers a Close Look at How America Feeds Itself

    “Food and Country” argues that our food production systems don’t work and offers potential solutions.In the early days of the pandemic, I accidentally ordered five chickens and three dozen giant, fragrant Amalfi Coast lemons. I thought I’d ordered one five-pound chicken and three lemons from a local restaurant supplier who’d had to quickly pivot to home cooks like me. But between my frazzled, stressed brain and their usual order quantities, wires got crossed.It worked out fine — we just roasted a lot of chicken and made delicious limoncello — but I found myself thinking about that blurry, confusing time while watching “Food and Country” (in theaters), a new documentary about all the ways that America’s food systems are broken and all the ways they can be fixed. Directed by Laura Gabbert, the film finds its guide in Ruth Reichl, the eminent food writer (and former New York Times restaurant critic). She is one of the nation’s most curious and well-connected voices on food, and she spends a lot of the movie speaking with growers, farmers, ranchers and restaurateurs in those familiar little Zoom windows.It turns out the pandemic was the right impetus for this film. For many Americans, used to picking up our groceries at the local supermarket, the disruption of, for example, deliveries and meat processing meant that items were available suddenly, sporadically or not at all. My five-chicken order was a result of realizing that my usual grocery delivery service was booked up for weeks and, as I was avoiding stores, that I needed to find another method of getting food.This was a very mild inconvenience, and it soon resolved itself. But experiences like this (along with sourdough-baking and scallion-growing fads) reminded many of us of what we take for granted. For those whose livelihoods depend on food production, though, cataclysm is always on the horizon. In this documentary Reichl explores with experts how our systems became broken over the postwar decades and, as several participants say, led to most farmers and ranchers barely breaking even while the big companies that process and distribute their products profited. She and her guests also cover a dizzying array of big issues: historic racism against Black farmers and the present-day ramifications; the plight of restaurant owners trying to stay afloat while treating workers fairly; farmers’ innovative efforts to bring sustainable, healthy crops to their communities.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    How to Watch Horror Movies Without Being Too Scared

    The October ritual of watching horror movies in the lead-up to Halloween can be exhilarating. Unless, of course, you can’t quite stomach the gory and gruesome, or even the spooky and spine-tingling.This used to be me, until I made a concerted effort to push past my qualms. It took a while, but now I consider myself something of a horror enthusiast, relishing the thrill, tension and challenges of a genre that can playfully toy with dark themes, like “Shaun of the Dead,” or pull no punches, like “Hereditary.”If you’re someone who wants to indulge in the season but dreads jump scares and buckets of blood, here are five tips that could help even the biggest scaredy cats among us start to open up to the world of horror.Embrace the SpoilerThe first and best line of defense is to read the plot in advance. If you’re feeling brave, go for just a synopsis, but there’s no reason to be a hero. I sometimes read an entire plot in great detail before watching, especially with films I know will tap into my weak spot: movies about demonic possession. Unlike with other genres, knowing what will happen in horror doesn’t necessarily detract from the experience of watching. Your heart will most likely still pound. You will probably still jump. And the visuals and sounds will probably still shock. Knowing what comes next may simply help keep the anxiety and uncertainty in check.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Ask Arts & Leisure

    Your culture and entertainment questions answered by New York Times journalists and experts.When you work on arts and entertainment coverage, and part of the job is keeping up with what’s on TV, or Broadway, or at the Met (both the museum and the opera house), people in your life invariably have questions: What should I watch? What should I read? What do I need to see while I’m in town?But also: How do I know when to clap during an orchestra concert? Can I bring my slightly schlumpy friend to the opera? Is there a right way to start watching the “Real Housewives” shows? What do I do if I’m late to a Broadway show? We want to know what questions you have about culture, in all its wonderful but sometimes complicated, intimidating or confusing forms, and across all the genres, whether that’s theater, music, movies, dance, TV, art, video games or something that isn’t so easy to label. What have you always wondered about? (Is it whether the American or the British version of “The Office” is the better one?) What would you ask one of our critics or reporters if you met them in person?Fill out this form, and Times journalists may publish an answer to your question. We’ll never publish or share your contact information, but we’ll use it to reach out to you to let you know that we’re addressing your question, and then share the answer once it’s published. More

  • in

    ‘Joker: Folie à Deux’ Review: Make ’Em Laugh (and Yawn)

    Todd Phillips’s “Joker” sequel stars Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga who sing and dance like crazy kids, but the movie is seriously un-fun.“Joker: Folie à Deux” is such a dour, unpleasant slog that it is hard to know why it was made or for whom. That’s admittedly nonsensical — it’s for us! — though no more ridiculous than anything in this sequel to “Joker” (2019). Directed by Todd Phillips and starring Joaquin Phoenix as the sad, mad clown of the title, that first movie was a success, both critically and commercially. The intensity of Phoenix’s performance, with its smoldering violence and unpredictability, drew you in, and the gestures at American violence and nihilism kept you wondering. The movie seemed to have something serious to say, which was finally its big joke.The original “Joker” won the top prize at the Venice Film Festival, and grossed more than a billion worldwide. It was also nominated for 11 Oscars (including best picture), which is only notable because that’s nearly three times the total number of nods that Martin Scorsese received for “Taxi Driver” and “The King of Comedy,” two of Phillips’s obvious touchstones. So, all things considered, and with oodles of money in the offing, a sequel was inevitable even if Phoenix’s sour frown, the movie’s barely-there story, its unrelenting grimness and its commitment to forced eccentricity suggest that no one involved was really stoked to make it.The big non-news about “Folie à Deux” is that it’s a half-baked, halfhearted musical complete with one star who can sing, Lady Gaga as Lee Quinzel a.k.a. Harley Quinn, and another (Phoenix) who can’t or won’t. Gaga and Phoenix perform assorted song-and-sometimes-dance numbers featuring classics from the Great American Songbook that are mixed in with some traditional tunes and recent songs. Anytime that Gaga sings, the movie holds you, and it’s amusing to see Phoenix getting his Gene Kelly on with some tap-tap-tapping. The numbers are distributed throughout the movie, which otherwise largely toggles between scenes of Joker — and his sad-sack civilian alter-ego, Arthur Fleck — locked in a mental institution and of him in a Gotham court, standing trial on multiple counts of murder.Written by Phillips and Scott Silver, the sequel tracks Fleck/Joker in and out of the institution where the guards (played by Brendan Gleeson, among others) are predictably barbaric and routinely mete out the usual cruel punishment. At some point, Fleck meets Lee/Harley, who’s in an adjacent ward. It’s love or insanity or something at first sight, unconvincingly, and soon they’re swapping kisses, trading weird smiles, performing duets and planning mayhem like crazy kids do in storybook romances. Despite the two leads’ obvious attractions, they never make sense as a couple in large measure because the movie itself never coheres.There are appealing moments here and there, including one scene built around courtroom testimony by Gary Puddles (Leigh Gill), a colleague from Fleck’s days as a clown-for hire. In the first movie, Puddles witnesses Fleck (or Joker) stab another colleague to death (that’s entertainment!), and now he has been called to recount the gory mess. Gill makes both his character’s tremulous fear and anguish palpable; it’s a rare moment of feeling in the movie, one that Phillips almost instantly undermines by inserting a shot showing that Puddles, who’s of short stature, is seated on a telephone book. Whether Phillips was daring — or baiting — moviegoers to laugh at this image, the cutaway only undermines the actor’s performance.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    ‘Rust’ Western Will Premiere in Europe 3 Years After Fatal Shooting

    After the Alec Baldwin movie turned into the scene of a tragedy with the death of its cinematographer, the film will debut next month at a festival that celebrates cinematography.The movie “Rust,” which has become synonymous with the fatal shooting of its cinematographer on set in 2021, will be screened publicly for the first time in November at a film festival in Poland devoted to cinematography.The festival, Camerimage, said on its website that the premiere would honor Halyna Hutchins, the 42-year-old cinematographer who was killed on Oct. 21, 2021, when the movie’s star, Alec Baldwin, was positioning an old-fashioned revolver for the camera and it discharged a live bullet.Ms. Hutchins’s husband, Matthew Hutchins, and their son, who was 9 years old when she died, will benefit financially from the movie’s release under the terms of a settlement agreement in a wrongful-death lawsuit. Filming resumed in 2023 with no real weapons, and the writer and director of “Rust,” Joel Souza, who was injured in the shooting, returned to see the movie through to the end.“Rust” is a western about an orphaned 13-year-old boy who, after accidentally shooting a rancher, escapes a death sentence with his outlaw grandfather, played by Mr. Baldwin. The finished movie, which was initially filmed outside Santa Fe, N.M., and finished in Montana, does not include the scene that Ms. Hutchins was working on when she was killed.The decision to finish the movie was somewhat controversial in the film industry, as the production restarted during the prosecutions of Mr. Baldwin and the movie’s original armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed.Ms. Gutierrez-Reed, who loaded the gun with a live round before it went off, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to 18 months in prison. A judge dismissed the manslaughter case against Mr. Baldwin during his trial in July, citing the prosecution’s withholding of evidence.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    ‘Blink’ Review: The Last Things They May See

    In this travel documentary, two parents take their children on a spectacular world tour before a rare genetic condition may cause blindness.“Blink” is almost shameless in its earnest simplicity: Two parents decide to take their family to see the world after finding out that three of their four children have a rare genetic condition that can lead to impaired vision. Tears may flow for you, too, in what could (positively) be called a weepie travel documentary from Edmund Stenson and Daniel Roher, who worked together on the Academy Award-winning film “Navalny.”Edith Lemay and Sébastien Pelletier wish for their children to store up visual memories for the future, even as night-vision problems have already set on. Accompanied by the film team for 76 days of their yearlong trip, the close-knit clan from Montreal fly and hike and hot-air-balloon and camel ride through Egypt, Thailand, Namibia and Nepal, among other places, including a fraught cable car ride in Ecuador.For Stenson and Roher, their film is also about a fear of loss more generally, as well as about growing up and leaving things behind, the fleeting nature of experience and parental anxieties around care and control. Detractors can cry “tourism” — the rock formations in White Desert National Park in Egypt are transporting — but “Blink” keeps escaping any pat framing to tap into a deeper ache.That’s accomplished by doing more with less when it comes to parental musings and kids saying the darnedest things. The directors also aren’t afraid to kick the 84-minute movie into a trot now and again. Life comes at you fast, after all, and “Blink” reminds us to look at each day as if it might be the last.BlinkRated PG. Running time: 1 hour 24 minutes. In theaters. More

  • in

    ‘Daaaaaalí!’ Review: Keeping It Surreal

    The French absurdist director Quentin Dupieux did not make a biopic of Salvador Dalí — he adopted the Surrealist painter’s approach to deliver a particularly loopy tale.Quentin Dupieux’s new film opens with a shot recreating the Salvador Dalí painting “Necrophilic Fountain Flowing From a Grand Piano.” This is as straightforward as the nonsensical “Daaaaaalí!” ever gets, which is the least we can expect from Dupieux, a master of absurdist humor, engaging with the Surrealist artist.Judith (Anaïs Demoustier) is a young, fairly inexperienced journalist sent out to interview the Spanish iconoclast, who is in his 80s. Or is he? Time is as elastic as the melting clocks Dalí once painted: Here he is portrayed by several actors of various ages including Édouard Baer, Jonathan Cohen and Pio Marmaï. They take on the role seemingly randomly (often one starts a scene and another finishes it) in the loopy — in every sense of the word — movie.Set to a jaunty acoustic score by Daft Punk’s Thomas Bangalter, “Daaaaaalí!” feels like a dispatch from Dalí’s mind (and that of his old accomplice Luis Buñuel). The film follows a dream logic with scant interest in anything linear. The chronology is askew, frames are played backward; an extended joke becomes the equivalent of a set of infinitely nesting Russian dolls.Dupieux captures Dalí’s self-promoting genius but the constant trickery eventually becomes a little tiresome. The filmmaker cranks out movies with rare velocity: His previous opus, “Yannick,” came out in April in the United States, and a new one was released in May in his native France. At least we won’t have to wait long to see how he will make up for this frustrating stylistic exercise.Daaaaaalí!Not rated. In French, with subtitles. Running time: 1 hour 17 minutes. In theaters. More

  • in

    ‘White Bird’ Review: After ‘Wonder,’ a Bully Moves On

    A boy starts a new school and gets a history lesson from his grandmother, played by Helen Mirren.The world of children’s literature is more complicated than many of us might be aware of. The 2012 novel “Wonder,” by R.J. Palacio, for instance, has spawned several sequels or spinoffs to date. “Wonder” itself, about Auggie, a young boy living with Treacher Collins syndrome, and the unfortunate concomitant bullying by his peers, was made into a pretty decent picture in 2017. “White Bird,” a possibly unexpected origin story, is adapted from a 2019 graphic novel of the same name about the family of one of Auggie’s antagonists in “Wonder.”Yes, you read that correctly. “White Bird” opens with Julian, a newcomer, in the cafeteria of an elite school, torn between the urge to be kind to an outcast student and the desire to sit with the snooty “cool” kids. Julian is here because he was expelled from his last school, for having bullied Auggie. On returning from his first day, he finds his parents are not home. His grandmother (Helen Mirren) from Paris, however, is visiting, and she sits him down for a story.Of her girlhood in France during the Nazi occupation, how she was hidden by a kindly boy named Julien, and their eventual fates. The director, Marc Forster, sets the period action in Movie France, a France whose language is English — English that is spoken by some actors with a French accent, and by others in a British accent. Period detail is conveyed by way of smoothed-out production design and cinematography.One could argue that Forster and company calibrate their anodyne effects to make a Holocaust narrative that’s palatable for younger viewers. But what mostly resonates is a particularly lachrymose brand of show-business hedging.White BirdRated PG-13 for some strong violence and language. Running time: 2 hours. In theaters. More